Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jytdog: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:50, 12 June 2015 editPraeceptorIP (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,332 edits Bowman v Monsanto: comment← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:10, 20 April 2024 edit undoBilby (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators40,067 edits rv - let's let things beTag: Manual revert 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{banned user|by=the ]|link=]}}
{{editnotice
| header = Hi, welcome to my talk page!
| headerstyle = font-size: 150%; color: #9900FF; font-family: 'Copperplate Gothic Light'
| text =
*'''If you came here to discuss article content, please post at the article Talk page.''' That is where discussions about content belong, so that everybody watching the article can participate, and so the discussion becomes part of the page's historical record, and is easy to find.
*'''Please''' <span class="plainlinks"></span> '''to leave a new message'''.}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K |maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 13 |counter = 29
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(21d) |algo = old(30d)
|archive = User talk:Jytdog/Archive %(counter)d |archive = User talk:Jytdog/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Archives |auto= short|search= yes |index= /Archive index |bot= MiszaBot |age= 21 |collapsible=yes}} {{Archives |auto= short|search= yes |bot= MiszaBot |age=30 |collapsible=yes}}
]


== That's all folks ==
'''Welcome!'''
<!-- ] 23:17, 30 November 2028 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1859239047}}
So... I made a very bad error in judgement, and called a person who had added raw advocacy content to WP, who is clearly deeply passionate about the topic.


The call went very badly. I shouldn't have called them, I shouldn't have allowed it to become an argument, and I shouldn't have ended the call the way I did.
Hello, Jytdog, and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for ]. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
*]
*]
*] and ]
*] (using the ] if you wish)
*]
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] your messages on ]s using four ]s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place <code><nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki></code> before the question. Again, welcome! <!-- Template:Welcome --> --] (]) 18:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


In the past, I violated the OUTING policy by posting off-WP information here. That was also a terrible error in judgement.


I also have generally been pretty aggressive in trying to maintain high quality in our content, and this has caused some people here to dislike and distrust me, and per the last ANI about me, there is weariness in the community with me.
== Aspirin ==


In the current situation, there is rampant speculation about a three minute conversation and about my intentions. There is some fierce debate about the boundaries of the harassment policy. There are a lot of angry people. Probably hours have been spent, that could have been better spent elsewhere actually building the encyclopedia.
Hey Jytdog, I only just now noticed that you reverted by saying that it lacked context. That's true, it could have done with more context, but I think the more productive approach would have been to drop me a note asking for some more context. Safety regulations surrounding the production of aspirin are really important because it is such a powerful drug and as such, the information has since been restored by another editor with more context. Please, next time, assume more good faith on my part. Best, ] (]) 00:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
: holy exploding aspirin batman! please make sure to include context when you add content like that. this is a general encyclopedia - i know occupational stuff is huge for you but it is irrelevant to probably 99% of our readers and we don't want to scare the crap out of them. Please keep UNDUE and context in mind. thanks! ] (]) 01:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
::Heh, I'm stealing that as an expression. :) I'll be more mindful of context - as a heads-up, I'm planning to write more about production of pharmaceuticals and occupational hazards of administering/compounding certain drugs (mainly chemo drugs), if you want to take a look. Best, ] (]) 02:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
:::can i suggest that you ask at WP:MED about doing that more broadly? for me, i think that is really specialist information and to be frank i don't think it belongs in our articles. some articles have really basic chemistry about drugs but i am unaware of any drug articles that talk about actual drugs/devices/diagnostics/medical equipment manufacturing, much less risk to workers in manufacturing. the same thing is true about the practice of medicine in our health articles - there is not much about what doctors/nurses/technicians actually ''do'', much less what the risks to them are. i think it would be an interesting discussion. ] (]) 02:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
::::Sure, I'm happy to start up a discussion there. I think it's reasonable to include because we do talk about the synthesis of many drugs, but we'll see what people say. ] (]) 02:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
::::::the synthesis is basic lab bench stuff. not manufacturing. thanks for opening the discussion! i will wait to weigh in, to see what others say. lovely interacting with you. ] (]) 02:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
:::::::You as well! :) ] (]) 03:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


It looks like this will become a case, which will mean many more hours. The outcome of that case if pretty foregone, in my view. I see no good reason to put everybody through more of this.
== Commenting at Bfpage's talk page ==


So, I am out of here. I am scrambling my WP password and deleting my gmail account and "Jytdog" will cease to do anything, anywhere. If you see any other Jytdog doing stuff in the future, anywhere, '''it is not me.''' (And no, I will be not be coming back here as a sock.) I urge Arbcom to do just do a motion and indef or site ban me.
Hey, Jytdog. Since ] no longer wants you posting at User talk:Bfpage, and since Bfpage has removed your posts in ways that left the remaining text somewhat incoherent or without defense (such as when you noted that you did not call me a disruptive editor), as seen and , I think it's best that you only comment there unless necessary. It seems you stopped commenting there after the removal of your posts. The reason that I don't comment there unless necessary is because besides my history with Bfpage, Bfpage, as you know, sometimes makes changes to the others' posts in ways that conflict with ]. I will try not to interact with Bfpage, which is what I had been doing for months, and I will try not to mention Bfpage after this point unless necessary, which is fair considering what has been outlined at ] by Bfpage and ]. ] (]) 06:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
:agreed. in , i said that i wasn't going to engage with her anymore. my was not to her but to GregKaye. after that, , so no, i will not be writing there any more, to anyone! and i don't intend to interact with her unless she shows up at an article I already edit. ] (]) 10:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


I just want to say '''thanks''' to everybody I have worked with, and I wish you all, and our beautiful project, the best. ] (]) 16:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
==COI and user:Patient 32==
? This is a new user who does not understand the nuances of Misplaced Pages. I have been here a while and even I am having difficulty understanding your concern.


:Dammit man. -] ] 17:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I have provided some training to this person to contribute to Misplaced Pages. I often work with community activists by providing Misplaced Pages training generally. It would be helpful to me if I knew how to better comply with Misplaced Pages community policy.
::That is not a foregone conclusion. Do as you will, but the case will surely go on anyway. --] (]) 17:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
:::Very sad to hear it. Like Tryptofish says, Arbcom is not a foregone conclusion, but you should do what you think best. ] (]) 17:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
::::The frustrations for Arbcom and you are understandable, but the overall mission of the project &ndash; and your obvious love of and value to it &ndash; should not be hastily dismissed. Give yourself a 2 week break, then re-evaluate... and return with a fresh outlook. --] (]) 17:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
::::::Sad to see this. Best wishes,] (]) 17:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
::::::+1 to what Zefr said. ] (]) 17:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
:::::::Another +1 here. Nobody is irreplaceable but Misplaced Pages would be much worse off without you, Jytdog. All best wishes to you, whatever you decide to do. -- '']'' <small>] ]</small> 3:17 am, 4 December 2018, last Tuesday (3 days ago) (UTC+9)
:::::::And another +1 here.--] (]) 10:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
{{u|Jytdog}} The whole episode is a storm in a teacup. I am sad to see you going dude. The place will be worse without you. Take care mate. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 18:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
*I understand your motivations in doing this, but I would encourage you not to burn all the bridges as such. By all means, take a wikibreak as Zefr suggests (even a longer one, if you want), feel free even to sit out the arbcom case, but perhaps reconsider your account abandonment. I can speak from personal experience that it is easy to mess up in pushing the boundaries of best practices at this website. That's part of the design, and pushing out people who are effective in their designs is also a prototypical feature of societies that are run by the kinds of ] that Misplaced Pages employs (see ]). Taking time away from this website in such scenarios can provide much needed perspective (it has for me, certainly), but I think your general outlook on what is or is not appropriate here with respect to the way we report on various claims and promotions is one that is needed. Crucially,], and it would be great to have you back after some time spent in the wilderness. ] (]) 18:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
::I'll echo this and Zefr at the least Jytdog. I've gone the route you outlined of scrambling password, deleting email, etc. when deciding to quite a particular haunt of the internet. Sometimes it really is better to go cold turkey, but I'd suggest in this case go up to everything but deleting the email until a time later. That still gives you the option to come back after a month or whatever, but I always felt like I had more closure waiting a bit for that final step even in the cases when I really did decide to be done.


::That being said, remember that ArbCom does not have the authority to give out a site ban in this particular instance yet as they are still bound by ] policy. The ''most'' that can be done is an indef topic-ban on anything relating to real-life identities of Misplaced Pages editors. Anything beyond that would violate blocking policy in part considering you already made it clear you weren't going to be doing this again (before the initial block). A site-ban/indef-block can't comply with policy yet unless a likelihood for disruption outside the COI/real-life identity area appeared likely or that you violated such a topic ban at a later date. It can only be applied when it's clear an editor is going to have issues no matter the topic they go into. This doesn't need to be the end of the road, but I can understand just wanting to be done with all the drama too. ] (]) 20:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Which part of ] applies in this case? ]] 21:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
:::Just fyi, they ''do'' have the authority. And they are a lot more likely to pull the trigger if they do it by motion. --] (]) 20:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
:in the case of Cleveland Clinic specifically, that user's intensity about negative ratings led me to wonder if he had some relationship with the clinic that was negative. I asked him on his talk page, and he said . quite strongly too. Per ], the essence of a COI is an external relationship that may cause bias when you edit WP. I think it is reasonable to say that he has an external relationship with the clinic that may cause him to be biased when writing about the Clinic. Does that make sense? To the extent that he wants to work on patient safety issues in other articles, he is going to have to be mindful of his intensity on these issues or he is going to get into all kinds of trouble (]/] primarily) ] (]) 21:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
::::Just to be clear, I'm saying they only have the authority in the situations I outlined above. There's nothing preventative about a site-ban ''unless'' a case can be made that staying out of real life identity areas wouldn't be enough to prevent disruption. Basically, one can argue at most the ] has been depleted for that area. My opinion is such a topic-ban should be done as while Jytdog does have some troubles in the area for all the good they've done, the mix of community tension with COI, etc. along with a history of pot-stirring by some problematic editors still hounding Jytdog just makes the area a tough fit for Jytdog. The site level is going outside the bounds of policy at this time though. That's as much as I'm going to comment here about that though. My point is that if Jytdog decides to come back after a good break, they still have tons of areas they should be able to edit. ] (]) 21:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
::I understand you.
:::::You've just been proven wrong at the case page. --] (]) 21:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
::I fail to see the connection between this person's personal life and passion and the concept of COI. I also fail to see the part of WP:COI which applies to this case. I think you would agree with me that a typical COI involves money, and I think you would agree that money is not a concern in this instance. How would you feel about adding the following statement to WP:COI to make this more clear? Perhaps put this as a subsection in ] -
:::::I'm staying out of the general issue, but I'd like to point out that someone saying they will do something is not the same thing as someone actually doing it. Otherwise there arbcom would have little to do, and we as a community will issue few cbans etc. Plenty of people say they will do something, whether or not they actually do so is a different matter. And this isn't simply about sincerity. I'm sure quite a few people who make such promises are sincere when they make the promise, but still fail to uphold it abjectly. Again I'm staying out of the general issue, since I have no idea of the evidence as I haven't looked, and it's unlikely I would ever fully know anyway since some of it is likely to be private so I'm not saying this applies to Jytdog. I'm simply pointing out it's entirely possible a block would have been preventative not simply because Jytdog may have made problems in other areas but because they may have been unable to actually do what they said they would do or were asked to do. ] (]) 19:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
:::<nowiki>===COI due to passion===</nowiki>
::::::Just to clarify, the context I was talking about was that the block was not preventative compared to a topic ban, which ''did'' work when it was in effect and should of been reinstated in terms of ] before a full site ban. That's all moot now though unless Jytdog decides to come back though. ] (]) 19:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
:::If you have strong emotions about a topic then you have a COI regarding that topic. Strong emotions can be a result of an extremely positive or negative experience, and may encourage you to share information on Misplaced Pages as a form of activism. The Misplaced Pages community discourages this, and says that people who do this have a COI.
::Thoughts? ]] 22:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
::::I don't know when the last was, that you read ] but it makes it clear that there is a thin line between COI and Advocacy. They are hard to tell apart when just looking at edits. I wouldn't agree to that draft language you propose... but i have been thinking that it might make sense to have language about being in a real world dispute with someone or something, as negative passion - disputes - are somehow weightier.... but let's put that on hold for a minute.
::::{{u|SlimVirgin}} thinks a lot about COI issues, and in ways that I don't sometimes. She would be a good independent voice here. Slim, briefly -- there is a new editor who was at a meeting where Bluerasberry was teaching folks about WP and who got interested in getting involved with WP. The new editor is retired and works with a patient safety advocacy organization. He was a patient at the Cleveland Clinic and was badly hurt there, which is what led him to work with that organization. And sure enough, the Cleveland Clinic article is the first article he went for here, and went right for their patient safety ratings, with passion. In my view, this editor has an external relationship with the Clinic that constitutes a COI, because that is the place that hurt him. That editor will have Advocacy (not COI) issues on articles about ''other'' clinics and about articles that touch on patient safety issues. So it is only on the Cleveland Clinic article that I would want him to restrict himself to the Talk page. I understand that others might see that differently. What are your thoughts on this, SV? thx. ] (]) 22:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
:::::Thanks for weighing in on that {{u|SlimVirgin}}. Please see Bluerasberry's suggestion above for a tweak to COI. What do you think about that, or perhaps something more specific about "negative passion" or better "real world disputes" that are not necessarily financial? We already discuss litigation (which is clearly a dispute and clearly financial) but i mean something that would address situations like the farmers at ] who just hate each other in the RW, or the ] where it turned out that the editor who brought the case had a RW beef with andrew west and was using COIN to attack him; the guy who brought the case realized his COI when we brought that to his attention. what do you think? ] (]) 16:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
::::::I couldn't support the language about strong feelings, because that takes us back to POV. COI is a separate concept. There needn't be any strong emotion. It is about roles and relationships that give rise to a ''tendency'' to bias and/or the perception thereof. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks for replying. I agree with that. Let me ask a different way. Where in ] to find you find an explanation of why Patient32 has a COI? I pointed to "external relationship" but that was as much as I could do, and bluerasberry, whom I respect a lot, didn't see it. But you and I did. How do we make that easier for folks? thx ] (]) 17:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
::::::::{{u|Jytdog}} Yes, this is my biggest concern. {{u|SlimVirgin}} I would appreciate your continued thoughts in this direction. My chief worry here is that both of you are coming to the same conclusion, yet I see no basis for that conclusion in WP:COI. I would like for a statement to be in COI such that whenever this issue arises (and I am assuming that this arises frequently) then rather than rely on a personal explanation users can be WP:LINKED to the explanation.
::::::::Whenever possible I wish to prevent misunderstanding rather than correct it. I still feel that this person is in a grey area - he is getting a lot of scrutiny for posting editing discussion on the talk page and I had hoped that the talk page would be a safe place to begin a practical discussion for developing the article without him first having to go through a lot of policy discussion, and certainly not for him to have to learn nuance of ambiguous or incompletely written policies. After seeing what Jytdog says I have a new perspective on this but still I would like to go forward showing a rule in Misplaced Pages space and not a special interpretation for this common and routine case.
::::::::My expectation is that my views will match yours but still, I would like to see an applicable rule written in a policy page. ]] 20:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


