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 17:46, 7 September 2015 editSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits →Relaying a concern: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:10, 20 April 2024 edit undoBilby (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators40,075 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 = 200K |maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 15 |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.
== 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-->


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.
== Abuse of COIN ==


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.
{{Arbcom notice}} <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:01, 12 July 2015‎ (UTC) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->


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.
== I will see you at ==


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.
…the appropriately chosen Adcom, for your failure to engage in this matter as advised by the Admin originally involved, and failing to AGF and engage other editors just as informed and due respect and involvement as you are. Nothing at Misplaced Pages is irreversible. This was a bad, summarily enacted decision without enough time and editors speaking to it, and with important continuing negative ramifications. Enjoy your day. Le PRof ] (]) 02:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
:Please see my response to you at the Talk page. ] (]) 02:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
::Nothing found, and no link provided. Matter is going forward, unless you revert, and leave the Foundation article in place until a discussion can be completed. Your heavy-handedness and disrespect for the novice editor involved will be reviewed. Le Prof ] (]) 02:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
::::I responded on both relevant Talk pages. ] (]) 02:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::You clearly posted here before the other pages.
:::::The all caps formatting was used to get attention. You may interpret it other than it was intended; it was necessary because I had asked the same thing repeatedly of you before, and yet you steamrolled ahead, regardless. I needed to be sure you were seeing my requests, and ignoring them and acting regardless. You have confirmed seeing them, and so the larger text served its purpose. I will accept any punishment necessary for not knowing there was a rule against such formatting.
:::::I have not misrepresented Sandstein. He made clear that the merger did not need proceed, and that discussion could continue.
:::::You have flexed your editorial muscle, further disrespecting two editors, myself and the novice. If you want this matter to remain civil, and as an editorial matter, with a true aim toward ''broad consensus'', then put the PBC Foundation article back up. It is only you, and at best, a cabal of two, that is insisting it needs come down immediately. (And there are two asking it not.) Put the PBC Fndn article back up, or we deal with this on the basis of your treatment of Jrfw51 and the ''principles'' relevant to Misplaced Pages that are involved, via discussion before administrators. Le Prof. ] (]) 02:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


I will no longer post at this page, or at my Talk page regarding this matter. There are too many venues going. If you have anything further to say, say it at the PBC article talk page. Le Prof ] (]) 02:47, 2 August 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)
:That makes sense. ] (]) 02:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


