| Revision as of 07:57, 5 December 2018 view sourceMkdw (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators33,692 editsm fixing cot/cob← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:24, 26 December 2024 view source Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk | contribs)45 editsNo edit summary | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:ARC|a guide on talk page archiving|H:ARC}} | |||
| <noinclude>{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}} | |||
| {{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}{{-}} | |||
| {{shortcut|WP:ARC}} | |||
| </noinclude> |
</noinclude> | ||
| <includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for arbitration}}}}</noinclude> | |||
| {{NOINDEX}} | |||
| <noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width= |
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=auto</noinclude>}} | ||
| <noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude> | |||
| == Sabotage of Lindy Li's page == | |||
| == Jytdog == | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 04:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive top}} | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' - ] <sup>]</sup> '''at''' 22:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === |
=== Proposed parties === | ||
| <!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator --> | <!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator. The users listed should only be changed after filing by clerks and Arbitrators. All others should ask to add a party. One place to request an addition is at the clerks noticeboard ]. --> | ||
| *{{ |
*{{userlinks|Napoleonjosephine2020}}, ''filing party'' | ||
| *{{userlinks| |
*{{userlinks|EncycloDeterminate}} | ||
| *{{admin|BD2412}} | |||
| ;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request | ;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request | ||
| <!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> | <!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> | ||
| *] | * | ||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| ;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
| * N/A | |||
| === Statement by There'sNoTime === | |||
| I don't enjoy arbitration cases, let alone the process of filing one - I'll make this short and to the point. {{noping|Jytdog}} has acted in a grossly inappropriate manner, as described at ], and I believe this falls short of our harassment policy. I don't enjoy blocking editors, and having Jytdog unable to edit the project will be a loss, but ''something needs to be done'', as our unwillingness or weak actions give the message that we don't care, and that behaviour like this is acceptable. | |||
| I blocked Jytdog indefinitely per their . This block was reduced to 24 hours by {{noping|BD2412}}, citing a first offence. I don't think this is the case because of the previous Oversight and blocks reserved to ArbCom which involved private information. As this case involves information which administrators who are not functionaries cannot access, it is explicitly within ArbCom's remit. | |||
| (I don't think that BD2412 did anything against policy here, but as they reduced the initial block, I'm adding them as a party and ArbCom can keep or remove them.) | |||
| I ask ArbCom to review Jytdog's history with off-wiki issues and to take any action as they deem necessary. | |||
| Thank you for your time - ] <sup>]</sup> 22:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| {{re|EdChem}} Thank you for the direct questions, I am of course happy to clarify: | |||
| :{{tq|Why a block justified more than four hours after Jytdog had stated twice that he would not make such a call again?}} | |||
| ::I have no faith in empty promises - we've heard "I won't do it again, honest!" more than once. I dislike speaking of a colleague in such a way, but I still genuinely believe actions ''such as these'' will be repeated in the future. | |||
| :{{tq|What part of the harassment policy was clearly violated?}} | |||
| ::In letter, I'm relying heavily on the section ']', in spirit it's fairly clear we shouldn't find a work phone number of another editor and ring them. We shouldn't ''need'' a section to our harassment policy which states that, but by golly it looks like it's going to have to be added. | |||
| :{{tq|On what basis was an indefinite block justified by the discussion you cited?}} | |||
| ::Tony actually puts it as well as I could - third offence, previous two being indefs. I'm a big supporter of the whole "indef isn't infinite", to me it means blocked until a successful unblock, nothing more. | |||
| :{{tq|What the block was supposed to prevent and how, given it did not limit Jytdog's ability to make phone calls and he had already undertaken not to repeat his action?}} | |||
| ::A good question, and I made it very clear I did not want my block to be perceived as ] - obviously I don't have the ability to prevent anyone from making phone calls, but I do have the button to stop edits to Misplaced Pages. Does this stop off-wiki harassment? No, it does not. It ''does'' send a clear message, it ''is'' a sanction and ''is'' explicitly mentioned as a remedy in the harassment policy ("{{tq|As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely.}}" | |||
| I hope these go some way to clarifying why I took the actions I did. - ] <sup>]</sup> 08:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :{{re|EdChem}} Again, thank you for your comments. I'd like to respond to just one element of your statement for now; | |||
| ::"{{tq|The second reason that I think your actions appear punitive is that you declared a "clear violation" of the harassment policy in the block log entry and made no mention of earlier incidents, but now declare that you are relying on its spirit.}}" | |||
| :::I stated above, unequivocally, that "{{tq|In '''letter''', I'm relying heavily on the section ']'}}" - my actions were based ''both'' on my understanding of the 'letter of the policy', which again I believe was violated, and the spirit in which it was designed (i.e. ''to protect our community against harassment of all kinds''). I would not have made such a block, with such a log entry, if I did not feel the policy by letter had been violated. | |||
| :::As for not mentioning previous incidents in my block log entry, I'd state that was a mistake on my behalf - I truly believed it would have been clearly apparent. | |||
| :Thank you - ] <sup>]</sup> 13:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| As a general clarification, it strikes me as rather odd there is some question as to these actions being acceptable - they're not, and this case wasn't created to discuss that. If we as a community feel it's A-OK to phone another editor using a phone number we found, without permission, then I'm not just disappointed but downright disturbed. The reason behind my rename and other changes was due to getting harassment over the phone - this upset me greatly and still affects me. I don't wish that on anyone, "good faith" or not. - ] <sup>]</sup> 08:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :By all means everyone, continue to detract away from the issue at hand and make this about me and my clearly awful judgement - if I'd known the amount of people who would have lined up to protect an unblockable, I'm not sure if I would have filed this. The state of the community is worse than I'd thought, and the number of people willing to stand up to obvious harassment is appearing to shrink year on year. At what point will it be okay to do this? At what point will we give that little of a shit about our fellow editors that outing them won't be a big deal? - ] <sup>]</sup> 15:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| {{re|Alex Shih}} I was waiting for your comment, and whilst I respect your opinion on the matter, I'm disappointed you need to air your apparent dislike of me here of all places. Regardless, I will respond: | |||
| :{{tq|Did There'sNoTime block Jytdog indefinitely mostly based on their oversight block in June 2016 that was handled by ArbCom, of which the information There'sNoTime have no access to?}} | |||
| ::Other than being previously aware of the actions which caused that block, I can also view the revisions Jytdog has added which have been suppressed. I have access to enough information to make an informed decision. I do not have access to the full picture, obviously, but that's part of the reason we're here. | |||
| :{{tq|Do we block editors based on assumptions now?}} | |||
| ::No - I'm not sure what ''you'' do Alex, but I do not block editors based solely on assumptions. | |||
| :{{tq|To me this is close to being an act of intimidation which is equally a problematic behaviour.}} | |||
| ::I couldn't be intimidating if I tried Alex, and is definitely not the result I want from '''any''' actions I take here. I did what I did with the mindset of protecting the Misplaced Pages community - as pointed out, a block is ''physically'' fairly useless ''in preventing'' off-wiki harassment (whilst still having merits of a sort), yet it's listed explicitly as a remedy. | |||
| On a personal note Alex, if you have a problem with my conduct as an administrator ''generally'', I'd really welcome a frank discussion on my talk page (or by email if you'd prefer) - these pot-shots are tiring - ] <sup>]</sup> 08:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| {{re|Ivanvector}} I just wanted to say thank you for "{{tq|There is no acceptable reason for a Wikipedian to look up another Wikipedian's personal contact details to contact them about any Misplaced Pages matter, without an explicit invitation to do so, and just because it happens does not mean we have to tolerate it.}}" - ] <sup>]</sup> 15:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| {{re|Geogene}} You ] "{{tq|"I blocked Jytdog indefinitely per their previous blocks" sounds a lot like his rationale for his other indeffs that were in error}}. Which "other indeffs" (plural) are you referring to? My indefinite block of {{noping|Joefromandb}} could well be described as an "indef in error", but that makes '''one''' - I find you trying to paint me as an administrator who gets this wrong often very disingenuous, and this is only compounded by your edit summary of "{{tq|comment on TNT's history of blocking}}". By all means disagree with my block, but please don't attack my character - ] <sup>]</sup> 15:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Jytdog === | |||
| Context: The person whom I telephoned is a ] who has edited one article, ] (SCD). Their first edit rewrote the page into an advertisement for the diet complete with the closing selling statement. The refers to a specific conference. Their edit was reverted by me and then by another person. I the WPMED welcome. The editor opened a discussion at my talk page, which you can see ]. I assumed that what they wrote in that edit note was true -- that they are a "doctor of pharmacy" and understand the medical literature. As the discussion at my talk page was bizarre, I went and looked at the conference page that the user pointed to, and indeed an organization advocating for SCD was listed there as an exhibitor, with a phone and address. After a few days the person copied the discussion from my talk page to the article talk page, and sought a 3O. I removed that pasted content and left a link to the discussion at my talk page, and the person not to do that in the future. A few days later yet -- yesterday -- they melted down and ended up edit warring to restore the pasted discussion and requesting more 3O, as you can see in the of the article talk page and ]. I filed an EWN case which is , but it was also clear that the user was floundering, and I thought ''actually'' talking could help. | |||
| I first if they wanted to talk at their talk page, but given the difficulties they were having with the platform itself and the fact that they have their own talk page, I was not confident they would even know to respond. I <s>recalled</s> <u>remembered</u> the number from the exhibition booth, and went ahead and just called them. Please bear in mind, that this is a phone number that was posted for the advocacy organization for the diet, and this person had posted an advertisement for the diet in WP. I expected that they would want to talk, as odd as that might sound to folks here. | |||
| I introduced myself, and asked if the person wanted to talk about what was going on. The person said "yes". I would have ended the call, had they said "no". In any case, after they said yes, the conversation very quickly went south - what happened on the phone was pretty much a duplicate of what you see on my talk page. I allowed myself to get frustrated and abruptly ended the call. It is entirely my fault, that I allowed myself to do that. | |||
| After the call, I , as it was now pointless. | |||
| So: | |||
| * I called '''to try to help them''' -- that was truly my intention. I talk advocates/conflicted people off the ledge, a lot, on WP. Sometimes it goes badly. Often it goes well. | |||
| * I should have waited to see if they accepted the invitation at their talk page, instead of just calling them. | |||
| * I should not have taken the multiple risks of calling them, and will not use contact information someone does not themselves post on WP, ever again. | |||
| --] (]) 02:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC) (fix "recalled" which people seem to be taking as "call again") | |||
| * Some notes | |||
| ** So, I was ready to work through this, and deal with whatever the outcome is. However... | |||
| ** I am upset by arbitrators writing that I went looking for the person's contact information, or that I called the person out of the blue in order to continue the dispute, or in order to argue with them. Not what I did, not what I intended. | |||
| ** I find Opabina's and RickinBaltimore's remarks particularly hurtful. I suppose you enjoyed producing the rhetoric, Opabina, but you have dehumanized me. | |||
| ** Mkdw's notion of a "case that reviews all of Jytdog's history with respect of off-wiki conduct relating to Misplaced Pages." is just.. bizarre. What does that even mean and how would we even do that? | |||
| ** I understand the passion for privacy, which is a core value here that I share and respect. I understand the shock and dismay people feel about me contacting somebody at all, using information they didn't post here. Being passionate about the value of privacy, is not a license to write hurtful stuff about me or anybody else; especially not in this forum and especially not when you are an arbitrator. | |||
| ** Responding to you again, Opabina. I understand you are identifying with the person I called, but I think anybody reviewing their ] or who already interacted with them, will agree with the description of that actual person as "combative and unwilling to learn"; and no, I did '''not''' offer that description {{tq|in ''defense'' of the interaction}} . I fully own '''my role''' in initiating the call with that specific person, and in allowing that discussion to become a rehearsal of the dispute here. Not what I intended, not what I wanted. Then or now. I failed to keep my act together. I actually do keep my act together countless times here. There are people who are aware of that, as well as the difficulties I create for myself and others. I do fail. Too often. | |||
| ** In any case, volunteer time is the lifeblood of this beautiful project. This has already taken up a lot of time, all over my inappropriate and failed effort to try to help an advocate, whose career here is likely to be very short no matter how much anybody tries to work with them. What a waste. | |||
| ** I debated whether to just end this here and walk away from the project; as far as I can see this arbitration is derailed. More time on it is just more time wasted for everyone, and additionally I have no desire to be exposed to more of this hurtful stuff from arbitrators. But instead, I decided to write what I am experiencing and see what happens.... Maybe we can reset this, dealing with what I actually did. | |||
| ** And let me just repeat, in case this arbitration is righted and if I remain in good standing in some way - that I will never try to contact another editor again, using information that they themselves have not directly posted here in WP. ] (]) 05:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>] about your statement {{tq|...completely failed to do so in this case.}}... see above where I wrote "I first if they wanted to talk at their talk page, but given the difficulties they were having with the platform itself and the fact that they have their own talk page, I was not confident they would even know to respond....".</s> | |||
| : <s>again it is very hard to see Arbs weighing on in this without dealing with what actually happened. I understand everybody is human and time-limited and makes mistakes (me included) but my sense of despair is deepening ] (]) 22:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)</s> (strike ] (]) 23:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)) | |||
| *<s> ] no it doesn't say that. "recalled" =/= "call again" but "remember". I posted and asked first, and then realized they seemed to have no engagement with that page. I '''then''' tried to call and got voice mail, and then tried again to call and got through. ] (]) 23:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)</s> (strike ] (]) 23:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)) | |||
| * ] thank you for correcting me. You are 100% correct. I remembered wrongly and the diff I wrote is obviously correct, and your note is correct as well. You are dealing with the facts and I departed from them. ] (]) 23:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ** I feel so terrible about this ^^. Gah. I hate bullshit and that is what I did. I am so sorry to everybody. ] (]) 01:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| * ] and ] about the Jenhawk thing. I don't want to complicate my own case, but I wrote and ; JenHawk's next diff was where she said she was leaving. I saw that as a reaction mostly to me. This was a complicated situation that played out since she started in May 2017. She brought a very evangelical Christian perspective in content and especially sourcing, wanted content to reflect a hopeful theological message, and often expressed that in terribly general statements. She also did a lot of close paraphrasing that we still need to fix, along with the skewed sourcing base. Her work and interactions were getting better and ~some~ of the later stuff was very good. It is unhappy that she left. You might want to unstrike, if you really want a case looking at me broadly. There is some "hook" there in the difficult interactions she and I had. ] (]) 23:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| **Thanks ] I didn't follow her around so was judging just based on what I could see locally. ] (]) 01:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| * ] thanks for your kind note. I hear you and believe you see me as a person. :) fwiw I would prefer a motion to a full case; my stupidity in making the call and failure to keep my act together for the few minutes it lasted has already sucked up way too much of the community's time (cumulatively hours and hours of volunteer time, I reckon). Another way to say that, is that there has been a lot of feedback provided here and at WT:HA already. So I would prefer the swifter motion route, and I would trust arbcom to do what is best for the community. Whether Arbcom wants to risk making a decision without a case, and whether it wants a broad case on the history of my behavior, as some have called for, is of course up to it. ] (]) 18:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by BD2412 === | |||
| The offense cited for this block was that Jytdog made ''a single phone call'' to a publicly ''advertised'' phone number of a new editor who was struggling with Misplaced Pages's policies, but who had provided no other means to contact them. It appears that Jytdog ''politely offered advice or assistance'' to put that editor on the right track. There was no repetition of this incident, no outing of the other editor's private information. ] defines harassment (correctly) as "threats, intimidation, ''repeated'' annoying and unwanted contact or attention, and ''repeated'' personal attacks" (emphasis added). Notably, off-wiki communication is ''not'' directly addressed in the policy; it only remarks upon off-wiki ''harassment'', which is not separately defined, so must be presumed to mean the same as on-wiki harassment. Since no contact was repeated, and no threats are alleged, the assertion appears to be that telephone contact is inherently intimidating, but we have no policy saying that. If that is going to be our policy, then we should say so, and should address violations ''prospectively'', rather than retroactively defining the term to mean that. | |||
| I would also note that our policy states that "ncidents of wikihounding generally receive a warning. If wikihounding persists after a warning, escalating blocks are often used, beginning with 24 hours". Although it has been noted in various discussions that Jytdog has been blocked in the past for abrasive interactions, the interaction at issue in this discussion is completely different from anything that has previously been addressed, and should stand on its own. That being the case, the 24-hour block that resulted from my reduction of the initial indefinite block should be considered to resolve the issue. Trout-slaps all around, and let's not do it again. | |||
| Full disclosure: I did not consult this policy before reducing the block to that amount, but it happens to coincide, which is fine with me. I stand by the outcome. ] ] 23:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| * One additional thought: The question here is not whether Jytdog did anything wrong. Everyone, including Jytdog, agrees that his action in this case was wrong, and should never be repeated. He agreed on this point well before a block was imposed for it. The question is merely what response is appropriate, i.e., what ''purpose'' is to be served by the consequence imposed. If it is to prevent the disfavored behavior from being repeated, we have already accomplished that. I note that the 24 hour block that I left has itself been removed by another admin for the purpose of allowing for participation in this discussion, which I suppose became inevitable once arbitration was requested. That action has not been challenged, so clearly it is not a problem for Jytdog to be permitted to continue editing even while this discussion proceeds. ] ] 18:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Ivanvector === | |||
| This is certainly within the Committee's jurisdiction as it involves off-wiki communication which has been alleged to be unwelcome by the recipient (whether or not that constitutes harassment is being argued on-wiki), as well as previous private communication. I'll write more later but noting I agree with TNT's view that BD2412 was not wheel-warring. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 22:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| I think that my close of from just a few months ago will be relevant if this is accepted as a full case. I noted in closing that discussion that Jytdog was continuing to wear the community's patience despite having been warned many times and having promised many times to do better. I have little opinion on that matter myself but the sentiment was evident in that discussion, and it is apparent that the sentiment has been building for some years. See, for example, from March 2015 about Jytdog's incivility and alleged harassment, in which it was also recognized that his behaviour was inappropriate, he was warned and he promised to reform. The move to telephoning editors without invitation to discuss Misplaced Pages disputes is an alarming trend in the opposite direction, in my view, even if he believes his intentions to be good. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 23:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| This is another one of my "general comment"s. When one applies for a functionary position, a questionnaire is sent out privately which contains a preamble warning the applicant that their application, when made public, is likely to attract considerable scrutiny on- and off-wiki. It further warns that past applicants have had private personal details revealed, and employers and families contacted, among other unwanted attention. Applicants are then asked to confirm they want to continue with their application, noting these potential consequences. No part of this is ''consenting'' to this sort of contact - we're warned that it can be a consequence of the position, not advised that it's acceptable. | |||
| The reason I'm bringing this up here is that there are some editors who seem to believe that anyone who dares to edit here ought to reasonably expect these forms of abuse, as a consequence of merely editing; some are even saying that editing here ''implies consent'' for these unwanted investigations and forms of contact, as though ] extends to a person's personal life. Those editors are not just wrong but ''dangerously'' wrong. There is '''no''' acceptable reason for a Wikipedian to look up another Wikipedian's personal contact details to contact them about ''any'' Misplaced Pages matter, without an explicit invitation to do so, and just because it happens does not mean we have to tolerate it. Like I said somewhere else, someone who goes to the trouble of scouring public records to compile your personal information to contact you is already a creep, but are they a creep who just wants to talk or are they a creep that's going to send a pipe bomb to the factory where my brother works if I don't agree with their point of view? Need I remind everyone again that ] started with fundamentally this same kernel: someone insisting on contacting someone else who did not invite contact to discuss an internet dispute. There is no form of this that can be acceptable on Misplaced Pages at all, and I hope that if nothing else the Committee will make a statement to this effect. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 14:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :I realize I didn't explain well: I brought up the extraordinary messaging in the functionary application questionnaire to demonstrate that functionary candidates are ''warned'' about this ''unusually'' abusive behaviour. It should not be and is not taken for granted that all editors on the site should expect this sort of abuse. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 17:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| Furthermore for what it's worth I endorse TNT's block as warranted within admin discretion, I don't disagree with BD2412's reduction although I would not have done so myself (noting the past oversight block and topic ban) without discussing the matter with anyone first, and I was going to log in this morning and suggest that Jytdog be unblocked to participate here so I endorse Kelapstick's unblock as well. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 14:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| I know my statement is getting long and if the clerks need me to trim it please let me know. I have two more incidents to add for consideration. After closing the discussion I mentioned above, a number of editors approached me to argue that my one-way interaction ban close was not sufficient and demanded that Jytdog should also be sanctioned (see and ). There was no consensus to modify the close, but strong opinions were expressed in that post-close discussion that Jytdog had already exhausted their more than generous number of last chances. That sentiment should be taken into account if the Committee is deciding on sanctions here. | |||
| <s>Following that discussion editor {{ul|Jenhawk777}} contacted me asking to be interaction banned from Jytdog (she was confused about the process, actually she was asking for Jytdog to be ibanned from her) because she found his actions on several articles quite emotionally frustrating. Her request is archived . I don't know who her "friend" is who directed her to the Andy Dingley thread, but by her contribs I determined that she was in a dispute with Jytdog over some articles on historicity of the Bible. I should apologize to Jenhawk777 that I was distracted away from her complaint (I don't recall by what, likely bees) and never did follow up on it, and so whether this is another case of Jytdog hounding an editor inappropriately or just content disputes in the course of editing a topic in common I really don't know, but this could not have been related to Jytdog's noted passion for COI or MEDRS at all. | |||
| I'm bringing up these two incidents as more examples of editors' patience being exhausted, and of individual editors (noting Julia W's statement) avoiding areas that Jytdog edits ''because of'' Jytdog's aggressive behaviour.</s> ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 17:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :Struck per {{ul|Smeat75}}'s statement. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 21:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by TonyBallioni === | |||