*Well that ended badly :-( Take care. You did great work well you were here. Hope you will rejoin us one day. ] (] · ] · ]) 19:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
{{od}} Hi {{u|Bluerasberry|Lane}}, I like ]'s description of COI as "dirt in a sensitive gauge." Imagine you have a piece of measuring equipment, and you need to make not only an accurate measurement, but a reliable one, one that other people can trust (say, a court or a scientific study). Then you find that a small stone has fallen into the machine. Is the stone affecting the measurements? Perhaps not, but it is clear that the equipment is no longer reliable. To continue using it, we would constantly have to check its results against other machines.
* I have done plenty of stupid things here too and I really do need you to keep me honest ;-) So get back on the horse! But seriously, please take a well deserved break and reflect. Reiterating Doc James, I hope you will rejoin us. ] (]) 19:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
* I consider this a serious loss for the project. I guess I understand why you would want to leave, but I nevertheless hope that you'll reconsider at some time in the future -- even though there will be some hurdles you'd have to get over if the current motion passes. In the meantime, I wish you all the best. ] (]) 21:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
* We have had a lot of different interactions, but I believe you made a mistake and it was not malicious, and I think You should rethink this. Misplaced Pages would be worse off without you. - ] ] 21:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
* I can't imagine what you're going through, and how bad you must feel. This is a community here, and I know you feel community with a lot of the people, whether you've met them or not, and that will be a further loss. You must feel like crap, and that's understandable. You didn't do the worst thing in the world, and the project still needs you. Decisions made at the peak of emotion aren't always the best ones. You get to decide how to lead your life so the deicsion is yours, but I hope you will take the two-week break or whatever feels right to you, and then revisit the situation. You would be welcomed back. Feels like there's a Jytdog-shaped hole in the Misplaced Pages jigsaw puzzle of a community right now, and there's only one person that can fill it. Enjoy your break, and hope to see you back here. ] (]) 22:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
::I've been feeling like I want to say something more, and I've been wavering over exactly what to say, but Mathglot just said it better than I could have. --] (]) 23:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
*🙁 Mathglot puts it very well. I don't like to see a Jytdog-shaped hole in Misplaced Pages either. ] &#124; ] 23:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC).
* It's sad that your huge passion for the project has resulted in this. Thanks for your tireless efforts in making the project neutral. If it's goodbye here, then enjoy your free time until you find your next passion! ] (]) 23:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
* We've had interesting discussions on how to work with people, particularly those with a COI. While some of your approaches have been questionable, I for one have never had any doubts concerning your commitment to ensuring neutrality and quality of content on WP. This is a great loss for the 'pedia. --] (]) 00:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
*''']'''--] (]) 00:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
*I am so sorry to see this. What's done is done, but you may consider making a clean start in a few months, and I hope you would be welcomed. Take care. ] (]) 01:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
*Thanks for your edits on the alternative medicine related articles. You should take a break and come back here in the future under a new name. ] (]) 02:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
* Your positive work is appreciated. best regards, —tim /// ] (]) 03:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
* ] and ] are not always true, and I've been considering creating a ] counter essay. You do so much for Misplaced Pages that others don't do. And even if someone else takes up the mantle, there will be some quality aspects missing because every editor is unique in one way or another. I thank you for all of the work you've done for this site, and for often being there for me. I hope to see your return in the future. ] (]) 07:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
**] I have been thinking the same thing. Our core community is irreplaceable. ] (] · ] · ]) 17:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
* You've made a significant contribution: the quality of our content is much improved across many topics (especially medical) as the result of your hard work. ] (]) 07:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
* I will miss you and your thoughtful thoughts. ] is one of my favourite essays here. You were there for Misplaced Pages at many times when we needed you. May the next chapter of your volunteer life be interesting and happy for you, wherever you may go. ] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 07:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
* I am sad to learn of your departure, I thank you for all your contributions, and I wish you the very best going forward. ] ] 08:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
* I was trying to compose a comment at ArbCom and could not really get past, "Well, fuck." Please know that I have learned a very great deal from working with you, knowledge and skills I will continue to carry forward, as I know many others do as well; in that sense and many more, your impact on the site will be long-lasting. I hope you don't mind my saying, I also really admire you as a person, because over time, I saw how willing you were to reconsider and make real, hard-earned adjustments to your approach. That level of character is not something you see every day. I know this episode must be a painful ending, but I recognize in your choice for how to conclude it what I know you do too--an only-increasing thoughtfulness about how you can best contribute to the project and avoid becoming more disruptive than constructive, even if what that requires in a given moment is hardly the thing I know you'd prefer. I have no doubt you'll find another good use for your talent in the near-term, and if eventually it's your judgment that your return would serve the project, well, I'll look forward to it. I will be wishing you the very, very best in the meantime. ] (]) 08:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
::<small>Just to say, I was edit-conflicted by four other well-wishers trying to post this! You will very much be missed. ] (]) 08:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)</small>
*I want to add myself to the list of people who are grateful for all the good work you've done here and to tell you that you'll be missed. I hope you do come back some day, in some form. ] (]) 11:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
*Thank you for all of your help over the years. I'm not sure which side of the fence you might fall on so let me just say "Live long and prosper" and "May the Force be with you". -- ] (]) 12:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
*Awful news. You're one of the few people on this website I hold in extremely high regard.]<sup>]</sup> 14:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
*Please, don't pull the trigger just yet. By all means give yourself a break if you need it. Do something else for a while. Ignore this place and allow the drama processes to grind through as they will. Then reconsider if you could simply accept some boundaries and then resume making your hugely constructive contributions within those boundaries. This will be a lesser place without you.] <small>]</small> 18:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
*Just another voice in the crowd. The volume and quality of the work you've done here speaks for itself; you've been inspirational. Plus what Mathglot said. ]] 18:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
* The project is weaker, and will quickly become even weaker, without you. ] (]) 22:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
* You have dedicated a lot of your time to improve the project and made thousands of valuable contributions. But yes, the word "aggressive" that you used above to describe your behaviour is unfortunately consistent with my observations and experience, and as I noticed many complaints at ANI. Your attitude drove me away from wikiediting for months on more than one occassion. You are a very knowledgeable person with amazing breadth of knowledge. I encourage you not to leave the project for good – rather, consider taking an extended wikibreak, and then come back to the project, possibly with a friendlier, more supportive and more tolerant attitude. Best, — ]&nbsp;] 00:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
* Do you hear the support. All is voluntary here and the decision is yours. ] (]) 02:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
* Thank you for your countless valuable contributions and your obvious dedication to improve this project. I can't really comment about the actual issue, but I agree with others' thoughts about a Wikibreak as a possible chance to reflect on stuff. ] (]) 02:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
* Thanks for all you've done. You have improved the encyclopedia greatly. Your presence will be missed and I join the chorus suggesting a break and return in a while. Best. ] (]) 03:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
* Thanks for all your work and help. I hope you'll be back. Take care. --] (]) 04:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
* Thanks for all the help, guidance, and outright inspiration you have offered us Jytdog. I wish you the best in your future endeavors, whatever they may be. ] (]) 04:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
* Doc James and Mathglot summed it up. Unfortunate that things turned out this way. Thank you for your contributions to the project. You have stated that you plan never to return, so I wish you the best in your future endeavors. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
* :( &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 16:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
* I'm not sure whether you'll (ever) see this but thanks for helping me over the last few year improving and updating many of the articles covering pharm and biotechs, it's been great to work with you, whenever our paths crossed. Like the tribute wall above, you'll be missed and I hope that there are editors out there who can take up your torch in ensuring that the quality of WP does not degrade and become filled with promotional bluster! I wish you the best outside of this project and hope one day you will somehow be able to return! ] (]) 18:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
*I obviously played a pretty significant part in this per my comments at ] and the case request, but for what it's worth I'm sad to see this result. I was expecting that if this proceeded to a full Arbcom case that cooler heads would prevail, and that in light of your significant contributions to the project and with everything on the table, a reasonable solution (sanction, probably) could have been crafted which would have still allowed you to be part of this community. It seems that's not to be. Outside of the noticeboards I think our only significant interaction was in working on changes to the ] some years ago clarifying the scope of community ban discussions (approximately and ), which I have always appreciated as one of the most rational and constructive discussions I have ever been involved with in almost a decade here even though we did not initially agree. I very rarely write notes to departing editors, but I share the view that regardless of this recent incident, Misplaced Pages will certainly be worse for your absence. Of course this project is voluntary, it wears down the best of us at times, and we must all do what is right for ourselves in the end. Whatever you decide, take care and best wishes. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 20:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
* I am sad to see things turned out this way for you, maybe, one day, you'll be back! Enjoy your retirement! ''''']''''' (]) 20:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
*I'm not a prolific pedian by any stretch but I have always appreciated your stalwart work regarding keeping bullshit off of here. You were a dam against the never ending tide of anti-science filth that tried to infect our medical articles and I'm afraid that they will now be worse without you. It's a shame that Arbcom didn't avoid getting sucked up with the lynch mob. Be well. ] (]) 21:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
*Thank you for all of your contributions here, Although we've never interacted I've always seen you around, Anyway I hope one day you come back but in the meantime take care and I wish you all the best, Take care, –]<sup>]</sup> 22:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
*Rather selfishly I will miss your help on my ]; the work you put into improving ] made the whole thing worthwhile. I sincerely hope that your post-wiki world is filled with minimal drama and maximum happiness. Best, -- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
* In looking back on a conversation we had in 2013, I realized that I haven't encountered someone who has been willing to completely engage in such a detailed discussion in a long, long time. As someone who strongly believes in raising the ] bar on Misplaced Pages, I have mixed opinions about the entire situation, but I know you had good intentions and I felt like your tone and approach improved over time. Hope to see you back someday. ] | (] - ]) 02:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
*Well, Misplaced Pages just lost a valuable content contributor and one of its few safeguards against COI POV. The idea that this situation came about as a result of the community's response to a single well-intended but ill-advised phone call is just completely fucking asinine. Anyway, thanks for everything you did here Jytdog. I'm sorry to see you go. ]&nbsp;(]) 02:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
*You have done excellent work here in developing our approach to COI--because of the effort you have put into it, we will be able to continue, and I for one, feel a specific need to try to compensate for your absence--especially because I was unable to prevent the arb com result, a I have been in other cases where I arb com proved susceptible to excessive self-reinforcing behavior. ''']''' (]) 06:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC) -- and see below for what I will try to do in practice. ''']''' (]) 08:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
*I have created and added myself to the category, ]. ] (]) 17:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
*Just noticed this, having being absent. I'm not wading through the history of the case but my sentiments are similar to those expressed by Bishonen above, who in turn agrees with Mathglot. - ] (]) 00:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
*Just saw this. No idea if you're still reading, but if so, know that you'll definitely be missed around here. Thank you for your guidance, your empathy, your generosity and your counsel over the years. ] (]) 20:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
*Thank you for the hard high quality work you have done, the vast majority of which will persist for years to come in our articles. You messed up, admitted it in your above post, accepted the outcome, that is good. Take a holiday to a tropical island with bikini clad women walking the beaches and chill out sipping a cocktail. Then find some new project or even hobby - something relaxing, doesn’t have to be academic, fishing even? I note the title of this section is “That’s all folks” - there is usually a sequel to that phrase on TV. I bought pajamas as a Christmas present for my special woman and on the front it has Mickey Mouse saying “Hey folks” and it made me think - that after six to twelve months you should appeal the block and come back and make a post titled “Hey folks”.--]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 12:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
*I've been off-wiki for over a week, and just saw this info. I agree that an indef block and a long time away obviate a lengthy messy ArbCom case, which is probably good, but I feel that your importance to Misplaced Pages, and the numerous people attesting to that, should persuade you to return for an appeal and unblock request after six months to a year. I think the time away may calm down your over-enthusiasm, and allow bygones to be bygones. I'd like to thank you for all of your extensive COI work. Among other things, you were (ironically) the instigating force behind at least two very important and effective ArbCom cases, as well as a number of non-ArbCom cases of very extensive and complex webs of organized COI editing which spanned numerous noticeboards and talkpages. I think it's plain that you are a net positive, and that after time away you can and should return. Cheers, ] (]) 21:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
*Your contributions to handling COI issues have strengthend the project. You should return. Indviduals can be replaced, but dedication and skill take a long time to build. Please come up with a plan to take a role here again. If you feel frustrated with a problem, ask for advice, or, at least, a sounding board. I look forward to seeing your successful appeal in June. — ] (]) 07:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
*I posted some thoughts regarding this issue at ]. Of course I do not want to see you go. Thanks for what you have done and happy future projects. ]] 19:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
*We haven't always agreed, and at times your manner of interacting with others was highly irritating. But your record of accomplishment and contributions are a monument to your dedication to the project. I tip my hat and wish you fair winds and following seas wherever the ship of life takes you. Farewell. -] (]) 19:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
*Sad to see that such a prolific contributor had to leave. Hope you are reading this and will return back someday--''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">]]</span>'' 20:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
*If any efforts are made to bring Jytdog back to the project in any capacity--please ping me as I would support. Personally, I feel like exceptions should be made for exceptional editors. Best wishes to Jytdog wherever you are ] (]) 14:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
*Oh my lord. I just started editing Misplaced Pages and you were always there on the articles around me. I knew something was going on, but I didn't understand the depth of it. Jytdog, you will be missed. Thank you for everything you've done and taught me. ] (]) 16:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