:Dammit man. -] ] 17:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Please see my comments at ]. Your opinion and involvement will clearly be key to any restoration of the Foundation as a separate entry. Now what would you propose to do about all the other Health charities ] which have separate entries to their disease pages and rely heavily on their own websites? ] (]) 11:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
::That is not a foregone conclusion. Do as you will, but the case will surely go on anyway. --] (]) 17:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
:I despair at the ]iness of your remarks about articles about other charities. Misplaced Pages is wildly imperfect - we all do the best we can, where we can. If you are going to run around WP grinding axes - that every other disease advocacy group articles should be treated just like "yours" was, out of anger or some sense of injustice - you are not going to last long here. On the other hand, if you now have a better grasp of ] and want to improve the encyclopedia so that more articles on disease advocacy groups meet our policies and guidelines (and there ''is'' a remarkable amount of COI/PROMO/ADVOCACY editing when it comes to nonprofits generally), then please, go to work on them. Thanks. ] (]) 12:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
::Thank you again for your advice. ] (]) 12:44, 4 August 2015 (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)
:::{{ping|Jytdog}}. Jrfw51 has been very cordial with you in his/her wind-down of this matter, so let me be blunt and say this one thing, one time. I think you acted monstrously, especially early, in your responses to him/her, as a newer editor, holding religiously to a perfectionist bent—hear this, it is coming from the guy who 99.5% is in your camp, the guy who tags everything {{cn}} and "refimprove section"—a bent that said "this stub does not hold to my citations standards, it has to go." Never mind that you were wrong to apply MEDREF standards to an article about a charitable org, initially, which coloured your interactions with the novice editor, early on. Nvm that you misconstrued that s/he was an advocacy editor, associated with the article, leading to a similar initial negative bias from you. Nvm that she (and later I) tried working with you to show you sufficient org articles were available to stop the merger—asking only that the article be allowed to progress for a few days, to see if, with the citations in, a fair comparison could be done to other char org articles. No, the massive two editor majority in the deletion-becomes-merger discussion had to be adhered to. You had fixed in mind it had to go, so it had to. And so instead of making the charitable, decent decision to let the merger matter ride, you acted on the amazing majority-of-two mandate over our objections—because technically you could. Forget right or wrong, "allowed" was all you needed. Well congrats, you were successful in getting the stub deleted, ''while at the same time contributing to one of Misplaced Pages's more shameful personal moments, in my direct experience''. The stub is gone, but it is, even so, less diminished from this than you are. It has been hard since seeing you do the merge, unnecessarily, over our request to hold, to see that choice as anything other than a deep character flaw, as true colors showing through. And regardless of it being an instant or a pattern, it will be very hard to muster respect for your ongoing efforts when this "win at all costs" attitude has been shown to be even a possible part of your makeup. I say this, frankly, but also with some insight. Because I wrestle with the same, and the only thing sadder than seeing it outside of me, is seeing it inside. I was once compared to—and now compare your choices in that debate—as acting like a ] going after prey. The advice I heard that changed me—yes, ''be so'', but do it for the little guy, not for your own ego. Admit you are wrong, unsink the teeth, and let the rat go every once and a while. (If you have ever watched what such a terrier becomes in the midst of his work, perhaps you understand what it is a fearsome comparison.) More importantly, fight ''for'' the little guy. Bottom line, the battle was won, but I propose an important war was lost, in your not giving an inch, not extending grace to the the little guy here, which was the novice editor on the other side of the debate. Well, that is my opinion, take it or leave it. If you ever want a tough, pro-sourcing collaborator in a science article, you can count on me. But know, for sure, in the end, it is the people, and the grace that you muster from within you, that counts. Last word from me on this. Le Prof ] (]) 03:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::Sad to see this. Best wishes,] (]) 17:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
::::Five points in response:
::::::+1 to what Zefr said. ] (]) 17:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
:::: First, thanks for talking. I do hear what you are saying, but I don't agree. Le Prof you really came at this in a strange way.
:::::::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)
:::: Second, I didn't apply MEDRS to that article.
:::::::And another +1 here.--] (]) 10:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
:::: Third, your actions were out of line with ], the bedrock policy of this place, in two ways. The first is that they disrespected the decision of the AFD, the second and more important way is that they were out of line with ''the process'' to object to deletions - that process was established by the consensus of the community. It is a good thing for you, that you didn't follow through with your proposed ANI, as it would have led to a boomerang.
{{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)
:::: Fourth, with regard to Jrfw51's advocacy in Misplaced Pages on behalf of the patient advocacy groups -- I am sorry that you cannot see that. Advocacy (of which COI is a subset) is in my view the biggest problem Misplaced Pages has. People often come here because they are passionate about something; that passion is a double-edged sword. It drives people to contribute, but it also often (not always) leads to advocacy editing that warps content in all kinds of ways (most often, UNDUE, which makes sense when you think about it - The Very Important Issue ("TVII") is very important so deserves a lot of space and emphasis, in their view) ''and'' can lead editors to treat other editors like shit, because whatever TVII is, it is often ''more important'' to the advocacy editor, than all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or any other person here. Thank goodness Jrfw51 kept his/her head during the deletion dispute and has always remained civil. But the deleted article was clearly the product of advocacy (it didn't meet NOTABILITY - as an article it was "UNDUE"); some of their editing on that topic since then, has also been advocacy-driven. Many of their edits are great.
*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)
:::: Fifth, throughout those events, I was very concerned for Jrfw51 and I wrote to him and with him in mind, and followed up with him to explain. Working with new editors and respecting them as people, doesn't mean blessing every thing they do; it does mean talking with them and explaining why things are happening in light of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines - it does ''not'' mean behaving in ways that blow off consensus and shouting.
::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.
:::: Summarizing all this - your framing this as me going for a "win" or as about "protecting the little guy" is the wrong framework. The PBCF article was created by someone passionate about that subject; an AfD determined that PBCF doesn't meet the criteria of the NOTABILITY policy at this time and the article should be merged/redirected; I implemented that. He was unhappy with the AfD outcome; you were very unhappy with it and some drama ensued; I dealt with you and him as compassionately as I could. This was all very normal stuff in this huge and strange world of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 10:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
::::: Message received, same in response vis-a-vis willingness to Talk (prior judgments already softening), but on the core issues we must agree to disagree. While I concede that the WP process aspects have always been formally on your side, I stand by the fact that your strong ''a priori'' feelings regarding COI and referencing (both of which I share) set you off in the direction of an outcome (win) that never had more than a two editor excess in your corner, which reduced to one as soon as I arrived (granted, after the merger discussion had ended). So, however much you are correct vis-a-vis the propriety of the process was followed, all this is legalism—I stand by the conclusion that important aspects of the ''spirit'' of wikipedia rules (and the more general spirit of principles that should govern peaceable human interactions) were not followed. I would add that I believe that this is one reason—alongside not wanting the hassle of entering into a conflict—that Doc, et al., said they could see both sides, and stayed out. Bottom line, myriads of more poorly sourced articles on less notable subjects persist, and those wanting encyclopedic information (here, on a clearly important UK medical charity), and only focused disease information in disease articles have had a troubling precedent set. Mostly, though, the point of writing was to say, no question, you had Jrfw51 on the letter of the law. But that what was lost was far more than what was won. And no, sorry, a thousand times no—there is no aspect of life, anywhere, anytime, where "'protecting the little guy' is the wrong framework." The adage "whatsoever we do, to the least…" is a benchmark, not just a quaint aphorism or dated sentiment—rather it is a hard-edged standard applicable to all aspects of life: personal, professional, and in public service (last applying here). The late Prof Lewis of Cambridge, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and one-time Chair of Medieval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge, suggested in a children's book that we would ultimately see revisited, "tear for tear, throb for throb, blood for blood" all that we had done to these least (''The Horse and His Boy'', p. 228, HarperCollins, 2005 ). Odd those this might seem and sound, I am more of that mind than the opposite, which stovepipes what might be considered suitable behaviour in each context, following rule rather than spirit. Cheers, Le Prof ] (]) 17:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
:As I am the subject of this I must comment although I have tried to move on from personal attacks and to comment on the edits rather than a perception of personality. I am not an advocate for the ] although of course I felt ownership of an article I had created. My first involvement with the ] Name change initiative was here to correct over-zealous "advocacy" editing by perhaps a true IP advocate. When I created the PBC Foundation page, I made the mistake in following the format of other patient support groups with lots from their website for references. Now in my off-WP work I was somewhat aware of the forth-coming changes, and I suppose this then became a COI although this has never been a very important issue to me. It is difficult to reconcile an expertise with a COI for neutral editing -- as you recognise. So I will wait until good sources meeting appropriate standards are available. I was inexperienced in WP disputes (not having come across this in my 400 edits -- maybe a week's work for you) but I have learnt a lot about good and bad manners in WP. It is too easy to snap and not assume good faith. I suspect we are all too old to accept we can lose arguments or change our ways but we need to see why other editors see their edits as important. Now I have wasted enough time on this and will move on. Let's hope we can work together in future to add what we see as important to the encyclopedia. ] (]) 19:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
::You are not the subject. Le Prof was telling me that i did badly, and I am telling him that he is wrong, and he actually did badly. You are just part of the substrate of that discussion. But thanks for clarifying your position: I meant it when I praised you for keeping your head through all that! ] (]) 19:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