| Given the subject matter and previous blocks, I think the committee should accept this as a private case. I’ll also state that I think both administrators acted in good faith and within policy. ] (]) 22:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|KrakatoaKatie}}, the relevant motion is that lifted the topic ban. It did include a strong warning on PII, however. That isn't directly relevant here, but it is related in my opinion. ] (]) 02:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|EdChem}}: taking the liberty of speaking for {{u|There'sNoTime}} here, but I think the reason for an indef was that this was the ''third time'' something like this has happened (see {{u|Thryduulf}}’s diplomatically worded statement). Someone who has had two oversight blocks and was given a warning by ArbCom that if they came near it again they could be site banned should at least have had the common sense not to call a COI editor IRL. TNT’s actions here were reasonable in that context and his actions as well as BD’s in reducing the block should not be a focus of this case if it’s accepted: both of them were acting on policy as they understood it, and TNT’s reading of the policy certainly has consensus even if the words aren’t spelled out in part because until now we thought it was obvious.{{pb}}That being said, I also strongly believe that people who have given a lot to this project should be allowed to explain themselves, which is why I support {{u|Kelapstick}}’s unblock and I think the committee should do something here, even if it’s an abreviated private case. Let people be heard and tell their side of it, then come to a conclusion on how to respond. ] (]) 06:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :This’ll be my last response as I’ve said enough already, but just a general comment to respond to {{u|EdChem}} and {{u|RickinBaltimore}}: the policy basis for the block is {{tq|As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely.}} Other than showing up at someone’s doorstep, I don’t know of anything that is more of an “off-wiki privacy violation” than calling someone’s place of work. We don’t spell out every possible violation or the harassment policy: we couldn’t possibly do that. We list clear principles. I think this is a bit to {{u|Worm That Turned}}’s point: the behavior was clearly not okay. Whether the intent was to harass or it meets the real world definition of harassment is not ArbCom’d question. The question is whether Jytdog acted in accords with our behavioral norms in this area and the principles in the English Misplaced Pages harassment policy. I think the answer there is no.{{pb}}I’ve also been saying for the last 24 or so hours that Jytdog should be given the opportunity to explain themself and I don’t know what I think the correct response here is and am not advocating any particular sanctions, but this actually is a pretty big deal, and not something that should go away without a serious discussion by ArbCom. ] (]) 14:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Tryptofish === | |||
| {{cot|Pre-retirement comments}} | |||
| The Committee needs to consider carefully how much of this should be dealt with on-site, and how much handled privately. But I think that the reduction of the block to 24 hours was entirely appropriate, and the original indefinite block may require some scrutiny. --] (]) 22:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| I do not know whether the Committee will or will not accept a full case, but if you do, I will present evidence about what I said just above about scrutiny of the first block. Also, if there is a full case, you need to consider changing the case name. Recently, ArbCom has been avoiding case names that are the names of a single editor, in favor of case names that refer to the area of the dispute. In this case, perhaps "Off-wiki contact" might be better. <s>Also, I see a clerk note about adding a party, but I do not see that reflected in the party list at the top of this page.</s> ''fixed'' --] (]) 19:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| I can see that Arbs are thinking about what role if any the Committee should take with respect to how policy applies to the requested case. In my opinion, ArbCom is not authorized to go beyond what the community has done, in terms of determining policy. Consequently, I would like to provide links to what I think are the relevant community discussions: | |||
| *Most recent community discussion about blocking procedures for violations of the harassment policy: ]. | |||
| *Present-day ongoing discussion about what the policy has said about off-wiki contact, and what might need to be added to the policy: ]. | |||
| :--] (]) 21:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| If the Committee is considering a motion (or some sort of "shortened" case), I think you have to be careful here. Even if the facts are not in dispute, the interpretation of those facts is very much so. However you decide to deal with the on-wiki aspects of the issues, you need to leave sufficient space and time for community feedback and workshopping. I am very concerned about the danger here of rushing through it, perhaps because of concern over the seriousness of the harassment policy (which is an entirely valid concern, but one that nonetheless requires thoughtful rather than impulsive reaction), or about the fact that we are nearing the end of the year (which is a completely invalid reason to hurry). --] (]) 17:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :About the many comments about how some of the Arbs have referred to gender: In my opinion, the gender aspect of how women can in particular feel intimidated ''is'' a valid issue to discuss, because it is a very serious one. On the other hand, it would be very wrong to apply that concern to what Jytdog did here – not every harassment problem is based in gender dynamics. To treat every accused user in a gendered context is a sort of ]. --] (]) 17:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {{cob}} | |||
| *Note: Jytdog has just posted a "retirement" notice on his talk page. I suggest that ArbCom should simply go ahead with the process as though that has not happened. --] (]) 17:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{Ping|Worm That Turned}} before declining the case as moot, please consider the possibility that no retirement is binding. --] (]) 17:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *Taking into account the comments by Arbs since I made my previous comment (as well as the multiple well-taken comments by other editors that it is quite possible that the retirement will prove not to be permanent), I think it might be a good idea to pass a ''very minimalist'' motion suspending the case, specifying that the case will be resumed immediately upon Jytdog's return, if that should occur, and that Jytdog may not otherwise resume editing without the resumption of the case. But please do not in any way go beyond that. --] (]) 18:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| **I'm seeing with no little dismay how editors are lining up to say ban or not, as though ArbCom is going to count votes about this. Whether you enact an "indefinite" ban or make a suspension in which he is banned from editing until after resumption of this case, the result is largely the same: he is banned until ArbCom says otherwise. The only difference is that, without considering a reopened case, you will be making a case decision without holding a case, and potentially in the future evaluating an appeal without having established principles. --] (]) 20:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ***Someone should full-protect his user page, and maybe semi his talk page. Otherwise, there is going to be ton of trolling. --] (]) 21:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *Watching both here and at Jytdog's talk page (quite a contrast), I want to make a sort of parting comment about this case request. I know some editors will disagree with me, a lot. Don't bother arguing with me about it. What Jytdog did was unambiguously wrong. Had this gone to a case, I would have made a workshop proposal for a very severe, albeit unconventional, sanction. (As for blocking now or not, it's doesn't matter.) And I've warned him against this stuff more times than I can count. On the other hand, he is a brilliant person, and what is more a very kind and well-meaning one, whose contributions to Misplaced Pages have improved it dramatically. Both these things can be true at the same time. Good people make bad mistakes, more than once. No one should be reduced to a simple caricature. --] (]) 15:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Mr Ernie === | |||
| Restore the indef and upgrade to a full arbcom ban. This is one of the most disturbing things I’ve ever seen on Misplaced Pages. Calling an editor whose number you snooped from a couple disclosures? Incredibly shocking and even more so that Jytdog thought it would be ok. This represents a fundamental incompatibility with what’s acceptable. I have sympathies per the long history of improvements to the project, but it is clear to me that Jytdog has such a deep seated COI ''about'' COI or MEDRS issues that they aren’t able to see when they’ve crossed a line. ] (]) 22:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|DGG}} Enough of the community has weighed in here with concerns that your proposal bypasses. Arbcom does not have the authority to do this. If a motion passes that Jytdog only needs to inform Arbcom that they have returned to editing, I will open a thread at a noticeboard seeking community consensus that a block be placed on his account that can only be removed with community consensus. Arbcom is not permitted to circumvent the community. Recent Arbcom unblocks come to mind (Guido den Bruder and Waenceslaus) where Arbcom let an editor back who immediately violated terms of returning. Enough is enough. Lastly, although Beall4 stated a desire to communicate directly with Jytdog, it is a stretch to imagine they meant for Jytdog to search the web for a phone number to call. They most certainly meant on wiki, since the comment was made on Jytdog's talk page. ] (]) 01:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::Someone has to make the final decision. Arb Com has chosen not to hear appeals from community block&bans, but it retains the power to do so. I made it clear in my campaign for re-election that I think the committee should take jurisdiction of a wider range of blocks&bans. My reason for this is the superiority of the relative qualities of mob action and committee discussion on matters involving personal judgements. Of course arb com makes errors, especially because it has been gradually moving towards a policy of giving people a final chance, which accounts for one of your examples. Errors of that sort are very easily corrected--and giving someone a chance is the only proof of whether they are suitable. So I think this practice is one of the best changes we've made in my terms there. | |||
| ::Of course, some people adopt a punitive view. Some people just want to punish wrongdoers to express their feeling of outrage, but what's more common is the view that punitive action can be preventative because it deters other people. I'll just say that is not my view of an fair society. It's true that it's widespread in the outside world. I consider it high among the list of the many injustices there. I'm here because WP thought it had a better way of doing things. ''']''' (]) 02:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|DGG}} Thanks for your comments. Jytdog routinely engaged in off-wiki research of fellow editors, and was caught doing it several times. We don't know how many more times this happened. As a result of this latest incident, many of the community feel that he shouldn't be allowed to continue participating here. You can liken it to an injustice, but it's probably more apt to call it an inconvenience. Telling someone they need to find another hobby is no great injustice. ] (]) 02:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I claim no ability to truly know what people may have done or intended in the past, or what they are likely to do in the future. Any of us may be wrong here, and I am aware of my own uncertainties. And se my statement in the arb section, which I think I cannot really add to further. {{U|Mr Ernie}}, I appreciate your questions & disagreement, because being challenged makes me think about things more clearly. ''']''' (]) 06:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by ] === | |||
| In my opinion it would depend on the content of that conversation. I have had an editor with whom I was in a dispute call me. It was not a big deal. Should we have a policy against such contact, I think so as that form of contact can easily go sideways and does not easily leave a paper trail. Jyt appears to understand the gravity of his mistake. I am fairly certain he will not repeat it. ] (] · ] · ]) 23:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *Agree with ]. Different people prefer different forms of communication. Communicating by phone and in person is by far the prefered were I work and many ignore emails and online systems. Misplaced Pages probably collects those with a lessor preference for phone and in person meeting. ] (] · ] · ]) 19:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Iridescent === | |||
| Per my comments on ] and Jytdog's talk page, I think this behavior is grossly unethical and totally unacceptable; however, I do feel that Jytdog genuinely believed they were being helpful and didn't realise just how inappropriate this kind of thing is. As ] points out at the ] thread, we don't actually have a written policy forbidding this; as per my comments there I personally feel that the reason we have no written policy is because when the policies were being drafted, nobody ever thought it necessary to formalize something so glaringly obvious, but nonetheless there's a just-about-plausible "since it wasn't expressly forbidden I thought it was OK" argument. (To prevent any future incidents like this, we {{em|should}} put it in writing that this isn't appropriate; whether Arbcom wants to toss the call back to the community, invoke the {{tq|To resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion}} clause of ] and write policy directly, or punt the decision upstairs to Trust and Safety, is up to you.) I'd be inclined to agree with Doc James above that this incident isn't going to be repeated, since Jytdog is surely aware that there won't be a third chance. ‑ ] 00:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| (adding) Unless there's something in suppressed contributions or off-wiki evidence to justify it, I don't see the need for a case here. This is the kind of situation for which "deal by motion" is eminently suitable; given that I don't think anyone is going to question the legitimacy of the actions of There'sNoTime or BD2412 (regardless of whether they agree with them or not), ultimately there are only two people and a single piece of evidence involved. Consequently, all a full case will consist of is a long parade of whoever happens to turn up, each offering their own opinion on whether Jytdog should be blocked or not, and you already have the evidence to make that call on your own. ‑ ] 01:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Thryduulf (re Jytdog) === | |||
| I am aware of some, but not all, of the non-public context that led to Jytdog's previous blocks. In the light of that context, the comments by Ivanvector giving details of more history that I was not aware of, and the comments from other editors about this sort of behaviour in general at ] I believe Jytog has already exceeded the number of chances an editor can reasonably be given. | |||
| Harassment and/or behaviour that is or is reasonably and likely to be interpreted as harassing by the recipient cannot be excused. None of the quality or volume of your edits or the length of your tenure are relevant. ] (]) 00:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| I do feel it important to say that I think BD242 was acting in good faith and was not wheel warring. However when an editor's block log indicates previous blocks based on non-public information, I would very strongly encourage every admin to check with those who have access to that information before removing or reducing a block, even if the most recent block was not related to non-public information (except where it is ''unquestionably'' unrelated). This is something arbcom should consider adopting as a principle or stronger. ] (]) 00:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| Having read again some of the old private discussions about Jytdog on the Functionaries list, it's increasingly clear to me that this isn't just a third offence, it's closer to an eighth offence ''that we know about''. After every single one there are different people independently describing just how bad Jytdog is in terms like "bully" and "serial abuser" - these threads go back years. Every single time Jytdog promises not to do it again, and while he doens't do the ''exact'' same thing again he does something equally harmful that is very slightly different (Opabini Regalis gives one good example but there are others too) - for the exact same reason we have ] we do not need to spell out every single possible way it is possible to harass someone and explicit prohibit it. Editors have to be intelligent enough to realise that if you get in trouble for putting dog turds through someone's home letter box that you will also get in trouble if you then put fox turds in somebody else's pigeon hole at work. Jytdog has serially demonstrated he is not capable of this. When you give an AI a goal you have to explicitly train it about all the means that don't justify the ends - you have to teach it that running over the baby because that will get you a cup of tea quicker, you then have to teach it that this applies to all babies not just that one, and then you have to teach it that this also applies to toddlers, and then you have to teach it that it also applies to the cat, and to the dog, and that locking all the dogs, cats, toddlers and babies into the cupboard under the stairs so they aren't in the way is not acceptable either. This is the sort of thing that we will continue to have to do with Jytdog. | |||
| That the victim is (alleged to be) a single-purpose account could not be less relevant - the victim is a human being. ] (]) 11:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {{replyto|Carrite}} Why do you think a 30 day block will work this time when neither of the previous indefinite blocks did? ] (]) 11:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :{{replyto|Carrite}} So? His first two blocks were preventative blocks that did not prevent his most recent action, nor did they prevent all other other times he has come close to being blocked but not been. I don't see why an arbcom sanction would make any difference what so ever - his previous topic ban didn't prevent this either. His previous promises never to do it again haven't prevented this action. What other options does arbcom have? How many last chances does someone get? ] (]) 16:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :{{replyto|Carrite}} Jytdog has, on multiple occasions, promised not to engage in behaviour such as harassing and outing with the knowledge that repeating that behaviour will lead to serious sanction, implicitly including restoration of indefinite block. I'm not sure how many exactly were explicitly "last" chances, but there have been multiple that were implicitly so. ] (]) 17:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {{replyto|Serial Number 54129}} ] is indeed very relevant. However I've long given it up as a lost cause in relation to those users (including but not limited to Jytdog) with significant focus regarding COI, paid editing (disclosed and undisclosed), and allegations and suspicions thereof. This is not a good state of affairs by any means, but it's tangential to this episode. ] (]) 11:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm concerned that some arbitrators seem to think that there is no reason to examine Jytog's conduct beyond this one incident. It's clear to me from the statements on this page and the previous private discussions I've been privy to that his actions as an editor should be examined as a whole as this was not an isolated incident, and basic decency means that accusations of such serious nature as being a serious bully should not be left hanging as neither endorsed nor dismissed. ] (]) 12:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Sir Joseph === | |||
| This behavior is not excusable at all and should not be tolerated, especially by a person with a history of harassment. Just think of the chilling effect this could have. Am I now to expect a call or perhaps a visit at work to discuss my Wiki posts? I can't imagine how someone can think contacting a stranger on the internet via phone is acceptable. We need a strong message and harassment by Jytdog has gone on long enough. I also think the block should not have been reduced pending a discussion. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by JzG === | |||
| Context: I've been doxxed by an article subject, had them phone my house in the small hours, I've had to get a court order to unmask an anonymous harasser. I'm not a fan of harassment. I've also had unsolicited calls from people trying to help (the editor of a magazine, for example, who knew one person who was creating grief). I appreciated that. There is a difference between reaching out in person and harassment. | |||
| I have spoken to Jytdog on the phone before, at his request, I do not think he is an aggressive person (very mellow, in fact, despite a distinctly heated exchange between us on-wiki) and I am inclined to assume good faith here: I think Jytdog was almost certainly trying to be helpful in the absence of any other way to contact the user. That said, it was a terrible idea. All admin actions here are 100% understandable and in good faith. | |||
| Unfortunately we're likely to see a pile on here from people who do not appreciate Jytdog's robust editing of articles related to antivaccinationism, quackery and undisclosed paid editing. You make a lot of enemies by opposing vested interests. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 00:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by 28bytes === | |||
| <s>I strongly agree with what {{u|BD2412}} says above. I would add that both BD2412 and {{u|There'sNoTime}} made reasonable admin actions in good faith and I would not want to see either of them sanctioned or warned for their actions. | |||
| I do not think there's anything ArbCom needs to do here. For the sake of clarity the harassment policy should probably be updated to include a warning about unsolicited telephone contact. In almost any other context, calling someone on the phone to more efficiently sort out things when written messages aren't working well is a perfectly reasonable thing to do; on Misplaced Pages, for a variety of reasons, it is ''very much'' not the done thing, so this would be helpful information for new editors especially. Jytdog, of course, is not a new editor, but as he has promised not to do that again I don't see much benefit in having a case about his actions. ] (]) 01:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Alexbrn}}'s statement provides valuable context as well, and is worth reading. | |||
| :A few people seem to be saying that calling an editor to try to help them when they're struggling with Misplaced Pages's not-always-intuitive messaging interface is equally objectionable to (or indistinguishable from) calling them to harass them. I don't think that's a helpful way of framing the situation. I think we can say "don't call people without an invitation to" without characterizing a particular phone call (or indeed all phone calls) as malicious. | |||
| :I have reached out in the past to such new editors who seem to be struggling with communicating on-wiki, although I've done it by email rather than by phone; sometimes it does indeed help them get their bearings on Misplaced Pages more easily than an on-wiki conversation. Sometimes it doesn't. Let's not frame such outreach as unequivocal "harrasment" when it isn't. Better to just explicitly state in the harassment policy that unsolicited contact via phone (or Facebook message, or whatever) is often unwelcome and thus strongly discouraged. Let's fix this at the policy level rather than focus on one editor who broke an "unwritten rule" that is either "too obvious a violation to mention" or "fine depending on the context" depending on who you ask. ] (]) 16:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)</s> | |||
| I'm striking my previous comments due to the new information regarding Beall4's perspective of the phone call. I continue to believe that both BD2412 and There'sNoTime made reasonable admin actions in good faith and should not be sanctioned or warned, and that updating the harassment policy to include specific guidance on off-wiki contact would be a very helpful thing to do. But Beall4's description of the phone call has convinced me that my initial impression of a "helpful but misguided" call seems to have been mistaken. No one should receive calls like what was described. ] (]) 02:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :{{re|David Tornheim}} Re: {{tq|...nothing more than an attempt to avoid prosecution? Consider how an alleged criminal...}} Can we not do that, please? ArbCom cases are dehumanizing enough without these kinds of analogies. ] (]) 19:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Davey2010 === | |||
| This was a terrible idea and was certainly poor judgement on Jytdogs part .... that being said it's certainly plausible that they simply tried to help the editor the best they could, | |||
| I feel his actions were done with good intentions and there was no harassment or malicious intent here, As noted above we don't actually have any sort of policy forbidding this so maybe one should be created, | |||
| Should the case be accepted (publicly or privately) ? - Personally I'd say no, Clearly it was done in good faith so in this specific case I feel this should be declined. –]<sup>]</sup> 01:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *I also agree with BD changing the block from indef to 24hrs - TNT and BD both acted in good faith but personally I feel indef is OTT but ofcourse we all judge things differently. –]<sup>]</sup> 01:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::<small>(Both comments updated/amended 19:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC))</small> | |||
| === Statement by RexxS === | |||
| I've worked with Jytdog on numerous articles to help him clean up inappropriate contributions, usually breaches of MEDRS, so I do appreciate the work he does. On the other hand, I've been in direct and strong conflict with him in a case where I felt he was damaging a wiki-colleague (a Wikimedian-in-Residence), over allegations of paid editing that I felt missed the mark. During that confrontation, Jytdog suggested in email that he'd like to talk to me, but we never quite managed to fix up a Skype call before it all petered out. | |||
| I'm therefore aware of the store that Jytdog puts in talking though issues – and he's quite right that in real life, that's how problems and misunderstandings are best resolved, i.e. in real-time by two-way dialogue. So I'm not at all surprised that he would see the chance to talk as an "obvious" helpful step, and I have no problem assuming good faith on that. | |||
| What went wrong, IMHO, in this case is that Jytdog had been looking at the other editor's edits because of the problem of their posting possibly spam or promotional external links. Examining the content of the external sites linked, in itself, is perfectly normal (and actually vital) if you're trying to understand the nature of that sort of problem. It seems that one of the possibly promotional links contained a clear phone number which Jytdog saw. Where it went wrong was that he seems to get too involved in an issue and that clouds his judgement. He should have realised that using that phone number to make contact had the potential to blow up in his face. Most uninvolved observers would form that conclusion, I believe. | |||
| Having said all that, I sincerely believe that Jytdog has now come to his senses and understands how bad an idea that phone call was. I only hope he'll give us some reassurance that he now understands how he sometimes allows himself to be so involved that he can follow a bad idea like that, and that he'll be particularly careful to recognise how it can happen, and will take measures to reduce the chance of anything like it ever happening again. Heck, I'll even offer to take a Skype call from him myself if he wants another opinion when he has another idea like this last one. --] (]) 01:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by olive === | |||
| Simply put: I don't support an indef. I would suggest a line has been crossed and I would assume Jytdog realizes he went too far. Above all our first consideration must be to treat other editors with respect and patience as if we want them to stay around. We are editors but we are also the ones who help train new editors - support them. It takes time and may be frustrating but that's part of the job in my opinion. <strike>And while the end never justifies the means, as I said, a sanction is probably not necessary this time</strike>. ] (]) 02:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|Ealdgyth}} Thank you so much for your comment on gender. I didn't bring my own experience into this which includes two separate instances of editors repeatedly calling me with out permission in one instance at clearly timed intervals. It is creepy, scary and is disruptive to the sense of safety a family has. I don't think Jytdog realized how impactful phone calls with out explicit permission can be and such calls can have a greater impact on women. Because we can't know how such a call can be impactful is exactly why we don't do it.Ever.] (]) 14:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Kelapstick=== | |||
| I’ve unblocked Jytdog, as noted on his talk page. Blocks are preventative and the likelihood of reoccurance in the next day is nil. Now he can participate correctly. | |||
| Related to this request. Jytdog, while a villagant combatant of COI, has been down this road before (oversight blocks are nothing to take lightly), and so far as I know, the topic ban mentioned by KK hasn’t been lifted. Simply put, he should know better. | |||
| :Thanks to those pointing out the lifting of the topic ban. The fact that a ban is lifted does not mean that a user should not tread lightly in formerly problem areas. Even if there are no active sanctions. —]<sup>(]) </sup> 03:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Montanabw=== | |||
| While I can appreciate that Jytdog cares about the issues where he edits, and on at least one issue we agree, I think his behavior in this instance, however provoked he thinks it may have been, went over the top. If we don't have a policy that "off-wiki communication which has been alleged to be unwelcome by the recipient" is unethical, then it's high time we get one. | |||
| Jytdog has exhibited this pattern for years of being unable to cool down when he is challenged, and he can't hide behind MEDRS as an excuse to be a ]. We all get tired of the various tendentious editors we come across from time to time, but that's what article protection is for. That's what ANI is for. That's what AIV is for. That's what SPI is for. What happens on wiki stays on wiki unless BOTH sides agree otherwise. | |||
| To be clear: If someone enables email, they agree to be contacted via email. But unless we create a little checkbox that says "here is my phone number and I consent to be contacted via telephone," then HELL NO, we don't breach the anonymity of Misplaced Pages. No one should just be called up out of the blue unless they have previously agreed to such contact via an agreed-upon method. | |||
| A gray area is if someone does post their name or phone number on their userpage or something. But personally, I still think it is wise to never initiate contact with another editor that I know only via WP other than with the "email this user" feature. | |||
| I mean, in some jurisdictions, including where I live, unwelcome contact triggers the warning provision of the stalking statutes. (and the intent of the initiator is irrelevant.) If I tell person X, "do not contact me again" and they contact me again, it doesn't matter a flying f--- what they say, it's my privacy that is to be respected. Their behavior is enough for me to to file a stalking complaint in my jurisdiction. | |||
| All that said, maybe Jytdog meant no harm, but he's got to learn how to dial it back. I am not certain what the appropriate sanctions on Jytdog should be at this point, as I have not reviewed the situation fully, nor at the moment do I have time to do so. BUT, this is classic Jytdog: disagree with him and if you don't completely roll over and play dead, he just keeps upping the ante until he goes nuclear. | |||
| As far as whether Jytdog needs to be indeffed, or given a 12-month ban, or just have an assigned nanny to remind him that ] and sing ], something has to be done to get it through his head that no matter how passionate he feels, he has to quit being such a bully. His block record speaks for itself. He goes in cycles and it's time to break this infinite loop. I encourage ArbCom to take this case and consider it within the broader context of where to draw a firm line on off-wiki stalking. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Johnuniq === | |||
| Some good points have been made and I particularly endorse ] statement just above. However, I cannot see what use a case would be. Once started, a case would grind on for months and would reach the obvious conclusion which we know already—just read Montanabw's statement. My reading of ] is that the policy is silent about what Jytdog did (although I agree that ''do not phone people'' is in the bleeding-obvious category). I do not see how Arbcom could justify a sanction because arbitration has to be formal and the policy only prohibits certain on-wiki behaviors. The "repeated annoying and unwanted contacts" in the nutshell refers to repeatedly posting on an opponent's talk, or pinging them, etc. ] would not justify an Arbcom sanction. | |||
| A proposal to expand the policy to cover the issue under question is at ]. ] (]) 04:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by EdChem === | |||
| Maybe there are things that I am missing, but the reaction that Jytdog has received seems to me to be over the top and statements appear based on large assumptions. For example: | |||
| *{{u|Montanabw}} states that {{tq|If we don't have a policy that "off-wiki communication which has been alleged to be unwelcome by the recipient" is unethical, then it's high time we get one.}} That's reasonable, as far as it goes, but where is the evidence here that the call was unwelcome to {{u|Beall4}}? Jytdog has said, repeatedly, that his first act on the phone call was to identify himself and ask to discuss the situation, and that he received a response of "yes". That doesn't suggest the call was unwelcome, rejected, or found to be harrassing / intimidating, and those statements are (as far as I am aware) undisputed. Now, the call became problematic / unproductive and heated and, it appears, Jytdog hung up, but that is not proof that it was experienced by Beall4 as harassment. | |||
| *Others have made similar statements, such as {{u|Ivanvector}}: {{tq|... off-wiki communication which has been alleged to be unwelcome by the recipient (whether or not that constitutes harassment is being argued on-wiki)}}. Contrast also {{u|Mr Ernie}}'s declaration that {{tq|This is one of the most disturbing things I’ve ever seen on Misplaced Pages}} or {{u|Iridescent}}'s statement that {{tq|I think this behavior is grossly unethical and totally unacceptable}} with {{u|Doc James}}' rather more nuanced (and realistic) {{tq|In my opinion it would depend on the content of that conversation}}. Are the former comments really reasonable if the call was agreed to by Beall4 at the start and included frustration and disagreement but no threats or harassment? | |||
| *Ivanvector's statement also cites a previous ANI case to support the implicit assertion that the call constituted harassment ''even if Jytdog was trying to be helpful'': {{tq|See, for example, this ANI discussion from March 2015 about Jytdog's incivility and alleged harassment, in which it was also recognized that his behaviour was inappropriate, he was warned and he promised to reform. The move to telephoning editors without invitation to discuss Misplaced Pages disputes is an alarming trend in the opposite direction, in my view, even if he believes his intentions to be good}} | |||
| *In short, I suspect that Jytdog's reputation with some editors (as {{u|JzG}} noted) and the previous ban (which I do not know recall details of, but which I presume was serious) are colouring views of the present event. It is surprising how few comments even note that hearing from Beall4 would be helpful (and thanks to {{u|Cameron11598}} for contacting Beall4 and adding them as a party). | |||
| *Jytdog's view that a call might be acceptable can be seen in Beall4's editing. The ] shows Beall4 re-adding content to ] six times on 26 November. Five of those re-additions (, , , and ), include the sentence {{tq|I would like to communicate with you directly regarding reverting the update to the SCD}} from Beall4 to Jytdog. At the end of this last edit, Beall4 declared {{tq|I can see that it is not possible to have an academic discussion in this venue, as one editor can simply delete or re-arrange the comments of another, as my response has been deleted 3 x by jytdog}} and then a comment from Jytdog about talking once MEDRS-compliant sources were suggested. {{u|Mathglot}} then a post that explained, ''inter alia'', that {{tq|] are about discussing how to improve the article. Academic discussions that don't forward this goal are off-topic.}} In this context, is Jytdog's idea for changing the venue to a verbal conversation so unreasonable? | |||
| *I will not defend Jytdog's decision to call without waiting for a response to the that he left, as it was (at best, in my opinion), foolish. I do not see any evidence, however, that makes offering the suggestion unacceptable or inappropriate. Perhaps he might not have identified where he got the phone number, but that is a minor detail. | |||
| *I do not see the justification for jumping to an indefinite block by {{u|There'sNoTime}} as a "Clear violation of our ] - see ]". As {{u|Tryptofish}} , the block was made more than ''four hours'' after {{tq|I am hearing what people are saying. I should not have taken the risk and will not do so again.}} Jytdog had also {{tq|Calling the person was a high risk thing to do for sure. If it would have gone well -- if the person had come away understanding how we use MEDRS and what they were doing wrong -- it would have been good for everybody. However I should have a) had my act way more together in the call instead of getting upset by the person's combativeness and b) beforehand, considered the risk that (i) it would go south (ii) it would be badly received by the person ''afterwards'' if it went south; (iii) considered how it could be framed here. Considering those things now, I would not have done it and I will not be be trying that again.}} Just what was it that was being prevent by this block? I note the context of {{u|Drmies}} that {{tq|Even if you're trying to be helpful this is not cool}}, a comment followed by discussion of threats and genuine harassment and feeling fearful. These are reasons why Jytdog calling without having permission was unwise and potentially frightening, but it must be remembered that there is no evidence (as far as I am aware) of Jytdog having made threats or engaged in harassment. There'sNoTime, I think you need to explain: | |||
| :# Why a block justified more than four hours after Jytdog had stated twice that he would not make such a call again? | |||
| :# What part of the harassment policy was clearly violated? | |||
| :# On what basis was an indefinite block justified by the discussion you cited? | |||
| :# What the block was supposed to prevent and how, given it did not limit Jytdog's ability to make phone calls and he had already undertaken not to repeat his action? | |||
| :ArbCom, if you are to take this on (either as a case or a motion), please look at what has been said with an eye to what is fact and what is assumption. I do think the initial block was questionable given that the evidence for harassment on which it was based appears to be all assumption, and as it prevented nothing (especially given Jytdog's prior statements on wiki). That Jytdog was stupid to call without waiting for permission is evident, but that does not make it harassment. Doc James and others have received such calls and found them unproblematic, others have found them disturbing and unwelcome, but I don't think that they become sanctionable unless they are truly harassment, threats, or other inappropriate behaviours. ] (]) 06:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *{{ping|TonyBallioni}} Thanks for your comments, and I do see that a stronger reaction makes sense for the {{tq|third time something like this has happened}}, but that leads to another problem. TNT's block log entry asserts a {{tq|Clear violation of our ] - see ]}}. It makes no mention of prior incidents and so is, at best, highly deficient in presenting necessary information to anyone viewing the log. Further, for Jytdog's action to be a clear violation of the harassment policy, there needs to be some evidence of harassment, and I don't see that clear evidence. Finally, lacking any clear policy basis for a block to be imposed, the appropriate action would have been to start an ANI discussion or an ArbCom case, not to unilaterally impose an indefinite block. I don't accept that the harassment policy implicitly prohibits off-wiki contact of this nature ''unless'' the content of the contact is harassment, etc. I also don't accept that it should as it would class as harassment an action that may be poorly considered but certainly need not be harassing. Now, Jytdog should have waited for a response to his post to ], but stupidly not doing so doesn't turn a single phone call where he identified himself and asked for permission to discuss the on-wiki situation into harassment. ] (]) 10:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *{{ping|There'sNoTime}} Thank you for providing direct replies to my questions. I appreciate your willingness to explain and I do see the reasons for your choices, but I remain concerned about some of your choices. Regarding the timing of your block, I can understand having {{tq|no faith in empty promises}}, but given that you {{tq|did not want my block to be perceived as WP:PUNITIVE}}, I am struggling to see the wisdom in acting unilaterally. You could have started this RfAr or an ANI thread without making a block and sought consensus on what to do. That would have avoided concerns about punitive actions far more convincingly than by {{tq| it very clear I did not want my block to be perceived as WP:PUNITIVE}}. Given the actions were off-wiki and so not prevented by a block and given Jytdog's posts, the chances of any repeat in the short term seem low, and so there was no urgency. | |||
| *The second reason that I think your actions appear punitive is that you declared a "clear violation" of the harassment policy in the block log entry and made no mention of earlier incidents, but now declare that you are relying on its spirit. Your comment that {{tq|in spirit it's fairly clear we shouldn't find a work phone number of another editor and ring them}} reads to me as saying that simply making such a phone call, ''irrespective of what is said'', is harassment, and I don't agree – Doc James has spoken of not feeling harassed by such calls, for example. While I would not make such a call without first receiving permission, I don't think a blanket prohibition that declares any and all such calls are harassment is reasonable or justified. I really think that acting hours after Jytdog's comments on a "clear violation" that is arguably no violation makes your action look punitive and suggest another agenda – especially when the block itself cannot prevent the problematic action. | |||
| *Had you taken it to ANI, suggesting Jytdog's actions were outside community norms and suggesting a ban, you would have been on much more solid policy grounds. I wonder if the reason you did not take (or perhaps even consider) this response was due to projection from your own experiences? You write in your general clarification that the {{tq|reason behind my rename and other changes was due to getting harassment over the phone - this upset me greatly and still affects me. I don't wish that on anyone, "good faith" or not.}} I am sad to hear that you have been harassed, and I note that harassment is never acceptable and certainly is a grounds for blocks and bans. I am further saddened to learn that you continue to feel the effects of harassment and had to take steps to protect yourself. I am glad that you choose to continue to contribute to WP and I do understand why you might view Jytdog's actions as obviously being harassment. However, may I ask you to reflect on whether this makes you the best person to impose the block rather than the best person to start an ANI discussion. Your ability to empathise to how Beall4 might have felt is an asset in discussing why such actions are serious and unwise and potentially sanctionable... but they are also a potential liability to objectively deciding whether there was harassment in this case. | |||
| *It appears to me now that you made two mistakes: you imposed a block asserting a policy violation that was not clearly established and you failed to record in the log the important fact that you took into account previous oversight actions. I think both happened because your experiences led you to see the situation as much nastier than it appears to me to be. A more conservative consensus-seeking approach would have been wiser in the circumstances, and I hope that you will reflect on whether your choices here were truly objective. For the record, I am not suggesting that you should be sanctioned, but I do think your choices here were less than ideal. ] (]) 11:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by WBG=== | |||
| Echo {{U|EdChem}}, in entirety who has superbly crafted the entire stuff and Guy's last line. And, whilst TNT certainly acted in good faith, IMO, that was a bad call.]] 06:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Alex Shih === | |||
| The initial block needs to be scrutinised. Did {{u|There'sNoTime}} block {{u|Jytdog}} indefinitely mostly based on their oversight block in June 2016 that was handled by ArbCom, of which the information There'sNoTime have no access to? Do we block editors based on ''assumptions'' now? As {{u|Tryptofish}} and {{u|EdChem}} have pointed out, blocking Jytdog four hours after they have made the reflection on not to repeat the behaviour with the mere basis that "you don't believe them" needs to be better justified (paraphrased from ]). What is the purpose of this block, "to send a message"? Excuse me, but the blocking tool should '''never''' be used for the purpose of one administrator sending a unilateral message without the explicit backing of a community consensus. To me this is close to being an act of intimidation which is equally a problematic behaviour. Communicate first before you act; ArbCom needs to comment on the policy aspect of this entire issue (not just the technical aspect of the block itself). | |||
| Once we have the block issue resolved, we can move on to the next issue, in which there is of course '''no excuse''' for Jytdog's recurring poor decisions and aggressive editing behaviours despite of years of promise "to do better" (they have improved in their approach, but the occasional relapse is deeply unhelpful). Jytdog's tireless works in combating COI and paid editing are under appreciated, especially in the face of many ArbCom members past and present that are far too disconnected from the community to realise the lasting damage paid editing has on our project; instead there seems to be a trend to claim moral high ground and inadvertently shelters (in the name of "protection") those whose only intention is to use Misplaced Pages as a platform for their promotion. Regardless, Jytdog '''need''' to know <u>when to stop</u>, and we cannot continue going in circles about this. Ask for help from administrators/functionaries whenever possible instead of being creative and come up with solutions that are often very inappropriate in the context of communication on Misplaced Pages. But this has been blown way out of proportion despite of the fact that ] was going in the right direction. A case is unnecessary, please handle this by motion. ] (]) 08:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :{{re|There'sNoTime}} Focus on the content please, there is no need to make anything personal. Labelling legitimate concerns as "{{tq|pot-shots}}" is ''not okay'', so please don't make another remark that could be incompatible with "standards of conduct and decorum" as expressed in ]. If you are uncertain about the consequences in which of your administrative actions in this case will bring (your uncertainty was apparent in the immediate aftermath of the unblock discussion), is it unreasonable to ask you to ''ask first'', which would be the same response you should be giving to Jytdog? Did you seek any input from oversight-l or other functionaries, or did you simply decide that you should be the one to make example out of Jytdog and send out a general message about your interpretation of ]? I think this is a legitimate question to ask, but of course your opinion may differ. ] (]) 08:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{re|Nick}} Your disagreement is noted, but your personal commentaries about my "incompetence" and other assumptions irrelevant to this case request is not. {{u|L235}}, {{u|Miniapolis}}, {{u|Cameron11598}}: would one of you please consult ArbCom on whether or not Nick's commentary is compatible with ]? If yes, please declare so; if no, please remove them accordingly. ] (]) 09:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :Some parts of the responses by {{u|Opabinia regalis}} and {{u|Worm That Turned}} below are based on the very "assumptions" that EdChem have highlighted in their statement. To characterise this as some sort of "dispute" between Jytdog and {{noping|Beall4}} is incorrect; although this apparent impression is mostly the fault of Jytdog, who frequently gets far too aggressively involved in their attempt to maintain MEDRS standards over edits by single purpose accounts that seemingly has promotional intents; it is wrong and a ban (after renewed discussion) would certainly be justified. One has to follow the entirety of exchange on Misplaced Pages starting here () between Jytdog and Beall4 to get the perspective of Jytdog. There is no justification for Jytdog's action in the context of Misplaced Pages, but we need to understand perspectives of different sides before jumping to conclusions. Context matters; Jytdog can be justifiably sanctioned for persistent poor decisions, but we must not give false equivalence by characterising their action as some sort of harassment attempt or comparing them to unsolicited contacts from a male stranger to a female. What they did was simply a very poor decision lacking the common sense expected for a experienced editor, particularly from someone that has been sanctioned for similar editing behaviour before. But I cannot emphasize enough on the importance of having a discussion first in non-emergency situations so that we can make sure all of the implications are being resolved. ] (]) | |||
| :{{re|KrakatoaKatie}} "{{tq|We can relate as women}}": How inappropriate, the gender comparisons really needs to stop. Harassment comes from all genders and affects all genders in the context of Misplaced Pages, and you know that very well. I understand the analogy was introduced to illustrate a point, but it is irrelevant and off topic to this very case request. This case request is not about harassment, but about Jytdog's inappropriate actions that constitutes a pattern, as you and others have identified. So please do as you said in your very same statement and focus on nothing but {{tq|the conduct of an established editor accessing and acting on off-wiki contact information}} instead of continuing to promote a potentially divisive rhetoric that was produced with {{tq|no evidence that it's at all relevant}} to this discussion, as noted by {{u|Opabinia regalis}} herself. ] (]) 07:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{re|Ealdgyth}} I don't know if my comment was one of the comments you are referring to, but for the sake of clarity please allow me to explain my perspective if I may. Collapsing as the following content is likely over word limit and is not directly related to the case request, but rather it is a general response to several statements that have been made. ] (]) 08:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| The concerns of half the human population is certainly worth considering, but there are several reasons why I don't agree this is the right place to do so. The case we have here in a nutshell is a new male user asking another (experienced) male user basically to communicate directly. Since the experienced male user's attempt to communicate directly on Misplaced Pages did not go smoothly due to various reasons, the experienced male user decided to be creative. Two male users talked on the phone and disagreed in their discussion. The experienced male user should know that just because people in the past and present accepted phone calls in this case does not mean it is okay to make this kind of phone call in this situation in the context of Misplaced Pages, especially when they have been sanctioned in the past for similar action. The scope of this case should end here.{{pb}}Bringing gender into this case for the pure purpose of illustrating the point about women's vulnerability when gender was completely uninvolved in this very case is unnecessarily divisive and puts undue weight on a certain class. Many other class of people have been also in a similar position of vulnerability having been exposed to these unwanted contacts off Misplaced Pages. For example, users that edit nationalism topics, or users that edit controversial political topics. It should be fair to say that majority of these users are men (since that is unfortunately the demographics of Misplaced Pages), and many of them have been subjects to direct death threats, legal threats, threats to their family or other unwanted off wiki contacts and more. Many of them have publicly or privately expressed their fear. If we were to use this opportunity to open a case about the general subject of "off wiki contacts" and to discuss women's vulnerability, then the voices of these other classes needs to be heard as well. We can then discuss the difference, similarities, or the weight of vulnerability suffered by different gender and class when being exposed to unwanted contacts off Misplaced Pages. But where would this end? Should we not focus on the issue at hand and resolve the issue at hand? TL;DR: We can and should talk about gender, but only when there is a case request that actually involves gender. Bringing up gender in every discussion to illustrate the perspective of women can come off as overzealous and is neither productive toward progressing the gender discussion nor does it help to come up with a solution for the issues at hand when the issue did not involve gender at all. ] (]) 08:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :Just wanted to add the end note that I am 100% in support of the sentiments expressed by {{u|DGG}}. There is a lot more that I want to say but nothing further will be serve any useful purpose, so I suppose it is time to close the chapter. ] (]) 09:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Smartse === | |||
| ]. I'm in the camp of this being a bad idea but it was done with the intention of ''helping'' and not ''harassing'' the user. I've read through all of he harassment policy and there is definitely nothing to say that you shouldn't do this. I get that some people think it's blindly obvious that you shouldn't but we can't enforce non-existent policies. Given the admission by Jytdog that he realises now it was a bad idea and won't do it again, the block was unnecessary and I don't see what opening a case would achieve. ] (]) 08:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Nick === | |||
| <s>I disagree entirely with Alex Shih, who is once again demonstrating his staggering incompetence. The initial block was 100% justifiable given the circumstances alone, never mind Jytdog's previous behaviour and the question of the topic ban potentially still being in force at the time the block was made. The community remains enormously fortunate Alex stepped away from ArbCom and isn't running this year, given how wrong he is yet again. I would strongly encourage the community to explicitly prohibit the type of contact Jytdog has made by expanding and modifying the relevant policies, so nobody can be under any illusion as to how the community views such behaviour, or that such behaviour is anything other than entirely inappropriate. If you want to telephone someone, you must wait for them to ask you and to offer their phone number themselves, freely, willingly and not under any sort of duress. ] (]) 09:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Alex Shih}} I believe, in light of the allegations you have made concerning There'sNoTime and their administrative actions in this case, your incompetence be flagged to the committee and the wider community so they can understand why you're wrong. I don't believe you're being malicious, just that you lack the necessary competence to correctly understand what it is There'sNoTime was doing and why. I have no issue with my comments being redacted by a clerk, in fact, to make life easier, if my concerns regarding your incompetence Alex are judged to be in breach of the arbitration policy, a clerk can replace my entire statement with {{xt|</s>The initial block was 100% justifiable given the circumstances alone, never mind Jytdog's previous behaviour and the question of the topic ban potentially still being in force at the time the block was made. I would strongly encourage the community to explicitly prohibit the type of contact Jytdog has made by expanding and modifying the relevant policies, so nobody can be under any illusion as to how the community views such behaviour, or that such behaviour is anything other than entirely inappropriate. If you want to telephone someone, you must wait for them to ask you and to offer their phone number themselves, freely, willingly and not under any sort of duress.}}. ] (]) 09:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Geogene}} I disagree that the block of Joefromrandb can remotely be described as being 'in error'. The case was certainly complex but imposing an indefinte block in the circumstances was a valid (and in my opinion) sensible administrative action. I also note that the resulting discussion of the block did in fact close with a simple majority (but no consensus) in favour of either a lengthy or indefinite block, and I further note, in an ironic twist, the chief cheerleader against the block are now blocked indefinitely because of their own battleground mentality editing issues. I'd go make a nice apology to There'sNoTime if I were you, Geogene. ] (]) 16:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Literaturegeek=== | |||
| {{hat|Extensive outdated comments}} | |||