*Sorry to see you go. We didn't see eye to eye on every issue but I always respected your views and had a high opinion of your work against COI POV pushing. ] <sub>]</sub> 08:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
So it is with a conflicted editor. Their edits may be fine, but it's hard to tell with a complex issue. What matters is that they can't be relied upon to make neutral edits. People with a COI tend to think their judgment is not impaired, and they are much less likely than other editors to change their minds about an issue, especially when the COI is financial.


* In my opinion it's disastrous to see you go. You are/were a breath of fresh air in Misplaced Pages.] (]) 10:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
As for which part of COI to direct that editor to, the section about campaigning might be appropriate, depending on his circumstances: "If you edit articles while involved with campaigns that engage in advocacy in the same area, you may have a conflict of interest." But we don't address the issue of people who have had bad experiences with organizations. We have something like that in BLP, but there has always been resistance to extending it to groups, because of the danger of it being abused. If we were to add something to COI it would have to be worded extremely carefully. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
:{{u|SlimVirgin}} Here are some reasons why I object to this:
:*In practically all contexts except Misplaced Pages and philosophy, "conflict of interest" is a technical term and it is reserved for use in financial contexts. Many people sign COI statements with their employers, and many people have questions, but so far as I know, the precedent everywhere is to report ties to money and not personal interest.
:*Even Misplaced Pages itself does not revise this definition of conflict of interest and say that it is something more than finance.
:*I am not sure that COI policies should apply so strongly in this case anyway. We have a new user presenting plausible sources to cite on the talk page and asking how content can be integrated into the article. This seems like WP:BRIGHTLINE, which even though that is not a fully supported policy, I thought it was enough in most cases to begin a conversation. I want to follow the rules because COI is being discussed regarding this editor then I myself have a COI as I am paid to give wiki-training to this sort of editor, and particularly so because they requested it through my organization.
:I am still thinking this through. Some part of this seems unusual to me. Modifying the below text to change COI policy might be a good way to address this case and resolve future problems.
:Thanks for talking this through with me - I want to teach best practices to everyone I encounter. ]] 13:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


* (just heard about this) Goddammit man. I'm in complete agreement with ] above, which says something. I sympathize and empathize with your description of what went down. Just want to say what you probably already know, which is that your insights, dedication and honesty have made a big difference around here, and to me specifically. Very few editors would've cared enough to wade through my perseverative walls of text, identify the wheat and chaff, and help sort it. You have a superb eye for both nuance and the big picture, which will continue to benefit the areas you focus on, and -- illegitimi non carborundum -- make them rewarding.
::Hi {{u|Bluerasberry|Lane}}, COI involving personal or other non-financial connections is not uncommon. For example, there was a fuss in the UK last year when the government appointed a judge to head an inquiry into a child-abuse scandal involving former civil servants and politicians. The judge had to stand down because of COI when newspapers reported that her brother had been the attorney general during the period in which a decision had been made not to prosecute the individuals. She might have done a fine job chairing the inquiry, but public confidence in it would have been undermined by her close personal connection.
:I hope you have fulfilling and fortunate days ahead, and that if you ever want to, you come back exactly when, how and as you choose. (Inspirational verses/vibe: Bob Marley & the Wailers, "Coming In From The Cold"; .) Happy New Year & IRL-ing. --] <small>(] • ] &#124; ] • ])</small> 10:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


* I just heard about this now. I feel sad. It was thrilling and rewarding to work with you on the BLP of our favorite errant statistician. You were tough, but also fair. I mourned your topic ban when it occurred, and now this. Happy hunting, in a place of your choice. Your contributions will be missed.--] (]) 00:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
::Similarly, Patient 32 wouldn't want the WP article about the Cleveland Clinic to be written by the CEO's daughter. People understand why COI is objectionable when they're negatively affected by it, but when they have a COI themselves they often can't see it, or they're convinced that it won't affect their judgment.


*Wait, what? Apparently I somehow managed to miss all of this. Sorry to see you go, Jytdog. It will be strange to not see you around the place. --] (]) 22:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
::Patient 32's edits may be fine, but he should post them on the talk page and have them checked by someone uninvolved. I see some primary sources in his contribs, for example, so that would have to be sorted out. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
:::{{resolved}} {{u|SlimVirgin}} "he should post them on the talk page and have them checked by someone uninvolved" This is what I want also, and this is what I will direct this person to do. If COI editors can post suggestions to the talk page then I am happy. I think I misunderstood something here, because I think we are in agreement that posting to the talk page is the norm. ]] 19:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


* I also agree with the statements by Doc James and Mathglot. You have been a valuable contributor during your time here and I'm sorry things turned out the way they did. I hope you come back to Misplaced Pages one day. I wish you all the best with life. ] (] - ]) 15:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
===Break===
Here is ], very lightly edited and with the footnote defining COI left off.


== Block ==
;Using <u>Misplaced Pages</u> <s>BLPs</s> to continue disputes
<!-- ] 04:48, 8 December 2028 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1859863718}}
{{Policy shortcut|<u>WP:COIDISP</u> <s>BLPCOI</u>}}
{{Arbcomblock}}
You can see the relevant motion ]. -- ] <small>]</small> 07:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages articles concerning <u>organizations</u> <s>living persons</s> may include material&mdash;where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced&mdash;about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. Misplaced Pages is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Misplaced Pages to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to <s>the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to</s> Misplaced Pages itself.
Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with an <u>organization</u> <s>another individual</s> – whether on- or off-wiki – or who is <u>affiliated with</u> an avowed rival of that <u>organization</u> <s>individual</s>, should not edit that <u>organization's article</u> <s>person's biography</s> or other material about that person, given the ]. More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of an article should be especially careful to edit that article ], if they choose to edit it at all.


*I am very sad to see this. I can only echo the words of {{U|DGG}} and say how much I appreciated your support on the various issues we were working on. Take care of yourself. ] (]) 06:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
thoughts? ] (]) 11:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
*I know we have disagreed over stuff when we've met, but I've always thought you were absolutely first and foremost here to improve the encyclopedia, and that comes across incredibly strongly in your work. Consequently, I am sad to see this case of affairs. Take care. ] ] ] 14:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
:{{u|Slimvirgin}} Would you support the change of this text as a step in the right direction? If Jytdog made the changes and you supported it then I think that would help to match current written policy with the actual practices which are probably enacted on Misplaced Pages.
*I can't believe this. WP will not be the same without you. Even though I am an admin and you are not, you were my go-to person whenever I suspected COI editing. I have been on a 3 month wikibreak myself and only a few days ago decided to come back. Seeing you blocked makes me doubt the wisdom of that decision. The spammers must be popping dozens of bottles of expensive champagne... Please don't scramble completely, leave your email. I sincerely hope to see you back one day. Take care. --] (]) 14:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
:I do not follow the omission of "political, social, literary, scholarly", unless it is just to make the statement more concise. It seems to me that those kinds of disputes could apply with organizations as well as BLPs.
*I really wish you wouldn't take matters into your own hands liberally and aggressively despite of several people including myself have asked you not to do so in the past, and alienates good and bad COI editors indiscriminately altogether in the name of "helping" them to manage their COI. Perhaps you were too devoted to the project, which is evident by all the messages you received on this page. Come back after a year or so, when ArbCom is filled with more people that actually cares about the purpose and the integrity of the project, rather than self-appointed judges of misguided principles. ] (]) 09:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
:Treating organizations with BLP policy seems to me to be what the Misplaced Pages community does anyway, and I like the idea of combining policies so that the basic idea applies in all comparable situations. ]] 12:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
*] I hope this means we will see you running next year? We are likely going to need a bunch of new folks on arbcom if we wish things to change. ] (] · ] · ]) 15:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
::removed the strike. ] (]) 13:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
**{{re|Doc James}} Unlikely, since for the short amount of time I have been there I have seen too many members along the lines of paid editing is not big deal or everyone including spammers should have the right to enjoy "protection" in order to feel "safe" to "work" here without understanding the purpose of Misplaced Pages and that this is both a project and a encyclopedia. Maybe you should run since people would likely listen to you a bit more as you are more involved with the general movement itself. ] (]) 10:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
*** I concur. I was even reprimanded and my edits revdel'ed when I pointed that a WP article on a clinician was created by a PR agency who also developed his website and promoted him on the radio/TV. Still, I was taken to ANI for OUT-ing, with all the bad consequences for me. BTW, the article is still there while I no longer come near any COI issues, even if obvious. So, a change of attitude is long overdue. — ]&nbsp;] 13:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
*I had posted a hidden Do Not Archive template on this section, since there are several well wishes here, namely from ], ], ], and ]. {{U|Tryptofish}} has removed the DNAU template. Do you guys want the template replaced? ] (]) 23:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
**I hadn't thought of that, sorry. I thought it was just perma-keeping the block notice. I have no objection to restoring the template. --] (]) 23:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
**I put it back. --] (]) 01:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
***Thanks, Uncle Fishy. Not only does the thread preserve the well wishes, it also alerts the unsuspecting that there's no point in posting new queries or complaints on this talkpage, and thus saves watchers a lot of time and explanations. It's perhaps not ideal in some people's minds to have the "Block" thread here, but Jytdog wanted to leave in a rather drastic fashion anyway, and there are other more genially titled threads that will be retained as well. ] (]) 02:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
****{{(:}} --] (]) 21:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
*As you probably know, I learned a lot from you, Jytdog (in relation to how to evaluate what is administrator noticeboard worthy or not at first, conflict of interest editing, determining medically reliable sources, some aspects of the pseudoscience related policy, and of what Misplaced Pages is not, as well as other general things by silently watching your busy talk page). I would like to thank you for all that you've done here. I am now aware of the circumstances that lead to your block and sudden retirement. If you eventually are back, this will be good news to me. —]] – 06:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


== ] closed ==
:::Jytdog, I can't tell what the text says; some of the striking seems to leave part of it dangling. Can you post it without the striking, i.e. as you're proposing it? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
<!-- ] 10:09, 12 March 2029 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1868004554}}
::::clean version below. just a draft of course. ] (]) 21:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:
;Using Misplaced Pages to continue disputes
<s>Misplaced Pages articles concerning organizations may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. Misplaced Pages is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Misplaced Pages to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to Misplaced Pages itself.