::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)
== Note ==
:::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)
::::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)
:::::You've just been proven wrong at the case page. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] before a full site ban. That's all moot now though unless Jytdog decides to come back though. ] (]) 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. ] (] · ] · ]) 19:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
So jytog just want to say no hard feelings i thought you were getting overly personal but if you can get two editors to agree with you then maybe it's me the page is yours. if you know you're trade you can find info to update the irom sharmila chanu page i don't think i can contribute to it in a way that anyone here finds helpful and I have things to do. Take care now ] (]) 13:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
:it is not personal - you are welcome to contribute to the Talk page, please just don't write stuff there that is your opinion about the situation or bringing sources that we cannot use. The Talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. That is its only purpose. ] (]) 13:30, 14 August 2015 (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. ] (]) 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)
Then can I say that you are mistaken about verifiability. E-pao you claim does not have it. But my understanding is according to Wiki it's not about truth. E-pao is unreliable often untruthful but it fulfills wiki's verifiiability conditions. Also when you complained to have the page locked the response was that it did contribute to discussion. I don't like discussing things here because you can be oversensitive and keep threatening to block me. But if you are serious. What criteria make you think that E-pao lacks verifiability. I agree it's not truthful that's because of intimidation and bribery. The other thing which was odd even though the chappie disagrees with your opinion on my contribution because he accepts I did use references they are still deleted and he said he would back you even though he didn't think you were right. This is a gentlemen's club and you have blackballing privileges because you put the time in and i am never going to put the time in. But in terms of Sharmila nothing is coming out now looks like the place is getting set for PR. But it's my opinion origional reasearch and I am just saying is all. So ignore that last. But about verifiability what are your criteria you don't state them. You just point to a wiki page which has loads of different criteria but you don't cite which ones you feel epao lacks in this case that is. If you are still reading just because a blog page exists for a few years does that give it whatever wiki claims is brownie points. Anyone can set up a blog. How do you choose external links. I would have put Sharmila's actual physical address up. Giving a blog address merely aids the cover up. But what are the criteria for picking blog links. Bearing in mind very few people read these pages. But it's important to you and she aint dead yet. If she dies no I don't care what you write. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
* 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 am assuming you aren't incompetent this is the first report I have seen for one of the two trials in Imphal at the Uripok Cheirap Court day four of prosecution evidence http://imphaltimes.com/news/item/3443-sharmila-produced-before-court again the report is not accurate but it is verifiably published. And you claimed you wanted verifiable references. If this irritates you here please politely say so stop threatening to block me. I know it irritates you on the irom sharmila talk page but you have never made it clear why other than quoting a page of wiki jargon and not specficying what your objection is. If you want to play nice then explain what the problem is rather than just going on about how busy you are. I was quite excited it's the first paper to publish her name in Imphal for months. I know you're not interested in that bit. So ignore that bit.] (]) 13:42, 18 August 2015 (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)
:Listen. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. It is very clear that you are passionate about Sharmilla. That is great but it just has no place here - this is not a place for advocacy for anything per ] which you haven't read or taken on board. Please actually read that. Thanks.
::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)
:The link you cite has no encyclopedic information in it. It is just a brief news piece. WP is not a newspaper - it is not a blog. We don't "report" the latest and blow-by-blow events of things. Please stop abusing Misplaced Pages. I am sorry for what you and she are going through. ] (]) 13:50, 18 August 2015 (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).
You get I am passionate about Sharmila and you are passoinate about this wiki page. She isn't here and there's no point in getting between a man and the object of his passion. You never answered teh question on verifiability by the way. You just brought in a different objection. My assumption is if resolve one problem you just make up another. Passion is like that enjoy] (]) 09:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
:What you have been doing is wrong in WIkipedia in many ways. That ''source'' could have been OK (sorry for not saying that), but what it says is nothing to add to the encyclopedia (which is what I did say) ] (]) 09:49, 19 August 2015 (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)


* 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)
== Lying and cheating ==


* (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.
I think ] says it all. This arrogant cheater was caught lying a long time ago. This guy has no place on Misplaced Pages. ] 13:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
: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)
:as I wrote there i would not oppose a move to indef him and think that move would have a good chance of succeeding. Thanks for your efforts to preserve the integrity of WP. I do think that you have been too harsh - I only say that for two reasons. first, issues of paid editing are controversial. There is a significant minority in WP that thinks it is OK. Treating suspected paid editors harshly undermines the overall effort to create consensus around the issue and could one day getting you in trouble. (especially with your username!) The second reason, is that I am sensitive to hounding, because I am and have been hounded by people who are convinced I am a shill and it is... ugly. They really believe that about me; like you really believed that Wintertanager was a paid editor. You happened to be right.... but in my view that doesn't make treating people badly OK. I don't know if that makes sense to you. Anyway, thanks again! ] (]) 14:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
::Thanks. You have a very thoughtful and nuanced approach to editing here. You'd make a hell of an admin. ] 15:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
:::that is nice of you to say, thanks! and really, thanks for staying after WT - follow up is so important on this COI stuff. so thanks ] (]) 18:49, 17 August 2015 (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)
== Your revert ==


*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)
Explanation please? P.S. Please see ] bullet point #7. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
:that appeared to be a test edit. My apologies, will unrevert. ] (]) 18:37, 17 August 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)
== Thanks! ==


== Block ==
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
<!-- ] 04:48, 8 December 2028 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1859863718}}
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" |{{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|alt|]|]}}
{{Arbcomblock}}
|rowspan="2" |
You can see the relevant motion ]. -- ] <small>]</small> 07:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Modest Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Thank you very much for implementing the archiving bot to my talkpage! ]] 22:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
|}
:you're welcome! ] (]) 22:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


*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)
== ENSSER ==
*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)
*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 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)
*] 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)
**{{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 ==
I've been thinking about the , a group which I believe you are familiar with (they defended Seralini after his FCT paper was retracted). Do you think this organization is notable enough for its own article? ] ] 02:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
<!-- ] 10:09, 12 March 2029 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1868004554}}
:yes i am familiar with them. it's a FRINGE advocacy group; it will be hard to make a decent article.] (])
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:


#{{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.
==Honor Society==
Why do you keep removing critical information from the NSLS wiki page? There is not nearly enough info on this company right now and you should be adding stuff to the page right? What do you think the page needs then. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Please discuss this on the article's talk page. That is what it is for. Thanks. ] (]) 14:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
::Jytdog, I saw your ''mea culpa'' at ANEW. Just be careful here. ] (]) 15:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the warning. ] (]) 09:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