| There is no policy or even guideline against what jytdog did. ArbCom can’t, in my view, even give an admonishment without it being the arbitrators ‘original opinion’ of social decor. In any event, off-wiki emails or social media messages are routinely sent, often unsolicited, by Wikipedians to each other - is a phone call much different? Is verbal communication egregiously more intrusive than non-verbal text communications? What ArbCom could do is pass a recommendation to the community that it consult to form a policy or guideline on initiating off-wiki contact during disputes.--] | ] 09:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| I think where jytdog went wrong is that he should have attempted email contact asking permission to call/voice chat first, that could have made this situation less intrusive/problematic. Perhaps, we could have a section added to ] policy pertaining to intrusion and personal boundaries as it could be seen to be borderline harassment.--] | ] 10:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|KrakatoaKatie}}, {{ping|BU Rob13}}, {{ping|Doug Weller}}, {{ping|Worm That Turned}}, {{ping|RickinBaltimore}}, {{ping|Euryalus}}, {{ping|Newyorkbrad}}, {{ping|Premeditated Chaos}}, {{ping|DeltaQuad}} I think the site ban suggested by MONGO is not warranted at this juncture, a site ban should be a last resort, especially because {{ping|jytdog}} helps keep a lot of poor sourcing and pseudoscience out of our articles. With that said, something should be done to prevent jytdog driving newbies away from the project. He has a habit of becoming frustrated with newcomers who don’t understand our policies and guidelines. I was very disappointed with his recent behaviour on ] talk page, where who wanted to use a high quality FDA source to add information about serious disabling adverse effects of this group of drugs - their crime was they also mistakenly thought an ''opinion piece'' in high quality Nature journal was an acceptable secondary source. This newbie appears to have been driven away from editing Misplaced Pages and our ciprofloxacin page is worse off because of it. I think the community and myself included tend to defend jytdog because literally 99% of his contributions are good to very good - nobody wants to lose his valuable work. I note the arbitration committee feel another admonishment is pointless but are considering a motion; I suggest instead of a lengthy block or site ban that jytdog is given a strong editing restriction of not violating ] or else, for serious violations, he could face an escalating block. That way it could curtail his negative behaviour and retain his productive edits. Frustration with and biting newcomers is the reason for the intrusive phone call to resolve the situation, and much of his other negative behaviour, I feel.--] | ] 13:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| I feel that the case should proceed, partly because if it is stalled then recollections of what was said during the telephone call will fade over time, lessening the quality of evidence. I agree with tryptofish as well that retirements are not binding; further, an off-wiki communication case could apply to future violations by other editors - this is not just about jytdog. {{ping|Beall4}} has still not disclosed what was said to her by jytdog, so we still do not know the seriousness of this situation. We know the conversation went south, but was there serious abusiveness involved in what was spoken? Of course, it may be the case Beall4 does not wish to elaborate on the ‘derogatory’ content of said phone conversation.--] | ] 18:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| I remember jytdog recently commenting on-wiki that Misplaced Pages is highly addictive (I did look for the diff), I think therein lies the problem. Jytdog, I think it is fair to say, is thoroughly addicted to Misplaced Pages and what its content says which provokes aggressive editing - his motives are well meaning due to concern for our readers. With this background I think there is a risk he could reactivate the jytdog account; on his talk page he has requested that he be indefinitely blocked or given a siteban - his wish should be granted. It is possible after a long time out and time to think, he might be able to return to editing having addressed the core reasons for his problematic editing. I encourage an indefinite block for everybody's sake, particularly jytdog's. I would be keen to see jytdog return, perhaps 6 or 12 months from now with a different attitude, as he is a knowledgeable and skilled editor.--] | ] 14:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Softlavender === | |||
| Jytdog's phone-call was boneheaded, idiotic, and wildly inappropriate. I think nearly everyone agrees with that. However, he had already agreed never to do that again, four hours before TNT blocked him indefinitely, apparently as a '''retroactive punishment''' and unilateral banishment from the realm. In terms of this RFAR, '''no prior dispute resolution has been attempted'''. If TNT merely wanted the Committee to review "previous Oversight and blocks reserved to ArbCom which involved private information information which administrators who are not functionaries cannot access", in order to disprove or confirm BD2412's claim of a first offence, it seems to me all he had to do was email ArbCom and leave the matter with them. Otherwise, in terms of Jytdog's fate, the matter should have been brought to AN or to ANI, to assess if any sanction gained community or administrative consensus. | |||
| There seems to be no point of ArbCom blocking or re-blocking Jytdog for making an egregious error in judgment and engaging in sleuthed unsolicited phone contact, because such a block would be merely punitive. There may be a case to be made for looking into Jytdog's unilateral missteps, which seem to pop up from time to time, but at this point I think all that is needed is to admonish him to stop taking matters into his own hands and to instead bring them to a noticeboard when there are problems with an uncommunicative editor. | |||
| Back to TNT, I think Alex Shih is correct that TNT stepped way out of bounds on this one and his actions bear looking into even more than Jytdog's, but at this point do we really need a case about the whole thing? | |||
| Let's just step back and reflect that at least two people screwed up royally and that two wrongs do not make a right. I think it can probably end there unless ArbCom does want a full case as opposed to a decline or a motion. ] (]) 10:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *'''NOTE''': I am not excusing Jytdog's genuinely boneheaded action in the least, but one fact he has stated elsewhere but neglected to put in his statement here is that {{u|Beall4}} did not and does not have email enabled on Misplaced Pages, therefore he could not be contacted that way. At least not until he enabled email -- which Jytdog should obviously have suggested if he really wanted to help the person or resolve things privately off-wiki. ] (]) 13:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *Re: {{U|28bytes}}' statement: <p>{{xt|Better to just explicitly state in the harassment policy that unsolicited contact via phone (or Facebook message, or whatever) is often unwelcome and thus strongly discouraged. Let's fix this at the policy level rather than focus on one editor who broke an "unwritten rule" that is either "too obvious a violation to mention" or "fine depending on the context" depending on who you ask.}}<p> I agree with that, but I would add that '''it's never OK'''. '''Unsolicited contact via phone is never OK, period.''' I find it kind of bizarre that this needs to be spelled out, but apparently it does. <p>And I agree with 28bytes that it's better handled at the policy level than trying to parse an unrecorded phone conversation involving an editor who has not communicated anything on-wiki about said conversation, and an editor whose motives we really cannot parse either beyond what he tells us. Lack of evidence therefore prevents examination of the particular case in question, beyond the few diffs leading up to the call. ] (]) 17:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by ] === | |||
| I would like to point out that there are a range of possible sanctions between a toothless admonishment and the death penalty. An Arbcom-imposed 30 days might be the wake-up call needed to end the problematic content warriorism, which is the true source of this horrible judgment off wiki. ] (]) 10:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :@{{u|Thryduulf}} — None of the previous blocks were Arbcom sanctions. An irreversible shortish Arbcom block would be a big shot across the bow. I urge the committee not to think in terms of a dichotomy between "Do Nothing" and "Terminate User." ] (]) 16:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :@{{u|Thryduulf}} — Per: ''"How many last chances does someone get?"'' — By definition, one. Has he received this yet? Now, how many ''chances'' does one get? That's a more accurate question. And that answer is: as many as necessary before the collective decision is made that the negatives outweigh the positives and that there is no point in attempting to further keep a person in the project. JYT has generated big positives and big negatives. Balancing that scale is not easy. ] (]) 16:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| * A good point was made in the JYTDog thread at Wikipediocracy: JYT should have given the new user ''his'' phone number, that way the contact would be made at the option of the other user. ] (]) 16:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by ] === | |||
| [[File:Albrecht Dürer - Saint George Killing the Dragon (NGA 1943.3.3597).jpg|thumb|220px|''Saint George Killing the Dragon'', | |||
| woodcut by ] (1501/4).]] The worse here was the transformation of a Wonderland's conflict between ] and ] into a '''real life''' conflict between 'The Misplaced Pages Company' (to name it that way) and 'The COI Company' (to name it that way). | |||
| Saying "this was not intended to harass anyone", together with promising to not reiterate such a bad move doesn't solve the real life problem. Moreover, this doesn't solve the Wonderland problem either. You can promise to not repeat something voluntary done from bad will, but you cannot promise to not repeat something involuntary done from stupidity. Previsional timeline: Jytdog will be given an iterative n-th last chance, until The Misplaced Pages Company cuts the Gordian knot. Being at risk when you are rich is not what SanFran will want to live with. ] (]) 13:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *Dear ]. Anyone is allowed to '''privately''' conduct any inquiry she wants... and, to be honest, cannot even be prevented from. One click from the name of a congress to the list of participants. One click from this list to Google Earth or Google Maps. One click from that to Real Estate Agencies web sites. And now any inquirer can see if the said house has a fractional number of bathrooms, or an integral one. But you are not allowed to publish here, on wiki, any result from your off-wiki inquiries. Even discussing, here, if this house is a private dwelling or something else is a breach of privacy. In an ideal wold, this should be addressed by a last warning. But seeing how lax is the response to Jytdog himself, may be this world is not as ideal as it should be. ] (]) 11:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ** follow-up: Thanks to you, dear ], for having modified your initial comment. My intent was not to fault you about anything, but rather to underline how any slight breach of privacy could impact real life people, the obvious ones, and even the others. Once again, thanks for your reaction. ] (]) 14:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *Dear ]. Yes. You are right, '''nobody''' {{tq|sees that meant to harass new editor}}. But this is not the point. ] was not interacted with as a supposed new editor, but as a supposed COI editor, more precisely, ''a seller of something, trying to use WP to advertise their snake oil'' (my own words, summarizing my own perception of what happened). Someone who so blatantly don't understand why he should not phone the dragon before (figuratively) killing him, should not be left in the situation of playing the character of ''the Righteous Saint Georges Killing the Snake Oil Dragon''.] (]) 12:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *Dear ]. The word '''unsolicited''' seems to be missing, otherwise your assertion could be taken as {{tq|you are allowed to phone call your beloved ones, even if they are also Wikipedians}}. Supposing now that your assertion has to be parsed as {{tq|'''Unsolicited''' off-wiki communication is not a crime!}}, let me assert a two-fold dissent. Concerning the ''real life'' part of the thing, ]s have various legal qualifications. These qualifications cannot be discussed here, because a) this would require to invade the privacy of the callee (specific state of residence, specific destination/use of the house, and so on) and b) this would amount to give a ''legal advice'', contrary to our policies. Concerning the ''Wonderland'' aspect of the thing, not understanding that privacy is a requirement and pushing this up to the point of committing repetitive breaches of the said privacy is a ban-able condition. This should be enforced here, instead of giving the feeling of an "unstated free ride permission". ] (]) 10:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *Dear ]. You have said {{tq|support motion, block is academic if account password scrambled}}. Are you using academic with the meaning erudite/lettered or with the meaning bookish/scholastic ? In any case, it seems that ''password scrambled'' is about the account that some real-life person was using, while ''banned'' is about this very real-life person. I am surprised to see an arbitrator not stating clearly the difference between a shadow in Wonderland and a real person, living in the real world. This difference was the core of the present case, was it not ? ] (]) 10:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::If the password is scrambled, the account can't be used. So a block on the account is largely symbolic. Sorry but I don't understand your reference to shadows in Wonderland. -- ] (]) 11:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::My point is that ''accounts'' and ''people'' are different kinds of animals, and that we must not identify what happens in the real-life world and what happens in the abstract world, ], here at wp, call it any name you want, where ''accounts'' are rather masks and pseudonyms, aka shadows in Wonderland. In the Internet, nobody knows you are a dog (says the cat). Account Jytdog has said "password scrambled", so that any activity of this account will result into a "compromised account alert", this seems clear. But what about the real-life person whose avatar was the account Jytdog ? Does the actual motion states that the said real-life person is blocked/banned at least until a full case is reopened, or is the said real-life person allowed to create, say, a Kzueph account and proceed further on ? This is not symbolic at all, and this is your duty to pass motions that are sufficiently precise to tell what is closed and what remains open. ] (]) 15:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Kurtis === | |||
| As with many other issues, I am of two minds. | |||
| Do I feel that Jytdog behaved inappropriately in giving another editor a phone call over an on-wiki disagreement, particularly in light of the fact that the recipient of his off-wiki interaction never explicitly gave him his number? Of course I do. Frankly, if I were on the receiving end of such a phone call, I'd be deeply unsettled, to the extent where I would likely contact somebody associated with Misplaced Pages about it. I don't believe that there was any malice in his actions, nor do I feel that it constitutes harassment in the strictest sense (i.e. attention that is ''persistent'' as well as unwanted), but it nevertheless falls outside the bounds of socially acceptable behavior. | |||
| Now, do I feel that his actions merit some sort of sanction? That I'm not so sure of. I know that Jytdog has a history of inappropriately escalating disagreements with other editors, so this cannot be dismissed as an isolated incident. However, unless I'm missing something, it's the first time he's done something of this nature in a long while. He has also apparently expressed remorse, which is a positive sign that something like this will hopefully not happen again. Should we take his assurances at face value, or does his history preclude offering him another chance? | |||
| I don't know if arbitration is necessary at this juncture. While it might involve sensitive information, the community knows the basic gist of what happened, and we likely have the power to make a decision on that basis. Then again, I'm not privy to all the details, so I think it would be a good idea for the committee to review the private evidence and decide whether a full case is needed. ] ] 11:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by MrX === | |||
| An Arbcom case is not necessary and would not be particularly helpful. The incident is not in dispute. There is no private evidence that ''needs'' to be heard that would be informative. Jytdog made an unsolicited call to an editor with whom he was in dispute, violating the spirit, if not the letter, of ]. The recipient of the call was "combative" and Jytdog ended the call "abruptly" (hung up?). | |||
| A reading of recent harassment policy talk page archives, especially ], shows that Jytdog has an aggressive viewpoint concerning COI and UPE and has received ample feedback from the community about it. He should have known that his actions would lead to negative consequences. | |||
| Please decline the case request. The original block should have stood until it could be reviewed by the community. At this point, it should be referred back to the community so that a proper remedy can be determined through consensus, taking into account Jytdog's substantial positive contributions but also his previous history of aggressive anti-COI/anti-UPE actions. This will also provide an opportunity to bolster the ] policy, and make it explicitly clear that this behavior is intolerable. - ]] 🖋 12:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment by Nsk92=== | |||
| People who claim that what Jytdog did here is not forbidden by policy are incorrect. The ] portion of the policy says: "'''As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely.'''" The policy does not, and in fact '''cannot''', explicitly list every particular type of action that constitutes off-wiki harassment. An in-person unsolicited phone call from a stranger in relation to Misplaced Pages editing is an incredibly intrusive action and an egregious and jarring invasion of privacy, quite incomparable with an e-mail sent through the Misplaced Pages e-mail system. Most people, if it were to happen to them, would regard receiving such a phone call as harassment, even if the stated and sincere purpose of the caller was to ``help". I am not familiar with Jytdog prior editing and history, but Arbcom needs to make a clear statement that what Jytdog did in this case was completely unacceptable, block worthy, and must not be done by anyone else in the future. I think Arbcom also needs to clearly state that the] policy should not be interpreted as allowing specific kinds of actions that are not explicitly listed as prohibited there, but rather as a general prohibition of any conduct in relation to Misplaced Pages, on and off wiki, that can be reasonably viewed as aggressive pressure or intimidation. ] (]) 12:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Ryk72 === | |||
| Let's be clear - '''if a Misplaced Pages editor makes unsolicited phone calls to another editor on a phone number that they have not explicitly provided on Wiki, it is an act of harassment - intent is immaterial; how the call is received is immaterial - ''it is an act of harassment.''''' Anyone who believes otherwise is misguided, misinformed, misaligned, or malicious. - ] <sup>]</sup> 13:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by SashiRolls === | |||
| I have been the target of a fair bit of bullying from Mr. Jytdog. In any study of a contributor's harassing behaviour, the context is important. So... here is some context as to how their bullying has been used. In Nov. 2016, Jytdog made up stuff about promotional editing on the Singapore page, which he then ''''''. This false, retracted, accusation by Cirt / Sagecandor in December 2016. | |||
| Much less "stale": during my unblock request (after it had been recognized I had been railroaded out of the project by a sockpuppet of a former sysop), Jytdog would not drop the stick (cf. ), and shortly thereafter became disruptive, again battlegrounding on the syphilis page. (A short background on this matter can be found either at the talk page itself or in my close to on my talk page). As with the original incident about Singapore, they were incorrect in their assertions and ended up by recognizing this fact. | |||
| Though I have since found good material about both Rabelais' & Shakespeare's relationship to syphilis/the pox. I have refrained from adding it because of this contributor's threatening behaviour (though I have added it it to fr.wp, and to the en.wp article on Rabelais). This is an example of how jytdog's harassment/disruptive behaviour has prevented improvements being made to the encyclopedia. | |||
| As many of you know there are very detailed complaints about jytdog in the "governance" thread at Wikipediocracy. It is, I believe, the most visited thread about a single contributor on that site. (rapidly approaching 30,000 views) | |||
| I have provided these examples of Jytdog's errors concerning my edits on Singapore and on syphilis as a service to the inquiry into their problematic behaviour. Please ping me if you need any further input. — 🍣 ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 13:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Coretheapple === | |||
| {{hat|collapsing pre-"retirement" comments}} | |||
| The purpose of this case is to determine whether the initial block was correct. It was. This is not complicated. Just because there is no specific prohibition on something doesn't mean that you can do it. You can't expect the harassment policy to cover every possible form of harassment known to man (or woman). Do we have to go back to the harassment policy and make it so airtight that every form of possible harassment is covered, so that all the loopholes get closed? Tracking someone down and phoning them is a ghastly and creepy thing to do, and this is not the first time he's done something indicating a total cluelessness in this area. ] (]) 14:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)<small>Condensed. ] (]) 20:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)</small> | |||
| Jytdog's false claims concerning this matter should be viewed gravely by the committee: | |||
| 1. His claim that the phone number of the person was easy to find is utter rubbish. He tracked down this person. See the first paragraph of Voceditenore's statement below. | |||
| 2. He falsely implies that Beall4 is associated with an "organization." See David J. Wilson's statement below. Note that Jytdog has not responded to David Wilson's question and identified this supposed organization. Even if there ''was'' a COI it would not justify his appalling behavior toward this woman. | |||
| 3. The Beall4 statement makes it quite plain that Jytdog's call was harassment and not an effort to "help" this user, as he also falsely claims. ] (]) 16:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)<small> Edited ] (]) 14:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)</small> | |||
| It cannot be emphasized too strongly that this appears to be the ''first'' time in which one of the privacy issues involving Jytdog is publicly known in any detail. Thryduulf above says that there are "old private discussions about Jytdog on the Functionaries list" indicating that that "that this isn't just a third offence, it's closer to an eighth offence that we know about." ] (]) 23:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)<small>Condensed ] (]) 20:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)</small> | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| I agree with Jusdafax and Tyrptofish that this case should continue despite the "retirement" of Jytdog in the wake of the sudden and unexpected appearance of Beall4. Unretirements are as common as retirements, and agree that the indefinite block should be '''reinstated'''. ] (]) 17:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| Re a motion to suspend: that's probably the worst possible outcome, as it presupposes that Jytdog's departure is temporary. If it's temporary, then we should proceed while memories are fresh. If you take him at his word, give him the community ban that he himself has asked for. His request should be granted. However, given the history of indeffs that aren't indeff at all, and given his statement that he will '''never''' come back, again, take him at his word. Give him what he wants. Make it not subject to appeal.] (]) 19:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|Euryalus}} You have said "support motion, block is academic if account password scrambled." I don't see how you can possibly say that. The motion explicitly refers not just to the "Jytdog" account but to ''any'' account that person may create, so his scrambling of the password of his current account is superfluous. This poorly crafted motion, as currently written, makes no opinion on the underlying issues upon which more than six dozen editors have given statements. Not if but '''when''' Jytdog returns in a few weeks or months, we're back to square one. He has asked for an indefinite block or a ban. Why aren't you giving it to him? Why are you "more Catholic than the Pope"? ] (]) 15:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :The motion would prevent him from editing under this or any other account, whether or not we block this one now. But this is not worth us arguing about; on the basis of information received both here and privately, including some received in the last few hours, I'm now entirely satisfied that a block is necessary and have made this clear in the motion vote. -- ] (]) 19:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think that that's a correct decision. A block would head off some of the inevitable wikilawyering ("I wasn't blocked so yadda yadda yadda") you or your successors will get ''when'' he seeks to return. ] (]) 19:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Alanscottwalker=== | |||
| Following up on Coretheapple, it must always be remembered to never treat ] like a law. No one is making a legal claim, it is a website policy. We do not ] policy to cover every act. So, certainly people can reasonably hold that an additional personal contact (here in the form of an uninvited call) in the midst of an ongoing online dispute is by its nature intimidation or persistent within the meaning or spirit of policy. All the more so because although we do not know the call, we do know that above Jytdog seems to say he became "angry" during the rather unheard of call he initiated. ] (]) 15:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::I find the argument against the 'gender' comments rather overwrought (especially what appears to be the high dudgeon of some) -- it just so happens that that is a population that in rather high-profile ways is implicated, but what it actually points to is the broader issue that all kinds of people are potentially impacted by uninvited contact. -- ] (]) 18:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Newyorkbrad}} {{ping|Mkdw}}: How about split the difference and remove permissions (ie all editing permissions - indefinite) after three or six months of no action like in the Schumanweb case. That way it has a somewhat more known and settled ending. (Let me add, if I may, I think this is all unfortunate, regardless of the outcome). ] (]) 22:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Voceditenore === | |||
| I am very concerned about Jytdog's false assertion that the person he telephoned had provided information about their contact phone number that was . He based this solely on Beall4's edit summary ''''''. {{redacted|BEANS much?}}. Nor does their edit summary specifically refer to {{redacted|BEANS much?}}, nor does it refer to the {{redacted|BEANS much?}}, nor did that editor provide a link to {{redacted|BEANS much?}} in their version of the article in dispute. I tried all of them. Finding that phone number involved {{redacted|BEANS much?}}. This was ''not'' one step. {{redacted|BEANS much?}} | |||
| In my view, this is the same kind of "research" that got him an indef block and a . I'm sorry, but while there was no outing ''per se'', this completely violates the spirit of that ban. Furthermore, I personally consider his act of telephoning an editor about a dispute he was having with them—without their prior permission on-wiki or via their on-wiki email and whose phone number had required considerable research and guesswork to find—to be harassment or at the very least intimidation and a gross violation of privacy. This whole affair needs much closer examination (whether it is by ArbCom or a community discussion) rather than simply writing it off as "trying to be helpful gone wrong". It's much more than that. ] (]) 15:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC) <small>Updated by ] (]) 13:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :{{ping|Cameron11598}} <s>I think you've added the wrong name as a party. It should be ] not ].</s> ] (]) 16:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Cameron11598}} Whoops! What I should have said was I think you forgot to add ] as a party. Was that intentional? ] (]) 16:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| Just adding that the fact that Beall4 hasn't complained on-wiki is no defense at all. First of all, they were blocked for 24 hours for edit warring right after the phone call, and unsurprisingly have not edited further here even after the block expired a few hours ago. If I had been a newbie and the recipient of such a call, I would have run a mile from this place. Since I am not a newbie, I would have contacted the WMF immediately. ] (]) 16:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|Primefac}} I have no problem with your redactions if the clerks or arbs feel they're appropriate. However, I want to emphasize that the information Beall4 provided in the edit summary was not remotely sufficient to easily find their phone number. It required '''multiple''' steps and active research to do so which I had attempted to demonstrate (not wisely in retrospect). Jytdog's framing this as the recipient's fault for providing him with enough information to successfully go sleuthing for a phone number is completely unacceptable, let alone actually phoning the person. ] (]) 17:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| I am very disappointed to see ] (and several others) perpetuating the false notion that Beall4 asked for off-wiki contact of any kind . Or even that any reasonable person would infer such a thing. The '''only''' comment by Beall4 in this respect was on Jytdog's user talk page It is blindingly obvious that the editor meant communicating with him directly on his talk page (as they proceeded to do) rather than via edit summaries or at ]. Jytdog was only able to phone that editor by detailed searching on the internet for a number that editor did not provide. It was listed in a PDF file, the link to which the editor did not provide. Jytdog then concocted a false ''post hoc'' justification for cold-calling the editor. The recipient mentioned no such book and no such date in their edit summary (see above). This strongly suggests to me that he knew full well that what he was doing was wrong, and was preemptively trying to cover himself. What Jytdog did to that editor was an egregious invasion of privacy completely contrary to the spirit and principal of Misplaced Pages's privacy policy as well as intimidation. If the arbitrators decide to suspend this case pending Jytdog's return, OK... I guess. But I am not happy at the way Beall4 was treated and indeed falsely depicted by several people in this arbitration request. In fact, it's quite shameful. ] (]) 13:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::I will respond here for convenience. I interpret "direct contact" as telephone or in person or email., without specifying which. when used at WP, it implies off-wiki, because for on-wiki there's no need to ask. I'd agree that going directly to in-person is usually not what's intended & is against the general manner of WP interactions. . Whether it means to exclude email depends on the situation. I don't think it excludes it here, tho the argument is by not giving the email it does exclude it. FWIW, I have said from the first that in this situation unless I had been directly told the phone number I would not phone, but I do not think jytdog's interpretation as including phone was altogether unreasonable. I've said more below about what the real issues are, and they are not these details. ''']''' (]) 03:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Alexbrn === | |||
| Some bigger issues here. | |||
| (As personal context, I receive quite a few personal emails - often abusive - and have literally had green ink handwritten letters arriving at my work about my WP editing, which is largely in the ] space.) | |||
| First, I don't think it's quite right to characterize Jytdog and Beall4 as being "in dispute" in the usual sense. On 18 Nov, Beall4 arrived at ] and began their Misplaced Pages career by inserting some content with over-ripe unsourced claims (calling the diet "among the most active and exciting areas of research for all human diseases") and making medical claims sourced to non-] sources. So far so usual for a medical article. | |||
| This was reverted both by Jytdog and (after Beall4 re-made their edit) by me, and discussion moved to Jytdog's Talk page where Beall4 opening words were "Hello, '''I would like to communicate with you directly''' regarding reverting the update to the SCD" . There followed a perfectly cordial one-on-one exchange with Jytdog explaining the relevant ]s in what seems a helpful way. Again, nothing unusual here. | |||
| The problems seemed to start when discussion moved to ] where Beall4 made repeated copy-paste edits from the previously discussion with Jytdog, to the exasperation of Jytdog; Beall4 was also reverted in this by {{u|Bradv}}. This is not so much a content dispute as an attempt by seasoned editors to keep the Talk page in order. | |||
| So I take Jytdog's call as an attempt to contact a new editor obviously having basic difficulties operating Misplaced Pages, in the context of an already-established pattern of one-on-one discussion, rather than furthering a content "dispute". Jytdog says he has phoned new editors a number of times to resolve issues, and in the past this has gone well. I trust this was attempt to do the same again. | |||
| If Jytdog is to be sanctioned, presumably it will be for all these previous (successful) contacts too, since some people are arguing that any such contact is ''ipso facto'' "harassment"? | |||
| In ] it is stated "Talking to other parties is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia". Are we saying that if this is done electronically, you're with the angels; but initiate it by phone (actually, "talking") and you're the very Devil? If so, this could be usefully clarified somewhere in the ]s. | |||
| (I also note the recipient of the call did not complain, but rather the issue was raised by {{u|Bilby}} who really ''is'' in dispute with Jytdog – see e.g. – which all seems a bit rum). | |||
| === Statement by Guerillero === | |||
| We are on the ∞th chapter of Jytdog v. Shaky Science, and this chapter feels almost like the last one that I had the displeasure of looking at. Jytdog seems to have missed the point of the last ∞ chapters of this story and will probably see the ban hammer because he has run out of ''last'' chances. At the same time, xe is one of the very few Wikipedians willing to enforce ] and related policies in the area of alternative medicine and other areas that use our project as a booster for their cause. Please take this case, or you will have to cut this knot the next time it appears before you. --] | ] 16:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Primefac === | |||
| I have removed a number of comments by {{u|Voceditenore}} - the cat is still mostly in the bag, and giving a play-by-play rundown of how they searched out this individual is inappropriate. If a clerk or Arb feels that the information that has been suppressed is acceptable, I have no issues with it being un-suppressed. ] (]) 17:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC) {{ppor}} | |||
| :{{ping|Voceditenore}}, I did try to keep the point of your message (that it wasn't easy) in the text while removing the specifics. Thanks for understanding. ] (]) 21:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by RegentsPark === | |||
| Definitely reeks of poor judgement on the part of Jytdog. Imo, you should never call someone off-wiki without first getting permission to do so, either on wiki or through wiki-email - no one wants to receive a "I'm calling from Misplaced Pages and your edits suck" phone call! If those routes are not available, and the user is behaving disruptively, then an "indef block and move on" option is the best way out. That said, I don't see the need for a case or any action here. Jytdog acted in good, if misguided, faith and will hopefully not do this again. An indef block was probably over the top but it was, again, in good faith and rightly reduced (and then removed). If we need a policy on off-wiki communication as Montanabw says, then that's something that should be discussed by the community so this isn't the right forum for that anyway. --] <small>(])</small> 17:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Tornado chaser === | |||
| {{hat|Extensive pre-retirement comments}} | |||
| I normally do not support sanctioning someone for a single good faith mistake that was not explicitly prohibited by policy, even if it was very stupid. However, anything related to outing/privacy/off wiki contact is in a whole other category of seriousness, as it can have very serious social and professional/financial consequences that cannot be predicted in advance by the person doing the outing, in extreme cases, outing may even be life-threatening. | |||
| I see how Jytdog could have thought that Beall4 wanted to be called but tracking down a phone number that wasn't explicitly provided (and that Jytdog had no way to be certain belonged to Beall4) was not acceptable and could have lead to Beall4 being outed (what if there was someone else around when Jytdog called?). This violated at least the spirit of ] and, while not intentionally malicious, recklessly created a risk of outing, something that should not be tolerated coming from an experienced user who should know better. Also, Jytdog appears to be misrepresenting the original message asking for permission to call, this message was somewhat confrontational "you are wasting time" ect and '''said he had already tried to call''' and would be interested in facetiming. Jytdog says he got upset on the phone too, so we really can't blame Beall4 for leaving wikipedia and not commenting here. On top of all this, Jytdog has had '''2 oversight blocks in the past''' and has apologized for their uncivil attitude in 2015 , only to be warned again about civility in 2018 and 5 days later assume bad faith of me (likely a continuation of a previous ad faith assuption). Because of the repeated and continuing incivility despite apologies, and multiple blocks, I am concerned about Jytdog's ability to learn from mistakes. | |||
| The fact that Jytdog has called editors before and it went ok is no defense at all, and neither is the fact that he was calling a "problem" editor, better to indeff someone than track down their number. I am surprised that anyone here thinks it is ever ok to call someone on a number that they haven't explicitly provided to other wikipedians, if I got a call from another wikipedian, I would probably have to stop editing and would call WMF. I do not endorse any specific sanction, as I do not have access to the oversight logs, but if this really is a third privacy offense a site ban does seem necessary. It is dangerous to allow repeat privacy offenders to stay with the project, no matter how good their other edits are, and I can't believe that some editors are using the fact that communication is required as justification for calling someone on a number that they did not explicitly provide. ] (]) 19:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| Jytdog has claimed not to remember that the original diff said he had already tried to call. However, he has used this misrepresentation as a defense in other places too, | |||
| I am also very concerned by Jytdogs' initial attempts to justify the call and accuse ] (the user who initially brought this up) of bad faith. ] (]) 00:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| The fact that non-public evidence is involved and that it has been alleged that such evidence shows this to be an eight offense(see statement by Thryduulf) is reason for arbitrators to investigate this this issue thoroughly. ] (]) 01:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :I think the talk of wrongdoing by admins is silly, TNT and BD2412 both made reasonable (but hasty) decisions, and neither one needs any form of sanction over this. ] (]) 17:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| While socking is an indeffable offense on it's own, it is not clear that Jytdog would be socking if he were to create a new account, given that he has abandoned his current one. I encourage ArbCom to at least impose a requirement that, should Jytdog edit under any username or IP, he must identify himself as Jytdog and this case be allowed to proceed. Jytdog is getting a lot of encouragement to come back, and I know from personal experience that the temptation to come back will be there, because I quit WP and blanked my userpage in January after an unpleasant dispute (Ironically this dispute was with Jytdog) but here I am, still editing away! ] (]) 01:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :{{re|Jusdafax}} I don't want to see any admins sanctioned over this, as we don't and shouldn't sanction people for minor good faith mistakes, but sanctioning the people who called for the admins to be sanctioned would also be an example of sanctioning people for minor things, wouldn't it? Also, isn't threatening to get people sanctioned over any disagreement one of the things we didn't like about Jytdog? ] (]) 01:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :{{re|Jusdafax}}. fixing ping ] (]) 01:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{re|Jusdafax}} I strongly disagree with Geogene's rather aggressive comment, but don't see anything I would want him sanctioned for in it. ] (]) 03:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Drmies === | |||
| I didn't count the votes below but I think the arbs are leaning toward accepting the case, which I think is a good thing. There's broad consensus, I believe, that this wasn't outing; there seems to be some consensus that this maybe wasn't harassment, but even if it wasn't by the letter of the policy, this was beyond what should be acceptable. That it was "one click away" doesn't matter--it was a greatly overblown and unacceptable response to a fairly run of the mill situation. Jytdog, I'm sorry, but this was unacceptable behavior, and worse, it falls into a pattern. How this will mark your editorial career here is for ArbCom to decide and I wish them much wisdom: it is not an easy thing to do, throw the book at a longtime editor. ] (]) 22:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Robert McClenon=== | |||
| The acceptance of a case by the ArbCom should not mean that sanctions will be imposed. Contrapositively, the ArbCom should not decline to accept a case simply because they may decide not to impose sanctions. This case request raises enough unanswered questions that the ArbCom should accept it. That is especially true because there is clearly past information of a privileged nature that is relevant, since there were two functionary blocks that can be assumed to have been made based on privileged information. (If an Oversighter blocks an editor as an admin, it isn’t an Oversight block. If an Oversighter blocks an editor based on suppressed information, that is privileged.) | |||
| I think that the idea of changing the name of a case from that of an editor to the type of conduct that is alleged simply to avoid pre-judging the case is silly. This case is not about off-wiki conduct in general. It is about alleged off-wiki conduct by ]. A case should be given an area name if it is about conduct in an area, such as Israel and Palestine, or Alternative and Complementary Medicine, or American politics. A case that is about the alleged conduct of an editor should have the name of the editor. I point to Michael Hardy as an example where the ArbCom correctly named the case after an editor, and did not impose sanctions on the editor. | |||
| The ArbCom should accept this case, not because of wrongdoing by Jytdog, but because of allegations of wrongdoing by Jytdog and the likely need to review privileged data. | |||
| ] (]) 23:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Kingsindian === | |||
| With regard to Jytdog offering to talk with the person over the phone/skype, I can say here that Jytdog offered to do the same with me during an unrelated case. I did not accept the offer (I prefer email), so we didn't end up actually going through with it. Thus, Jytdog's story seems plausible to me. | |||
| I have no comment on any other aspect of the matter. ] ] ] 05:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Serialjoepsycho === | |||
| My question is what comes next? This cat's kind of out of the bag isn't it? If the matter is no one ever thought to formalize this but we have a consensus here that this is a "WTF moment", then to me it would seem reasonable that upon close that the necessary and appropriate steps are taken to formalize this. While there is alot of focus on what steps to take address what steps to take against Jytdog, shouldn't the Elephant in the room be addressed? To me it would be of a higher importance to do just that.] (]) 07:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Comment from SN54129=== | |||
| I wasn't going to comment, but this cuts to the heart of ], which states ''{{tq|a '''pattern''' of repeated offensive behaviour}}''(my emph.) must be established to qualify as such. Does this/can this only apply to ''on''-wiki harassment, which, by its nature, is easily established; or, is a single episode ''off''-wiki sufficient due to the possible impossibility/likely improbability of finding out the full story? A single episode could be part of a broader campaign which is never discovered (to take this case as an example, it appears that User:Beall4 since, and therefore any other instance remain unreported. Apologies for the insinuation: I'm sure that there were none, of course, but it's the case in point). And although, as in this case, some self-outing may already have occurred on-wiki, the committee may wish to consider whether the extra degree of deliberation—premeditation? Taking that extra step—that goes into approaching someone off-wiki may itself qualify as forming a pattern—or part of one if the off-wiki contact is combined with on-wiki confrontation. | |||
| Regardless, I'm rather surprised that in the so-far ~20,000 words of statements, no-one has mentioned ]. It seems to apply here, writ large, if nothing else does. ]]] 11:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Hijiri88 === | |||
| {{collapse top}} | |||
| I'm of two minds on this. I think (based partly on ) that ] should clearly state that contacting another editor's workplace without their explicit consent, even if they have disclosed the name of their employer on-wiki, is unacceptable regardless of motivation or circumstance. But it does not currently say as much, and so whether doing so is "harassment" must, unfortunately, be taken on a case-by-case basis, based on what can be gathered about the intent of the accused editor. I think indef-blocking off the bat was a little extreme given that Jytdog's stated motivation (explaining, in private, how Misplaced Pages works) is not completely implausible, but I think doing so was not unacceptable on the blocking admin's part either, but if Jytdog is allowed continue editing (and based on what I've seen, which I will admit is not everything, I think he should be) he should be strongly cautioned that the proper avenue would have been to post on the user's talk page requesting that they enable email. | |||
| :<s>I wonder if anything can be done about David Tornheim's continued harassment ''of Jytdog''? Regardless of anything else that's going on here, Jytdog is because of his own hounding campaign, which is revenge for a different Arbitration case some years back, which saw both editors TBANned (, ).</s> ] (<small>]]</small>) 22:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::I just noticed Jytdog appears to have before ; this is bordering on grave-dancing territory right now, but I guess if ArbCom plans on accepting the case anyway there's nothing more to be said. I don't think David's disruption is beyond the community's capacity to handle at this point, so I don't want to give the impression I'm asking ArbCom to do something about it. ] (<small>]]</small>) 22:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| *FTR, the above can be considered retracted. I think Jytdog violated policy and that was (initially) handled appropriately with an indef block. My questions about the appropriateness of the actions of some of the editors who are still here are, at this point, off-topic. ArbCom cannot unilaterally amend the ] wording to explicitly state that unsolicited off-wiki contact is never acceptable (except perhaps in cases of famous people who appear to want private or off-wiki contact regarding the articles ''on them''), so that issue can also be seen as off-topic; I do think both conversations need to be had, the one at ANI or possibly AE and the other at the talkpage of the harassment policy, but that's not for here at this time. ] (<small>]]</small>) 03:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Julia W === | |||
| Although I'm working in the field of medicine and healthcare, I have completely given up editing in that area (after a very brief foray) because Jytdog is one of the most frustrating users to deal with, and his vigilantism is often completely misplaced. His idea of "helpful" is stuff like blanket reverts and boilerplate templates. His idea of "helpful" is convincing others that he is absolutely right about everything. I am entirely convinced that if he had found my work information and called me to tell me I violated a tiny part of MEDRS, he would have described his actions as "helpful". He may think he's some sort of self-appointed Misplaced Pages ambassador but he is not. Jytdog is a bully, and that is all. His repeated pattern of apologising and promising never to repeat his actions is serial abuser territory and for some reason others keep believing him. ]\<sup>]</sup> 14:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by TParis === | |||
| Jytdog fucked up. But he's not malicious. There are editors that take our COI policy very seriously and give very little weight to ]. Jytdog isn't one of them. It was a boneheaded mistake and one I don't expect he'll repeat - although I don't have access to the private data that TNT mentions. I sympathize with JuliaW's comments about being frustrated with Jytdog, I've been there many a times. I think a brightline was crossed. But I also think he's truly apologetic and I don't think a case it warranted. Simply a very strong admonishment.--v/r - ]] 15:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Qwirkle=== | |||
| A comment: the ad hominem “Single Purpose Account” has been used here. I’d suggest that many, perhaps most, wikipedians make many of their first few edits to an area they are familiar with, and its entirely possible this fellow would have made edits in other areas if he hadn’t (IMO, of course) been run off. Describing him as an SPA is poisoning the well. ] (]) 20:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Smeat75 === | |||
| ] says above ''Jenhawk777 contacted me asking to be interaction banned from Jytdog...I determined that she was in a dispute with Jytdog over some articles on historicity of the Bible...whether this is another case of Jytdog hounding an editor inappropriately or just content disputes in the course of editing a topic in common I really don't know''. As someone who was involved in a lot of discussions with both of these editors on the articles concerned, I feel I should say that no, Jytdog did not "hound" Jenhawk. Jenhawk was concentrating on controversial articles (], ],], for instance) and Jytdog was trying to keep these articles neutral, properly sourced and encyclopedic. Jenhawk eventually found a way to work with Jytdog but has withdrawn from the project for other reasons. I just point this out so that is not counted as another "black mark"against Jytdog, it would not be deserved.] (]) 21:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :] says above " about the Jenhawk thing", about Jenhawk's statement ''where she said she was leaving. I saw that as a reaction mostly to me.'' I can see why Jytdog would think that, but it isn't what Jenhawk said in her own words in a post about why she was leaving WP on a talk page of a wikifriend''recently I ran into virulence involving misogyny that was so apparent and so blatant it just blew me away. The argument was over how women were treated in the past and my--validly sourced--work on two different articles. His response was to jump on me for being Christian even though Christianity was nowhere in the subject matter. '' She means me, not Jytdog, and she is talking about comments I made on the talk page of ].I did not "jump on her for being Christian" or make "virulently misogynistic" remarks,ridiculous, anyone can see what I said. Jenhawk goes on to say ''Then in the same week, another guy who I thought was my friend, told me he was cutting me off for a week as discipline for not obeying him by mentioning a subject he didn't want to talk about''. She is referring there to an editor I will not name as I know he doesn't want to be involved, whose talk page she went to over and over to complain about Jytdog. He told her repeatedly, for more than a year, that he was happy to help her or continue their collaboration, as they had worked together on various articles, but he didn't want her coming to his talk page to comment about Jytdog any more. She continued to do so however so he asked her not to post on his talk page again. Her own words do not mention Jytdog as a reason for leaving.] (]) 00:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by David Tornheim === | |||
| '''Enough is enough'''. How much time do we have to spend dealing with Jytdog's endless shenanigans? Consider the hours of editor time spent dealing with noticeboard incidents where Jytdog was a party. The repeated warnings and his promises not to repeat untoward behavior have had no effect. Katie's comment is spot on: {{tq|Jytdog seems to do something, he finds out it's not okay, he promises not to do "that" again, and then he finds something even more egregious to do.}} It will not take a full ArbCom case to figure out the obvious; however, I would support a full case to investigate claims this is an eighth offense. | |||
| {{hat|Challenge above claims of Jytdog's neutrality on Christian topics}}}} | |||
| ''Regarding above comment'': {{tq|Jytdog was trying to keep these articles neutral, properly sourced and encyclopedic.}} I beg to differ. | |||
| :Consider this: A day after {{u|Softlavender}} nominated of ] for deletion with 69,000 bytes and 81 references (including references to Oxford University Press), Jytdog came in with a and removed almost everything, creating with less than 3,000 bytes and only 4 sources ''while'' the was going on. (Note: {{u|Jenhawk777}} had removed about one-third before Jytdog deleted almost everything remaining.) | |||
| :Apparently Jytdog's expertise in ] is sufficient for him to make this definitive determination: "the bible is not a philosophical treatise; there is no 'ethics' per se in the bible." Why consider the work of professors in the field, when Jytdog knows better? With the exception of Jytdog and Softlavender, the vote to keep ] was nearly unanimous. The article is now back to where it started. | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| {{hat|Did he call once or twice?}} | |||
| ''Regarding the phone call'': Did he call once or twice? Let's look at the which he 11 minutes after posting: | |||
| :So you are really floundering here and are just sucking up other people's time. Would it be perhaps useful if we talked? I tried to call the phone number for the "Nutritional Therapy for IBD" given in the NASPGHAN 2018 abstract book that you mentioned , but it just went to voicemail. Shall we try to talk via skype or something? ] (]) 21:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| Is telling someone they are "floundering" and "sucking up everyone's time" a good way to "help" an editor? | |||
| Here Jytdog says he called the number and got voicemail. But in his statement above he said, "I introduced myself, and asked if the person wanted to talk about what was going on." That suggests to me that he called not once, but twice, both times without permission. This aggressive behavior is beyond the pale. --] (]) 23:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| :Indeed Jytdog to '''calling twice (both times without permission)''' while I was writing the above. And then to "departing from the facts" to defend his unacceptable behavior. --] (]) 00:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|Comment to Worm That Turned}} | |||
| {{ping|Worm_That_Turned}} I ask you to please reconsider your position. Jytdog has misrepresenting material facts to this Committee in his exchange with Premeditated Chaos. Beall4's comments show Jytdog's claims to be 'helpful' are complete rubbish. (We do not need to 'speculate' about the phone call as some have asserted--the testimony from both parties is plenty to establish the facts.) | |||
| '''Why should we trust that Jytdog's "retirement" is nothing more than an attempt to avoid prosecution?''' Consider how an alleged criminal is perceived that flees the state or leaves the country. Regardless of whether ArbCom takes the case, Jytdog's account needs to be indef blocked or site site banned to protect us from his return and hold him accountable for his unacceptable actions. --] (]) 18:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| I agree wholeheartedly with {{u|Coretheapple}}'s : Suspending the case is not the way to go. Memories fade. '''We should not let Jytdog decide if or when the case is to proceed.''' He asked for a ban. Let's save everyone's time and give him that ban rather than having to risk revisiting this on Jytdog's watch. --] (]) 20:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|Newyorkbrad}} {{tq|... assuming Jytdog scrambled the password as he stated, the effect of blocking would be mostly symbolic.}} Why should he be trusted when he to misrepresenting material facts in this very proceeding? --] (]) 21:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|Conversation with DGG about whether Breall4 'asked to be contacted'}} | |||
| {{ping|DGG}} {{tq|..as the user asked to be contacted...}} I do not believe that is correct. Above, I show (as did Premeditated Chaos) that Jytdog phoned Breall4, not once, but twice without permission. When he asked for permission--which was never granted--he waited at most 11 minutes before calling the second time without permission. Breall4 said {{tq|After a most unwelcoming discourse of on-line communication, whereby my responses on a talk page were continuously deleted, I was alarmed to be contacted by phone beginning and ending with derogatory comments. This was in no part a good faith effort to resolve the matter.}} --] (]) 00:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::As I see it, the person asked for contact The view has been expressed by most of my colleagues that this did not mean phone contact, but I consider that an unwarranted assumption. But in any case, the real problem is not this incident , but the pattern of inappropriately aggressive behavior coupled with insufficient ability to learn from experience. ''']''' (]) 02:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree with your last sentence. Thanks for the reply. --] (]) 06:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| I agree in full with {{u|Jusdafax}}'s , particularly supporting a commendation from ArbCom to {{u|There'sNoTime}} for making the right call and having the courage to take this case here, especially in light of the expected strong push back by Jytdog's powerful supporters and enablers. | |||
| In a community that strongly values transparency, '''I believe we are entitled to more information about the nature of the private email''' that has caused at least two Arbs to change their votes to from no block to block (). I am no fan of secret proceedings, and the accused has a right to be aware of evidence used against him and the opportunity to refute it and the opportunity to impeach any witness, since it clearly has a material affect on the outcome of this case. I do understand that Arbs must protect confidential information, but I also believe the Arbs have a duty to report on the nature of decisions made '']'' to the fullest extent possible without jeopardizing necessary confidentiality. | |||
| --] (]) 07:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Howcheng === | |||
| Lord knows I hate getting involved in arbitration stuff, but it's starting to look like a lynch mob in here. My proposal is that ArbCom decline this case. Neither TNT nor BD2412 appear to have done anything wrong, and Jytdog appears chastened enough. My feeling is that his big mistake was to not obtain specific consent for calling beforehand as it appears that Beall4 did in fact want to speak with someone in person about the whole situation. For future reference in case there's a similar situation where Jytdog is involved with a newbie who is having on-wiki trouble, it would be best to leave a note saying, "I'd be more than happy to contact you on the phone about this, if you would care to give me your contact info via email" or something similar. Since we are now ''status quo ante bellum'', let's agree not to beat this horse any deader. <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">—''']''' <small>{]}</small></span> 22:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Valeince === | |||
| I am dismayed that there are Arbs that are trying to bring gender into this as if that has anything to do with the case. I believe that as an Arb, if you cannot look at the situation dispassionately, then you should recuse. Saying things like how creepy this would be if a woman received a call from a man for unsolicited help is unnecessarily dividing and does a disservice to actual, gender based, harassment ] (]) 23:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Beeblebrox=== | |||
| I'm at a loss as to why so many of the arbs seem reluctant to accept this case. This isn't just about the one phone call, it is about the history of this user, and that entails evidence that the community does not have access to, so it therefore ''cannot handle this''. You pretty much have to take the case. ] (]) 23:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :Just to put my oar in regarding how to proceed: After the uproar this has created, putting the case on indefinite hold seems a poor solution. Without the central figure in the case present, a full case seems equally futile. | |||
| :I believe a strong statement is called for here, and a ban motion would do that without taking a month to arrive at the same conclusion. I see some very twisted logic in some of these statements trying to defend what I think the vast majority of the community agrees is an indefensible action. ] (]) 19:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::Blocking at this point is only symbolic if you take them at their word that they really did scramble their password and have 0 intention of socking. How many times have we seen someone quit in light of such a case and not ''actually quit''? Several come to my mind without even searching. I'm not saying he lied, but I'm not convinced it's th truth either and don't think the committee should be so naive as to take these claims at face value. If it is purely symbolic, its good symbolism, indicating that such recidivist breaching of other people's privacy is not tolerated. ] (]) 23:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by JFG === | |||
| The unsolicited phone call was quite a blunder, especially coupled with the patronizing tone. Jytdog now understands that he went overboard on this case, and we have no reason to doubt his good faith contrition. However, as the French say, ''chassez le naturel, il revient au galop'': Jytdog hates being on the losing side of any discussion, and tends to become aggressive in such situations. I can understand how some editors who could be valuable to the encyclopedia get scared of writing anything that would antagonize him, and give up. Insofar as a case is accepted, the committee would need to look at Jytdog's long-term pattern of interaction with his fellow editors. It looks rather difficult to craft a remedy that would address his recurrent issues of civility and stubbornness, but on the other hand banning him outright would be a net negative to the project. Ô wise arbitrators, do what you may. — ] <sup>]</sup> 02:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Comment by Cardamon === | |||
| It would be great if we could avoid a ] here. ] (]) 07:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by David J Wilson === | |||
| In his statement, Jytdog says: | |||
| * he obtained the phone number he rang from "the conference page the user pointed to" in the edit summary of by Beall4. | |||
| * the "conference page" in question listed "an organization advocating for SCD" as an exhibitor, along with its address and phone number. | |||
| * the phone number he rang "was posted for the advocacy organization for the diet". | |||
| On consulting the website in question I could find little evidence that the exhibit referred to by Beall4 was that of "an organization advocating for SCD". Unless Jtydog has evidence for this allegation that I'm unaware of, and available publicly only from within Wikimedia projects, then I believe he should have retracted it. | |||
| <br> | |||
| ] <small>(] · ])</small> 11:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :In light of {{diff2|871340009|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case|this statement}} by user Pldx1, I have severely redacted a previous version of my above statement. | |||
| :] <small>(] · ])</small> 13:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Coretheapple|Voceditenore}} While the process of tracking down the item containing the telephone number called by Jtydog isn't something ''I'' would categorise as "easy", I also wouldn't be prepared to disagree with anyone who did so describe it, and I certainly would ''not'' categorise it as being at all "difficult". While it did take me several steps (about a half dozen or so) they were all reasonably obvious and straightforward: google search on a fairly obvious expression, click on a fairly obvious one of the links returned by the search, click on a reasonably obvious link to a subpage of the one brought up by the first click, click on one or other of two equally plausible links to download a searchable pdf file, and perform a search on the file. Since I chose the wrong file to download in the second last step, I had to repeat the last two steps on the other file to find the entry. | |||
| :It seems entirely plausible to me that a google search on an appropriate search expression might well be capable of returning a ''direct'' link to the right pdf file, and this might be all that Jtydog meant by "{{diff2|870886068|Wikipedia_talk%3AHarassment|there was one step}}". Although two more "steps" (a click to download the file, and a search of the file) would still be needed to retrieve the entry sought, describing the whole process as "one step" wouldn't seem to me to constitute outrageous hyperbole. | |||
| :] <small>(] · ])</small> 14:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by MONGO === | |||
| Long ago I had to reach out to associates at the FBI field office in San Francisco to have them check on two subjects that were contacting our editors at their homes, at their places of work etc. We did not tolerate "outsiders" harassing our writers then so why would we tolerate our writers harassing our other writers now? Support motion for long term site ban for Jytdog.--] (]) 10:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Flyer22 Reborn=== | |||
| Having reviewed everything, it seems to me that Jytdog was genuinely trying to help. I don't see that he meant to harass the new editor. He has listened to the criticism and now knows that the phone call was unwise. Given the backlash regarding it, I can't see that he will do something like this again. He can be overzealous when it comes to WP:MEDRS and WP:COI issues, but it's because he has seen so much problematic editing in the field of medicine and other fields on Misplaced Pages and cares so much. He has been reprimanded for the phone call, and I feel that he will use this experience as a valuable lesson and continue to be the productive editor he is. ] (]) 11:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ], I think you mean WP:MEDRS instead of WP:MEDMOS. WP:MEDMOS is a guideline and the ] section of WP:MEDMOS is clear that we don't necessarily have to use the same setup at articles. WP:MEDRS is also a guideline, but editors are much stricter about it. ] (]) 18:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Ealdgyth === | |||
| I wasn't going to comment here but I cannot sit on my fingers any longer. For those of you complaining that a note of "bringing gender into this"... I'm dismayed that you seem to think that the concerns of half the human population are not worth considering. Because that's what you're saying when you argue to keep gender out of this - you're saying that women's perceptions of how unwanted contact or unsolicited contact are perceived are not welcome or somehow unimportant to the situation. That at least a good chunk of half the population of the earth should not feel that a phone call out of the blue by someone they are in an editing conflict with on a website is creepy. And you're also saying that any women who feel that way should just keep quiet because ... here is where I completely fail to understand the point of view. It's not playing the "gender card", folks. It's trying to explain how this sort of contact is seen by a significant portion of the population. ] - ] 13:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Geogene === | |||
| I believe that Jytdog was sincerely trying to help, but this was obviously too far outside of community norms. It's also obvious that only ArbCom can investigate all of the allegations that have been made here. I don't think there's anything useful likely to be said here, except that I think the rhetoric is increasingly getting out of hand. ] (]) 15:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :Am I correct that this is only the second occasion in which {{u|There'sNoTime}} has blocked a non-vandal? The only other occasion I can find was also an indeff, and He had indeffed Joefromandb ({{tq|ANI report, repeated behaviour, multiple blocks)}}, then the next day reduced it to three months ({{tq|ANI report, repeated behaviour, multiple blocks) (reduced per ANI)}}), then a week later unblocked ({{tq|Per advice on my talk page, thread shows no consensus for block. I clearly got it wrong}}). Note that in his statement here he said, {{tq|I don't enjoy blocking editors....but something needs to be done, as our unwillingness or weak actions give the message that we don't care}} which sounds a lot like WP:PUNISHMENT and that {{tq|I blocked Jytdog indefinitely per their previous blocks}} sounds a lot like his rationale for his other indeffs that were in error. ] (]) 03:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::@Nick, yeah, that's not going to happen. ] (]) 16:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::Since my prior comment was apparently inadequate, because someone is trying to call me out again, let me clarify: I will comment on admin misjudgement whenever and wherever I see it, and that is what I'm doing here. TNT does not deserve an apology for being scrutinized, and no apology for questioning them will ever be forthcoming. The fact that some editors/admins are attempting to coerce an apology through threatening statements is pathetic but not surprising. | |||
| ::The fact that TNT is a new and inexperienced admin that has expressed an enthusiasm for WP:PUNISHMENT blocks, and has issued heavy-handed blocks apparently without much thought in advance, and has also been bristling that anyone dare question them for this, may not be sanctionable today but it sure as hell isn't auspicious for the future, either. That combination of being reckless and prickly is not conducive to your long-term survival here. | |||
| ::And yes, it is always brushed off as "silly" the first dozen times an admin receives public criticism for something. But smart admins are privately adjusting their conduct to avoid being called out for whatever it was again in the future. This way, they can learn without being humiliated in public when patience wears out. Let's hope that their sake that TNT is a smart admin. If they are, then their next block on established user will be a reasonable one, and one that sticks. ] (]) 03:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Adrian J. Hunter === | |||
| Jytdog is meticulous in following (his interpretation of) our ]s, which he knows inside and out. If our PAGs had clearly prohibited unsolicited phone contact, we wouldn't be here. I don't accept that it's something that shouldn't need spelling out, as Misplaced Pages attracts a diverse crowd with divergent understandings of social norms. It's up to the community to make our expectations explicit. ]<sup>(]•])</sup> 00:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Rschen7754 === | |||
| There is actually precedent for taking action here (maybe not on enwiki, but globally) - this incident (primarily related to Dutch Misplaced Pages) from 2014: ]. This was a more severe case, but the WMF directed that these two editors not hold any position of adminship for a year, citing Terms of Use. --''']]]''' 04:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by bluerasberry === | |||
| Off-wiki communication is not a crime! | |||
| I see two issues here: one is a discussion of general civility and the other issue outreach off-wiki. I will not address the civility issue, although in general over years I have found Jytdog to be a helpful colleague in various spaces including medicine. | |||
| Regarding off-wiki outreach, I am aware of a on-wiki cultural disconnect and lack of online awareness of what Wikimedia activities happen offline. We do not have good research or data available, but if I were to state an estimate, it would be that 90% of Wikimedia content development, publishing review, policy writing, policy setting, and all other sorts of Wikimedia activities that come to mind happen as a result of off-wiki communication. There is a mythology in the Wikimedia community that everything about wiki happens online and in text documentation. This is not accurate. Humans naturally use verbal communication to exchange information. Posting text messages online is still a new practice which neither psychology nor design nor general social awareness have come to understand. My own experience of Wikimedia projects includes mostly off-wiki communication in-person, by video, and by voice chat. I have contacted hundreds of editors off wiki, including with many unsolicited phone calls. If I am ever in an edit conflict with someone I quickly seek to talk to them by video or voice chat. | |||
| It makes no sense to codify and have rules for every practice, because human behavior and society does not follow rules as strict and proscribed and formalized as our on-wiki etiquette. As society becomes more diverse we see more diversity of practices and behaviors, and more tension between people who have different sets of norms. In general, in the United States right now, I think it is great when people call each other. Publicly posted identifying materials are there for friendly contact at a human scale of frequency. Before mobile phones existed it was common for people to physically show up to homes and workplaces of friends and strangers unannounced to seek a visit. The conversation in this board is a reflection of changing social norms where younger people in society are less likely to visit, might not phone, and may not even email someone without first seeking permission. Cultures change over time, and that is not a problem! | |||
| If anyone here says that Wikimedia engagement exclusively happens on wiki, then that is mostly in error. Some people have the experience of mostly on-wiki engagement, but for example, the WMF goes through ~$100 million /year and few highly active Wikimedia contributors could account for 10% of that activity because neither is is visible on-wiki nor does the on-wiki documentation process document off-wiki behavior. That amount of money invested in off-wiki, Wikimedia activities is supporting evidence of a wiki world outside of on-wiki text documentation. Many wiki activities happen on-wiki, but most of life and wiki happens off-wiki and offline. ]] 23:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Beall4=== | |||
| ; Response to statement by User beall4: I apologize as I am new to this space and I realize my comment likely does not belong in this section, but I am uncertain where or how to post it, and your committee may be interested to hear my perspective. My intentions as a professional are simply to improve a page in a subject that I am most knowledgeable. To explain the validity of the contribution, I offered my experience at a recent national meeting on the subject. After a most unwelcoming discourse of on-line communication, whereby my responses on a talk page were continuously deleted, I was alarmed to be contacted by phone beginning and ending with derogatory comments. This was in no part a good faith effort to resolve the matter. My interest remains to have the subject content clearly and accurately reviewed according to my most recent comment on the SCD talk page describing the availability of this information in many current review articles, if this comment has not also been deleted already. My faith is growing in the professionalism of your community, if you are as alarmed as I have been about this experience. I have not disclosed to anyone that I was phoned, so I am uncertain as to how this group is aware, but I am grateful that this form of intimidation is not acceptable. Thank you for your consideration. | |||
| ] (]) 01:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *Moved from the arbitrator section to it's own section by ] (]) 01:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by ] === | |||
| Based on today’s statement given by Beall4, I’m asking an Arbitrator to preventably indef block Jytdog at once, including access to his Talk page. It’s clear that Jytdog has lied about his aggressive, hostile phone interaction, which can only be described as outright intimidation. His assurances of well-meaning helpfulness, taken together with his previous serious blocks, equal strike three. The original block was quite correct, and those threatening Admin TNT need to apologize at once. The ArbCom case should go forward to investigate Jytdog’s edit history, off-wiki actions and any other intimidation or similar actions, and should Jytdog wish to participate, he should do so by email. Block the bully, and ArbCom should discuss a hard site ban, thanks. ] (]) 03:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *I see that Jytdog states on his Talk page that he is retiring from Misplaced Pages. I continue to urge an immediate indef block regardless, and I urge the ArbCom members to go forward with the case, as if Jytdog had not made that statement. The facts in this case and Jytdog’s overall editing and previous off-Wiki contacts are unclear, as are the issues surrounding existing policy regarding uninvited off-Wiki contact. Again, a block and/or siteban are still appropriate, and there are still further issues, including possible off-Wiki testimony from Beall4 regarding the particulars of the phone call incident and the events up to it, including the treatment Beall4 received in his first days as an editor on the article in question. ] (]) 17:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *Seeing as an imminent block of Jytdog is now the view held by what appears to be a majority of ArbCom members, as a result of new information received by the Committee, I again suggest an investigation of his edit history, perhaps by a subcommittee if not the full board. It seems likely there are other, similar incidents of this type, and outreach should be conducted to assure those victimized by Jytdog that he has been dealt with properly. Strongly suggest his Talk page be closed down. | |||
| :I also urge the Committee to commend Administrator There’s No Time for making the correct call by indeffing Jytdog, and bringing the case to ArbCom. Well done, I say! Our “first responders” in such cases face considerable pushback, some of it quite threatening, as seen in some of the statements on this page, especially in the initial days after this case was filed. Scrutiny of those statements is merited, in my view, and warnings and possibly sanctions issued. Finally, my thanks to you at ArbCom. You have put an end to Jytdog’s reign of terror, and deserve the thanks of every Wikipedian. ] (]) 01:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :{{re|Tornado chaser}} ...read Geogene’s statement. If you don’t think that deserves pushback in return, we have a fundamental disagreement, that’s all. I find it pretty damn threatening. I urge further investigation of those enabling Jytdog’s behavior, especially in light of the recent revelations, and I stand by that. Official warnings and sanctions are, needless to say, at the discretion of those empowered by the community to do so. | |||
| === Statement by Marchjuly === | |||
| Jytdog has been very helpful to me in the past helping others sort out their respective COI issues, so maybe that means my take on this is a bit predisposed in his favor. I realize sometimes one totally stupid thing a person does can be so bad that it makes no difference how much good they might have previously done or how much good they may yet still do in comparison. However, the only evidence we really have to work with on Misplaced Pages are diffs; so, if ArbCom determines from relevant diffs that Jytdog needs to be banned or otherwise sanctioned, then at least some sort of evidence can be cited in support of that decision. Moreover, if this latest incident is the most recent occurrence of a pattern of behavior that has become too much of a negative to be offset by whatever positives Jytdog brings to the table as determined by ArbCom, then I think some sort of sanctioning is probably justified.{{pb}}Off-wiki interaction, however, seems like something much more trickier to deal with since verification of what was said or perhaps more importantly what was not said seems like a much harder thing to do. If there were emails exchanged which can support/disprove any claims being made here and ArbCom can be made privy to them and confirm the true nature of the interaction, then that would also seem just a acceptable as examining a diff; however, sanctioning someone based on a verbal conversation between two individuals for which there is no real record provided other than individual recollection of each of the participants seems like a mistake to me.{{pb}}I know this is kind of the way things are being done out in some parts of the real world these days, but I hope ArbCom will at least give the individual recollections of the interaction proper weight and treat them accordingly. I wasn't part of the interaction; so, I don't think it's appropriate of me to declare anyone who was involved a liar. I'm also not trying to blame or shame either party here and I personally think unsolicited off-wiki contact (in fact unsolicited personal contact of any type) is quite risky no matter how well-intended it might be simply because you never can tell how the other person will respond. At the same time, unless there's some kind of verifiable record provided of what was actually said during the interaction, I think the best that we (=others) can do is to simply guess, and how we guess is most likely going to be predicated on how you might feel about either party from your previous interactions with them. So, my suggestion to ArbCom would be to stick to whatever Misplaced Pages evidence can be found about the interaction or previous inappropriate behavior and decide what happens based upon that. -- ] (]) 04:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Feminist === | |||
| I concur with what Jusdafax said. Jytdog may have had some positive contributions, but he is not irreplaceable. More importantly, if subject experts such as Beall4 are driven off the project because of Jytdog, he's clearly a net negative to the project. I find it appalling that Beall4, a newbie who would likely be unfamiliar with rules here, is blocked for edit warring, yet Jytdog was not blocked for the same offence. ] (]) 07:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :Arbs, are you seriously trusting Jytdog's claim that he "scrambled the password"? He has already proven himself to be a liar when he lied about the content of the phone call. Please block him. ] (]) 05:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Tony1 === | |||
| Audio contact has significant potential to go beyong impersonal usernames, especially where problems need to be sorted out between editors. But it can be dangerous if not handled well. | |||
| I'd like to see ArbCom discourage conventional telephony, because it's impossible to block a caller where that seems necessary. Audio contact—agreed to by both parties onwiki beforehand—would be much safer on Skype or similar systems, where blocking contact is very simple. | |||
| With such a ruling by ArbCom, this instance would not have arisen. ] ] 11:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Beyond My Ken === | |||
| FWIW, I put very little weight on Beal4's statement, and am inclined to believe Jytdog's version of the incident. Certainly, Beal4's statement is not sufficient to warrant a "preventative indef block" of Jytdog when he has pledged not to repeat his action.{{parabr}}Further, I consider Jytdog's decision to leave the project, while understandable under the circumstances, to be a serious loss for Misplaced Pages, and urge the committee not to implement unreasonably hard barriers to his potential return. ] (]) 21:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Kingofaces43 === | |||
| I was going to wait until/if there was a full case, and maybe it's somewhat moot if Jytdog has really abandoned their account. That being said, I'm a little concerned arbs are forgetting we are all bound by ] policy when it comes to indef blocks/site bans based on what I've read here so far (maybe I can be corrected on something I've missed). It doesn't look like that action is truly preventative, and to be clear, I'm saying that before Jytdog said they were retiring too: | |||
| Ultimately, the problems arise when dealing with real-life identity. When you deal with ], you have to deal with that and all the nuances of outing policy, etc. Jytdog did a lot of good in that topic, but obviously had troubles or did things that they thought would be helpful but also were asking for eventual trouble in my opinion. There are other problems that intertwine such as Jytdog having a history of being hounded by other editors that tends to inflame situations, the handling of COI being a tense topic in the community, etc. that make the past history of issues often muddled once you dig into them. That being said, the recent event shows that Jytdog is just not suited for carefully dealing with real-life identity topics on Misplaced Pages whether it's from their own actions, COI itself, or the other broader issues where real-life identity comes up. They just don't fit well with the topic, the topic doesn't fit them, or however you want to describe it despite them trying and messing up. That would seem to be grounds for having an indef topic ban on anything related to real-life identity essentially restoring their COI topic ban and extending it to other areas. | |||
| So arbs, would you also consider a motion to the effect '''Jytdog is indefinitely topic-banned from any material relating to an editor's real-life identity, broadly interpreted.''' or something to that effect? Since the current motion is essentially a site ban, it needs to show ] policy is being followed, namely in that the topic-ban route doesn't do enough for preventing problems. The topic-ban is another option for those who ambivalent about an indef block (e.g.,{{ping|Newyorkbrad}}), and it seemed like the old COI topic-ban took care of issues in the past when it was in effect anyways. That would also give Jytdog the option to come back (maybe under a new account if they're really gone) with a topic-ban in effect in the plenty of areas they don't have sanctionable issues. | |||
| If the current motion is instead the route arbs want to go, what would a site ban be preventing if this new topic-ban were implemented? That really needs to be answered in terms of policy before a site ban could be considered instead. ] (]) 22:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Petrarchan47 === | |||
| This ArbCom case just came to my attention. Jytdog's behavior was absolutely horrific, and I think it's unfortunate that excuses are being made for him by so many people. He is a recidivist privacy violator. He and Beall4's account of his phone call mesh. There is no need for lengthy fact-finding. Jytdog admits fault and has requested a community ban. I agree. | |||
| I disagree that a ban would not be preventive. The idea is to separate Jytdog from where he can do damage. He can do damage if he has an account. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 23:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :I find it incredible that the Committee is giving Jytdog the benefit of every doubt despite his deceptive behavior, and are giving him the umpteenth chance to shape up. That strategy has failed in the past. He is wagering on a friendlier Arbcom restoring him to full editing rights, which he will resume under a new user name as if nothing has happened. A small army of his friends are holding a pity party on his talk page urging him to do just that, and I have no doubt that he will. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 18:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by EnPassant === | |||
| It seems to me that the issue we're encountering here is very much similar to the one frequently in the news over the past year or two regarding CONSENT. In this case, consent was not obtained beforehand and, therefore, it was violated. Those expressing disbelief of the victim ought to rethink their positions in light of this. I don't know the gender of Beall4, but I do know that this person has said they felt harassed and intimidated and I'm inclined to believe them given Jytdog's extensive history of that kind of behavior. I don't care if he or someone else thinks someone is a promotional account, that's an excuse. He also appears to have lied about details of this phone call, which tells me exactly what he thinks of this project. An official ban is prudent, and also has the important effect of giving open notification to all admins of his status, not just the ones who happened to follow this case. If he came back with another account, or lied about scrambling his password on his existing account, and an administrator wasn't aware of this ban, they might very well let him go on editing. He's had enough chances to stop. Misplaced Pages needs to get into line with 2018 and stop enabling abusers and harassers. Please put a stop to this toxicity. ] (]) 01:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by isaacl === | |||
