Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Cthomas3 (Talk) & Liz (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: GorillaWarfare (Talk) & KrakatoaKatie (Talk) & Newyorkbrad (Talk)

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Patrolling

I've just marked this case page and talk page, and others in the set, as patrolled. We should not have arb-clerks who are not autopatrolled. Can someone give User:Cthomas3 that bit, and check the other clerks all have it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: Done - I've just given CodeLyoko and Cthomas3 the autopatrolled right. Cameron11598, the only other non-admin clerk, already had it. Thryduulf (talk) 09:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize as I like both Cthomas and Code but I object to this if it was done because they're clerks. Patrolling project space pages and user pages is an incredibly poor reason to give someone autopatrolled. There is nothing about being an arb clerk to suggest competency at creating articles and that is why autopatrolled really exists. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm a little uneasy about this too. CodeLyoko has not created a single article, and Cthomas3 only a couple of stubs.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The assignment of rights is an administrative matter (indeed the committee had no input in the decision to grant autopatrolled here): might I recommend further discussion at User talk:Thryduulf? –xeno^talk 14:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a) no reason for a project page to be patrolled at all, and b) no reason at all (no disrespect) for an admin/arb to immediately fulfil a request from any editor regarding arbitration pages who is neither. ——SN 54129 14:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the autopatrolled right is granted at administrative discretion to anyone who can be trusted to understand core Wikipedia policies and not introduce significant errors into pages, such that there is no need for every one of their edits to be reviewed by another experienced editor to check that there are no BLP, copyvio or similar concerns. If we did not trust these users to understand the basics then there is no way that they would have been made arbitration clerks. Equally though, the right can (AIUI) be removed by any administrator should the standard of editing fall below that required. In other words it's really no big deal if a trusted user has the right, and Pigsonthewing, expressed a good faith reason why granting it would be helpful. If the autopatrolled right is actually "really" only for users who create lots of new pages in the main namespace then (a) it should not be automatically given to administrators (who we trust not to violate basic policies but who don't necessarily create lots of new articles), and (b) the documentation should be changed to reflect that it is only (not just usually) for those who create lots of new articles not simply users who can be trusted not to violate basic policies. If there is no reason for project spaces to be patrolled, then the flag should be disabled for that namespace. Thryduulf (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While any administrator can grant autopatrolled at their discretion, there are suggested standards at Wikipedia:Autopatrolled which, in my opinion, are not met here. Arbitration clerks are not vetted for the article creation experience, and therefore should not be granted autopatrolled merely on the basis of having been appointed to that position. – bradv🍁 16:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I read that page which is exactly why I said that the purpose and requirements of autopatrolled as they are described here are not the same as the purpose and requirements described there. That page uses language like "suggested", "typically" and describes uses outside the article namespace and thus my actions were entirely consistent with it and resolved the problem identified by Pigsonthewing. This thread however uses much firmer language that strongly implies there is never a reason to give autopatrolled for anything outside of article space and implies that the purpose of patrolling is different to that written at that information page. Either this thread is wrong or the information page is wrong - if it is the former then this is a storm about nothing, if the information page is wrong then it needs changing so we don't have another storm when someone else follows it and interprets "typically" and "suggested standard" as meaning that exceptions are allowed for when someone would benefit from the right for atypical reasons rather than as they are being interpreted here. Thryduulf (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49 has followed up on my talk page, very strongly criticising my suitability to be an administrator over this. It seems that an administrator who is unfamiliar with a given part of the toolset should know that the information page about that part of the toolset, the purpose of which is to familiarise them with the tool, actually gives fundamentally incorrect information. I would strongly appreciate uninvolved editors weighing in. Thryduulf (talk) 01:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I may add in Thryduulf's defense, I was given mass message sender and then autopatrolled rights on June 29, 2015 by two different arbitrators when I became an arbitration clerk. You might object that this shouldn't be happening but it is unfair to single out this instance as being atypical when it has been done in the past for arbitration clerks because of the project pages they create and the messages they send out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your bringing up the precedent LIz. That's certainly helpful in providing context. I will suggest that there's a definite difference, in my opinion, between MMS (which clerks cannot carry out their duties without) and autopatrol (which they can). But the precedent is truly helpful. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no relevance to anything in this thread, but I'm listening to a video and reading this thread simultaneously. Suddenly I hear this: Why does it need to connect to something? What is it connecting to? Fucking Code Lyoko? I'm dying. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous participants

In my comment on the recent request page, I asked:

should the other two involved parties, and indeed those who commented, in the previous request for arbitration not be notified of this request?

which went unanswered. Could a clerk or arb. please answer now, with respect to the open case? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Andy, we saw the suggestion will likely be doing that shortly. –xeno^talk 15:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Andy, I've notified all 2018 participants who weren't already notified as part of their participation in the most recent request. CThomas³ (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arb KK - is she or isn't she?

KK is shown as both a drafting Arb and inactive in the case :( Leaky caldron (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, we'll fix that. –xeno^talk 12:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be back active on everything later this week. Thanks for the catch and fix. Katie^talk 23:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed about past evidence

Xeno, I'm a little confused. I participated in the 2018 iteration of this case. The notice on my talk page today said "All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case." Does that mean they will be copied onto the current evidence page? Or do we need to re-add it ourselves? Voceditenore (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Voceditenore, your statement has been copied to the main case page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog#Statement by Voceditenore (within the second collapsed archive box). You may add relevant information to the evidence page if you wish, but it is not required. – bradv🍁 18:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship

If it'll help return Jytdog to editing, I'll volunteer to mentor them. @Jytdog and Jytdog2:. I think we disagree on quite a lot in areas of COI and on our philosophies on the best approach to take, but we also hold respect for each other and have had very good discussions in the past. I, primarily, see this sort of mentorship as email-based and dependent upon Jytdog emailing me when they're in a dispute so we can discuss a productive way forward. Although I am not very active on-wiki, I think many people know that I am responsive via email. If Jytdog accepts, then I hope Arbcom will consider this as an approach to returning. I don't know what is in the private emails that are hinted at in both cases, but assuming Jytdog has made mistakes while in disputes, I believe that our emails could be a good method to bringing back a productive editor. Update: The more and more I read, the less and less I want to do this.--v/r - T P 22:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis: It's a generous and potentially worthwhile offer, but how do you see this working in relation to the important part of the case, the off-wiki contact ? Nick (talk) 12:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen so far, Jytdog has had issues with outing other editors, and now off-wiki contact - that's not something that a mentorship would be able to fix. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog talks with TParis when he doesn't know if something over the line or not, TParis tells him no every time he asks if it's a good idea to contact someone off wiki, etc. Natureium (talk) 23:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I'd expect that when Jytdog is in a dispute, they'd contact me to discuss their approach before engaging. I'd "sanity-check" their plan, essentially. That is not to imply they are insane.--v/r - T P 23:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The concern I have, unfortunately, is that the incident which directly led to this case is not the first incident in which Jytdog has misused personally identifying information (PII). They were strongly reminded, when a previous topic ban concerning COI editing was lifted in 2017, that misuse of personal information would result in an indefinite block or siteban. Jytdog contacted the user in question after this strong reminder. How do you envisage mentoring dealing with this in light of the failure of the previous strong reminder to have the desired impact on Jytdog ? Nick (talk) 08:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite seeing the disconnect, I felt my approach was straight forward. Not trying to be confrontational, it's just such a simple plan that I'm struggling to see where I am unclear. I definitely feel that a COI topic ban is important in this case but I wasn't going to propose it because Jytdog and I have had disputes in this area in the past - respectful ones, mostly. I was going to let Arbcom make that call without my input. What I do see my role being is that in the course of editing article, if Jytdog were to enter a content dispute or a personal dispute, they would step back from it and email me. I'd review the dispute and Jytdog would share what approach they'd like to take to resolving it (discussion, Rfc, ANI, AIV, Arbcom, etc). I'd look for hints that they might be heading down paths that have gotten them into trouble before. If that were to happen, I'd suggest they drop it (no avenue to pursue). I wouldn't be an enforcement officer or have any kind of authority, it'd just be us talking when they are tied up into a dispute. Any administrator could still do what sysops do if he crosses the line again, but I feel like the two of us chatting over email could keep him far away from the line so that it's not even necessary.--v/r - T P 22:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your mentoring offer is good, thanks. I was thinking that something like that would be desirable, along with a topic ban from all COI issues apart from occasional brief reports to their mentor's talk. COI is a big problem but no one can solve it and Jytdog has a demonstrated undesirable approach. Plenty of editors do not like Jytdog but we don't do punishment—all we have to do is keep him away from problem areas. Johnuniq (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I like Jytdog, I don't like what they did. We don't agree often about COIs, but we respect each other. I don't have the best reputation myself, but what I do have I'm willing to use to help another editor.--v/r - T P 23:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how a COI ban would work or be practical. Jytdog wrote that he still reads Wikipedia and falls on promotional content that he'd like to be able to improve. Would a COI ban also mean that he couldn't remove content with an edit summary saying that it's clearly promotional, couldn't place a tag on an article even if it's obviously written by someone close to the subject, etc? Or would it only affect connected/payed-contributor tags, COIN participation as well as any question about COI directed at someone? I remember of a GMO topic ban, that seemed easier to delimit. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 00:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would be like me volunteering to mentor Donald Trump. wbm1058 (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq, Wbm1058, Wikipedia does 'do punishment' - not only with the removal of editing privileges, which may be justified as a 'prevention' but also and more severe, the allowed character assasinations and PA and harassment by involved and non involved editors and admins during Arbcom cases, especially in the case of prolific edititors such as Jytdog with whom I have worked extensively on the development of ideas on new software which has since been rolled out by the WMF. It was a pleasure collaborating with him and without his work the system would not have been deployed as we know it. IMO this case should be closed as unblocked for time served and 'keep him away from problem areas'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Posting Evidence

When someone posts their evidence are they supposed to intersperse it with direct cross examination of the evidence posted by others? ♟♙ (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is generally meant to be about presenting your own evidence, although that can include things you bring up in response to others' evidence - e.g. to refute it or expand on it. Detailed analysis should generally be in the "Analysis of evidence" section on the workshop page. The line between the two is blurry however. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough. Guess I'll leave it alone. ♟♙ (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may post responses to other editors in your own presentation of evidence.

Just a reminder to all nonparties (which is everyone but Jytdog) that the length limits are 500 words and 50 diffs. If you go long and do not respond to messages to cut down your presentation, the arb clerks will cut it down to size in a very blunt way. Please be as concise as possible. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, I actually was going to ask about that until I saw your comment from awhile ago. I'm seeing a lot of sections well over 500 words (I know I worked hard to get mine to 499). Currently, the major ones are @Wbm1058, Jenhawk777, and Julia W:. That may be something that needs to be addressed soon since the evidence stage should be closing soon. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz and Kingofaces43: May I jump in here and ask for help with this? I left Wikipedia when I was still a newbie and don't know much. How do I go about getting a word count? Also, I was told to cut my count and thought I did. Does my responses to others have to be included in that 500 words? I thought it was just the evidence, so if it's both, I will have some serious editing to do! HELP! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I want to cooperate fully, so I just went and cut my word count. I think I am under 300 words, total, including the responses now. It's less than I wanted to say but with everything else here, it's enough I hope to at least be taken into consideration. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I request that my evidence be allowed to stand as is. It is currently 890 words (-diff links, a direct quote, sig). For these reasons: I'm the same sex as Beall4, highlighting comparable aggressive behaviour, in a fairly relevant time period, and I believe the relevancy of my evidence is furthered by being able to imagine that if I were not so conflict-averse, Jytdog was ramping up to finding my work phone number (which he would claim was trivial, regardless) and calling me to tell me how I was spamming and violating MEDMOS. Because Jytdog has effectively gamed the system by retiring and then coming back to have a case opened, we have no current statement from Beall4 to reaffirm her position or give additional thoughts. However, of course if I am asked to cut it down, I will do so without complaint. Thank you. Julia\^talk 10:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See § Wordcount request. Per Katie, "You can go up to 900 words". wbm1058 (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't a blanket increase for everyone by any reading of it. I'm not aware of anyone else that got permission for an increase (generally that should be done first rather than going over and asking for permission later). Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to be absent for this case today. I will check with arbitrators. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have been asked to close the Evidence Phase. We were checking word count strictly last week and, I'll admit, we didn't do word counts and enforce it this week because, well, I know that I have been distracted by events in my off-wiki life. Cthomas3 and I have to take responsibility for that lapse and we apologize to those editors who worked hard to keep their statements within the expected word limits. Your effort & cooperation is appreciated.

The arbitrators are aware that isn't a fair situation. The arbitrators will thoughtfully assess all of your evidence when they consider this case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz and Cthomas3: I have more time now to cut down my statement and would like to do so to be fair to others, since I have not been given permission. May I edit the evidence page? Julia\^talk 08:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Issue

The real question that should be addressed concerning Jytdog should be: Will the Wikipedia encyclopedia be better with the return of the editor? Does his past contributions outweigh his misconduct? Decision makers have to balance the past with the future. My bias is that I would like to see his return.Eschoryii (talk) 05:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That will almost certainly be the primary decision to be made by the committee here. But the arbitration process is supposed to be evidence-based, with evidence leading to findings of fact, and findings of fact leading to remedies or other appropriate action. So the evidence needs to come first. There's more information on the process in the WP:ARBGUIDE. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved comment: this case is essentially a ban appeal, whose possible outcomes I can think of are: a) Jytdog is unbanned, maybe with some restrictions; or, b) Jytdog stays banned but is allowed to open another appeal in 6 or 12 months or whatever. Either way, Jytdog will probably eventually get unbanned. The phone call is something of a red herring imho. People are focusing on it because they don't like Jytdog's entire approach to editing, but they want to point to a specific egregious incident rather than on a long history of what used to be called exhausting the community's patience. The phone call deserves a lengthy ban but at the end of the day it was to a public phone number and wasn't repeated, so a suitably penitent offender should probably be let back in sooner or later, if that was the only thing at issue. So imo the decision should weigh Jytdog's entire history with not that much emphasis on the phone call.

I think that the project would be better off without Jytdog's brand of tenacious aggression but I accept that he will probably be unbanned someday, so I'm indifferent to whether it's now or at some future date. What I'd like to see is remedies and restrictions in the event of an unban that put a stop to the incidents. Jytdog's issues were not about COI or GMO or some other specific topic area, but about battleground editing wherever a battle can be started. The fundamental unit of battleground editing on wikipedia is usually the mainspace revert. So I'd like to see a 0RR restriction on Jytdog. That's the only thing I can think of that can help. 2601:648:8202:96B0:54D9:2ABB:1EDB:CEE3 (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence talk page is not an appropriate place to propose solutions, especially while editors are still posting evidence. When the Workshop phase opens, that would be a good time to propose any remedies that you might suggest. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I just don't feel likely to hang around this case. Originally I started commenting on Eschoryii's question and then it went off into remedies. The main thing I was trying to say is there will eventually (likely) be an unban, so the interesting question is what the post-unban state of play will be, rather than whether an unban results from this particular proceeding. 2601:648:8202:96B0:54D9:2ABB:1EDB:CEE3 (talk) 04:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to correct a misperception by 2601:648:8202:96B0:54D9:2ABB:1EDB:CEE3 and one which Jytdog has repeatedly encouraged. It was not a "public phone number". I saw the PDF file where it was listed when I was preparing my statement for the 2018 iteration of this case. There was no name or even a job description given for that phone number. Just the title of the exhibit, a phone number and an address, and a brief description of what was in the exhibit. The only name mentioned in the description was that of a doctor whose research was presented at the conference and who was not the editor in question. To say that the phone number of the WP editor was publicly posted is simply not true. Voceditenore (talk) 08:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not look at the background because the mere fact of the phone call was enough to condemn the action. However, wasn't the phone number publicly available? I don't think a private investigator was needed to dig up information, just connect what an editor said on-wiki with an off-wiki event. I agree that getting the phone number was creepy but in what sense was the number not public? Johnuniq (talk) 09:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A phone number was publicly available for that exhibit. There was absolutely nothing to indicate whose phone number it was, let alone the Wikipedia editor whom he harassed. Incidentally, since then NASPGHAN has put its 2018 and 2019 conference program and abstract books behind a "member only" wall. I have no idea whether that change stemmed from this incident, but it wouldn't surprise me. Voceditenore (talk) 09:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a phone number with web searches or in a phone book, it is public. Bill collectors do that stuff all the time and it is legal. That doesn't make it acceptable editor behaviour, but it's at a much different level than hacking into a telco switch or hiring a private detective to get the number. 2601:648:8202:96B0:54D9:2ABB:1EDB:CEE3 (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are many, many things that are perfectly legal but could still be considered harassment on Wikipedia. The legality of it is not really the issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To the IP: whether one hires a private detective or whether one does the detective work oneself is not really germane to the degree of harassment caused by one's efforts. Detective work was required here. And Jytdog placed more than one call, so let's not minimize the events in question just because they have been mischaracterized in the past. The proceedings here are supposed to be based on what actually happened. Newimpartial (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the grey area between criminal and tortious. If an organization holds itself forth as abiding by certain rules, but neglects to actually enforce them, its pockets had better be very deep or very shallow. Qwirkle (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone knows what happened and who is on what side. Let the decision makers decide without all the typing that does not expand the encyclopedia. Imo. Eschoryii (talk) 07:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we have a process, and this is how it works. Evidence is presented, ideas or workshopped by community members, and then and only then does the committee render it's decision. This process was developed with community input and has been used for years. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a perfect system, a lot more established (vested) editors with Machiavellian personalities would be banned, and a lot less newbie or fledgling editors would have been chased away. But Arbcom was never about fairness, it's about process, as Beeblebrox emphasizes above. Don't you forget it. 173.66.156.205 (talk) 03:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's about solving intractable problems through that process. and no, it's not perfect. If you've got a perfect system that would produce the correct result 100% of the time, please do propose it to the community so that those of us who volunteer our time to the committee can go do other things. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wordcount request

My evidence is approximately 600 words (including links and diffs, etc). I don't anticipate having additional evidence to present here, so I request to be allowed to leave it as it is. Thryduulf (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have just blanked part of my section because it exceeded 500 words and I have no time to rework it right now (Special:Diff/945737491). For some reason, when I composed it I believed 1000 words to be the limit (that was likely for another page) and I already remember struggling to fit everything under 1000 words (the total was about 840 words before blanking this part). I thought I'd also ask for the permission to restore it as-is, in case it was allowed, perhaps. That statement may also be my only participation to this case. Thank you, —Paleo Neonate – 21:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PaleoNeonate: I apologize for not seeing this sooner. Long days. You can go up to 900 words; if you need more, please email the clerks list so we can consider it in a timely manner before the phase closes. @Thryduulf: You're fine as you are. Katie^talk 18:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @KrakatoaKatie: Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 17:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence phase closure reminder

Hello, participants,

This is just a reminder that the Evidence phase of this arbitration case closes tomorrow, March 23, 2020. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liz can you please clarify for those of us blissfully unacquainted with Arbitration: Does the evidence phase end in three hours at the beginning of 23 March or at the end thereof? Thanks, Coretheapple (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Coretheapple, typically it ends at the end of the day, March 23rd UTC time. But we aren't that strict about it, as "on the dot". Occasionally, it is hours later or even the next day if the clerk is busy. But it could be at 24 March 00:00 UTC. This note is really meant as a nudge for anyone who was unaware of the deadline tomorrow and had been compiling evidence but hadn't posted it yet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Just got acquainted to this case; can I have a few hours to submit additional evidence, even though the closure date was yesterday? — JFG ^talk 15:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Evidence phase should be extended a bit. I have no further diffs that come to mind but others may. I just wanted to make one point that may be overlooked. Not ascribing ulterior motives to anyone necessarily, but the way this case has been structured is deeply unfair to those who were contemplating submitting evidence back in 2018. An active arbitration was aborted two years ago when the "defendant" withdrew, supposedly for good. Now he has unwithdrawn. Calculated or not (it really doesn't matter) the affect of this long "pause" has been to throw sand in the machinery in a significant way. Memories fade. People forget relevant evidence they might have recalled more readily in 2018. Now that this "paused" arbitration has been re-started, I hope that the arbs take that into consideration in all its respects and implications, beginning by extending the evidence phase as memories are jogged. Coretheapple (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Coretheapple and JFG:, courtesy ping Jytdog/Jytdog2, the Committee has extended the evidence phase until March 27th. Best, Kevin (alt of L235 · t · c) 17:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Coretheapple (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

L236 It would be optimal if the change in the deadline could be disseminated to the 2018 parties. Coretheapple (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Kevin. I second the request to notify commenters on the 2018 case. Perhaps the extension should be pushed over the weekend, to help those editors whose weekly routine has been impacted by the virus crisis. — JFG ^talk 08:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog content

Jytdog writes "I debated posting a bunch of content I am proud of, but nobody is contesting my content work."

Jytdog, please do post this as it will add useful context to the case, the background of which I'm somewhat cognisant of but not deeply familiar with. There's a horrible type of editor that Wikipedia is sometimes plagued with, who reverts and battles and sometimes alphabetizes things or gets in style debates or acts as a "police department", but makes few or no positive contributions to the actual encylopedic corpus. NOTBURO means to me that we're all supposed to be builders here, and some of us also take on some custodial-type tasks. So I'm much more sympathetic to editors who get in friction while adding good content, than those (even when they are "right") whose main activity is undoing the work of other editors.

I know you made some contributions about glyphosphate and GMO's that were heavily contested, about which there was a separate arb case, and about which history seems to have shown you were on the wrong side. So I hope that's not what you're referring to being proud of. If there is something else you had in mind I'd be interested to know what it is. Do you think you could edit peacefully under a 0RR restriction? I almost never revert anything myself, but I don't edit much in disputed areas, which helps. 2601:648:8202:96B0:386A:A40C:EBB1:ACC0 (talk) 08:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence phase closure

Hello, everyone,

Just re-announcing that the Evidence phase of this arbitration case will be closing tomorrow. It will not be extended. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pandemic

Almost nobody from WP:MED has posted evidence. Many of the people with whom I have interacted with the most are dealing with the pandemic (some in RL, some perhaps only on here). For those who are able to be present here, I am glad that they are focused on the mission of getting reliable information to the public (and keeping bad information out), and not being distracted with this back office matter. It could of course also be, that folks don't support my return, or don't care. Of course. D When I hadn't posted evidence and the deadline was nearing, Arbcom checked with me to see if I wanted to postpone due to the pandemic. I found time to post since it didn't seem reasonable for me to delay things on my own account, after I had re-opened them (and my apologies for the late response). I hadn't considered how the pandemic might be affecting the rest of the editing community, and I should have.

The COVID-19 pandemic has not been mentioned on this page, so it seemed worth bringing up. Jytdog2 (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this ship already sailed (sank?) when Jytdog decided to appeal to Arbcom at the time he did.

Whether it’s even relevant appears open to question. The pandemic has overtaxed certain providers and researchers, but it has sidelined perhaps more. Qwirkle (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate if involvement with COVID-19, on- or off-wiki, impacted anyone's ability to participate in this case but it was decided the case must progress. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are unprecedented times. While our attentions are drawn to the threats of life and death Wikipedia may not seem important but these times will pass. Editors should feel that what happened here was fair. I do not have a good relationship with Jytdog, but I also do not want him to experience any lack in what is fair. Arbitrations are not pleasant, require huge amounts of work to add evidence or deal with workshops, and in the case of some I know have actually created illness. When as a world our attention is on life threatening illness, separated families as mine is, and a world overturned where is the time to deal with this. I would suggest and I know this too is unprecedented that the evidence and worksop be reopened for two weeks and Jytdog be allowed to place a notice on the page of those who might support him. Sure it's canvassing but this whole thing is wacky. It's a big deal to indef an editor-what is being suggested here. Surely we can do better and slow this down. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Many of the people with whom I have interacted with the most are dealing with the pandemic (some in RL, some perhaps only on here)." I am a medical editor. Very few medical editors are actually consumed by COVID editing, and the pandemic is not why I refrained from participating in this case. Anything I would have to add has already been covered by other female medical editors. The idea that someone who treats women-- as evidence indicates Jytdog does-- should be allowed to "canvas" for support is as preposterous as is the misplaced idea that people are silent because of coronavirus. With enough evidence of Jytdog's problematic approach to medical editing, there was simply no need for me to join. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)If such an extension were to happen, it seems unnecessary to suggest canvassing. The usual neutral notices at some projects/noticeboards should be enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The idea that someone who treated women as evidence..." What? Who or what are you talking about? Yes, I do know of people who are not able or want to be involved at this time even if you aren't one of those people. No one mentioned COVID editing. And I expected a push back on the canvassing idea. Never, ever, would I suggest this but I wanted the idea however unpopular on the table. I have lot's of reasons to not want to deal with some editors but that will not stop me from trying to be fair. Posting or reposting on a NB would be fine too. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see what special connection there is to women here. Or any sort of indication that wanting WP:MED to chip is in "treating women like evidence". If WP:MED people wanted to chip in, they would have, but that's got very little to do with them being male or female. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It took me a while to parse that phrase. My understanding that the meaning is as follows: The idea that someone who treated women as Jytdog does, based on the submitted evidence, should be allowed to "canvas" for support... isaacl (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted the missing punctuation. Littleolive oil, Jytdog mentioned COVID editing (clearly, so perhaps I am misunderstanding your question). This whole proposition (that medical editors are not supporting him because they are too busy) gives a good indication that he doesn't even yet understand the effect his behavior had/has on female editors (in general), or why some may find the problems so reprehensible that they didn't participate-- unrelated to COVID pandemic. As to the "female medical", the problems with his medical editing were covered by others in their evidence, so I saw no reason to weigh in on that aspect either. With all deference to Alexbrn, I suspect these kinds of issues feel very different to women than they do to men. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see the connection to women specifically. If someone gets into a kerfuffle with 100 editors, it is very likely that some of them will be women. It is not good to treat the kurfuffle with those women as more special then the kurfuffle involving men unless something tangible connects gender to behaviour. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then there is a chance that you are not a woman who has been stalked by men on the internet. And saying any more than that is not really appropriate for this page. Also, I was making a distinction that Alexbrn, medical editor, had participated in the case (not a woman). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, but that's also irrelevant and unnecessarily inflammatory, unless again, there's a thing that specifically suggests that there's a gender-based component to it. If a someone gets into a bar fight with 10 people, and two of them happen to be women, there is no need to frame the charges as "getting into a bar fight and committing violence against women" as if the behaviour was somehow more appalling because it involved women, or that it's somehow "more acceptable" to punch a guy in the face than punching a woman in the face. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unwatching. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Never, ever, would I suggest this...": though I think I understand your intent, it is somewhat confusing given your previous statement started with "I would suggest...". Given that the case has been postponed for a year and a quarter basically at the behest of the subject who determined the length of the pause, I don't think any undue haste is being taken. If there is a general concern about any editor being constrained in their ability to participate in Wikipedia administrative matters, then I would feel more comfortable if this extended to a general postponement of specific administrative activities (such as arbitration), as opposed to just addressing one case. If there is a specific concern about specific editors commenting on this case, then perhaps the affected editors can let their concerns be known either here or privately with the committee, and the committee can make a judgement on the best way to proceed. isaacl (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look, we're here because Jytdog, contradicting previous assurances, decided to reopen the case that he chose to suspend over a year ago. I didn't even know the reopening was sought until notified that it was reopened, but I have no doubt whatever that Jydog's allies were fully aware of this case from the gitgo. They could have posted evidence if they had so desired and some have. Every courtesy imaginable has been extended to Jytdog by arbcom, more than was warranted imo. The delay in this case benefits Jytdog because of memory lapses and loss of interest by persons adversely affected by his behavior. We mustn't forget that at the time this case was derailed in 2018, it was rapidly heading toward an indef and he himself asked for such an outcome in his final msg., in which he stated he was leaving forever. He has nothing to complain about. The evidence phase was already extended. Let's not make this drama even more protracted than it is, please. Coretheapple (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us have not had an easy time with Jytdog; that can't influence fairness and I've refuse to let it influence mine. I've put some ideas on the table and am getting input. If there's no agreement, I have no problem with that and am happy to move on. I simply made a suggestion, looked at possibilities. Suggesting an extension is not drama, so let's just relax here. Again if there is no agreement that's fine. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a moot point given that deadlines are not being extended further. It might be a bad idea for someone not involved to hat this section. So much wasted time over this editor. Let's not continue this. Coretheapple (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The case is moving forward, we're not extending any deadlines. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]