For the Arbitration Committee, ] (]) 00:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
==Comment Removal==
: Discuss this at: ''']'''<!-- ] (]) 00:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->
Sorry about that-- yes, it was an accident! Will that stay on the page forever, or is there a time when it gets removed? I have edited things and made the page a bit more concise since the comment, though I'm afraid to submit it for review again while that comment is still there, no? Thanks again for your guidance! ] (]) 18:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
:once the article is accepted, all that cruft about the AfC process goes away. But as long as it is a draft, it stays. ] (]) 19:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


==Carrying on==
== ] Updating the name of the profile. wrong spelled ==
<!-- ] 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 ==
why the heck now the name is changed again?? already provided a valid verified reference for it ]
<!-- ] 06:36, 5 March 2029 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1867387001}}
there was no spelling mistake in the name. And why you still considering all the references which doesn't even exist now.
]]</span>'']]
the refrence provided is the recent from a verified source from 2015. please visit all the refrences in the page most of them don't exist and are very old. Hence asking you to consider this update to the name rather than considering it as wrong spelled ] (]) 21:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
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.
:use the article talk page - if you read it you will see there is '''already''' a discussion there waiting for your response. and i fixed all the references the last time you came around. ] (]) 22:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
*'''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 ==
== Question ==
<!-- ] 10:09, 12 March 2029 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1868004554}}
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)
Hello. I hope you are doing fine. I have one question: How can I get access to ]? There are a lot of coverage I could use from there, but it is restricted for me since I need login information. Thanks you and cheers! --] (]) 05:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
: Hi - see ]. Please also see I left on your Talk page about your COI disclosure, and please reply there. Thanks. ] (]) 12:08, 22 August 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)
== 3d printing ==


::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)
Hi Jytdog, I like the no nonsense clean up but I wonder if the 16um minimum thickness could or should stay by being re-worded without the promotional element given that it is cited and also relevant in that particular context. Regards. ] (]) 13:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
:I'd be OK with that - feel free. Thanks for talking! ] (]) 13:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

== Disagreement ==

Jytdog, i would like to get along and work with you in a creative tension, yet by my reckoning, i see you engaged in tendentious and disruptive editing practices. The most recent example is of my addition of Monsanto legal cases in the article about Monsanto legal cases, in which you allege that i am edit warring. I don't see how that can even be an accusation there. I find you to have shown a pattern of accusations against me, as well as often unwillingness to engage in very real and genuine dialogue when it really comes down to it in disputes, and it's become a serious hindrance to my ability to do good work on Misplaced Pages. You've also accused me of bad character and motivations in editing, often, as in this . I am your colleague and co-editor on Misplaced Pages, and i wish we could work out differences in dialogue, and to compromise when we must. You think a case should not be mentioned on a page about Monsanto legal cases, and i think it should be mentioned. We have different reckonings. Let's try to express our reasons in calm and direct dialogue. Let's not try to block things using excuses or lawyering bureacratic types of moves. Let's be direct and confront our differences of opinion as adults. We can agree to disagree, but i would like to be feel that i am participating in dialogue with you as an equal, unlike how i often to feel, which is that you are swinging weight as if you're my superior here, as if you're the expert and your word goes, and as if your interpretation of guidelines and policies is the final word. A bit too heavy-handed. It's a reckoning, but i now have months of experience interacting with you, and i find it quite disruptive. I realize that i see the world through my perspective, but even after long consideration of my interactions with you, i still find your behavior too often intractable and not collaborative. I write this message in hopes of still finding a better way to work with you, though at some point i'll need to request dispute resolution or some other remedy to the atmosphere of difficulty of collaboration that i feel as a result of your behaviors. I'd like to get on with doing good work here, but if every edit i make on any page you watch is going to be reverted and then subject of a long and winding discussion that never really focuses or discerns and acknowledges issues clearly, and in good faith, then it's not going to work out. ] (]) 16:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
:I work within the policies and guidelines of Misplaced Pages and I respect them. I will see you on the article Talk page. I advised you ] what you should do to make your edits stick. ] (]) 17:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
::I really must disagree with your assertion that you work within the policies and guidelines of Misplaced Pages, based on your behavior at . I see an editor engaged in tendentious editing, editing in a specific ideological direction, and using policies when convenient for your cause, and ignoring and misrepresenting policies when that is convenient for your cause. The dialogue there makes this clear. That, and willful lacunae of responses that lead to incomplete dialogue and explcit questions going unanswered, such as "Do you acknowledge that you misrepresented Misplaced Pages policy as prohibiting inclusion of filed lawsuits until they're completed, and/or now do you acknowledge that this notion is not correct, and that a lawsuit in progress *can* be notable for inclusion in an article?"
::I value my ability to edit on Misplaced Pages, and i have diverse interests. However, editing articles in which you are involved has been a painstakingly difficult process, largely due to the behaviors that i'm calling out here, and others. I would like to edit based on policies and guidelines, and to work in a creative tension with you. I know you have a different perspective on many things than i do, and ideally our perspectives would work together in a creative tension, balancing out articles, and providing reference to different points of view within articles, as is the intent of NPOV guidelines. However, behaviors that appear to be filibustering, wikilawyering, and other delay and obstruction tactics are seriously disrupting my ability to edit, and this seems to be true for other editors as well. This is a community and we must expect behavior with integrity, or the whole project comes apart. ] (]) 16:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
:::Your question in quotes misrepresents what I have said, and is a "does your mom know you beat your wife" question. I generally don't answer those. I do understand that you are frustrated that you cannot use Misplaced Pages for advocacy. I am sorry you are frustrated. ] (]) 18:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
::::That's not an excuse. Have integrity. State your case clearly and answer questions honestly. I'm sorry you find it acceptable to be disruptive and make this a difficult place for many other editors, and i'm sorry you wish to characterize me as the problem, and take no responsibility for your own actions. ] (]) 19:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::I have stated my questions clearly about the content you want to add. I am sorry you don't understand them; please ask me to clarify whatever part you don't understand. Also, what you are bringing up here are matters related to a content dispute - please discuss content on article Talk pages. Thanks. ] (]) 19:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::::I've answered your questions as honestly and completely as i can. I wrote the note here about an ongoing issue i have been having with your behavior that is disrupting my ability to edit, and taking up a lot of my time. ] (]) 20:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::::When I asked why this matters, you replied that the lawsuits are discussed in good sources. You are answering a question about ] but I am asking a question about ]. As I wrote to you before, your edits are not sticking because they are bad edits. You have added unsourced content in violation of ], badly sourced per ], and UNDUE content per ]. I am unhappy that the articles you have chosen to work on, are ones that I watch, but the poor quality of your editing is not my fault. I have spent a ton of time trying to teach you how to edit better. ] (]) 20:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

== edits ==

hi Jytdog, I do appreciate your concern, but what you wrote on my talk page was not really necessary, as Jeffro77 and I DID actually come to collaboration, and I came to agree with his last edits on this. The "edit warring" DID stop. I accepted his final edits and modifications on this matter. As I generally do overall with Jeffro77's edits. It's ok. Also, your removing the wording in the lede was unwarranted as it was the "stable version". That was the valid sourced and "stable" lede wording for a long time. No warrant to remove. So I'm restoring. (Not even sure why you removed it, since it's clearly referenced and correctly worded.) But you should not be saying the things you said on my page. I did not break "3RR" and frankly, you're a bit out of line and over-reacting. Jeffor77 and I did come to working and final collaboration on this, if you carefully analyze all of the edit history and comments etc. Regards. `] (]) 16:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
:Work it out on the article talk page. please. ] (]) 16:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
::All I'm saying is that the wording that you removed from the lede was the valid sourced and "stable" lede wording for a long time. No warrant to remove. Even Jeffro77 accepted and had no problem with the lede and wording there. (Not even sure why you removed it, since it's clearly referenced and correctly worded.) Regards. ] (]) 17:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
::::don't do that. discuss on the article talk page. You are about an inch from getting blocked for edit warring. ] (]) 17:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::What's this "inch away from getting blocked" that you keep saying, as if I violated 3RR or have been horribly "edit-warring"?? I don't appreciate that. Your removing the wording from the lede was unwarranted, and the wording in the lede was NOT even a matter of dispute by Jeffro77 or anyone. That WAS the "stable" lede for a long time. Stop threatening me. YOU are violating Misplaced Pages policy in assuming BAD faith. And your lack of civility. ] you're not keeping and I'm not gonna put up with it. I did not violate any Misplaced Pages policy. But you are in what you're doing and saying now. This "one inch from getting blocked" nonsense is out of line and an over-reaction and uncalled for. Jeffro and I DID come to final agreement and collaboration over this. But YOU decided to butt in and chime this for some reason. Not cool and not necessary. You're assuming bad faith, and how is that respectful? ] (]) 17:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Edit warring harms Misplaced Pages. Stop it. ] (]) 17:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. For now, and for a while, seeing how things go on here, and what is said and discussed, etc, I won't be dealing with that transliteration matter on this article. Just maybe with general edits, that were never in disagreement, and other things, etc. Regards. ] (]) 02:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
:OK. ] (]) 02:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

== Deletion review of ] ==

An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Because you participated in the deletion discussion or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">]&nbsp;]</span> 00:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

== Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology ==

Do you think this journal is a reliable source, given that it has been criticized for having "apparent bias in favor of industries that are subject to governmental health
and environmental regulations"? ] ] 02:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
:That letter is dated 2002 - 13 years ago. I really struggle with the kinds of arguments that are made in that letter about "ties" to industry. Surely you have heard all the fuss about Michael Taylor's roles at the FDA and his "ties" to Monsanto? Well here is what the Center for Science in the Public Interest (who organized and sent that 2002 letter) had to say about Taylor in that they published in 2012.
:In any case, we can't address reliability of a source without the content it is meant to support, and the specific article with its authors. But no, I wouldn't chuck an article just because it is published in that journal on account of that 13-year old letter. ] (]) 02:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
::The specific reason I am asking you is because I noticed a paper in this journal cited more than a dozen times on the ] article, where I believe you and I interacted once years ago. The reason I know about this journal is that in editing lots of tobacco-related pages here, I found that it has published a number of industry-funded papers arguing that secondhand smoke isn't harmful. Also, the journal's editor is tobacco industry consultant ]. There is also some more criticism of the journal .] ] 11:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
:::The strongest argument to not use this journal is that per it is not indexed by pubmed or medline. Its impact factor and rank are not great either. And the advocacy for big tobacco by the editor is also not a good thing - that is more than just a "tie". We always want to use the highest quality sources we can. I'll have a look at sourcing in the aspartame article. But really, I decry the sloppy "ties" thing, especially with regard to toxicology, on a bunch of levels. ] (]) 12:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
::::{{tps}} The journal MEDLINE indexed, btw. Sounds like it probably is not reliable for surprising text (i.e. passive smoking is not harmful), though probably is OK for uncontroversial material. ] (]) 13:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::Oh, thanks Yobol! ] (]) 13:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

== Arbitration Committee notice ==

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at ] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the ] may be of use.

Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbitration CA notice --> -- ] (]) 09:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

== Redact ==
Redact usually means removal, blacking out, or editing to hide content, not addition of content. Interesting response. Cheers ] (]) 19:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
:see ]. ] (]) 20:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

==POV edits and claims==
Notice that your removal of content from various GMO related pages appears questionable at best. See for instance , or . Wrong or meaningless edit summaries add what appears to be POV pushing. The proper way is to seek consensus first on talk pages before removing content, especially if it has been part of the article for months. Then you made a claim on my talk page recently that i do pro gmo edits, act aggressively or that my edits are advocacy, or that i broke 3RR. I still waiting for you to provide a specific dif for these claims. Notice that these claims amount to intimidation by you, and ignoring my request to provide difs is adding to an overall disruptive pattern.] (]) 02:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
:You can cherry-pick all day. You have no grasp of the range of my edits, and if you really looked at them you would see I reject changes from POV pushers on all sides on the GMO issues. And I told you - look at every single edit you made in the past day or two. Every one emphasizes negatives of GM or promotes the goodness of organic. Every. Single. One. And I struck the 3RR thing so ] on that. ] (]) 02:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
::Which one in particular, ''promotes the goodness of organic''?? Maybe you confusing me with someone else, i have no idea what you talking about. And you still just make vague claims, and are reluctant to provide any actual difs. ] (]) 02:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
::: You don't even know what you do? was your one edit to organic stuff. "advocacy group" has been in the lead . '''since 2006''' Every edit has emphasized the risks of GMO stuff or done things like that. Every one. ] (]) 02:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
::::What are you talking about? How is this ''promoting the goodness of organic'' or ''emphasized the risks of GMO stuff''? There seems to be a disconnect between your claims and the actual content in question. I ask you now again to stop making up untrue claims about my edits.] (]) 03:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::what is the point of changing "advocacy group" to "nonprofit organization"? (that is a real question) ] (]) 03:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::Because non profit is what the source states, and hence what i wrote in my edit summary.] (]) 03:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

== ] & ] ==

A user kgrandia is an employee of James Hoggan, a PR exec. He has edited his own page (i just reverted) and created a page for his boss. How do we proceed? ] (]) 14:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
:Nice catch! First thing is to approach them on their talk page and inform them about our COI guideline. Often when people learn about it they are happy to comply and there is no need for further drama. If they are unresponsive or won't agree, you can post at COIN. I can do it for you, if you like. If you want an example, you can see ] - that editor has done half of what I asked (disclosed on their user page) but hasn't actually replied yet and I will be following up with them soon). There you go! ] (]) 15:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

== connected contributor tags ==

Hi Jytdog,

I see the purpose of connected contributor tags in instances when the COI contributor has created an article or made a significant change to it. For the IPs tagged on ], they were immediately reverted, and had no impact on the article. We both know Monsanto and related articles attract a range of advocacy editors including COI editors, and I see no reason to focus on IPs that made 1-2 low-quality edits 4+ months ago. The removal of law firm sites as a reference for legal cases is a well-established precedent. Could you explain how you think these tags benefit the article?] (]) 16:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
:Here is an example. There is an article that the community tried twice to delete and each time failed. After I went through and identified the extent of COI editing with these tags, that article was deleted in a heartbeat. See ]. That is just one example, and one way the tags are useful. I don't know to what extent there will be future COi editing on that article (and I doubt we will ever seek to delete it), but the tags are useful for seeing what has gone on, on the COI front. I don't think the cc tags should ever be deleted from any article - they are included in the headers so that they endure and are not archived. ] (]) 17:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

== Motion: Longevity ==

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by ] that:

{{Ivmbox|1=] are authorized for all pages related to ], broadly construed.}}

For the Arbitration Committee, ''']''' (] / ] / ]) 22:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
: Discuss this at: ''']'''

== Intralesional therapy with IL-2 ==

Intratumoral therapy with IL-2

Please don't delete this section. Intralesional IL-2 is part of the new NCCN - Evidence-Based Cancer Guidelines for the treatment of melanoma. I added additional references including the guideline recommendations. THE National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) is the highest authority for cancer treatment recommendations. This section is not "SPAM" the reference that you have deleted from more than one Wikipage is the HIGHEST downloaded article of the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, which is the most prestigious of all of the clinical dermatology journals.

http://www.jaad.org clinic on "MOST READ" <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion==
Hello, Jytdog. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:NORN-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 12:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

==NNDB==
Regarding ], I don't know if you have seen that this was discussed previously. See 1) ], 2) ], and 2) ]. Cheers! - ] (]) 18:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
: Oy, I didn't. ] (]) 10:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

== Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion ==
]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:04, 1 September 2015‎ (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

== Thanks! ==

Hey Jytdog, I don't think I ever properly thanked you for your edit to ], so please accept this belated gratitude. After some time away from Misplaced Pages, I actually just started working with ] to improve their page, and saw you'd made some positive changes, especially regarding the whole COI debacle. My first priority with them is to clean that up (as I think only two of the COI editors actually still work at MSK), but following that, I think further improvements can be made in terms of content and structure. If you've got the time, would you be interested in collaborating to polish up the article?--] (]) 22:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
:Please see your Talk page. ] (]) 10:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

==Question about abandoned drug category==
I noticed you re-added the "abandoned drug" category to the page on the ill-fated weight loss drug 2,4-DNP - From my current understanding 2,4-DNP was sold as a RX only medication (just like another ill-fated medication of yesteryear, LSD) and was than withdrawn due to side effects - Thus it wasn't really "abandoned" so so speak, it was sold and then pulled due to the high fevers and overdosing and whatnot. A similar sort of thing happened with LSD, People were prescribed it and it got out of control. If this is correct - Why is DNP the only ill-fated drug of yesteryear listed in this category? - ]
:hmm OK the "withdrawn drugs" category would be better. I just made that . OK? ] (]) 10:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

==Bullying==
I wish to record that I regard your behaviour towards me as bullying. You flagrantly disregard Misplaced Pages policies and procedures and abuse your position by making threats. You make no attempt to enter into discussion about concerns you may have about articles, but resort immediately to a combination of deletion and intimidation. ] (]) 23:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
:If you keep making articles that get deleted for being promotional and that contain COPYVIO, you are going to get blocked. Me telling you that, is not bullying you - it is telling you how things work here. Feel free to ignore me; I am trying to help you. What you are "recording" here is ]. ] (]) 23:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

==Thanks for your help==
I just realized I never posted a proper thank you for your help on the ] Misplaced Pages article. So, thank you! ] (]) 19:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
:you are welcome. did we finish/ ] (]) 19:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

== 33R Edit warring ==

] Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ].

'''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''&mdash;especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr -->] (]) 20:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
:Yes, this template cites ]. You made the first change; when I reverted you should have gone to discussion. ] (]) 21:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

== Brian Boxer Wachler ==

With all due respect, he is certainly an academic as is evident from his long record of peer-reviewed papers. Note that his middle initial is "S". ] ] 02:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
: academics have academic appointments. as far as i can see he has none. he is obviously a relentless self-promoter. ] (]) 02:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

== ANI Discussion ==

] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 13:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, I think that this is about to go to ArbCom. In fact, I am thinking of making the request myself. I am very sure that they will accept it. Please let me suggest that you pull together as many diffs as you can of your own edits, in which you can reasonably be considered to be presenting GMOs in a non-positive light or presenting critics of GMOs in a non-negative light. --] (]) 21:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

== Remove my name and the accusation. ==

You have mentioned me in a section on AN/I. I am asking you to remove or strike it as it is casting ]. I am not the subject of your dispute. While we may disagree on a lot of things, that disagreement is not up to what your comment suggests. In fact I support all PAG. That I see them violated where you dont, or that I believe a punishment should be less is not the same as being anti. ] 15:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
:As we have discussed before, the pattern of your commenting at drama board actions is very clear. And indeed you have been true to form on this one and where you are not considering the merits ''at all'', but throwing up smoke. If you choose to make an issue of this, the diffs I will bring will show beyond any doubt that the behavior I describe is accurate. It will be a big waste of the community's time. Review your own contribs if you don't believe me - the pattern is very, very clear. Nearly always opposed to WP:MED editors/editing, and throwing up distractions to protect editors who are doing bad stuff when it comes to FRINGEy topics or health content (the pattern of DrChrissy seeking to expand conflict with me is so, so clear) Literally, '''never once''' have I seen you ''even acknowledge'' the merits of a case related to FRINGEY/altmed/opposed-to-mainstream health editing. You have learned the gamesmanship of dramaboards here pretty well. Everybody is free to bring their POV to drama boards, but after a while it becomes clear where you are coming from, especially when someone is as consistent as you are. ] (]) 16:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
::Your choice, I asked nicely. Your diffs show me addressing PAG, though not in the way you would like. Thats a disagreement, not being anti anything. You have not proved anything, and ] comes from an Arbcom decision. I would suggest following it and removing your comment or striking it. ] 16:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
{{od}} This seems to be a day for gathering diffs, and it appears I am going to need them eventually anyway, since you continue to plow ahead with this at ANI.

* Your topic ban on March 16th.
* are all your contribs at ANI since then; about 325 contribs

* 1 contribs on a child molestation accusation; unrelated
* 5 contribs on bitcoin, unrelated
* 2 contribs on 'CANVASS by User:Green_Cardamom" unrelated
* 4 contribs on the thing between me and DrChrissy and big surprise, (I ''was'' in the wrong there). '''Related''' but OK.
* 3 contribs on Tornheim stuff. '''related'''' ; (something I had expected you to be attuned to due to your favoring of the COI Duck/Advocacy duck essays); calling advocacy issues just a "content dispute"
* 2 contribs on "Topic ban User:Chiayi77 for admitted WP:COI reported by NewsAndEventsGuy" -'''unrelated'''
* 1 contrib on "retired prof" about religion '''unrelated'''
* 1 contrib on user soapboxing (userpage use, politics) '''unrelated'''
* 1 contrib on block proposal for editor with CIR issues (mishae) '''unrelated'''
* 3 contribs on DrChrissyy's bogus (snow closed) ANI over scrambler. '''related''' ; ;
* 3 contribs on the ANI against me about the catholic guy at COIN brought by IP that was snow closed. '''unrelated''' (and as this is not MED, you did the sensible thing and )
* 14 contribs on iban b/n Alansohn and Magnolia677 about NJ geography ''''unrelated'''
* 1 contribs on freeatlastchitchat (religion, rape jihad) ''''unrelated'''
* 7 contribs on doors22 '''related''' <font name=red> at first nicely nuanced</front> , but then you fell off the ladder and ''denied'' that there was a serious SPA/advocacy issue with Doors. The evidence I presented was overwhelmingly clear that the guy was a SPA here to advocate for one thing and your claim that "I have also said before that in a battleground everyone is at fault." What the heck do you call it when someone comes to WP with a very strong agenda and stirs up all kinds of crap with editors trying to keep things NPOV? That is a real question. I don't understand how you can be so clueless about the trouble caused by editors who are NOTHERE - who are here to SOAPBOX - again especially in light of your support for the Advocacy Duck essay. I am unable to make sense of that stance outside you having a carrying a grudge against MED. This was where I really became aware of the issue, AlbinoFerret. Which I wrote there, and .
* 3 contribs about Hijirri. religion. ''unrelated'''
* 13 contribs on FreeatlastChitchat/Pax redux. ''''unrelated'''
* 11 contribs on croatia stuff '''unrelated'''
* 1 contrib on simon trewe is uncivil (music_ '''unrelated'''
* 1 contrib on "Closure needed at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Exceptions_to_Small_Caps" '''unrelated'''
* 11 more on catlflap (scattered, not adjacent) '''unrelated'''
* 3 more on rape jihad ''''unrelated'''
* 4 contribs atsme's ANI against me related to her essay, which was snow-closed. '''related''' as her essay stemmed from her unhappiness with MED. ; ; ; and one cob move.
* 1 contrib on User:Phill24th page ownership, abuse of warning system '''unrelated'''
* 12 contribs on DrChrissy topic ban from acupuncture that resulted in topic ban. '''related''' ; , , ; after being called out by Zad for bias, and ; ; and . and again, that was closed with a topic ban. Later, (3 diffs)
* 4 more on hijirri (curtisnab, TH1980) '''unrelated'''
* 1 on History of the WWE - Long-running edit war) '''unrelated'''
* 1 on Human_Chlorophyll and Talk:Jesus '''unrelated'''
That brings me from March 16 to May 19th, and is 114 contibs. (I am stopping now because I am sick of this)

Now breaking that down to related and unrelated:
;unrelated
* 1 contribs on a child molestation accusation; unrelated
* 5 contribs on bitcoin, unrelated
* 2 contribs on 'CANVASS by User:Green_Cardamom" unrelated
* 2 contribs on "Topic ban User:Chiayi77 for admitted WP:COI reported by NewsAndEventsGuy" -'''unrelated'''
* 1 contrib on "retired prof" about religion '''unrelated'''
* 1 contrib on user soapboxing (userpage use, politics) '''unrelated'''
* 1 contrib on block proposal for editor with CIR issues (mishae) '''unrelated'''
* 3 contribs on the ANI against me about the catholic guy at COIN brought by IP that was snow closed. '''unrelated''' (and as this is not MED, you did the sensible thing and )
* 14 contribs on iban b/n Alansohn and Magnolia677 about NJ geography ''''unrelated'''
* 1 contribs on freeatlastchitchat (religion, rape jihad) ''''unrelated'''
* 3 contribs about Hijirri. religion. ''unrelated'''
* 13 contribs on FreeatlastChitchat/Pax redux. ''''unrelated'''
* 11 contribs on croatia stuff '''unrelated'''
* 1 contrib on simon trewe is uncivil (music_ '''unrelated'''
* 1 contrib on "Closure needed at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Exceptions_to_Small_Caps" '''unrelated'''
* 11 more on catlflap (scattered, not adjacent) '''unrelated'''
* 3 more on rape jihad ''''unrelated'''
* 1 contrib on User:Phill24th page ownership, abuse of warning system '''unrelated'''
* 4 more on hijirri (curtisnab, TH1980) '''unrelated'''
* 1 on History of the WWE - Long-running edit war) '''unrelated'''
* 1 on Human_Chlorophyll and Talk:Jesus '''unrelated'''

;related
* 4 contribs on the thing between me and DrChrissy and big surprise, (I ''was'' in the wrong there). '''Related''' but OK.
* 3 contribs on Tornheim stuff. '''related'''' ; (something I had expected you to be attuned to due to your favoring of the COI Duck/Advocacy duck essays); calling advocacy issues just a "content dispute"
* 3 contribs on DrChrissyy's bogus (snow closed) ANI over scrambler. '''related''' ; ;
* 7 contribs on doors22 '''related''' <font name=red> at first nicely nuanced</front> , but then you fell off the ladder and ''denied'' that there was a serious SPA/advocacy issue with Doors. The evidence I presented was overwhelmingly clear that the guy was a SPA here to advocate for one thing and your claim that "I have also said before that in a battleground everyone is at fault." What do you call it when someone comes to WP with a very strong agenda and stirs up all kinds of crap with editors trying to keep things NPOV? That is a real question. I don't understand how you can be so unable to see the trouble caused by editors who are NOTHERE - who are here to SOAPBOX - again especially in light of your support for the Advocacy Duck essay. I am unable to make sense of that stance outside you having a carrying a grudge against MED. This was where I really became aware of the issue, AlbinoFerret. Which I wrote there, and .
* 4 contribs on atsme's ANI against me related to complications with moving her essay to mainspace, which was snow-closed. '''related''' as her essay stemmed from her unhappiness with MED. ; ; ; and one cob move.
* 12 contribs on DrChrissy topic ban from acupuncture that resulted in topic ban. '''related''' ; , , ; after being called out by Zad for bias, and ; ; and . and again, that was closed with a topic ban. Later, (3 diffs)

OK, so there are 33 contibs on 6 matters. Do you see how you consistently behave differently on the related things? Every time supporting FRINGEy actors - you don't get into all the sniping, distracting behavior in unrelated threads, and really importantly, you consistently end up on the side opposed to mainstream editors on related things. If you don't find this compelling I will go and finish, but the pattern stays true. ] (]) 03:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

: And note that the above is only about ANI. The pattern remains true at other boards and Talk pages. When it comes to health or WP:MED you demonstrate a single stance, which seems to me, to be more about your grudge than any objective analysis of the issues under consideration - if it were, how could you so ''consistently'' take a stance opposite WP:MED? Again I know the experience that led up to your topic ban was very frustrating for you, but carrying that kind of grudge around is just...blech. If you believe you have actually supported mainstream health positions and WP:MED efforts to keep Misplaced Pages NPOV and well-sourced on any drama board, I am very open to seeing diffs (several of them) ] (]) 16:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
::What you have is your own bias speaking out loud and reading between the lines looking for something that isnt there. I still suggest you strike the accusations and stop the ABF posts. If they continue I will move forward seeking sanctions against you. This seems to be a pattern, one where proof shouldnt be hard to find. ] 16:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

== New York Times ==

I was looking at the New York Times homepage today and I saw . I was wondering what your opinion was on it. ] ] 21:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
:{{tps}}An interesting twist on the usual "big bad industry vs the people" trope, when it is actually two different industries playing the same game for opposite results....] (]) 21:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
: Nature reported on the story about Folta a while ago. I didn't know that Benbrook accepted money from organic food companies; that was news to me. All these guys should be much better about making disclosures.
: I think the thing to keep in mind from all that is the following quote "“What industry does is when they find people saying things they like, they make it possible for your voice to be heard in more places and more loudly." It isn't reasonable to me, to call Benbrook an organics zombie or Folta a Monsanto zombie - both of those people came to their own conclusions based on who they are, their values, and the science they look at, and industry came to them, and gave them money and support to amplify their voices, and things get tangled from there. ] (]) 23:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
:: Just as a heads up, I created ] earlier today, in case you want to edit it given your interest in GM stuff. ] ] 00:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
:::I saw it already, but thanks for the heads up. So what do you think about the stuff reported in the NYT piece? ] (]) 00:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
::::Well, to be honest, I was surprised when I read the part that says "the biotech industry has published dozens of articles, under the names of prominent academics, that in some cases were drafted by industry consultants." That seems like something very suspicious, and although I don't know much about the subject, I suspect that this may be unacceptable ]. ] ] 01:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
:::::Also, I agree that there is a consensus that GMOs are no more dangerous than non-GMO food, so I don't really have a problem with most of the biotech industry's activities described in the story. In contrast, if the tobacco industry was doing it (and they did for years), that would be another matter because the consensus is against the tobacco industry in much the same way it is in favor of the biotech industry. ] ] 01:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
::::Yes that was surprising to me. I wish they had said more about that. I would like to know which ones! ] (]) 03:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

== Relaying a concern ==

Jytdog, DrC is concerned that you're commenting about him above, and he can't respond because you've banned him from your talk page. Please stop talking about him and posting on his page. This whole issue between you and him, and you and several others, is going to blow up if it continues. I think taking it to ArbCom would not be in your interests (or in anyone else's), so you'd be doing everyone a favour if you could find a way to tone things down significantly. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:46, 7 September 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 2¢) 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 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture 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. —PaleoNeonate – 06:10, 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 (u • t • c) 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... —PaleoNeonate – 09:05, 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: