Jytdog

That's all folks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dammit man. -Roxy, the naughty dog. wooF 17:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

That is not a foregone conclusion. Do as you will, but the case will surely go on anyway. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Very sad to hear it. Like Tryptofish says, Arbcom is not a foregone conclusion, but you should do what you think best. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The frustrations for Arbcom and you are understandable, but the overall mission of the project – and your obvious love of and value to it – should not be hastily dismissed. Give yourself a 2 week break, then re-evaluate... and return with a fresh outlook. --Zefr (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Sad to see this. Best wishes,Smeat75 (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

+1 to what Zefr said. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Another +1 here. Nobody is irreplaceable but Wikipedia would be much worse off without you, Jytdog. All best wishes to you, whatever you decide to do. -- bonadea contributions talk 3:17 am, 4 December 2018, last Tuesday (3 days ago) (UTC+9)

And another +1 here.--Iztwoz (talk) 10:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

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

• I understand your motivations in doing this, but I would encourage you not to burn all the bridges as such. By all means, take a wikibreak as Zefr suggests (even a longer one, if you want), feel free even to sit out the arbcom case, but perhaps reconsider your account abandonment. I can speak from personal experience that it is easy to mess up in pushing the boundaries of best practices at this website. That's part of the design, and pushing out people who are effective in their designs is also a prototypical feature of societies that are run by the kinds of mob rule that Wikipedia employs (see ostracism). Taking time away from this website in such scenarios can provide much needed perspective (it has for me, certainly), but I think your general outlook on what is or is not appropriate here with respect to the way we report on various claims and promotions is one that is needed. Crucially,WP:There is no deadline, and it would be great to have you back after some time spent in the wilderness. jps (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll echo this and Zefr at the least Jytdog. I've gone the route you outlined of scrambling password, deleting email, etc. when deciding to quite a particular haunt of the internet. Sometimes it really is better to go cold turkey, but I'd suggest in this case go up to everything but deleting the email until a time later. That still gives you the option to come back after a month or whatever, but I always felt like I had more closure waiting a bit for that final step even in the cases when I really did decide to be done.

That being said, remember that ArbCom does not have the authority to give out a site ban in this particular instance yet as they are still bound by WP:PREVENTATIVE policy. The most that can be done is an indef topic-ban on anything relating to real-life identities of Wikipedia editors. Anything beyond that would violate blocking policy in part considering you already made it clear you weren't going to be doing this again (before the initial block). A site-ban/indef-block can't comply with policy yet unless a likelihood for disruption outside the COI/real-life identity area appeared likely or that you violated such a topic ban at a later date. It can only be applied when it's clear an editor is going to have issues no matter the topic they go into. This doesn't need to be the end of the road, but I can understand just wanting to be done with all the drama too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Just fyi, they do have the authority. And they are a lot more likely to pull the trigger if they do it by motion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm saying they only have the authority in the situations I outlined above. There's nothing preventative about a site-ban unless a case can be made that staying out of real life identity areas wouldn't be enough to prevent disruption. Basically, one can argue at most the WP:ROPE has been depleted for that area. My opinion is such a topic-ban should be done as while Jytdog does have some troubles in the area for all the good they've done, the mix of community tension with COI, etc. along with a history of pot-stirring by some problematic editors still hounding Jytdog just makes the area a tough fit for Jytdog. The site level is going outside the bounds of policy at this time though. That's as much as I'm going to comment here about that though. My point is that if Jytdog decides to come back after a good break, they still have tons of areas they should be able to edit. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

You've just been proven wrong at the case page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm staying out of the general issue, but I'd like to point out that someone saying they will do something is not the same thing as someone actually doing it. Otherwise there arbcom would have little to do, and we as a community will issue few cbans etc. Plenty of people say they will do something, whether or not they actually do so is a different matter. And this isn't simply about sincerity. I'm sure quite a few people who make such promises are sincere when they make the promise, but still fail to uphold it abjectly. Again I'm staying out of the general issue, since I have no idea of the evidence as I haven't looked, and it's unlikely I would ever fully know anyway since some of it is likely to be private so I'm not saying this applies to Jytdog. I'm simply pointing out it's entirely possible a block would have been preventative not simply because Jytdog may have made problems in other areas but because they may have been unable to actually do what they said they would do or were asked to do. Nil Einne (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the context I was talking about was that the block was not preventative compared to a topic ban, which did work when it was in effect and should of been reinstated in terms of WP:ROPE before a full site ban. That's all moot now though unless Jytdog decides to come back though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Well that ended badly :-( Take care. You did great work well you were here. Hope you will rejoin us one day. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• I have done plenty of stupid things here too and I really do need you to keep me honest ;-) So get back on the horse! But seriously, please take a well deserved break and reflect. Reiterating Doc James, I hope you will rejoin us. Boghog (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• I consider this a serious loss for the project. I guess I understand why you would want to leave, but I nevertheless hope that you'll reconsider at some time in the future -- even though there will be some hurdles you'd have to get over if the current motion passes. In the meantime, I wish you all the best. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• We have had a lot of different interactions, but I believe you made a mistake and it was not malicious, and I think You should rethink this. Wikipedia would be worse off without you. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 21:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• I can't imagine what you're going through, and how bad you must feel. This is a community here, and I know you feel community with a lot of the people, whether you've met them or not, and that will be a further loss. You must feel like crap, and that's understandable. You didn't do the worst thing in the world, and the project still needs you. Decisions made at the peak of emotion aren't always the best ones. You get to decide how to lead your life so the deicsion is yours, but I hope you will take the two-week break or whatever feels right to you, and then revisit the situation. You would be welcomed back. Feels like there's a Jytdog-shaped hole in the Wikipedia jigsaw puzzle of a community right now, and there's only one person that can fill it. Enjoy your break, and hope to see you back here. Mathglot (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I've been feeling like I want to say something more, and I've been wavering over exactly what to say, but Mathglot just said it better than I could have. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• 🙁 Mathglot puts it very well. I don't like to see a Jytdog-shaped hole in Wikipedia either. Bishonen | talk 23:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC).
• It's sad that your huge passion for the project has resulted in this. Thanks for your tireless efforts in making the project neutral. If it's goodbye here, then enjoy your free time until you find your next passion! SmartSE (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• We've had interesting discussions on how to work with people, particularly those with a COI. While some of your approaches have been questionable, I for one have never had any doubts concerning your commitment to ensuring neutrality and quality of content on WP. This is a great loss for the 'pedia. --Blackmane (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Desiderata--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• I am so sorry to see this. What's done is done, but you may consider making a clean start in a few months, and I hope you would be welcomed. Take care. Jonathunder (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Thanks for your edits on the alternative medicine related articles. You should take a break and come back here in the future under a new name. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Your positive work is appreciated. best regards, —tim /// Carrite (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• WP:You are not irreplaceable and WP:Wikipedia does not need you are not always true, and I've been considering creating a WP:You are irreplaceable counter essay. You do so much for Wikipedia that others don't do. And even if someone else takes up the mantle, there will be some quality aspects missing because every editor is unique in one way or another. I thank you for all of the work you've done for this site, and for often being there for me. I hope to see your return in the future. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Flyer22 Reborn I have been thinking the same thing. Our core community is irreplaceable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• You've made a significant contribution: the quality of our content is much improved across many topics (especially medical) as the result of your hard work. Alexbrn (talk) 07:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• I will miss you and your thoughtful thoughts. Wikipedia:Why MEDRS? is one of my favourite essays here. You were there for Wikipedia at many times when we needed you. May the next chapter of your volunteer life be interesting and happy for you, wherever you may go. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• I am sad to learn of your departure, I thank you for all your contributions, and I wish you the very best going forward. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• I was trying to compose a comment at ArbCom and could not really get past, "Well, fuck." Please know that I have learned a very great deal from working with you, knowledge and skills I will continue to carry forward, as I know many others do as well; in that sense and many more, your impact on the site will be long-lasting. I hope you don't mind my saying, I also really admire you as a person, because over time, I saw how willing you were to reconsider and make real, hard-earned adjustments to your approach. That level of character is not something you see every day. I know this episode must be a painful ending, but I recognize in your choice for how to conclude it what I know you do too--an only-increasing thoughtfulness about how you can best contribute to the project and avoid becoming more disruptive than constructive, even if what that requires in a given moment is hardly the thing I know you'd prefer. I have no doubt you'll find another good use for your talent in the near-term, and if eventually it's your judgment that your return would serve the project, well, I'll look forward to it. I will be wishing you the very, very best in the meantime. Innisfree987 (talk) 08:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Just to say, I was edit-conflicted by four other well-wishers trying to post this! You will very much be missed. Innisfree987 (talk) 08:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• I want to add myself to the list of people who are grateful for all the good work you've done here and to tell you that you'll be missed. I hope you do come back some day, in some form. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Thank you for all of your help over the years. I'm not sure which side of the fence you might fall on so let me just say "Live long and prosper" and "May the Force be with you". -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Awful news. You're one of the few people on this website I hold in extremely high regard.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 14:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Please, don't pull the trigger just yet. By all means give yourself a break if you need it. Do something else for a while. Ignore this place and allow the drama processes to grind through as they will. Then reconsider if you could simply accept some boundaries and then resume making your hugely constructive contributions within those boundaries. This will be a lesser place without you.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Just another voice in the crowd. The volume and quality of the work you've done here speaks for itself; you've been inspirational. Plus what Mathglot said. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• The project is weaker, and will quickly become even weaker, without you. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• You have dedicated a lot of your time to improve the project and made thousands of valuable contributions. But yes, the word "aggressive" that you used above to describe your behaviour is unfortunately consistent with my observations and experience, and as I noticed many complaints at ANI. Your attitude drove me away from wikiediting for months on more than one occassion. You are a very knowledgeable person with amazing breadth of knowledge. I encourage you not to leave the project for good – rather, consider taking an extended wikibreak, and then come back to the project, possibly with a friendlier, more supportive and more tolerant attitude. Best, — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• Do you hear the support. All is voluntary here and the decision is yours. Eschoryii (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• Thank you for your countless valuable contributions and your obvious dedication to improve this project. I can't really comment about the actual issue, but I agree with others' thoughts about a Wikibreak as a possible chance to reflect on stuff. GermanJoe (talk) 02:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• Thanks for all you've done. You have improved the encyclopedia greatly. Your presence will be missed and I join the chorus suggesting a break and return in a while. Best. MrBill3 (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• Thanks for all your work and help. I hope you'll be back. Take care. --Ronz (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• Thanks for all the help, guidance, and outright inspiration you have offered us Jytdog. I wish you the best in your future endeavors, whatever they may be. SamHolt6 (talk) 04:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• Doc James and Mathglot summed it up. Unfortunate that things turned out this way. Thank you for your contributions to the project. You have stated that you plan never to return, so I wish you the best in your future endeavors. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• :( – Joe (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• I'm not sure whether you'll (ever) see this but thanks for helping me over the last few year improving and updating many of the articles covering pharm and biotechs, it's been great to work with you, whenever our paths crossed. Like the tribute wall above, you'll be missed and I hope that there are editors out there who can take up your torch in ensuring that the quality of WP does not degrade and become filled with promotional bluster! I wish you the best outside of this project and hope one day you will somehow be able to return! XyZAn (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• I obviously played a pretty significant part in this per my comments at WT:HA and the case request, but for what it's worth I'm sad to see this result. I was expecting that if this proceeded to a full Arbcom case that cooler heads would prevail, and that in light of your significant contributions to the project and with everything on the table, a reasonable solution (sanction, probably) could have been crafted which would have still allowed you to be part of this community. It seems that's not to be. Outside of the noticeboards I think our only significant interaction was in working on changes to the banning policy some years ago clarifying the scope of community ban discussions (approximately here and here), which I have always appreciated as one of the most rational and constructive discussions I have ever been involved with in almost a decade here even though we did not initially agree. I very rarely write notes to departing editors, but I share the view that regardless of this recent incident, Wikipedia will certainly be worse for your absence. Of course this project is voluntary, it wears down the best of us at times, and we must all do what is right for ourselves in the end. Whatever you decide, take care and best wishes. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• I am sad to see things turned out this way for you, maybe, one day, you'll be back! Enjoy your retirement! Polyamorph (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• I'm not a prolific pedian by any stretch but I have always appreciated your stalwart work regarding keeping bullshit off of here. You were a dam against the never ending tide of anti-science filth that tried to infect our medical articles and I'm afraid that they will now be worse without you. It's a shame that Arbcom didn't avoid getting sucked up with the lynch mob. Be well. Valeince (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• Thank you for all of your contributions here, Although we've never interacted I've always seen you around, Anyway I hope one day you come back but in the meantime take care and I wish you all the best, Take care, –Davey2010^Talk 22:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• Rather selfishly I will miss your help on my little side project; the work you put into improving this previously unsourced little gem made the whole thing worthwhile. I sincerely hope that your post-wiki world is filled with minimal drama and maximum happiness. Best, -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• In looking back on a conversation we had in 2013, I realized that I haven't encountered someone who has been willing to completely engage in such a detailed discussion in a long, long time. As someone who strongly believes in raising the civility bar on Wikipedia, I have mixed opinions about the entire situation, but I know you had good intentions and I felt like your tone and approach improved over time. Hope to see you back someday. II | (t - c) 02:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
• Well, Wikipedia just lost a valuable content contributor and one of its few safeguards against COI POV. The idea that this situation came about as a result of the community's response to a single well-intended but ill-advised phone call is just completely fucking asinine. Anyway, thanks for everything you did here Jytdog. I'm sorry to see you go. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
• You have done excellent work here in developing our approach to COI--because of the effort you have put into it, we will be able to continue, and I for one, feel a specific need to try to compensate for your absence--especially because I was unable to prevent the arb com result, a I have been in other cases where I arb com proved susceptible to excessive self-reinforcing behavior. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC) -- and see below for what I will try to do in practice. DGG ( talk ) 08:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
• I have created and added myself to the category, Category:Wikipedians who wish Jytdog would come back. Benjamin (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
• Just noticed this, having being absent. I'm not wading through the history of the case but my sentiments are similar to those expressed by Bishonen above, who in turn agrees with Mathglot. - Sitush (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
• Just saw this. No idea if you're still reading, but if so, know that you'll definitely be missed around here. Thank you for your guidance, your empathy, your generosity and your counsel over the years. Mary Gaulke (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
• Thank you for the hard high quality work you have done, the vast majority of which will persist for years to come in our articles. You messed up, admitted it in your above post, accepted the outcome, that is good. Take a holiday to a tropical island with bikini clad women walking the beaches and chill out sipping a cocktail. Then find some new project or even hobby - something relaxing, doesn’t have to be academic, fishing even? I note the title of this section is “That’s all folks” - there is usually a sequel to that phrase on TV. I bought pajamas as a Christmas present for my special woman and on the front it has Mickey Mouse saying “Hey folks” and it made me think - that after six to twelve months you should appeal the block and come back and make a post titled “Hey folks”.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• I've been off-wiki for over a week, and just saw this info. I agree that an indef block and a long time away obviate a lengthy messy ArbCom case, which is probably good, but I feel that your importance to Wikipedia, and the numerous people attesting to that, should persuade you to return for an appeal and unblock request after six months to a year. I think the time away may calm down your over-enthusiasm, and allow bygones to be bygones. I'd like to thank you for all of your extensive COI work. Among other things, you were (ironically) the instigating force behind at least two very important and effective ArbCom cases, as well as a number of non-ArbCom cases of very extensive and complex webs of organized COI editing which spanned numerous noticeboards and talkpages. I think it's plain that you are a net positive, and that after time away you can and should return. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
• Your contributions to handling COI issues have strengthend the project. You should return. Indviduals can be replaced, but dedication and skill take a long time to build. Please come up with a plan to take a role here again. If you feel frustrated with a problem, ask for advice, or, at least, a sounding board. I look forward to seeing your successful appeal in June. — Neonorange (Phil) 07:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
• I posted some thoughts regarding this issue at special:diff/872116397#Statement_by_bluerasberry. Of course I do not want to see you go. Thanks for what you have done and happy future projects. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
• We haven't always agreed, and at times your manner of interacting with others was highly irritating. But your record of accomplishment and contributions are a monument to your dedication to the project. I tip my hat and wish you fair winds and following seas wherever the ship of life takes you. Farewell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
• Sad to see that such a prolific contributor had to leave. Hope you are reading this and will return back someday--DBigXrayᗙ 20:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
• If any efforts are made to bring Jytdog back to the project in any capacity--please ping me as I would support. Personally, I feel like exceptions should be made for exceptional editors. Best wishes to Jytdog wherever you are TeeVeeed (talk) 14:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oh my lord. I just started editing Wikipedia and you were always there on the articles around me. I knew something was going on, but I didn't understand the depth of it. Jytdog, you will be missed. Thank you for everything you've done and taught me. Dr-Bracket (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry to see you go. We didn't see eye to eye on every issue but I always respected your views and had a high opinion of your work against COI POV pushing. Reyk _YO! 08:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• In my opinion it's disastrous to see you go. You are/were a breath of fresh air in Wikipedia.SylviaStanley (talk) 10:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• (just heard about this) Goddammit man. I'm in complete agreement with jps above, which says something. I sympathize and empathize with your description of what went down. Just want to say what you probably already know, which is that your insights, dedication and honesty have made a big difference around here, and to me specifically. Very few editors would've cared enough to wade through my perseverative walls of text, identify the wheat and chaff, and help sort it. You have a superb eye for both nuance and the big picture, which will continue to benefit the areas you focus on, and -- illegitimi non carborundum -- make them rewarding.

I hope you have fulfilling and fortunate days ahead, and that if you ever want to, you come back exactly when, how and as you choose. (Inspirational verses/vibe: Bob Marley & the Wailers, "Coming In From The Cold"; lyrics.) Happy New Year & IRL-ing. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 10:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• I just heard about this now. I feel sad. It was thrilling and rewarding to work with you on the BLP of our favorite errant statistician. You were tough, but also fair. I mourned your topic ban when it occurred, and now this. Happy hunting, in a place of your choice. Your contributions will be missed.--FeralOink (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• Wait, what? Apparently I somehow managed to miss all of this. Sorry to see you go, Jytdog. It will be strange to not see you around the place. --tronvillain (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• I also agree with the statements by Doc James and Mathglot. You have been a valuable contributor during your time here and I'm sorry things turned out the way they did. I hope you come back to Wikipedia one day. I wish you all the best with life. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Block

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

---

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

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

• I am very sad to see this. I can only echo the words of DGG and say how much I appreciated your support on the various issues we were working on. Take care of yourself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
• I know we have disagreed over stuff when we've met, but I've always thought you were absolutely first and foremost here to improve the encyclopedia, and that comes across incredibly strongly in your work. Consequently, I am sad to see this case of affairs. Take care. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
• I can't believe this. WP will not be the same without you. Even though I am an admin and you are not, you were my go-to person whenever I suspected COI editing. I have been on a 3 month wikibreak myself and only a few days ago decided to come back. Seeing you blocked makes me doubt the wisdom of that decision. The spammers must be popping dozens of bottles of expensive champagne... Please don't scramble completely, leave your email. I sincerely hope to see you back one day. Take care. --Randykitty (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
• I really wish you wouldn't take matters into your own hands liberally and aggressively despite of several people including myself have asked you not to do so in the past, and alienates good and bad COI editors indiscriminately altogether in the name of "helping" them to manage their COI. Perhaps you were too devoted to the project, which is evident by all the messages you received on this page. Come back after a year or so, when ArbCom is filled with more people that actually cares about the purpose and the integrity of the project, rather than self-appointed judges of misguided principles. Alex Shih (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
• User:Alex Shih I hope this means we will see you running next year? We are likely going to need a bunch of new folks on arbcom if we wish things to change. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Doc James: Unlikely, since for the short amount of time I have been there I have seen too many members along the lines of paid editing is not big deal or everyone including spammers should have the right to enjoy "protection" in order to feel "safe" to "work" here without understanding the purpose of Wikipedia and that this is both a project and a encyclopedia. Maybe you should run since people would likely listen to you a bit more as you are more involved with the general movement itself. Alex Shih (talk) 10:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I concur. I was even reprimanded and my edits revdel'ed when I pointed that a WP article on a clinician was created by a PR agency who also developed his website and promoted him on the radio/TV. Still, I was taken to ANI for OUT-ing, with all the bad consequences for me. BTW, the article is still there while I no longer come near any COI issues, even if obvious. So, a change of attitude is long overdue. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
• I had posted a hidden Do Not Archive template on this section, since there are several well wishes here, namely from Kudpung, Ritchie333, Randykitty, and Alex Shih. Tryptofish has removed the DNAU template. Do you guys want the template replaced? Softlavender (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I hadn't thought of that, sorry. I thought it was just perma-keeping the block notice. I have no objection to restoring the template. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I put it back. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Uncle Fishy. Not only does the thread preserve the well wishes, it also alerts the unsuspecting that there's no point in posting new queries or complaints on this talkpage, and thus saves watchers a lot of time and explanations. It's perhaps not ideal in some people's minds to have the "Block" thread here, but Jytdog wanted to leave in a rather drastic fashion anyway, and there are other more genially titled threads that will be retained as well. Softlavender (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
      • --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• As you probably know, I learned a lot from you, Jytdog (in relation to how to evaluate what is administrator noticeboard worthy or not at first, conflict of interest editing, determining medically reliable sources, some aspects of the pseudoscience related policy, and of what Wikipedia is not, as well as other general things by silently watching your busy talk page). I would like to thank you for all that you've done here. I am now aware of the circumstances that lead to your block and sudden retirement. If you eventually are back, this will be good news to me. —PaleoNeonate – 06:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog closed

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

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

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas³ (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Carrying on

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

Clearly, Jytdog leaves behind a hole that will be difficult to fill, and it would certainly be good if editors would each try to help wherever they can, even though no one will be able to cover everything. I guess two broad areas are matters related to WP:COI and some areas of biomedical research; he also had an editing interest in the history of religion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a useful guide he wrote for new WP users, slanted toward WP:MED, COI, and sourcing-template orientation. How best to preserve it? --Zefr (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Generally I use formaldehyde when I preserve things, but can you explain why this needs to be preserved? Natureium (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Preferring amber for long-term preservation ;>) I see it as a concise guide that might serve some new users as an alternate/supplement to WP:MEDHOW or WP:PSG, and if agreed as useful, should be kept accessible. --Zefr (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

But things don't just disappear around here, it should hang around without any special preservation. Natureium (talk) 01:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I guess it could be a question of moving it from user space to WP space. Or giving it a good shortcut and linking to it from pages in WP space. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Jytdog should consider returning back

The knight is sorely missed DBigXrayᗙ

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

• Please come backSupport as I feel his absence has left a huge gap in areas Jytdog helped. No one is infallible, we learn and move on. I am sure you will read this, Hoping to see you back some day. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC) [updated + struck off on 18:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)]
• What is this? You can't vote someone back to wikipedia when they've left by choice. If Jytdog wishes to return, he knows what he needs to do. Natureium (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

This isn't a "Vote him back", just a show of support for his work and a 'non binding', wish from a fellow editor that he should "consider" returning back. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• Hoping he'll come back. Ok, so this is not a !vote and "support" or "oppose" is not appropriate. But I for one sincerely hope that Jytdog will reconsider and come back. If this account has indeed be scrambled, then under a new account. Jytdog is sorely missed. --Randykitty (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Him returning would require us dealing with the arbcom motion. The details of the case that resulted in arbcom action are more or less public: Jytdog inappropriately contacted an editor by phone and for that he needs to be significantly warned. Do we the community feel it deserves an indefinite ban? That would require further discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    • For what little it is worth, any return would involve a private discussion between him and ArbCom, but the rest of the community would not be involved in that. That's how the process works. I do hope to see him back eventually, but it's not my decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
      • If a super majority feels that arbcom has over reached, IMO we could technically over ride arbcom. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
        • [citation needed] -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    • @Doc James: I get where you are coming from, but please consider the effect your words have on the people who are victims of harassment. Here's a member of the board that oversees the organization charged with protecting Wikipedia editors from online and offline harassment seemingly downplaying or excusing an editor who harassed another editor in real life. The last idiot who cold-called me to harass me had a chat with a police sergeant, but not everyone is going to have a friendly police sergeant on hand to take their complaint seriously. They likely will have only the Foundation to turn to, and your responsibility is to all the editors served by the foundation, not just Jytdog. Gamaliel (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
      • People mess up. And we all agree that Jytdog messed up in this case. The question is more about what is an appropriate punishment for someone who has done this, admits it was wrong, and agrees to never do it again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
        • Actually, I don't think that the community can overrule ArbCom, nor should we. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
          • Sure and I imagine that would be the position of many. I am not saying it is likely that a community discussion would result in a super majority for a lessor punishment or that their is much if any chance of a return of Jytdog even if the ban was lifted. So this is likely all just academic and a mute point. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
        • Ignoring whether or not the community can override ArbCom, Jytdog has not been punished for harassment. The indef block is to ensure that Jytdog cannot resume editing without going through an ArbCom case, as we don't want a situation where editors can temporarily retire during a case and then return later to avoid facing it. No decision of punishment has been made by ArbCom in relation to the specific case. If the indef was removed, Jytdog would still need to go through ArbCom, who may or may not impose a ban and/or block. - Bilby (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
          • There was no stipulation in the block report that "Jytdog cannot resume editing without going through an ArbCom case". Only that an ArbCom case was accepted, but since Jytdog had retired and presumably scrambled his password, he was blocked indefinitely and he can only be unlocked by going directly to ArbCom. Stating that "Jytdog cannot resume editing without going through an ArbCom case" -- in other words, a full ArbCom case, is inferring facts not in evidence. Softlavender (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
            • I guess you can interpret it as you see fit. Fundamentally, a case was accepted and was agreed to be opened, but couldn't continue because Jytdog chose to retire rather than be involved in it. Therefore the account was indef blocked, the case was unable to be opened "at this time", and they can't continue to edit unless they get permission from ArbCom. As there is an accepted case, the "at this time" was specifically added to address the possibility of reopening the case if - as Opabinia regalis put it - Jytdog chooses to "stop and face the music". They could agree to resolve the issue by a motion, privately or otherwise, without opening the case, or they could open it, or whatever, but hopefully this just remains moot and we don't have to worry about it. - Bilby (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
        • ...Jytdog messed up in this case. And in the two and seven previous cases. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Jytdog may appeal his block by contacting ArbCom. That is not up for debate. What happens after that is as-yet unknown, neither set in stone nor explicitly laid out by ArbCom. There's no point in trying to parse unknowns, even the unknowns about whether Jytdog could regain access to this account or whether the password is forever blocked. What we can do is offer our support re: wishing for his return. Softlavender (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• I wish you would come back. You were too valuable and too dedicated to be lost over something petty like this, and the whole thing was a massive overreaction. I hope that you will reconsider your exile, and that Arbcom will, at this point, quickly resolve your case with minimal damage imposed. All the best, ~Swarm~ {talk} 07:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• What Swarm says. ∯WBG^converse
• If— . We miss you, come back. Widefox; talk 11:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: The best way IMVHO would be for Jytdog to ask for ArbCom's continuation of the case that was opened (and then closed after Jytdog's voluntary departure). It would make re-entry quite easier and in accordance to Wikipedia rules. -The Gnome (talk) 05:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
• I for one hope to see a return given recent events even though many editors familiar with your good work are distracted by other ongoings, but we'll have to see how ArbCom reacts to the current case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• Hmm so he did and accepted the decision. Thanks for everyone's time and maybe there's a possibility in another 12 months... —PaleoNeonate – 09:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• It makes me angry when I see this, and note the number of tossers who edit this project. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Why doesn't someone just dig up his phone number, call him up, and ask him if he wants to come back? (Just kidding of course!) I miss Jytdog, too. Pretty much all of our WP:MEDRS watchdogs have necessarily had a lot of bark (and unnecessarily some bite). Hopefully the attrition rate will not worsen (I'm thinking also of a couple of T-bans). Just re-reading Jytdog's user-page essay on COI and related matters is a pleasure (in a WP policy-wonk way, anyhow). He really got it, and a version of that material should be edited down to an {{information page}} or other advice piece, both on how to avoid COI (especially in STEM, GLAM, etc.), and on how to detect it and help others avoid it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

  Jyt, dog! Missing your consideration and spirit today in particular. I just ran across your thoughtful contribution to a discussion elsewhere and wanted to consult you, and remembered this was just the commemorative-tea-cozy version of a talk page now. Hoping you're very well indeed. – SJ + 00:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Jytdog's good work noted in the media

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

JamesG5 good share. Worthy appreciation of good work. Hope Jytdog also notices this.--DBigXrayᗙ 06:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I put this article on Wikipedia:Press coverage 2019 and "This talk page has been mentioned by a media organization":ed it on six article talkpages. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

There's plenty of us miss Jytdog, and yet this sort of thing continues, increasingly unchecked. Plenty of them would have rejoiced at his block. Mramoeba (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)