| Regarding : although I cannot find at the moment where the editor in question requested to be contacted, for the purposes of discussion let's assume there was a request. I believe it is fully warranted to assume that editors on English Misplaced Pages do not expect to be contacted by means for which they did not provide contact information on English Misplaced Pages or another WMF site. In a large online community, where most people do not know each other in real life, there is a general expectation that participants can limit their engagement to specific methods, and not be sought out by other means. ] (]) 03:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| To avoid prejudging what the eventual outcome would have been for the accepted case, I would prefer that the case be suspended, and resumed if necessary in future. As I ], and has been mentioned by others, without a case containing findings and principles, it's unclear how the departed editor would seek to gain approval to return. ] (]) 03:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Kashmiri === | |||
| A lot has already been said above. From my perspective, one thing needs stressing: there has been a clear pattern of unacceptable, aggressive behaviour towards fellow editors on Jytdog's part. Take for instance this edit summary: . Ivanvector has provided useful links to ANI discussions where there were mentioned plenty of examples of such disparaging acts towards other contributors. In this context, I view the phone incident as just another one attempt by Jytdog to intimidate someone he disagrees with, in the string of hundreds. Consequently, any sanction should not be just punitive; primarily, it has to be preventive. Looks like the community's patience has finally worn out. — ] ] 01:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Swarm === | |||
| So, we've already lost one of our most dedicated editors, for phoning someone? Not with the intent to harass, but with the intent of maintaining the integrity of the project? Which is not actually a violation of policy? After he repeatedly admitted that it was a mistake that he would not repeat? Blocking/banning in this context for "secret reasons" comes across as an absurd overreach, please be transparent and accountable to the community and at least have the common decency to explain why you could possibly feel the need to apply this final indignity. Examining the public facts, this wasn't the most serious offense, and it kind of appears that Arbcom is being influenced by a lynch mob. ]] 06:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by (other editor) === | |||
| <!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * --> | |||
| === Jytdog: Clerk notes === | |||
| :''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | |||
| * I've added {{userlinks|Beall4}} as a party at the direction of the committee; per clerks-l. --] <sup>] </sup> 05:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| * Bilby was mistakenly added as a party, I've removed them from the case request. --] <sup>] </sup> 05:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| **Cameron meant "Beall4 was mistakenly added as a party" here. (Ping {{U|Tryptofish}}.) ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ] '''·'''  ] '''·'''  ]) 19:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *** <s>Actually they were supposed to be added; for some reason my edit didn't stick on my end --] <sup>] </sup> 03:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)</s> | |||
| === Jytdog: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <10/0/0> === | |||
| {{anchor|1=Jytdog: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)</small> | |||
| *Awaiting Jytdog's statement. I'd like to hear how his behavior here does not violate his topic ban prohibiting investigations against other editors, under which he was unblocked by a previous committee in 2016 . If this topic ban is no longer in effect, I cannot find where it was rescinded, so please give the diff where that happened. <span style="color: #9932CC">]<sup>]</sup></span> 02:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :* {{yo|TonyBallioni}} Thanks very much. <span style="color: #9932CC">]<sup>]</sup></span> 03:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :** I've now read the Oversight list threads surrounding the last oversight block (in 2016). I've not yet read the arbcom list archived threads about the unblock, as we have a problem with accessing the archives that has to do with the move of the arbcom list to Google Groups. I should get to read that on Friday. {{paragraph}} I'm stunned that anyone thinks this has to do with promotional or paid editing, or alternative medicine, or pseudoscience, or ''anything'' but the conduct of an established editor accessing and acting on off-wiki contact information. It is completely inappropriate, and it's even more disturbing because Jytdog seems to do something, he finds out it's not okay, he promises not to do "that" again, and then he finds something even more egregious to do. Lather, rinse, repeat. I don't know how to stop this cycle other than with some type of sanction.{{paragraph}}If we proceed, I agree with most that a full case probably won't be required. I'm considering proposing a motion, but I want to read the archived material first.{{paragraph}} Finally for now, I'd add that I concur completely with Opabinia's comments. We can relate as women because we've been in the position of receiving unwanted and/or unexpected aggressive contact. It can be frightening, and it changes you against your will. It conditions you to be defensive and withdrawn. I agree that Jytdog likely meant no harm, but that's not the point. He keeps doing this kind of thing, and we can't allow that to continue. <span style="color: #9932CC">]<sup>]</sup></span> 01:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :***After consideration and discussion, there's too much here to deal with motion. '''Accept'''. <span style="color: #9932CC">]<sup>]</sup></span> 11:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :**** {{yo|Literaturegeek}} Accepting a case doesn't mean we're going to site ban anyone. That may happen or a lesser remedy may be adopted. But we've discussed it at length, and there are some principles here we feel we should address, and we can't really do that by motion. Jytdog deserves due process and I mean to give it to him. <span style="color: #9932CC">]<sup>]</sup></span> 15:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *The facts here are not under serious dispute, so I don't consider this ripe for a month-long case. As much as I know my colleagues dislike admonishments, I think passing one by motion fits perfectly here. It is important to send a clear message that this conduct was not okay and could/will lead to sanctions if repeated in the future. I do not have an appetite to take more substantive action when the person they called has not requested sanctions. We should hear directly from {{U|Beall4}} before making any decision. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 04:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Accept''' with a strong note that we need to be very careful about our recent trend toward accelerated timetables. In particular, we should be checking with the parties that they're okay with the timetables we're proposing if we go as accelerated as one week for an entire case. We never want to leave the impression, even false, that we rushed through a case or didn't give full consideration to all positions. The balancing act between drama minimization and due process is a delicate one. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 04:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>Was this unwise? Yes, and Jytdog has made it clear that he now regrets having done this, as well he should. Is off-Wiki contact a violation of policy? No, as several people have made clear. Is there evidence that it was done to harass? Again no unless it can be proven that there were threats or or obvious intimidation, and I don't see how either can be definitely shown to have taken place nor do I think it likely. Perhaps we do need to amend policy to prohibit phone calls but we don't have one, and the argument that it should be obvious is not one that holds water for me. Thus I see no grounds for a sanction. Should we pass a motion? I don't see what good it would do and I think the discussions here and those at ] have already sent a message and Jytdog's statements show that he's heard it. I won't oppose one however, although I think it would be only symbolic. I'm holding off from voting at the moment, but barring something completely new I shall vote decline. ] ] 08:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)</s> | |||
| **As Newyorkbrad, pro forma accept with the understanding we will now handle this by motion given Jytdog's retirement. ] ] 19:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *As others have pointed out, this isn't the first, but the third blockworthy incident involving Jytdog fundamentally misunderstanding appropriate boundaries between Misplaced Pages and real life. That's the sticking point for me here: last time, we had assurances he wouldn't do it again, and indeed he did not seek out the personal information of someone he was in a dispute with and use the results ''on''-wiki - instead he sought out the personal information of someone he was in a dispute with and used the results ''off''-wiki. I think a big part of the reason this has attracted so much attention, even in the absence of a complaint from the affected editor directly, is that people are imagining themselves in the position of receiving unsolicited phone calls about their Misplaced Pages activities and realizing just how intrusive they would find such an interaction. The reaction described is pretty much exactly how I'd expect to react - if a random guy I'd crossed paths with on a website called me up out of the blue and asked if I'd be willing to talk, I'd probably say something like "uhhh, sure?" out of pure perplexity, and then after a few minutes of him telling me all about how I was and he just ''had'' to get in touch with me because otherwise I'd keep being wrong, I would probably say something, ahem, not polite. If I then came back to Misplaced Pages and read something like describing my impolite reaction as "combative and unwilling to learn", posted in ''defense'' of the interaction, I think I might actually be struck speechless. (As you can tell from the length of this post, this is not a problem I commonly have.) {{parabr}} Furthermore, at the risk of the flaming that usually happens when someone raises a point about gender in a discussion that wasn't previously about that topic, I am going to underline here ''just how creepy'' it is for a woman to receive unsolicited contact from a male stranger over something as trivial as a disagreement on a website. Even (maybe especially) if it's supposed to be "help". Of course I have no knowledge of the gender of the person on the other end of the phone, and no evidence that it's at all relevant to ''this'' incident; I mention it because it's relevant to the precedents under consideration here and to a full appreciation of the sheer magnitude of the misjudgment. {{parabr}} Yes, I am quite sure Jytdog really did mean to help, and really was doing this in good faith, and really won't do ''this exact thing'' again, but history doesn't show that the concepts are getting through here. I'm not sure if an admonishment is really more admonishing than a block, and I'm not sure a "you're on your last chance, really really for real this time" response is going to work any better this time than last time. Long-term committed volunteers are valuable and their investment should be recognized, but man, if somebody's judgment is this far off from community norms, I don't know what to do about that. We can't have "written policy" for every possible bad idea someone might have; we really have to be able to trust that once you've had an idea like "hey, I should give this guy a call!" your brain will kick in and say "oh wait, no, that would be creepy and weird, I'll just try his talk page again". I don't have a vote yet; I don't want a case with all the trimmings (there's no disputed evidence to speak of) but this just cannot keep happening and I don't think "admonishing" gets us there. ] (]) 09:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| **{{ping|Jytdog}} No, I really didn't enjoy it; nobody enjoys arbitration! I am certainly not trying to "dehumanize" anyone, but I ''was'' trying to express the depth of the "oh ''hell'' no" reaction I had thinking about receiving an unsolicited phone call about my Misplaced Pages work - I think WTT has done a better job in fewer words of describing the problem. Of course, just as I can imagine myself in the position of the call-ee, I can also imagine myself doing something that I thought would be helpful, conspicuously failing, and then feeling about two inches tall. {{parabr}} Anyway; '''accept'''; I think we do need a case here, for the reasons that others suggest - mainly that principles and structured thinking-things-through are hard to do in the format of motions. Taking Rob's point about not rushing things, I'd still prefer a short timeline because the evidence here is essentially already established. Agree on "off-wiki contact" or similar as the case name (and I hope that's enough of a cue that this is about off-wiki contact, and not an opportunity for piling-on about unrelated disputes). ] (]) 18:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm very concerned by Jytdog's behaviour here. I'm looking further into his previous actions, but given the history, I'm getting the impression that Jytdog simply does not understand why his actions were so inappropriate. Unsolicited phone calls, where you have not provided contact information, from a person you are in dispute with has lead to real consequences. It '''damages''' our community and proves this is not a safe space to work. If this was a first offence, I'd be willing to stop with a stern talking to. I'm not sure that it's enough here. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 09:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *:No {{ping|Alex Shih}} - I don't believe I'm basing my thoughts on those assumptions. I'm not calling this harassment - I'm stating that an unsolicited phone call to another editor who has not provided a telephone number as a point of contact is ''not ok''. When combined with Jytdog's history, which I'm going through in detail, I'm seeing repeated ''not ok'' behaviours around off wiki investigation. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 12:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *::I've been trying to think about the best way to handle this, whether a motion would be sufficient (let alone what that motion would be), and actually, I think the principles that would come out of a case would be the most important thing. As such, I've would <s>'''accept'''</s> a case with a very short timetable (I like a week, per NYB), to develop community thinking on the matter. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 09:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *:::There's been a lot of talk about whether Jytdog's actions violate our ] policy, because that's one of the only ones which actively mentions off-wiki contact. But actually, an unsolicited phone call in this manner contravenes quite a few of our policies, and goes to our fundamental values. I've been trying to work out what it was about this case which has bothered me, and how to explain it to someone who is not a wikipedian - as actually, in real life talking through things is a good thing, and on the internet today, we have to accept that people do google each other, and following from platform to platform is not uncommon.{{parabr}} Why is this action an issue? Well, let's see - Misplaced Pages is ] - everyone has the right to participate as much or as little as they wish. Receiving an unsolicited phone call does not match that. To paraphrase Stephen Fry - a telephone is like somebody standing in the room shouting 'talk to me, talk to me' until the person finally talks to you. {{parabr}}We use a do our best to use a transparent consensus based model for discussions, there is a record available in the history, and there are all sorts of benefits of being able to track those discussions and the people's involvement. The direct phone call does negate that. <small>Yes, I know these sorts of things do happen regularly, with a plethora of off-wiki communication, but it still factors into my thought process to a lesser extent.</small> I also believe it is clear that Jytdog regularly uses direct spoken conversation, and it is likely he has made unsolicited calls to other users in the past (] perhaps you'd like to speak to that point?){{parabr}}When you are in a dispute or any form of disagreement, a telephone call out of the blue is going to have a chilling effect. Whether or not there was a dispute is not particularly relevant, this is largely about the perception of the person who receives the telephone call and the person who makes the telephone call ''can not know'' how it will be received. This is why it is so important to have some agreement for the dialogue before contact is made.{{parabr}} The user was new. They did not understand our policies and from my experience of new users, they regularly believe that the people they talk to are employees or at least of one mind and therefore "represent" wikipedia. That's not how things work here, we are a disparate community, who come together in a consensus model. One person "representing wikipedia" directly runs the risk presenting a biased view of the project.<small> Again, yes, I know this happens regularly in other forms of off-wiki communication, but it still factors into my thought process</small> {{parabr}} There is also history here. Jytdog has a history of off-wiki investigations which have been deemed unacceptable, especially when he's posted it on wiki. At the same time, we '''cannot and should not''' monitor what someone does off wiki, we can only manage their position on wiki. In addition, as an arbitrator, I've seen what sort of damage unsolicited phone calls can do. I have seen community members stop editing, I've seen real people feel scared and take real life and on wiki actions due to that fear. The effect that this action has is real. It does not surprise me that the editor in question has stopped editing, and that's why I (and other committee members) asked for him to be removed as a party. It's not about how he felt about the call, or how you (the reader) might feel about receiving a similar call - because with an unsolicited call the caller cannot know how someone is going to feel and you should not assume that everyone feels the same way. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 10:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *:Also a quick note, I agree with ] that this case should be named "Off-wiki contact" if opened. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 11:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *::Given the retirement, I cannot see the purpose of the case. Arbcom cannot make policy, and although the principles in such a case would be very important, I don't see we should be running through for the sake of it. Instead, I would push this to the community who should develop a ] guideline. If no one has done anything about it by June next year, give me a nudge and I'll work on it. My vote is now to <s>'''Dismiss''' as moot, or</s> '''suspend''' for a year before closing, if that is the rest of the committee's preference. I don't mind which. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 17:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Suspending indefinitely and opening if Jytdog returns then. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 17:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *I've been clear throughout that I was unhappy with Jytdog's actions and a case was necessary. The reason I wanted a case rather than a motion was to open discussion about ] through the lens of a case - which fits with us interpreting policy. Without the individual, this comes down to simply Arbcom creating policy and I'm strongly against that. As I said, that needs to be a community job. As for the suggestion that we should leave Jytdog blocked - how will that improve anything? If he returns, he should face the case. If not, I'm not willing to leave a good editor (and yes, Jytdog was a good editor, and deserves to be thanks for the hard work he's put in) blocked for eternity. I'm happy to pass a statement that he may not edit without a case, or even that he may not return without consulting the arbitration committee, but I'm not willing to waste weeks of community time over a moot point, nor am I willing to leave yet another account blocked forever. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 18:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *I am not ok with Jytdog's actions at all in the slightest. There comes a point where common sense has to be used, and calling someone off Wiki to confront them about edits they made on Wiki is, to be blunt, ridiculous. Is it harassment in the sense of ]? No not by the letter of the rule. Would any neutral party, who hasn't edited to Misplaced Pages fully, see this and ask if this is something we should allow? That's a bigger question. This isn't the first time this has happened either I will add. If someone called me out of the blue as took umbrage with an edit I made on Misplaced Pages, I'd be ticked off to put it mildly. And I know the argument has been made that this phone number was easily found, that isn't the point in this. It's not listed as an avenue of contact for someone on Misplaced Pages. With regards to a case, I'm not sure if one needs to be taken. I will say this however, an admonishment and a "don't do this again and we really REALLY mean it this time!" isn't going to solve this issue. ] (]) 12:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::Seeing all that has transpired here, I '''Aceept'''. ] (]) 14:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *Very poor, to put it bluntly. Agree this probably doesn't need a month-long debate given the facts are all agreed. But also agree with RickinBaltimore and WTT - admonishments are generally a waste of time, especially when this isn't the first "not ok" action in this space. Would support something more formal, either in a case setting or via motion. -- ] (]) 20:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Accept''' -- ] (]) 08:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *I agree that this is a serious matter. A full case is not needed but a motion might be useful. The alternative could be a very short (one week?) case primarily for the purpose of developing the community's and the Committee's thinking on the outcome, rather than on extensive development of the facts, which seem mostly undisputed. One issue to be addressed would be making clear, if there remains any doubt, that this conduct is not permitted (although community discussion on the policy page is also emphasizing this). Another issue is whether or not Jytdog should be further sanctioned or restricted and if so how. I see no need for a case against either the indef-blocking or the block-reducing administrator, but we might remind admins that it's often best practice to consult before drastically altering a block, especially where the blocking admin is available and the block wasn't manifestly unreasonable. ] (]) 21:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| **Pro forma accept at this point, but given Jytdog's retirement we will probably address this with a motion rather than open a case. The motion would make clear, one way or another, that Jytdog's simply returning without addressing the concerns raised here will not be an option. ] (]) 18:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| **I've proposed a motion, below. ] (]) 21:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *Contacting another editor via off-wiki means without their consent is a serious issue and something we as a community have not necessarily considered in our policies and guidelines. I do not believe in the arguments that the outcome or discussion determines whether this is an appropriate course of action. The act must already have been committed in order to find out and the privacy and protections for individuals in our community must come first. Editors should be able to come to Misplaced Pages and edit its content without fearing the possibility that they will be contacted in person, by phone, or other means without their consent. Based upon what I have reviewed here, I do not endorse Jytdog's actions and consider the incident very serious. A full case may not be required here and potentially a motion could be enacted, or a shortened case that reviews all of Jytdog's history with respect of off-wiki conduct relating to Misplaced Pages. ''']''' ] 22:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Accept'''. ''']''' ] 00:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please note the committee is aware Jytdog has announced his and we are discussing whether proceeding to a case should be suspended. ''']''' ] 18:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *I agree this is something we should handle, potentially as a motion or an extremely shortened case with a focus on principles. I think what disappoints me most here is that the link presented by {{u|Kingsindian}} makes it clear that Jytdog does know to ask for permission to initiate off-wiki contact, but lost his patience and completely failed to do so in this case. This entire debacle could have been avoided if Jytdog had just asked first. ♠]♠ ] 21:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| **{{yo|Jytdog}} that very diff indicates that you tried to phone them ''prior'' to asking permission. The first call went to voice mail, and ''then'' you went to their talk page and asked about arranging to Skype - not before. ♠]♠ ] 23:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ***{{yo|Jytdog}} your words from the diff you provided completely contradict what you just said: {{tq|Would it be perhaps useful if we talked? '''I tried to call the phone number''' for the "Nutritional Therapy for IBD" given in the NASPGHAN 2018 abstract book that you mentioned in this diff, '''but it just went to voicemail.''' Shall we try to talk via skypeD or something?}} (bold for emphasis). Your post makes it abundantly clear that you had ''already tried to call'' when you made that post, and I don't appreciate this attempt to backpedal under the pretense that you thought I was talking about your use of the word "recalled". ♠]♠ ] 23:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ****'''Accept'''. ♠]♠ ] 15:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *Given Jytdog's history, this action once again calls into question his ability to make proper decisions surrounding privacy. I don't understand where anyone could come up with the notion that it's ok to call someone out of the blue off-wiki. I haven't seen a case of it before. Some action will have to be taken here, but I understand other arbs are still looking at options so I will wait until those are presented. -- ] <small>]</small> 01:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :*Since we seem to be moving to just basic accepts, '''Accept'''. -- ] <small>]</small> 03:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *We shall obviously have to deal with it in some manner. It is at the least a gross misjudgment, for it is in many ways a model of the sort of circumstances where any kind of off-wiki contactis least likely to give positive results. ''']''' (]) 15:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *Just noting for the record that I'll at least start as '''inactive''' for this. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 06:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ====Motion==== | |||
| The request for arbitration was accepted, but the case will not be opened at this time in light of Jytdog's statement that he is retiring from Misplaced Pages and he disabled his access to his account. Jytdog may not resume editing, under any account name or IP, without notifying and obtaining permission from the Arbitration Committee. | |||
| ;Support: | |||
| :#Proposed. ] (]) 21:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :# Noting while I support this motion, that I oppose any block and would rather allow him to leave with dignity. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 21:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :# <s>I don't particularly care about a block one way or the other. <span style="color: #9932CC">]<sup>]</sup></span> 22:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)</s> Based on some information received by email, I now support an indef block. <span style="color: #9932CC">]<sup>]</sup></span> 15:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :# I support WITH a block. ] (]) 00:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :# support motion, block is academic if account password scrambled. -- ] (]) 04:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC) Add: On the basis of material more recently received, now also support an indefinite block on the account. -- ] (]) 19:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :# Supporting with a block. At this point, given the amount of dissembling from Jytdog during this case, I believe it's unfortunately necessary. ♠]♠ ] 06:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :#:Wording change proposed by Rob is fine by me. ♠]♠ ] 00:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :# Support the motion ''provided'' a block is enacted. Inappropriate private communication is a serious issue and it is clear to me, and many in the community, Jytdog crossed the line. We have received both on and off-wiki statements and evidence throughout this process. Considerable time has been spent on one of the most heavily participated case requests that I can recount and has resulted in the community evaluating our harassment policy. Through all of this, it has become clear that Jytdog has repeatedly demonstrated an inability to exercise good judgement with respect to this incident and in the past. We have no way to verify if Jytdog has access to their account or the ability to regain access. As such, I believe we have a responsibility to act with the community's interests in mind first and foremost. An indefinite block is not only warranted, but also preventative. A block technically enforces the motion which provides one additional layer to deter temptation; the account is presumably no longer in control of the individual; a block serves a cross-wiki purpose should these problems arise on other Wikimedia projects; and finally it holds our community accountable to our most important policies that protect editors. ''']''' ] 09:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :# Well, opinions may vary on exactly how to get there, but it seems like we all agree on where to go from here - no returning to editing unless you stop and face the music. This path suits me just fine. I've been vacillating all day about whether to actually block, even if we have reason to believe it's unnecessary; nobody likes seeing a colleague they valued depart that way. But in the end I think it's for the best, for the reasons Mkdw articulates. ] (]) 09:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :# I don't like how the motion is worded, as it looks like it prohibits a future case of sorts. Either way, support with block. -- ] <small>]</small> 23:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :# Can we add "at this time" after "will not be opened" per Amanda's concern above? ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 23:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :# Support but would like to see Amanda's suggested change. ] ] 04:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ;Oppose: | |||
| :<s>#Like Worm That Turned, I oppose a block as unnecessary and inappropriate. But saying "without notifying and obtaining permission from the Arbitration Committee." is in fact a block--an indefinite block. It should just be "notifying" ''']''' (]) 00:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC) </s> | |||
| ;Abstain: | |||
| :# This may just be a case of how to word what amounts to a block, so I'm going to abstain, not oppose. ''']''' (]) 03:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ;Arbitrator comments: | |||
| *The account should be indefinitely ArbCom blocked. Jytdog may no longer have access to the account and a block will ensure the motion is fully enacted. The situation warrants it and the case has involved both on and off-wiki evidence, statements, and past incidents that require more than a normal block. ''']''' ] 21:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| **I'm not especially concerned one way or the other about blocking the account. If we pass this motion, and assuming Jytdog scrambled the password as he stated, the effect of blocking would be mostly symbolic. ] (]) 21:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *as it may not be clear from my on-wiki comments, I consider the breech of privacy relatively nominal at best, as the user asked to be contacted, and no private information was used. But it is an example of his general over-active approach to possible COI, for there was no real purpose to be served. It's the sort of contact that I, as an editor dealing with COI editors, would have avoided--and so would I think almost anyone else here; it was therefore inappropriate, as judged by the practical consensus interpretation of how to conduct oneself in such matters. If jytdog didn't realize that, he should have paid more attention to what other were doing. In dealing with the public it is necessary to be conservative and careful. ''']''' (]) 00:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :I am aware that my view is a minority on the committee and on this page generally; I do not know whether it is among the community as a whole. those who support the apparent majority should be contnet in getting what htey wanted, and I see no thing to be gaining by further argument--which is one of the reasons I did not support a case. ''']''' (]) 02:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::An idea was suggested above by KingofAces43 , that we might say " Jytdog is indefinitely topic-banned from any material relating to an editor's real-life identity, broadly interpreted." I've tried to find many similar solutions in terms of topic limitations, and so have others, but they are very tricky to word. (My own idea was to limit him to article space and to talk pages when people asked him about his edits. Another possibility was forbidding him to attempt contact with anyone off-wiki about a WP matter . Yet another was forbidding him from dealing with matters involving COI. (there are lots of articles in fields he is knowledgable about that he could write or expand without getting involved in that ) All of these have problems. The specific problem with the suggest idea is that many people do use their real name or some versions of it, including coi editors, and including even people writing autobiographies. It is possible to discuss these things without makign dwefiite accusations, but actual identies are usually implied to some degree whenever there is coi. | |||
| ::There is a broader problem. It seems clear that jytdog has too great a degree of confidence in his own judgment and his own abilities. This can be seen also in matters not involving coi. He will sometimes therefore push too hard about whatever he is working on. And though it's improved over the last year or two, it hasn't improved enough. | |||
| ::There are none of us here--and I refer to all of us, arbs or not-- who is capable of making a judgment about what might or might not happen in any personal matter. It's presumptuous of us to pretend otherwise. I did not join arb com to make judgments, but to solve problems. I don't really have a solution for this one, and I I suggest that those who are sure that they do may need to think further. (There's of course the obvious solution that we remove him altogether, which I consider in this and in almost all cases here a solution of despair, which ignores the possibility of any positive contribution. The problems of dealing with coi and alt med editors will not go away once he is removed. As usual, when we have a problem we cannot solve: we pick someone to blame. | |||
| ::I need to say something personal. Jytdog remind me somewhat of myself in some of my pre-WP days. For many people, -the game-playing nature of WP and the opportunity to be impersonal increases their aggressiveness, On WP I feel the opposite--these very characteristics enable me to walk away from quarrels and over-involvement. And my own years of additional maturity may be the real key to it. | |||
| ::I really do not think I have anything more to contribute to this, and, as always, even if I could stand in the way of what others decide to do, I would not want to do so. ''']''' (]) 06:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::I strongly disagree with your statement that the editor agreed to be contacted off-wiki and no private information was used based upon the private statement Beall4 submitted to the committee. Permission required is the core action and intent of the motion; removing it defeats the whole purpose because the case is being suspended. Without it, the case should move ahead without Jytdog if necessary. ''']''' ] 16:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::I see I need to respond further. The specifics of the event that started this are in my opinion relatively trivial ,and the sort of thing a that could be disputes endlessly. Fortunately, they are not important. The important thing is that it was certainly inappropriate, and part of a pattern of inappropriateness, so much so as to make it clear the person is not sufficiently in control for the role he has been engaging in. ''']''' (]) 03:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *The motion is enacted and will be closed by the clerks shortly. The requirement for confidentiality is quite high on this one and includes several submissions from Jytdog and others. We no longer have a means to communicate with Jytdog and he has confidentially provided us with his final statement. ] has been provided these emails and apprised of the situation. It is now in their hands if there is anything further. ''']''' ] 07:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == Arbitrator BU Rob13 at ] == | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ] '''at''' 16:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Involved parties === | |||
| <!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator --> | |||
| *{{admin|Black Kite}}, ''filing party'' | |||
| *{{admin|BU Rob13}} | |||
| ;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request | |||
| <!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> | |||
| * | |||
| ;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | ;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | ||
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Pppery#c-Deepfriedokra-20241225233600-Napoleonjosephine2020-20241225232900 | |||
| At the ] for ] (hence "TRM"), a number of requests have been made by myself and others that Arbitrator ] should explain why they are casting aspersions against other un-named (with one exception) editors without providing any evidence of this in the form of diffs or anything else. They are listed below. | |||
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Napoleonjosephine2020 | |||
| === Statement by Napoleonjosephine2020 === | |||
| * ] concerned about BU Rob13 casting aspersions] | |||
| Dear Committee, | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * ] is also unimpressed that BU Rob13 is casting aspersions with no evidence] | |||
| * ] replying to BU Rob13] | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| Someone made an inflammatory edit to Li's page that is intended to cast her in a negative light. On his own talk page (EncycloDeterminate), this same editor linked to a since-deleted tweet in which he attacked Lindy Li (the subject of the Misplaced Pages article) as an "opportunistic grifter". | |||
| === Statement by Black Kite === | |||
| Currently, at ] there is a request concerning TRM, as linked above. During this request, arbitrator ] has insinuated that there are a group of editors who are preventing TRM from being sanctioned. was BU Rob13's original posting, accusing an administrator of closing a request that he'd made, and threatening him afterwards. No diffs. When questioned about this, BU Rob13 finally, five days later, gave a name (]), and accused him of being WP:INVOLVED too (no diff, or explanation). The main point: '''You will also note that the diff also accuses a number of un-named editors/admins as being TRM's "groupies", an accusation that is still there, eleven days later, with no attempt to evidence it despite a number of requests.''' | |||
| He is also on Reddit posting about this editing war and openly admitted to disliking Li and admitted that his personal dislike could fairly in itself be grounds for removing his edit. | |||
| After BU Rob13's "groupies" comment. I did an <small>(you may need to scroll down - there are intervening diffs)</small> of admin comments on the 13 AE requests against TRM. You'll see the evidence is that Ritchie333 had only adminned one request about TRM - one of two opened by BU Rob13. No other admin had opined on more than five requests. | |||
| Anyone with clear animus and hatred for a subject should be barred from editing the subject's page. Would really appreciate your intervention. He deleted his X post after I shared it on a talk page but I have screenshots of both his X and Reddit posts and am happy to email them to all the parties concerned. I linked to his Reddit post but it was taken down. | |||
| was to deny he was only talking about admins; therefore I did looking at those who had commented as non-admins/involved admins. You will notice that no-one has even commented at even 50% of the filings, and BU Rob13 himself is involved four times, including filing two of them against TRM (] and ], both closed as "No action"). | |||
| Finally, today, BU Rob13 replied , refusing to redact his comment, and making some new false statements ("''I've provided sufficient proof that anyone who even tries to bring up TRM's conduct is met with an intensely unpleasant experience''" and "''people vigorously defend TRM every time he violates his sanctions ... I have backed it up with diffs''"); however his submission only contains 3 diffs, all about Ritchie333; nothing about anyone else. Meanwhile - "''I cannot cast aspersions against unnamed editors, because all arbitration remedies involving the prohibition on casting aspersions requires aspersions to be cast to damage reputations; I can damage no reputations if I name no editors''". This is <u>ludicrous</u>. It's saying "I can cast aspersions against groups of people, as long as I don't name them". Could I comment in an ArbCom case (hypothetical example!) with "I'd like the four members of ArbCom who are incompetent to Recuse, but I'm not naming them"? No - ] clearly says that it includes "ill-considered accusations of impropriety", and that's clearly what we have. Since BU Rob13 is an arbitrator and has refused to evidence his accusations, I don't see any other option than to bring this here. | |||
| Someone who is an Arbitrator, Checkuser and Oversighter should not be casting vague/random aspersions against other editors, and then refusing to either redact or justify them - he hasn't done either. I do not see how someone who clearly regards ] as optional for themselves should sit on a body which is required to determine whether others have violated it (or any other policy). ] 16:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| * {{reply to|Floquenbeam}} Floq, all I wanted was for him to redact his pointless and unevidenced aspersions, and he's refused to do it. So here we are. I'll withdraw this case ''straight away'' if he does so. | |||
| * {{reply to|MLauba}} No-one is looking for anyone to get blocked here, merely to act as an arbitrator should. | |||
| === Statement by BU Rob13 === | |||
| The statement of fact I made was that people show up repeatedly whenever someone attempts to see TRM's remedy enforced to confront the administrator or editor who reports a potential violation. They make things very uncomfortable for them. I've backed this statement up with multiple diffs, e.g. . I'll add to those the current ARCA, as the abuse I've had thrown my way over saying TRM's remedy is impossible to enforce without enduring abuse has itself proven my point. Black Kite has demanded I name the specific editors that show up to several of TRM's threads. I have named one, but decline to name others because I think it will only encourage drama while not solving any underlying issues. Since I did not make any statement of fact about any specific editor, I am not required to name specific editors. Black Kite is asking me to evidence statements that I ''did not make''. I have supported the only statement of fact I did make. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 16:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *{{re|Amakuru}} Since people are demanding I provide evidence for things I ''didn't'' say, you'll need to forgive me for demanding evidence for things you're actually saying I did. Please provide a diff where I ever specified I was speaking about admins. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 21:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| **I appreciate that. Thank you. I feel like this has been somewhat of a game of telephone gone wrong. I fully agree I haven't supported some of the things people are saying that I said, but after a few iterations, that's started drifting far away from what I actually said, which I believe I've fully supported. Correcting one piece of information that has gone awry helps. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 22:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *{{re|Thryduulf}} I agree, which is why I provided such diffs above (which were also at the ARCA) of editors receiving severe pushback for non-frivolous enforcement or requests for enforcement of the sanctions on TRM. The first link I provided above related to an AE block that was not overturned. The second link related to an AE request where multiple editors agreed a violation had occurred, though no action was taken because TRM subsequently struck the violating comment. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 21:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Floq === | |||
| This is the first time in my 10+ years on WP that I've seen Black Kite escalate pointless drama. '''Much''' less often than me. So I guess maybe he's due. Hang in there BU Rob. I know a little about what you're going thru. --] (]) 16:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :<small>{{ping|MLauba}} Please see the "''much less often than me''" portion of my statement above... --] (]) 19:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)</small> | |||
| === Statement by somewhat involved Ritchie333 === | |||
| It's Christmas about in three weeks. I could happily sit down for a pint of with Rob and I'm sure we could thrash out our differences out in about two hours. Unfortunately, geographical logistics make this impossible. ] ] ] 16:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :Wait, you're British? Who knew? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 00:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Bemused observation by MLauba === | |||
| Amusingly enough, the only time I remember seeing a sitting arb getting blocked, it was another champion of civility holding himself to a lower standard than what he expected of others, and I believe the blocking admin was Floq. ] ''<sup>'''(''']''')'''</sup>'' 17:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :<small>{{ping|Floquenbeam}}For the sake of clarity, I was musing about "thing exists", not implying "thing bad", and indeed, while some parallels are there, we are, fortunately, a couple of orders of magnitude lower than the 2012 situation. ] ''<sup>'''(''']''')'''</sup>'' 22:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)</small> | |||
| === Statement by MrX === | |||
| {{u|Ritchie333}}, why not just pick up the phone an give him a call?- ]] 🖋 17:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Amakuru === | |||
| Black Kite is an admin I respect greatly and yes, he is basically right about the issue at hand here. Rob made vague comments on an arbitration page, implying impropriety by certain <s>admins</s> editors, but without naming <s>those admins</s> them. I agree that he should have either retracted the remark or named <s>the admins</s> those concerned, since the outcome of the ARCA case might depend on such evidence. But having said all that, I also agree with Floq that bringing the matter here is an unnecessary escalation. I'm therefore tempted to say we just accept that Rob isn't going to change his mind on this, ], and then we can all sit down together and enjoy that beer that Ritchie mentions. — ] (]) 17:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|BU Rob13}} yes you're right, you never said admins. Thank you for pointing that out. I've struck that above. — ] (]) 21:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Alanscottwalker=== | |||
| I remember long ago, some arbitrator saying that Arbcom is suppose to try to 'break-the-back' of disputes (hopefully I am not mis-remembering), so it seems most unfortunate when an arbitrated dispute generates a dispute, which generates a dispute, and on and on. Perhaps for getting to the backbone or the nub, as they say, I'll repeat from the ARCA: ''parsing the vague difference(?) between "specific" and "general" competence is either a game, or will tend to lead to madness for all involved.'' I'll add, here, it does not sound like a really fun game, either. ] (]) 18:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, after reading some more comments, I think decline, because, there is a forum already open for this and it is the ARCA (where the same committee is already meeting and in session), and it being there, not a whole new process is far, far less bureaucracy. ] (]) 19:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Sandstein === | |||
| I don't see how this minor, run-of-the-mill spat meets any of the requirements for an ArbCom case. The request is vexatious. All it illustrates is that ArbCom should get a move on and come to a decision, one way or the other, in the amendment request at issue, which has long since descended into pointless bickering of this sort. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Thryduulf (re BU Rob13) === | |||
| {{ec}} The whole issue here can be summed up as follows: | |||
| *The arbitration committee has repeatedly required accusations of impropriety to be | |||
| *#Specific. | |||
| *#Backed up with evidence (usually in the form of diffs) | |||
| *The arbitration committee has sanctioned editors for repeated failures to do this | |||
| *BU Rob13 has on multiple occasions made accusations of impropriety that are: | |||
| *#Vague | |||
| *#Not backed up with any evidence at all | |||
| ], myself and others would simply like BU Rob13 to be held to the same standards as other editors. We have tried to resolve this in the original forum (the ARCA regarding TRM) but this has not proved possible. I agree with Black Kite therefore that this is the only option available (an AN/I regarding a sitting arbitrator's actions in an arbitration forum would be a useless dramafest that could not solve the issue even if there was somehow miraculously no drama). | |||
| I'm not sure what sanctions are appropriate here, but I certainly hope it doesn't get to the point that anybody is blocked. ] (]) 18:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :{{replyto|Isaaci}} by that definition anyone who has ever expressed an opinion at AE that is favourable to TRM is one of his groupies - including everybody who agreed with the consensus about the frivolous request (which includes people like ] who cannot be rationally described as a fan of TRM). However even if we do accept that definition, it doesn't absolve BU Rob13 from the requirement to provide evidence for his accusations. ] (]) 20:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by isaacl === | |||
| In the real world, a band's groupies will have a rotating cast as the band moves from city to city. Similarly, an editor's supporters can vary from incident to incident. That being said, I suggest referring to an editor's supporters as groupies isn't the best way to achieve a collaborative understanding. ] (]) 18:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|Thryduulf}} Actually, I didn't define the term groupies, since, as I said, I don't think using the term is helpful. But in the broader sense, there are some issues where there is a vocal number of editors advocating a specific view that makes it difficult for any action to be taken. Due to limitations of English Misplaced Pages's decision-making traditions, a small number of objectors (whether they are changing from discussion to discussion or the same persons) can hamper consensus from being achieved. I wouldn't call it an impropriety: it's just a dynamic that naturally arises with the large, sprawling discussions on English Misplaced Pages. <small>Note your ping wasn't to the right user.</small> ] (]) 22:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Hijiri88 === | |||
| I have positive working relationships with multiple editors on both sides of this (honestly I'm probably more "affiliated" with the editors BU Rob13 asserts show up to prevent TRM's sanction being enforced than most of the editors in question themselves are), but I sympathize with BU Rob13 in this case; it's near-impossible to provide "evidence specifically in the form of diffs" (which, let's be honest, is usually what editors mean when they quote this or that policy requiring evidence "preferably" or "normally" in the form of diffs) to demonstrate recurring patterns like the one he is referring to. It should be a simple matter of checking the AE logs to see if, whenever someone reports TRM for something, one or more users show up more than once or twice each to defend him. I'm saying this, not having actually done this check, and honestly having an intense dislike of so-called "civility restrictions", which most seem to do less to create a more civil editing environment than to paint targets on the heads of unpopular editors. (If BU Rob13 is correct in this case, it seems have ironically had the opposite effect here, since the editor on whose head the target is painted is actually ''too'' popular.) | |||
| === Statement by Banedon === | |||
| I think this case request is pretty silly. If Black Kite or anyone thinks BU Rob13 is a bad arbitrator who does not behave as an arbitrator should, vote against him in the next Arbcom elections (if he seeks re-election). If some Misplaced Pages rule were violated and sanctions sought because of that, word the RFAR as such instead. In the meantime, I'd say this is a sign that Arbcom should make some decisions about the ARCA. It seems to be just paused right now, as though the current Arbcom is waiting for the incoming arbitrators to make the hard decisions, which sounds like a cop-out. ] (]) 04:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Comment by Kurtis === | |||
| {{ping|MLauba}} I'm aware of one other instance in which a sitting arbitrator was blocked by an administrator for failing to hold themselves to the same standards as those they hold for others. This was all the way back in early 2009, when the Arbitration Committee's popularity was at its all-time low. ] ] 05:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| I have tried many times to stop this self-avowed Kamala Harris supporter from sabotaging Li's page but I fear that those involved are ideologically biased and the consensus thus far has a partisan slant. Thank you so much for your time and consideration. | |||
| === Statement by EncycloDeterminate === | |||
| === Statement by {Non-party} === | === Statement by {Non-party} === | ||
| Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information. | |||
| <!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * --> | |||
| === |
=== Sabotage of Lindy Li's page: Clerk notes === | ||
| :''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | :''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | ||
| * | |||
| *Recuse --] <sup>] </sup> 19:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === |
=== Sabotage of Lindy Li's page: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0> === | ||
| {{anchor|1= |
{{anchor|1=Sabotage of Lindy Li's page: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)</small> | ||
| * | |||
| *'''Recuse''', obviously. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 16:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Recuse'''. ] (]) 16:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 04:24, 26 December 2024
"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC. Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
| Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sabotage of Lindy Li's page | 26 December 2024 | 0/0/0 |
| Case name | Links | Evidence due | Prop. Dec. due |
|---|---|---|---|
| Palestine-Israel articles 5 | (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) | 21 Dec 2024 | 11 Jan 2025 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motions| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| Arbitrator workflow motions | 1 December 2024 |
| Shortcuts
About this page Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
Guidance on participation and word limits Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
General guidance
|
lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
Sabotage of Lindy Li's page
Initiated by Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk) at 04:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Proposed parties
- Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- EncycloDeterminate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Pppery#c-Deepfriedokra-20241225233600-Napoleonjosephine2020-20241225232900
- https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Napoleonjosephine2020
Statement by Napoleonjosephine2020
Dear Committee,
Someone made an inflammatory edit to Li's page that is intended to cast her in a negative light. On his own talk page (EncycloDeterminate), this same editor linked to a since-deleted tweet in which he attacked Lindy Li (the subject of the Misplaced Pages article) as an "opportunistic grifter".
He is also on Reddit posting about this editing war and openly admitted to disliking Li and admitted that his personal dislike could fairly in itself be grounds for removing his edit.
Anyone with clear animus and hatred for a subject should be barred from editing the subject's page. Would really appreciate your intervention. He deleted his X post after I shared it on a talk page but I have screenshots of both his X and Reddit posts and am happy to email them to all the parties concerned. I linked to his Reddit post but it was taken down.
I have tried many times to stop this self-avowed Kamala Harris supporter from sabotaging Li's page but I fear that those involved are ideologically biased and the consensus thus far has a partisan slant. Thank you so much for your time and consideration.
Statement by EncycloDeterminate
Statement by {Non-party}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
Sabotage of Lindy Li's page: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Sabotage of Lindy Li's page: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>-Sabotage_of_Lindy_Li's_page">
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)