#{{user|Jytdog}} is indefinitely ] from the English Misplaced Pages. He may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with an organization – whether on- or off-wiki – or who is affiliated with an avowed rival of that organization, should not edit that organization's article or other material about that organization, given the potential conflict of interest. More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of an article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all.</s>


For the Arbitration Committee, ] (]) 00:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
there you go. ] (]) 21:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
: Discuss this at: ''']'''<!-- ] (]) 00:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->


==Carrying on==
:Thanks. Parts of it won't work because copied from the BLP policy. So "an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with an organization – whether on- or off-wiki ..." The passage would mean that a company need only arrive and declare a dispute to force editors to stop editing its article.
<!-- ] 04:48, 8 December 2028 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1859863695}}
I shall be checking this talk page every day or two, and shall try to respond to problems raised. I can not however keep track of other edits to pages that jytdog may have been watching, but if help is needed on any, let me know either here on on my own talk page. I can only try to help deal with the problems that my role should have been to prevent. But a committee is a committee, and WP is a place where none of us can expect to always have things as we would like them. ''']''' (]) 08:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
:Clearly, Jytdog leaves behind a hole that will be difficult to fill, and it would certainly be good if editors would each try to help wherever they can, even though no one will be able to cover everything. I guess two broad areas are matters related to ] and some areas of biomedical research; he also had an editing interest in the history of religion. --] (]) 20:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
:: is a useful guide he wrote for new WP users, slanted toward WP:MED, COI, and sourcing-template orientation. How best to preserve it? --] (]) 23:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
::: Generally I use ] when I preserve things, but can you explain why this needs to be preserved? ] (]) 23:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
::::Preferring ] for long-term preservation ;>) I see it as a concise guide that might serve some new users as an alternate/supplement to ] or ], and if agreed as useful, should be kept accessible. --] (]) 00:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
::::: But things don't just disappear around here, it should hang around without any special preservation. ] (]) 01:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
::::::I guess it could be a question of moving it from user space to WP space. Or giving it a good shortcut and linking to it from pages in WP space. --] (]) 22:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
] qualifies as a useful essay and should be moved to ]. ] (]) 21:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
:Yes. And for starters, it will be reproduced in the next issue of ''The Signpost''. ] (]) 12:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


== Jytdog should consider returning back ==
:I could perhaps support something like: "Misplaced Pages is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Therefore, an editor who is involved in a dispute with an organization off-wiki should not edit material about that organization, given the conflict of interest."
<!-- ] 06:36, 5 March 2029 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1867387001}}
]]</span>'']]
I just wanted to state that Misplaced Pages community is not the same without Jytdog and he is being missed. If real life permits, Jytdog should consider return back to editing.
*'''Please come back'''<s>Support</s> as I feel his absence has left a huge gap in areas Jytdog helped. No one is infallible, we learn and move on. I am sure you will read this, Hoping to see you back some day. --''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">]]</span>'' 19:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
*What is this? You can't ''vote'' someone back to wikipedia when they've left by choice. If Jytdog wishes to return, he knows what he needs to do. ] (]) 19:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
::This isn't a "Vote him back", just a show of support for his work and a 'non binding', wish from a fellow editor that he should "consider" returning back. --''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">]]</span>'' 19:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
*'''Hoping he'll come back'''. Ok, so this is not a !vote and "support" or "oppose" is not appropriate. But I for one sincerely hope that Jytdog will reconsider and come back. If this account has indeed be scrambled, then under a new account. Jytdog is sorely missed. --] (]) 18:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
**Him returning would require us dealing with the arbcom motion. The details of the case that resulted in arbcom action are more or less public: Jytdog inappropriately contacted an editor by phone and for that he needs to be significantly warned. Do we the community feel it deserves an indefinite ban? That would require further discussion. ] (] · ] · ]) 22:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
***For what little it is worth, any return would involve a private discussion between him and ArbCom, but the rest of the community would not be involved in that. That's how the process works. I do hope to see him back eventually, but it's not my decision. --] (]) 23:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
****If a super majority feels that arbcom has over reached, IMO we could technically over ride arbcom. ] (] · ] · ]) 23:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
***** <nowiki></nowiki> -- ] &#124; ] 23:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
***{{ping|Doc James}} I get where you are coming from, but please consider the effect your words have on the people who are victims of harassment. Here's a member of the board that oversees the organization charged with protecting Misplaced Pages editors from online and offline harassment seemingly downplaying or excusing an editor who harassed another editor ''in real life''. The last idiot who cold-called me to harass me had a chat with a police sergeant, but not everyone is going to have a friendly police sergeant on hand to take their complaint seriously. They likely will have only the Foundation to turn to, and your responsibility is to all the editors served by the foundation, not just Jytdog. ] <small>(])</small> 23:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
****People mess up. And we all agree that Jytdog messed up in this case. The question is more about what is an appropriate punishment for someone who has done this, admits it was wrong, and agrees to never do it again. ] (] · ] · ]) 23:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
*****Actually, I don't think that the community ''can'' overrule ArbCom, nor should we. --] (]) 23:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
******Sure and I imagine that would be the position of many. I am not saying it is likely that a community discussion would result in a super majority for a lessor punishment or that their is much if any chance of a return of Jytdog even if the ban was lifted. So this is likely all just academic and a mute point. ] (] · ] · ]) 23:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
*****Ignoring whether or not the community can override ArbCom, Jytdog has not been punished for harassment. The indef block is to ensure that Jytdog cannot resume editing without going through an ArbCom case, as we don't want a situation where editors can temporarily retire during a case and then return later to avoid facing it. No decision of punishment has been made by ArbCom in relation to the specific case. If the indef was removed, Jytdog would still need to go through ArbCom, who may or may not impose a ban and/or block. - ] (]) 01:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
******There was no stipulation in the block report that "Jytdog cannot resume editing without going through an ArbCom case". Only that an ArbCom case was accepted, but since Jytdog had retired and presumably scrambled his password, he was blocked indefinitely and he can only be unlocked by going directly to ArbCom. Stating that "Jytdog cannot resume editing without going through an ArbCom case" -- in other words, a full ArbCom case, is inferring facts not in evidence. ] (]) 03:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*******I guess you can interpret it as you see fit. Fundamentally, a case was accepted and was agreed to be opened, but couldn't continue because Jytdog chose to retire rather than be involved in it. Therefore the account was indef blocked, the case was unable to be opened "at this time", and they can't continue to edit unless they get permission from ArbCom. As there is an accepted case, the "at this time" was specifically added to address the possibility of reopening the case if - as Opabinia regalis put it - Jytdog chooses to "stop and face the music". They could agree to resolve the issue by a motion, privately or otherwise, without opening the case, or they could open it, or whatever, but hopefully this just remains moot and we don't have to worry about it. - ] (]) 04:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*****{{tq|...Jytdog messed up in this case.}} And in the previous cases. ~ <span style="color:#DF00A0">Amory</span><small style="color:#555"> ''(] • ] • ])''</small> 01:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*Jytdog may appeal his block by contacting ArbCom. That is not up for debate. What happens after that is as-yet unknown, neither set in stone nor explicitly laid out by ArbCom. There's no point in trying to parse unknowns, even the unknowns about whether Jytdog could regain access to this account or whether the password is forever blocked. What we can do is offer our support re: wishing for his return. ] (]) 23:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
*I wish you would come back. You were too valuable and too dedicated to be lost over something petty like this, and the whole thing was a massive overreaction. I hope that you will reconsider your exile, and that Arbcom will, at this point, quickly resolve your case with minimal damage imposed. All the best, ] ] 07:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
*What Swarm says. ]]
* ] . We miss you, come back. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span>; ]</span> 11:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': The best way IMVHO would be for Jytdog to ask for ArbCom's continuation of the case that was opened (and then closed after Jytdog's voluntary departure). It would make re-entry quite easier ''and'' in accordance to Misplaced Pages rules. -] (]) 05:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
*I for one hope to see a return given recent events even though many editors familiar with your good work are distracted by other ongoings, but we'll have to see how ArbCom reacts to the current case. ] (]) 03:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
*Hmm so he did and ] the ]. Thanks for everyone's time and maybe there's a possibility in another 12 months... —]] – 09:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
*It makes me angry when I see this, and note the number of tossers who edit this project. -] ] 16:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
*Why doesn't someone just dig up his phone number, call him up, and ask him if he wants to come back? (Just kidding of course!) I miss Jytdog, too. Pretty much all of our WP:MEDRS watchdogs have necessarily had a lot of bark (and unnecessarily some bite). Hopefully the attrition rate will not worsen (I'm thinking also of a couple of T-bans). Just re-reading Jytdog's user-page essay on COI and related matters is a pleasure (in a WP policy-wonk way, anyhow). He really got it, and a version of that material should be edited down to an {{tl|information page}} or other advice piece, both on how to avoid COI (especially in STEM, GLAM, etc.), and on how to detect it and help others avoid it. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 23:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
*: Jyt, dog! Missing your consideration and spirit today in particular. I just ran across your thoughtful contribution to a discussion elsewhere and wanted to consult you, and remembered this was just the commemorative-tea-cozy version of a talk page now. Hoping you're very well indeed. <span style="color:#666">&ndash;&nbsp;]]</span> 00:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


== Jytdog's good work noted in the media ==
:But we would have to build in something to make clear that it's off-wiki only, to stop the scenario above. And even then I'm not sure. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 02:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
<!-- ] 10:09, 12 March 2029 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1868004554}}
::how is this?
I miss Jytdog, COI editing's one of my personal bugbears here & he's one of several editors who've helped me deal with the issues. He gets a nice mention in this HuffPo article on corporate spindoctors using questionable tactics to push POV and promo material & frustrate good editing https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wikipedia-paid-editing-pr-facebook-nbc-axios_n_5c63321be4b03de942967225. He did some stuff wrong, but it's a shame to see someone who did so much to keep this place reliable not be here any longer. ] (]) 23:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
:] good share. Worthy appreciation of good work. Hope Jytdog also notices this.--''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">]]</span>'' 06:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


:Thanks for sharing. ] (]) 07:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
;Using Misplaced Pages to continue disputes
<s>Misplaced Pages articles concerning organizations may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. Misplaced Pages is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. An editor who is involved in a significant off-wiki controversy or dispute with an organization, or who is affiliated with an avowed rival of that organization, should not edit that organization's article or other material about that organization, given the potential conflict of interest.
<small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) June 9 2015</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --></s>
------------
This is fine with me if it can actually be incorporated somewhere. This strikes me as unlikely to pass because of "other material about that organization" seems like an injunction against editing the talk page, and I thought that was a safe space for people with a COI to edit. ]] 16:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


:I put this article on ] and "This talk page has been mentioned by a media organization":ed it on six article talkpages. ] (]) 11:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
;Using Misplaced Pages to continue disputes
Misplaced Pages articles concerning organizations may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. Misplaced Pages is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. An editor who is involved in a significant off-wiki controversy or dispute with an organization, or who is affiliated with an avowed rival of that organization, should not edit that organization's article or other articles about that organization, given the potential conflict of interest.
<small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) June 9 2015</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
------------
revised to address {{u|Bluerasberry}}'s comment above - yes editors with a COI can discuss on Talk pages! {{u|SlimVirgin}} your thoughts?] (]) 17:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
: is another example of an editor whom I would say has a COI with respect to perceived harm from an organization. Right? ] (]) 20:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


::There's plenty of us miss Jytdog, and yet this sort of thing continues, increasingly unchecked. Plenty of them would have rejoiced at his block. ] (]) 14:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
== Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. ==
]
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the ] regarding No progress made in the discussion.. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "]".The discussion is about the topic ].
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!<!--Template:DRN-notice-->

== Bellarmine University ==

You deleted information I added to the Academic section because of my paid editor status. May I ask what was wrong with it? ] (]) 16:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
:I believe you that read COI and said that you understand it and will abide by it, right? If that is so, can you please tell me why you are editing the article directly? Thanks. ] (]) 17:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
::So you want me to get my desired changes peer reviewed first? ] (]) 17:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
:::that is what WP:COI says you should do. it is not a matter of what i want or what you want. good citizen, right? ] (]) 18:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

== A barnstar for you! ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thanks for keeping an eye on my talk page :-) ] (] · ] · ]) 18:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
|}

== Blocked ] ==

I note that you have made several reversions of late from IP address 89.240.133.249 claiming that they are socks of the blocked user Nuklear. Whilst there is obviously no problem with reverting any contribution from a sock of blocked user (as in ]), I am at a loss to understand why you believe that the IP address is in reality Nuklear. There is no history in the two articles of Nuklear making similar edits. ] (]) 12:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
:Nuklear had definitely edited both articles - see (Deass is one of Nuklear's socks, as is 80.42.36.238); see were Nuklear had edited under several IPs previously. 89.240.133.249 and adding synthesis just like Nuklear. ] (]) 12:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
::Maybe I am missing something, but I can find no evidence that ] or ] have edited any of the articles that you have named above in at least the last five years. Similarly, of the articles that Nuklear and Deass have edited, there is no evidence that they have been similarly edited by any other editor. Further, I have run the editor interaction utility on Nuklear and Deass and there is no interaction at all (i.e. they have never edited the same article). Thus: even if Nuklear and Deass were the same person, there is no sockpuppetry. Therefore, it seems to me that there is no plausible evidence that there is any sockpuppetry going on. I note that a few SPI cases have been raised but neither user has a block for sockpuppetry as a result, which I am not surprised as the cases against them were pretty thin. Even if a few IP editors are making similar edits to different articles that either Nuklear or Deass have made in the past, that does not prove sockpuppetry (on the part of Nuklear or Deass). It only proves that someone else agrees with them or is engaging in 'copy cat' editing. I do believe that there is a case that the IP address editors ''are probably'' the same person, but that is a whole different discussion. Your reversion under ] is therefore inappropriate.
::You should note that where one editor edits under multiple accounts, but does not edit the same articles with both accounts (or does not make the same edits to the same article), then that does not constitute a prohibited use of multiple accounts. ] (]) 16:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
:::Please look at the ] page - he is blocked as a confirmed sock of Nuklear. Nuklear and his socks have a very clear pattern of editing - always drug/chemical articles, always synthesis and adding similar chemicals to the "see also" section. Sorry but nothing you are writing is making sense. ] (]) 18:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
::::I have had a look at ]'s user page. I have also had a look at the SPI case linked from that user page. Although the SPI case contains allegations and evidence that they ''may'' be the same user, there is no conclusion that says that they are actually socking. Also the interaction utility clearly shows that they have never edited the same articles (). As I stated: ''neither editor has any block for sockpuppetry''. The SPI case and the interaction utility clearly shows that whoever added those confirmed sock tags to Deass's and Nuklear's user pages had absolutely no right to do so as there is no evidence of socking or declaration of such in an SPI.

::::To underline the point that two accounts editing in a similar manner may be the same person but not be guilty of sockpuppetry, there is a more recent case where an IP editor made three reverts to an article. The article was then semi-protected. On needing to continue reverting to his version he switched to using a named account to continue the edit war. An SPI case was raised (and I seriously believed (and still do) that that did constitute socking). The case was rejected because although the edits were clearly the same person, they were not using both IDs at the same time. They used one and then switched to the other. I can't find it at the moment but will provide the link if I do.

::::As far as the IP addresses refered to above being the same user, they probably are but they are not using different IP addresses at the same time. They may well be a dynamic IP address over which the user has no control. There is therefore no evidence of sockpuppetry by anybody anywhere. ] (]) 11:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

:::::Found it! It's . Coincidentally, it turns out that it was yourself who made the AN3 complaint that got the article semi-protected in the first place. ] (]) 11:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

{{outdent}}Further to the above, I have now checked out all the alleged sockpuppets of ] listed at . The editor interaction utility clearly proves that none of the listed accounts are sockpuppets of Nuklear. There are ten articles that Nuklear and ] had both edited, but the period between edits ranges from 69 to 264 days. There are no common articles between Nuklear and any of the other listed accounts. This proves that even if Yid were to be the same user as Nuklear, there is still no evidence of socking by Nuklear. Whoever, created the Sockpuppets of Nuklear page, may have done so in good faith from the other pages or because there was circumstantial evidence that they may be the same user, but its creation was erroneous as there is no supporting evidence of actual sockpuppetry. There seems to be some evidence of copyright violation by the listed accounts but that is another matter entirely.

I also note that many of the edits that you are reverting are potentially good edits to articles such as one. ] is not a catch all that gives the right to revert any and every edit from a blocked user. Indeed, ] states, ''"obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism can be allowed to stand"''. It is generally only the continuance of disruptive edits where the sockmaster was using the sockpuppet to support that should be reverted (though policy does allow you to err on the side of reversion if the case is not clear. ] (]) 12:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
:If you want to re-open any of the closed and actioned SPI cases, please do so at SPI (or under whatever the procedure is for appealing a sock block). This is not the place to do that. If you want to re-instate any of the reverts I made, please feel free. Please also note that if you make a habit of it, you will be taking on their behavior and may become subject to a block yourself, for the same reason they were blocked. ] (]) 12:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
: btw I don't know where the diff is, but Nuklear/Deass/one-or-more-of-his-IPs mocked the community saying that he knew how to jump IP addresses and would continue to do that intentionally. I have no idea what is driving your interest but you are making pretty strong conclusions without being aware of all the facts here. ] (]) 13:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

::Resorting to threats is as good as conceeding the argument. ] (]) 13:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
:::Not threatening, just describing reality. You own edits that you restore. ] (]) 13:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
::::You appear to have a strange view of reality. If I chose to reinstate any of the edits that introduced good material into the subject articles, I am at a loss to see what policy you would attempt to organise your threatened block under. As for my interest: I perceive, that for whatever reason, you appear to be pursuing a vendetta against this particular user by claiming sockpuppetry where there is no evidence whatsoever - and I regard that as unacceptable behaviour. ] (]) 14:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
:::::I am not pursuing a vendetta. Nuklear was blocked for consistently violating copyright, UNDUE, and sourcing guidelines. If you start consistently reverting me (which you are entitled to do) you will reinstate the sock's edits, which continue his violations. You will then own those violations. What is driving your interest in this? Please do answer. Thanks. ] (]) 14:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey, don't follow me around. Mind your own business! <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: You lost your editing privileges. If you want to get them back, you can appeal your block. Until then, please stop editing Misplaced Pages. Thanks. ] (]) 19:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Please could you mind your own business and i'll do likewise. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:You lost your editing privleges. If you want to get them back, you can appeal your block. This is a real community - you chose to ignore what people were telling you about what you were doing wrong. So you were blocked. You have to take that seriously. ] (]) 20:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

== A brownie for you! ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you for all the hard work you do on Misplaced Pages. Don't let your "fan club" get you down or ] you into doing something silly. Keep up the great work! ] (]) 18:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
|}
:thank you, yobol. ] (]) 19:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

== GM review ==

I couldn't figure out how to work into ], so I am putting it here for your consideration in case you want to add it. ] ] 23:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
:and then there is stuff like that says that whole food animal studies are not even ethical to do, as they add no value. The literature on this is exceedingly messy and politicized. ] (]) 17:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

== Senpion ==

I'm assuming, due to the lack of response from the user, that my initial assumption (which you echoed) was correct, and being called out on it caused the user to bail out on WP entirely. The edit history showed that those edits were the focus, and I don't buy the claims that were made subsequently. However, as no action occurred, what's the next step in case this happens again (though I doubt it, as I think the underlying tech has no traction)? ] (]) 04:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
:Just ping me, if you like, and i'll pick up the conversation where it left off. Sorry again that we dropped the ball at COIN when you brought it in the first place. ] (]) 05:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

== Clarification ==

OK I want to understand where you are coming from here (and I appreciate your fast response to the original proposals). Harold asks to change something so I provide evidence to say why not? I'm happy just to leave stuff if he makes no citations. But I confined myself to facts there with no commentary. I made no comment on his motivations but restricted myself to facts. He is also using the page to make statements based on his opinion, so if you are going to strike my response you should really strike his original statement as well :-) I did my best on his german equivalent to go and find a source for him to help so I think you are being a little harsh with your edit summary there ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Secondly do you think it is legitimate to use social media to get people to contribute to the page? A tweet from Harold this morning asked for contributions. He used the #Cynefin hashtag so it will go to people outside his circle. However my policy has been not to use social media in an wikipedia edit conflict. Not sure if there is a policy here or not. ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
:yes, confine yourself to facts that have sources. you, in particularly, need to rigorous. no it is not valid to summon people to WP pages. thanks for letting me know. ] (]) 07:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
::Doing my best here :-) I have a minor concern that Harold's accusation on Cynthia's involvement (a major part of his off wiki campaign) is being allowed to stand without a response. I'll live with it but it is a concern. Otherwise I'm going to hold off any edit requests for several weeks until things calm down. I had not realised how fast you would be on the monitoring or I might just have left it anyway ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 07:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
:::done. ] (]) 07:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
::::With you, appreciated ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 07:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
::::::we'll see. what i want to see is behavior aimed toward improving Misplaced Pages. Not toward furthering your personal interests or toward pursuing your dispute with Harold. Rigor. We'll see. ] (]) 07:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
:::::::As far as possible I ignore him and I don't respond off wiki if he tries. On wiki it's about reputation so I have responded to changes he has attempted to make, The COI policy as it is being implemented seems to handle the sort of hits that both Cynefin and Dave Snowden article have being subject too over the years. Hopefully I can spend my time monitoring the various Philosophy and Political sites in which I am active. I've got some ideas on COI but I'll leave that for a week or so ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 07:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
{{od}} Great. ] (]) 07:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gents. Yes I used twitter to get more people involved as I think that would help. More diversity = more experience. I did so because I saw a tweet yesterday from @industrylapdog https://twitter.com/IndustryLapdog/status/607707402151043072. It that is not done, I'm sorry. If its OK, please tell me.
Re Campaign, Where do I accuse anyone? Where am I campaigning?] (]) 07:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
:yes some person is picking one edit i make every day and tweeting it under the handle "industry lapdog". whatever. Hvgard '''do not canvass'''' and please read the warning on your userpage about that. ] (]) 07:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
::and {{u|Hvgard}} since you have acknowledged that are tweeting about this, i looked, and you have about your dispute with dave for a while now, well before today. It appears to be a straight up lie, to say that you were inspired to tweet about this by the "industrylapdog" tweet. You just lost a lot of good will with me.
:: The tweeting is completely out of bounds. Please strike your claim to have tweeted about this only because of the industrylapdog tweet, and tell me that you will stop tweeting about this. I will also tell you that, I will be watching your twitter feed now, and the next time you tweet about this dispute in Misplaced Pages, I will seek a topic ban. You need to restrain yourself. ] (]) 07:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I was just tweeting on was happening here, getting people aware of the edits so that other start to help too. I can't remember I tweeted about wikipedia before. Anyway I wont tweet again about wikipedia Cynefin edits if that considered out of bounds.
] (]) 08:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
: That is not a good response with regard to what appears to me to be a lie. Whatever. But yes it '''is''' out of bounds to tweet about your disputes. I told you it is and provided you the link to the guideline. There is no "if". Don't do it going forward. ] (]) 08:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I still don't get it. What did I lie about? Please point me to where and what. Ofcourse I have ve exchanges on twitter and other social media with many people I agree with or partly or not on many subjects including this one. To my best knowledge the tweet I sent yesterday was the first I sent about Cynefin wikipedia edits ever. I did it in good faith. Now know better, it won't happen again.] (]) 11:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
:Your post above says: " I did so because I saw a tweet yesterday from @industrylapdog..." You were '''already''' tweeting about the content dispute before yesterday. ] (]) 12:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, now I see. OK. So two. Understood.
] (]) 19:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

== I don't like your imperious behavior ==

This is in response to your post about removing my comment, which you posted on my talk page. Yeah i know you and i know what you did, Jytdog and i didn't like it one bit. My comment was to the point that you act imperiously and do whatever the hell you want despite the concerns and thoughts of others, and then you announce "this is the way!" and expect everyone to fall in line, so i called you "Your Highness" as an expressive form of sarcasm to tell you what i thought about your action, and then you deleted that very comment and showed even more that you're willing to act imperiously here and think you can control what the hell others are saying from their selves. It's classic behaviour from you, and i have a long history with you. And why were you even at that page -- following my contributions? Or did you have that page on your watchlist. Don't answer that because i do not trust you at all and would not trust your answer that you weren't following me. Our trust is completely broken, Jytdog, and i believe you're a bad and disruptive editor. I have work to do in the real world today and will not be replying here so this is the last from me for a while, but i want the world to know that i think you're a disruptive editor here in Misplaced Pages, and you've made my experience here contributing to this encyclopedia a whole lot worse than it could have been. No thanks for hounding me and accusing me of every paper cut charge under the sun. ] (]) 11:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Consistenly my edits and contributions and undoing them with threatening reason comments like "you are close to 3RR now!" ... oooh... you know, your behavior is very very very bad for a Misplaced Pages community member, and i bet there are a few dozen other people who wpould attest to very very very bad interactions with you, in which you use strawman argumentation, shifting goalposts, lawyerly language and techniques, annoyance tactics, and simply marching ahead and making edits that the group doesn't seem to want, and otherwise generally disruptive and non-cooperative behavior, anti-social behaviors that makes the whole process go a lot worse and complicates discussions that would otherwise be rather simple, and generally not seeming to be ] for real, as you've so often thrown that accusation at me, and ]-ing people too, including me, and doing a whole lot of generally bad things. I'm gonna be gone from here for a while, but i'm leaving this extremely strong statement of my dislike for your behavior, and my general disgust at your imperiousness and obstructionism and obfuscationism. Yes, i am calling this out. I'm calling out your general bad behaviors that all seem to add up to a sort of agenda, as well, because you're ALWAYS lawyering for the side that would be the chosen agenda of the industry if they had someone working for them here, a single-direction force of non-cooperation here in Misplaced Pages..... why? Who are you? ] (]) 12:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
:::He's just an editor, like you, except perhaps not. -] (]) 12:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
:::I am sorry you have had such a hard time learning the policies and guidelines here, SageRad. I've done my best to help you. ] (]) 12:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
:::I have to agree with ]. Because you didn't like my previous post, he decided to track back through my contributions and revert five other major edits which took me hours to put together. Just because my edits are on articles of faith doesn't mean that the posts are inappropriate. The material is in character with the existing text of the articles, and most if not all the material was sourced to peer-reviewed published books. Those articles are stub articles that need additional information. Please stop attacking my posts. I am going to revert them all back except the most recent one, and hopefully you will leave them alone.] (]) 15:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
:::::Yes, you each are having similar struggles coming to understand how WP works. ] (]) 15:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

== In case you missed it ==

This. The malformed template ref means their ping wouldn't have worked. ] (]) 15:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
:thx. ] (]) 16:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

== Complaint about your edits at ] ==

See ]. You can respond there if you wish. Thank you, ] (]) 15:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
:thanks for the notice. ] (]) 16:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

== Your (rather silly) intervention on the'Peter Hitchens' entry ==

I replied on the Talk page (of the 'Peter Hitchens' entry) to your attempt to make a controversy about the fact that I sometimes(quite openly and under my own name ) make minor factual adjustments to the Misplaced Pages entry about me, adjustments which I am in a unique position to make. Anybody's welcome to challenge them if they know better than I such things as my late father's naval rank and position.

I am the only person who has responded to your intervention. Everyone else seems uninterested and unhorrified by my behaviour, as is only reasonable. Your attempt to suggest that there is something naughty going on has met with no other response of any kind. Do you think you might therefore take steps to remove the misleading label on the entry which suggests(quite wrongly() that I have been making illegitimate and underhand alterations? If you won't, can you please tell me to whom I can appeal, and how? My computer skills are limited.
Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback ] (]) 10:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
:the work of cleaning up after conflicted editors is tedious - those tags sometimes remain a long time. you will notice that no one immediately rose up to take it off, which is what folks do when find they tag inapt or silly. ] (]) 11:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

== ] ==


Hi - first time user - let's see if I got this right. You pulled my additions to Interventional Radiology - I think based on a lack of citation which I have since added. I have several more articles to write but want to get my first Misplaced Pages contribution correct. I think the content is valuable and directly relates to the history already posted. Regards,
] (]) 17:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)chuckd105
:we should discuss on the article Talk page, not here. I will open the discussion there. ] (]) 18:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You responded to me on my user talk page and asked me to reply. I did add more information, but not sure how to "reply". How will you know that I answered/ ] (]) 19:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)chuckd105
: I am "watching" your page so I saw your reply. Have just been busy - I will reply there later today. Thanks for following up! ] (]) 14:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

== Interestingly enough ==

It would appear I am now a target of a particular editor because of the comments I made at AN regarding her here and at AN/I before that . The shit-stirring by her can be seen here . A kind, gentle, Wiki-love bestowing grandmother who has been totally misunderstood and just wants Wiki-peace... Sure. Whatever. I thought you and {{U|Flyer22}} would both be interested in the latest development of this continuing saga. Ugh. it shows, in my opinion, that her behavior hasn't changed, it's just been transferred to someone else. I have left at her talk page. Hopefully, it will quell any further attempts on her part to poison the well. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 18:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
:In my view that post on the user's Talk page basically denies that she did anything wrong and may run against whatever agreement she established with KevinGorman. I am not an admin. I suggest you bring that to Kevin's Talk page. If he is not around, I recommend you post to AN. Sorry about that.] (]) 19:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

== Seeking advice from you ==

Hi, the talk comment below was just reverted by Snowded. Can you point out where I should have made this suggestion? My talk page, the Cynefin talk page, your talk page, Snowded talk page, elsewhere? Please help me out. Thanks:

:There are existing and past relationships between all involved and mentioned here and others that historically contributed. That is why its important to find independent sources, which might be difficult. One way forward seems to me to focus - in the interest of readers - on facts about the model independent on "who contributed what ] (]) 11:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
::Editors have a right to delete entire comments from their own talk pages, see ]. While I cannot see that he has banned you from his own Talk page (which editors also have the right to do) I suggest you avoid posting there. ] (]) 14:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

== A barnstar for you! ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Barnstar of Diligence'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For working to keep coverage of medical and nutrition articles ] with POV-pushers coming both from pro-industry and anti-industry. ] (]) 14:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
|}
:Thank you, Robert. ] (]) 14:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

==Bowman v Monsanto==

Jytdog, what I was trying to do, first, was replace the pejorative term "loophole" with a more neutral way of putting it that did not suggest wrongdoing or bad intent by Bowman, as the prior writer did. Second, I think it is necessary to tell readers that crop soybeans are the same as seed, so that you can use the crop beans as seed to grow new crops. Otherwise it is unclear what is going on.

Instead of just reverting, why don't you come up with a way to do these things that you would find OK?

I think that is an improper revert. Maybe my way of saying this (what's in the first para. above) is not best, but what would you suggest? I would welcome a helpful edit.

] (]) 01:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
:You are making it read like an essay intead of an encyclopedia article. Please don't use footnotes with asides, and please don't include ] like "Thus far, there has been relatively little scholarly commentary on the case in law journals". Also we don't use honorifics like "Professor Gholsh". Just because he happened to write a blog (even if it was in patently-o) doesn't mean he is quotable. ] (]) 01:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, you edited out the subheads. You therefore have the three court decisions as part of the "Background." Court decisions do not belong in the Background section.

You are not editing carefully. Some of your edits are improvements. But some make the article worse (like what I mention above in the first three sentences). You shouldn't revert just for the sake of reverting. That appears to be what you did here. For example, why did you delete the sentence following the statement that he had a contract--that the infringing seed plantings were not the ones under the3 contract, so it wasn't a breach of contract that he did it. Otherwise, the preceding sentence is misleading. It suggests that Bowman "replanted" in violation of his contract with Monsanto--untrue!

Maybe we could discuss in detail what you want to revert and why. Then we could come up with an improved article, with fewer of the mistakes now in it.

] (]) 01:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
:you mean perhaps, where I reverted a whole boatload of OR that you added? ] (]) 01:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

::please continue this at the article talk page so others who care can join in. thx. ] (]) 02:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

:::OK. But before I switch Talk pages, that is *NOT* OR. I can provide cites. ] (]) 15:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:10, 20 April 2024

Hi, welcome to my talk page!
  • If you came here to discuss article content, please post at the article Talk page. That is where discussions about content belong, so that everybody watching the article can participate, and so the discussion becomes part of the page's historical record, and is easy to find.
  • Please click here to leave a new message.


Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29



This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

That's all folks

So... I made a very bad error in judgement, and called a person who had added raw advocacy content to WP, who is clearly deeply passionate about the topic.

The call went very badly. I shouldn't have called them, I shouldn't have allowed it to become an argument, and I shouldn't have ended the call the way I did.

In the past, I violated the OUTING policy by posting off-WP information here. That was also a terrible error in judgement.

I also have generally been pretty aggressive in trying to maintain high quality in our content, and this has caused some people here to dislike and distrust me, and per the last ANI about me, there is weariness in the community with me.

In the current situation, there is rampant speculation about a three minute conversation and about my intentions. There is some fierce debate about the boundaries of the harassment policy. There are a lot of angry people. Probably hours have been spent, that could have been better spent elsewhere actually building the encyclopedia.

It looks like this will become a case, which will mean many more hours. The outcome of that case if pretty foregone, in my view. I see no good reason to put everybody through more of this.

So, I am out of here. I am scrambling my WP password and deleting my gmail account and "Jytdog" will cease to do anything, anywhere. If you see any other Jytdog doing stuff in the future, anywhere, it is not me. (And no, I will be not be coming back here as a sock.) I urge Arbcom to do just do a motion and indef or site ban me.

I just want to say thanks to everybody I have worked with, and I wish you all, and our beautiful project, the best. Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Dammit man. -Roxy, the naughty dog. wooF 17:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
That is not a foregone conclusion. Do as you will, but the case will surely go on anyway. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Very sad to hear it. Like Tryptofish says, Arbcom is not a foregone conclusion, but you should do what you think best. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
The frustrations for Arbcom and you are understandable, but the overall mission of the project – and your obvious love of and value to it – should not be hastily dismissed. Give yourself a 2 week break, then re-evaluate... and return with a fresh outlook. --Zefr (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Sad to see this. Best wishes,Smeat75 (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
+1 to what Zefr said. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Another +1 here. Nobody is irreplaceable but Misplaced Pages would be much worse off without you, Jytdog. All best wishes to you, whatever you decide to do. -- bonadea contributions talk 3:17 am, 4 December 2018, last Tuesday (3 days ago) (UTC+9)
And another +1 here.--Iztwoz (talk) 10:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog The whole episode is a storm in a teacup. I am sad to see you going dude. The place will be worse without you. Take care mate. scope_creep 18:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

  • I understand your motivations in doing this, but I would encourage you not to burn all the bridges as such. By all means, take a wikibreak as Zefr suggests (even a longer one, if you want), feel free even to sit out the arbcom case, but perhaps reconsider your account abandonment. I can speak from personal experience that it is easy to mess up in pushing the boundaries of best practices at this website. That's part of the design, and pushing out people who are effective in their designs is also a prototypical feature of societies that are run by the kinds of mob rule that Misplaced Pages employs (see ostracism). Taking time away from this website in such scenarios can provide much needed perspective (it has for me, certainly), but I think your general outlook on what is or is not appropriate here with respect to the way we report on various claims and promotions is one that is needed. Crucially,WP:There is no deadline, and it would be great to have you back after some time spent in the wilderness. jps (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I'll echo this and Zefr at the least Jytdog. I've gone the route you outlined of scrambling password, deleting email, etc. when deciding to quite a particular haunt of the internet. Sometimes it really is better to go cold turkey, but I'd suggest in this case go up to everything but deleting the email until a time later. That still gives you the option to come back after a month or whatever, but I always felt like I had more closure waiting a bit for that final step even in the cases when I really did decide to be done.
That being said, remember that ArbCom does not have the authority to give out a site ban in this particular instance yet as they are still bound by WP:PREVENTATIVE policy. The most that can be done is an indef topic-ban on anything relating to real-life identities of Misplaced Pages editors. Anything beyond that would violate blocking policy in part considering you already made it clear you weren't going to be doing this again (before the initial block). A site-ban/indef-block can't comply with policy yet unless a likelihood for disruption outside the COI/real-life identity area appeared likely or that you violated such a topic ban at a later date. It can only be applied when it's clear an editor is going to have issues no matter the topic they go into. This doesn't need to be the end of the road, but I can understand just wanting to be done with all the drama too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Just fyi, they do have the authority. And they are a lot more likely to pull the trigger if they do it by motion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I'm saying they only have the authority in the situations I outlined above. There's nothing preventative about a site-ban unless a case can be made that staying out of real life identity areas wouldn't be enough to prevent disruption. Basically, one can argue at most the WP:ROPE has been depleted for that area. My opinion is such a topic-ban should be done as while Jytdog does have some troubles in the area for all the good they've done, the mix of community tension with COI, etc. along with a history of pot-stirring by some problematic editors still hounding Jytdog just makes the area a tough fit for Jytdog. The site level is going outside the bounds of policy at this time though. That's as much as I'm going to comment here about that though. My point is that if Jytdog decides to come back after a good break, they still have tons of areas they should be able to edit. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
You've just been proven wrong at the case page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm staying out of the general issue, but I'd like to point out that someone saying they will do something is not the same thing as someone actually doing it. Otherwise there arbcom would have little to do, and we as a community will issue few cbans etc. Plenty of people say they will do something, whether or not they actually do so is a different matter. And this isn't simply about sincerity. I'm sure quite a few people who make such promises are sincere when they make the promise, but still fail to uphold it abjectly. Again I'm staying out of the general issue, since I have no idea of the evidence as I haven't looked, and it's unlikely I would ever fully know anyway since some of it is likely to be private so I'm not saying this applies to Jytdog. I'm simply pointing out it's entirely possible a block would have been preventative not simply because Jytdog may have made problems in other areas but because they may have been unable to actually do what they said they would do or were asked to do. Nil Einne (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the context I was talking about was that the block was not preventative compared to a topic ban, which did work when it was in effect and should of been reinstated in terms of WP:ROPE before a full site ban. That's all moot now though unless Jytdog decides to come back though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Well that ended badly :-( Take care. You did great work well you were here. Hope you will rejoin us one day. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I have done plenty of stupid things here too and I really do need you to keep me honest ;-) So get back on the horse! But seriously, please take a well deserved break and reflect. Reiterating Doc James, I hope you will rejoin us. Boghog (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I consider this a serious loss for the project. I guess I understand why you would want to leave, but I nevertheless hope that you'll reconsider at some time in the future -- even though there will be some hurdles you'd have to get over if the current motion passes. In the meantime, I wish you all the best. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • We have had a lot of different interactions, but I believe you made a mistake and it was not malicious, and I think You should rethink this. Misplaced Pages would be worse off without you. - R9tgokunks 21:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I can't imagine what you're going through, and how bad you must feel. This is a community here, and I know you feel community with a lot of the people, whether you've met them or not, and that will be a further loss. You must feel like crap, and that's understandable. You didn't do the worst thing in the world, and the project still needs you. Decisions made at the peak of emotion aren't always the best ones. You get to decide how to lead your life so the deicsion is yours, but I hope you will take the two-week break or whatever feels right to you, and then revisit the situation. You would be welcomed back. Feels like there's a Jytdog-shaped hole in the Misplaced Pages jigsaw puzzle of a community right now, and there's only one person that can fill it. Enjoy your break, and hope to see you back here. Mathglot (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I've been feeling like I want to say something more, and I've been wavering over exactly what to say, but Mathglot just said it better than I could have. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • 🙁 Mathglot puts it very well. I don't like to see a Jytdog-shaped hole in Misplaced Pages either. Bishonen | talk 23:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC).
  • It's sad that your huge passion for the project has resulted in this. Thanks for your tireless efforts in making the project neutral. If it's goodbye here, then enjoy your free time until you find your next passion! SmartSE (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • We've had interesting discussions on how to work with people, particularly those with a COI. While some of your approaches have been questionable, I for one have never had any doubts concerning your commitment to ensuring neutrality and quality of content on WP. This is a great loss for the 'pedia. --Blackmane (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Desiderata--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I am so sorry to see this. What's done is done, but you may consider making a clean start in a few months, and I hope you would be welcomed. Take care. Jonathunder (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your edits on the alternative medicine related articles. You should take a break and come back here in the future under a new name. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Your positive work is appreciated. best regards, —tim /// Carrite (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:You are not irreplaceable and WP:Misplaced Pages does not need you are not always true, and I've been considering creating a WP:You are irreplaceable counter essay. You do so much for Misplaced Pages that others don't do. And even if someone else takes up the mantle, there will be some quality aspects missing because every editor is unique in one way or another. I thank you for all of the work you've done for this site, and for often being there for me. I hope to see your return in the future. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • You've made a significant contribution: the quality of our content is much improved across many topics (especially medical) as the result of your hard work. Alexbrn (talk) 07:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I will miss you and your thoughtful thoughts. Misplaced Pages:Why MEDRS? is one of my favourite essays here. You were there for Misplaced Pages at many times when we needed you. May the next chapter of your volunteer life be interesting and happy for you, wherever you may go. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I am sad to learn of your departure, I thank you for all your contributions, and I wish you the very best going forward. Cullen Let's discuss it 08:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I was trying to compose a comment at ArbCom and could not really get past, "Well, fuck." Please know that I have learned a very great deal from working with you, knowledge and skills I will continue to carry forward, as I know many others do as well; in that sense and many more, your impact on the site will be long-lasting. I hope you don't mind my saying, I also really admire you as a person, because over time, I saw how willing you were to reconsider and make real, hard-earned adjustments to your approach. That level of character is not something you see every day. I know this episode must be a painful ending, but I recognize in your choice for how to conclude it what I know you do too--an only-increasing thoughtfulness about how you can best contribute to the project and avoid becoming more disruptive than constructive, even if what that requires in a given moment is hardly the thing I know you'd prefer. I have no doubt you'll find another good use for your talent in the near-term, and if eventually it's your judgment that your return would serve the project, well, I'll look forward to it. I will be wishing you the very, very best in the meantime. Innisfree987 (talk) 08:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Just to say, I was edit-conflicted by four other well-wishers trying to post this! You will very much be missed. Innisfree987 (talk) 08:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I want to add myself to the list of people who are grateful for all the good work you've done here and to tell you that you'll be missed. I hope you do come back some day, in some form. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for all of your help over the years. I'm not sure which side of the fence you might fall on so let me just say "Live long and prosper" and "May the Force be with you". -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Awful news. You're one of the few people on this website I hold in extremely high regard.💵Money💵emoji💵 14:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Please, don't pull the trigger just yet. By all means give yourself a break if you need it. Do something else for a while. Ignore this place and allow the drama processes to grind through as they will. Then reconsider if you could simply accept some boundaries and then resume making your hugely constructive contributions within those boundaries. This will be a lesser place without you.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Just another voice in the crowd. The volume and quality of the work you've done here speaks for itself; you've been inspirational. Plus what Mathglot said. GirthSummit (blether) 18:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The project is weaker, and will quickly become even weaker, without you. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • You have dedicated a lot of your time to improve the project and made thousands of valuable contributions. But yes, the word "aggressive" that you used above to describe your behaviour is unfortunately consistent with my observations and experience, and as I noticed many complaints at ANI. Your attitude drove me away from wikiediting for months on more than one occassion. You are a very knowledgeable person with amazing breadth of knowledge. I encourage you not to leave the project for good – rather, consider taking an extended wikibreak, and then come back to the project, possibly with a friendlier, more supportive and more tolerant attitude. Best, — kashmīrī  00:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Do you hear the support. All is voluntary here and the decision is yours. Eschoryii (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your countless valuable contributions and your obvious dedication to improve this project. I can't really comment about the actual issue, but I agree with others' thoughts about a Wikibreak as a possible chance to reflect on stuff. GermanJoe (talk) 02:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for all you've done. You have improved the encyclopedia greatly. Your presence will be missed and I join the chorus suggesting a break and return in a while. Best. MrBill3 (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for all your work and help. I hope you'll be back. Take care. --Ronz (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for all the help, guidance, and outright inspiration you have offered us Jytdog. I wish you the best in your future endeavors, whatever they may be. SamHolt6 (talk) 04:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Doc James and Mathglot summed it up. Unfortunate that things turned out this way. Thank you for your contributions to the project. You have stated that you plan never to return, so I wish you the best in your future endeavors. --TheSandDoctor 16:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • :( – Joe (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure whether you'll (ever) see this but thanks for helping me over the last few year improving and updating many of the articles covering pharm and biotechs, it's been great to work with you, whenever our paths crossed. Like the tribute wall above, you'll be missed and I hope that there are editors out there who can take up your torch in ensuring that the quality of WP does not degrade and become filled with promotional bluster! I wish you the best outside of this project and hope one day you will somehow be able to return! XyZAn (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I obviously played a pretty significant part in this per my comments at WT:HA and the case request, but for what it's worth I'm sad to see this result. I was expecting that if this proceeded to a full Arbcom case that cooler heads would prevail, and that in light of your significant contributions to the project and with everything on the table, a reasonable solution (sanction, probably) could have been crafted which would have still allowed you to be part of this community. It seems that's not to be. Outside of the noticeboards I think our only significant interaction was in working on changes to the banning policy some years ago clarifying the scope of community ban discussions (approximately here and here), which I have always appreciated as one of the most rational and constructive discussions I have ever been involved with in almost a decade here even though we did not initially agree. I very rarely write notes to departing editors, but I share the view that regardless of this recent incident, Misplaced Pages will certainly be worse for your absence. Of course this project is voluntary, it wears down the best of us at times, and we must all do what is right for ourselves in the end. Whatever you decide, take care and best wishes. Ivanvector (/Edits) 20:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I am sad to see things turned out this way for you, maybe, one day, you'll be back! Enjoy your retirement! Polyamorph (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not a prolific pedian by any stretch but I have always appreciated your stalwart work regarding keeping bullshit off of here. You were a dam against the never ending tide of anti-science filth that tried to infect our medical articles and I'm afraid that they will now be worse without you. It's a shame that Arbcom didn't avoid getting sucked up with the lynch mob. Be well. Valeince (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for all of your contributions here, Although we've never interacted I've always seen you around, Anyway I hope one day you come back but in the meantime take care and I wish you all the best, Take care, –Davey2010 22:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Rather selfishly I will miss your help on my little side project; the work you put into improving this previously unsourced little gem made the whole thing worthwhile. I sincerely hope that your post-wiki world is filled with minimal drama and maximum happiness. Best, -- Jezebel's Ponyo 23:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • In looking back on a conversation we had in 2013, I realized that I haven't encountered someone who has been willing to completely engage in such a detailed discussion in a long, long time. As someone who strongly believes in raising the civility bar on Misplaced Pages, I have mixed opinions about the entire situation, but I know you had good intentions and I felt like your tone and approach improved over time. Hope to see you back someday. II | (t - c) 02:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, Misplaced Pages just lost a valuable content contributor and one of its few safeguards against COI POV. The idea that this situation came about as a result of the community's response to a single well-intended but ill-advised phone call is just completely fucking asinine. Anyway, thanks for everything you did here Jytdog. I'm sorry to see you go. Seppi333 (Insert ) 02:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • You have done excellent work here in developing our approach to COI--because of the effort you have put into it, we will be able to continue, and I for one, feel a specific need to try to compensate for your absence--especially because I was unable to prevent the arb com result, a I have been in other cases where I arb com proved susceptible to excessive self-reinforcing behavior. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC) -- and see below for what I will try to do in practice. DGG ( talk ) 08:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I have created and added myself to the category, Category:Wikipedians who wish Jytdog would come back. Benjamin (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Just noticed this, having being absent. I'm not wading through the history of the case but my sentiments are similar to those expressed by Bishonen above, who in turn agrees with Mathglot. - Sitush (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Just saw this. No idea if you're still reading, but if so, know that you'll definitely be missed around here. Thank you for your guidance, your empathy, your generosity and your counsel over the years. Mary Gaulke (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the hard high quality work you have done, the vast majority of which will persist for years to come in our articles. You messed up, admitted it in your above post, accepted the outcome, that is good. Take a holiday to a tropical island with bikini clad women walking the beaches and chill out sipping a cocktail. Then find some new project or even hobby - something relaxing, doesn’t have to be academic, fishing even? I note the title of this section is “That’s all folks” - there is usually a sequel to that phrase on TV. I bought pajamas as a Christmas present for my special woman and on the front it has Mickey Mouse saying “Hey folks” and it made me think - that after six to twelve months you should appeal the block and come back and make a post titled “Hey folks”.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I've been off-wiki for over a week, and just saw this info. I agree that an indef block and a long time away obviate a lengthy messy ArbCom case, which is probably good, but I feel that your importance to Misplaced Pages, and the numerous people attesting to that, should persuade you to return for an appeal and unblock request after six months to a year. I think the time away may calm down your over-enthusiasm, and allow bygones to be bygones. I'd like to thank you for all of your extensive COI work. Among other things, you were (ironically) the instigating force behind at least two very important and effective ArbCom cases, as well as a number of non-ArbCom cases of very extensive and complex webs of organized COI editing which spanned numerous noticeboards and talkpages. I think it's plain that you are a net positive, and that after time away you can and should return. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Your contributions to handling COI issues have strengthend the project. You should return. Indviduals can be replaced, but dedication and skill take a long time to build. Please come up with a plan to take a role here again. If you feel frustrated with a problem, ask for advice, or, at least, a sounding board. I look forward to seeing your successful appeal in June. — Neonorange (Phil) 07:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I posted some thoughts regarding this issue at special:diff/872116397#Statement_by_bluerasberry. Of course I do not want to see you go. Thanks for what you have done and happy future projects. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • We haven't always agreed, and at times your manner of interacting with others was highly irritating. But your record of accomplishment and contributions are a monument to your dedication to the project. I tip my hat and wish you fair winds and following seas wherever the ship of life takes you. Farewell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Sad to see that such a prolific contributor had to leave. Hope you are reading this and will return back someday--DBigXrayᗙ 20:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • If any efforts are made to bring Jytdog back to the project in any capacity--please ping me as I would support. Personally, I feel like exceptions should be made for exceptional editors. Best wishes to Jytdog wherever you are TeeVeeed (talk) 14:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh my lord. I just started editing Misplaced Pages and you were always there on the articles around me. I knew something was going on, but I didn't understand the depth of it. Jytdog, you will be missed. Thank you for everything you've done and taught me. Dr-Bracket (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry to see you go. We didn't see eye to eye on every issue but I always respected your views and had a high opinion of your work against COI POV pushing. Reyk YO! 08:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (just heard about this) Goddammit man. I'm in complete agreement with jps above, which says something. I sympathize and empathize with your description of what went down. Just want to say what you probably already know, which is that your insights, dedication and honesty have made a big difference around here, and to me specifically. Very few editors would've cared enough to wade through my perseverative walls of text, identify the wheat and chaff, and help sort it. You have a superb eye for both nuance and the big picture, which will continue to benefit the areas you focus on, and -- illegitimi non carborundum -- make them rewarding.
I hope you have fulfilling and fortunate days ahead, and that if you ever want to, you come back exactly when, how and as you choose. (Inspirational verses/vibe: Bob Marley & the Wailers, "Coming In From The Cold"; lyrics.) Happy New Year & IRL-ing. --Middle 8 (tc | privacyacupuncture COI?) 10:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I just heard about this now. I feel sad. It was thrilling and rewarding to work with you on the BLP of our favorite errant statistician. You were tough, but also fair. I mourned your topic ban when it occurred, and now this. Happy hunting, in a place of your choice. Your contributions will be missed.--FeralOink (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I also agree with the statements by Doc James and Mathglot. You have been a valuable contributor during your time here and I'm sorry things turned out the way they did. I hope you come back to Misplaced Pages one day. I wish you all the best with life. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Block

You have been indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, then appeal by emailing the Arbitration Committee (direct address: arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).


Administrators: This block may not be modified or lifted without the express prior written consent of the Arbitration Committee. Questions about this block should be directed to the Committee's mailing list.

You can see the relevant motion here. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

  • I am very sad to see this. I can only echo the words of DGG and say how much I appreciated your support on the various issues we were working on. Take care of yourself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I know we have disagreed over stuff when we've met, but I've always thought you were absolutely first and foremost here to improve the encyclopedia, and that comes across incredibly strongly in your work. Consequently, I am sad to see this case of affairs. Take care. Ritchie333 14:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I can't believe this. WP will not be the same without you. Even though I am an admin and you are not, you were my go-to person whenever I suspected COI editing. I have been on a 3 month wikibreak myself and only a few days ago decided to come back. Seeing you blocked makes me doubt the wisdom of that decision. The spammers must be popping dozens of bottles of expensive champagne... Please don't scramble completely, leave your email. I sincerely hope to see you back one day. Take care. --Randykitty (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I really wish you wouldn't take matters into your own hands liberally and aggressively despite of several people including myself have asked you not to do so in the past, and alienates good and bad COI editors indiscriminately altogether in the name of "helping" them to manage their COI. Perhaps you were too devoted to the project, which is evident by all the messages you received on this page. Come back after a year or so, when ArbCom is filled with more people that actually cares about the purpose and the integrity of the project, rather than self-appointed judges of misguided principles. Alex Shih (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Alex Shih I hope this means we will see you running next year? We are likely going to need a bunch of new folks on arbcom if we wish things to change. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Doc James: Unlikely, since for the short amount of time I have been there I have seen too many members along the lines of paid editing is not big deal or everyone including spammers should have the right to enjoy "protection" in order to feel "safe" to "work" here without understanding the purpose of Misplaced Pages and that this is both a project and a encyclopedia. Maybe you should run since people would likely listen to you a bit more as you are more involved with the general movement itself. Alex Shih (talk) 10:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
      • I concur. I was even reprimanded and my edits revdel'ed when I pointed that a WP article on a clinician was created by a PR agency who also developed his website and promoted him on the radio/TV. Still, I was taken to ANI for OUT-ing, with all the bad consequences for me. BTW, the article is still there while I no longer come near any COI issues, even if obvious. So, a change of attitude is long overdue. — kashmīrī  13:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I had posted a hidden Do Not Archive template on this section, since there are several well wishes here, namely from Kudpung, Ritchie333, Randykitty, and Alex Shih. Tryptofish has removed the DNAU template. Do you guys want the template replaced? Softlavender (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • As you probably know, I learned a lot from you, Jytdog (in relation to how to evaluate what is administrator noticeboard worthy or not at first, conflict of interest editing, determining medically reliable sources, some aspects of the pseudoscience related policy, and of what Misplaced Pages is not, as well as other general things by silently watching your busy talk page). I would like to thank you for all that you've done here. I am now aware of the circumstances that lead to your block and sudden retirement. If you eventually are back, this will be good news to me. —PaleoNeonate06:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:

  1. Jytdog (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Misplaced Pages. He may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 46#Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog closed

Carrying on

I shall be checking this talk page every day or two, and shall try to respond to problems raised. I can not however keep track of other edits to pages that jytdog may have been watching, but if help is needed on any, let me know either here on on my own talk page. I can only try to help deal with the problems that my role should have been to prevent. But a committee is a committee, and WP is a place where none of us can expect to always have things as we would like them. DGG ( talk ) 08:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Clearly, Jytdog leaves behind a hole that will be difficult to fill, and it would certainly be good if editors would each try to help wherever they can, even though no one will be able to cover everything. I guess two broad areas are matters related to WP:COI and some areas of biomedical research; he also had an editing interest in the history of religion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
This is a useful guide he wrote for new WP users, slanted toward WP:MED, COI, and sourcing-template orientation. How best to preserve it? --Zefr (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Generally I use formaldehyde when I preserve things, but can you explain why this needs to be preserved? Natureium (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Preferring amber for long-term preservation ;>) I see it as a concise guide that might serve some new users as an alternate/supplement to WP:MEDHOW or WP:PSG, and if agreed as useful, should be kept accessible. --Zefr (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
But things don't just disappear around here, it should hang around without any special preservation. Natureium (talk) 01:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I guess it could be a question of moving it from user space to WP space. Or giving it a good shortcut and linking to it from pages in WP space. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog/How qualifies as a useful essay and should be moved to where we put those. Jonathunder (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes. And for starters, it will be reproduced in the next issue of The Signpost. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Jytdog should consider returning back

The knight is sorely missed DBigXrayᗙ

I just wanted to state that Misplaced Pages community is not the same without Jytdog and he is being missed. If real life permits, Jytdog should consider return back to editing.

  • Please come backSupport as I feel his absence has left a huge gap in areas Jytdog helped. No one is infallible, we learn and move on. I am sure you will read this, Hoping to see you back some day. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • What is this? You can't vote someone back to wikipedia when they've left by choice. If Jytdog wishes to return, he knows what he needs to do. Natureium (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
This isn't a "Vote him back", just a show of support for his work and a 'non binding', wish from a fellow editor that he should "consider" returning back. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Hoping he'll come back. Ok, so this is not a !vote and "support" or "oppose" is not appropriate. But I for one sincerely hope that Jytdog will reconsider and come back. If this account has indeed be scrambled, then under a new account. Jytdog is sorely missed. --Randykitty (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Him returning would require us dealing with the arbcom motion. The details of the case that resulted in arbcom action are more or less public: Jytdog inappropriately contacted an editor by phone and for that he needs to be significantly warned. Do we the community feel it deserves an indefinite ban? That would require further discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
      • For what little it is worth, any return would involve a private discussion between him and ArbCom, but the rest of the community would not be involved in that. That's how the process works. I do hope to see him back eventually, but it's not my decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
      • @Doc James: I get where you are coming from, but please consider the effect your words have on the people who are victims of harassment. Here's a member of the board that oversees the organization charged with protecting Misplaced Pages editors from online and offline harassment seemingly downplaying or excusing an editor who harassed another editor in real life. The last idiot who cold-called me to harass me had a chat with a police sergeant, but not everyone is going to have a friendly police sergeant on hand to take their complaint seriously. They likely will have only the Foundation to turn to, and your responsibility is to all the editors served by the foundation, not just Jytdog. Gamaliel (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
        • People mess up. And we all agree that Jytdog messed up in this case. The question is more about what is an appropriate punishment for someone who has done this, admits it was wrong, and agrees to never do it again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
          • Actually, I don't think that the community can overrule ArbCom, nor should we. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
            • Sure and I imagine that would be the position of many. I am not saying it is likely that a community discussion would result in a super majority for a lessor punishment or that their is much if any chance of a return of Jytdog even if the ban was lifted. So this is likely all just academic and a mute point. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
          • Ignoring whether or not the community can override ArbCom, Jytdog has not been punished for harassment. The indef block is to ensure that Jytdog cannot resume editing without going through an ArbCom case, as we don't want a situation where editors can temporarily retire during a case and then return later to avoid facing it. No decision of punishment has been made by ArbCom in relation to the specific case. If the indef was removed, Jytdog would still need to go through ArbCom, who may or may not impose a ban and/or block. - Bilby (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
            • There was no stipulation in the block report that "Jytdog cannot resume editing without going through an ArbCom case". Only that an ArbCom case was accepted, but since Jytdog had retired and presumably scrambled his password, he was blocked indefinitely and he can only be unlocked by going directly to ArbCom. Stating that "Jytdog cannot resume editing without going through an ArbCom case" -- in other words, a full ArbCom case, is inferring facts not in evidence. Softlavender (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
              • I guess you can interpret it as you see fit. Fundamentally, a case was accepted and was agreed to be opened, but couldn't continue because Jytdog chose to retire rather than be involved in it. Therefore the account was indef blocked, the case was unable to be opened "at this time", and they can't continue to edit unless they get permission from ArbCom. As there is an accepted case, the "at this time" was specifically added to address the possibility of reopening the case if - as Opabinia regalis put it - Jytdog chooses to "stop and face the music". They could agree to resolve the issue by a motion, privately or otherwise, without opening the case, or they could open it, or whatever, but hopefully this just remains moot and we don't have to worry about it. - Bilby (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
          • ...Jytdog messed up in this case. And in the two and seven previous cases. ~ Amory (utc) 01:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Jytdog may appeal his block by contacting ArbCom. That is not up for debate. What happens after that is as-yet unknown, neither set in stone nor explicitly laid out by ArbCom. There's no point in trying to parse unknowns, even the unknowns about whether Jytdog could regain access to this account or whether the password is forever blocked. What we can do is offer our support re: wishing for his return. Softlavender (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I wish you would come back. You were too valuable and too dedicated to be lost over something petty like this, and the whole thing was a massive overreaction. I hope that you will reconsider your exile, and that Arbcom will, at this point, quickly resolve your case with minimal damage imposed. All the best, ~Swarm~ {talk} 07:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • What Swarm says. WBG
  • If— . We miss you, come back. Widefox; talk 11:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: The best way IMVHO would be for Jytdog to ask for ArbCom's continuation of the case that was opened (and then closed after Jytdog's voluntary departure). It would make re-entry quite easier and in accordance to Misplaced Pages rules. -The Gnome (talk) 05:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I for one hope to see a return given recent events even though many editors familiar with your good work are distracted by other ongoings, but we'll have to see how ArbCom reacts to the current case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Hmm so he did and accepted the decision. Thanks for everyone's time and maybe there's a possibility in another 12 months... —PaleoNeonate09:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • It makes me angry when I see this, and note the number of tossers who edit this project. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Why doesn't someone just dig up his phone number, call him up, and ask him if he wants to come back? (Just kidding of course!) I miss Jytdog, too. Pretty much all of our WP:MEDRS watchdogs have necessarily had a lot of bark (and unnecessarily some bite). Hopefully the attrition rate will not worsen (I'm thinking also of a couple of T-bans). Just re-reading Jytdog's user-page essay on COI and related matters is a pleasure (in a WP policy-wonk way, anyhow). He really got it, and a version of that material should be edited down to an {{information page}} or other advice piece, both on how to avoid COI (especially in STEM, GLAM, etc.), and on how to detect it and help others avoid it.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  23:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
    Jyt, dog! Missing your consideration and spirit today in particular. I just ran across your thoughtful contribution to a discussion elsewhere and wanted to consult you, and remembered this was just the commemorative-tea-cozy version of a talk page now. Hoping you're very well indeed. – SJ + 00:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Jytdog's good work noted in the media

I miss Jytdog, COI editing's one of my personal bugbears here & he's one of several editors who've helped me deal with the issues. He gets a nice mention in this HuffPo article on corporate spindoctors using questionable tactics to push POV and promo material & frustrate good editing https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wikipedia-paid-editing-pr-facebook-nbc-axios_n_5c63321be4b03de942967225. He did some stuff wrong, but it's a shame to see someone who did so much to keep this place reliable not be here any longer. JamesG5 (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

JamesG5 good share. Worthy appreciation of good work. Hope Jytdog also notices this.--DBigXrayᗙ 06:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I put this article on Misplaced Pages:Press coverage 2019 and "This talk page has been mentioned by a media organization":ed it on six article talkpages. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
There's plenty of us miss Jytdog, and yet this sort of thing continues, increasingly unchecked. Plenty of them would have rejoiced at his block. Mramoeba (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Category: