Fuck me.
Clear and obvious violation of policy here. And common decency.
Jytdog had apparently remembered an editor mentioned in an edit summary details of their professional life, ostensibly to support the correctness of an edit being made. It occurred ten days ago.
By policy, it should never have been left as such. Identifying information like that, often volunteered by newbies who don't yet understand that on Wikipedia, you are not obliged to reveal anything about yourself, is to be removed from the public view. Identifying information, if intended to be public, obviously has to be explicitly volunteered, in a context that makes it clear the intention is that it is to be used as such. For example, "My phone number is......" on a Wikipedia user page.
One reason is because of what Jytdog did. The information volunteered didn't contain contact details per se, just details about a what and when, from which Jytdog was able to obtain a phone number for this person from a Google search.
Jytdog claims otherwise, but there is no way in hell that this was an invitation to off-wiki contact. As happens a lot with Jytdog, he was getting deeply involved in trying to educate this person on how Wikipedia works, and he was getting nowhere. So Jytdog had the bright idea of calling them up, to try and make some progress.
In a bizarre attempt to cover his ass, Jytdog is insistent that he begun the call by identifying who he was and asking if they wanted to talk. They said yes. But that is irrelevant, obviously.
It baffles me how anyone ever gets so addicted to Wikipedia that they start contemplating phoning people up as a part of content disputes, certainly when there is no emergency, and you aren't dealing with something that direct!y affects your life (the rumours of what Jytdog's COI is, notwithstanding). As weird as that is, he did not even think of asking them on their talk page first, if they were amenable to an off-wiki conversation. They did not have email enabled, but he didn't think to ask them if they would enable it. He just took that as a sign he had to try another method.
This is all very fucked up.
So, what are the Wikipedians doing about it? Nothing. Well, not quite nothing, they told him not to do it again, and accepted his claim that he won't.
Needless to say, inexperienced editors would not get this level of leeway to break such a serious policy in such a fundamental way, and indeed as part of a pattern of conduct where Jytdog's, um, enthusiasm?, leads him to have really, really, bad judgement.
His answer is always the same. He thought he was helping, and can't really conceive of the problems that could occur. That's the problem.
Jytdog thread
Re: Jytdog thread
Ooh, an Arbitration Case Request.
I am laughing my ass off at the thought it will be Jytdog who is the reason why Wikipedia feels the need to convert "the blindingly obvious" concept that if an editor has not explicitly said they want to be called, then don't call them, into concrete policy.
There is the usual fog and confusion as to what actually happened, with people prepared to comment without knowing the facts. This is always unhlepful, it is high time they figured out a way to stop it.
But the facts are blindingly obvious.....
1. There person never explicitly said "I want someone to phone me up" or reasonable variants
2. How the call went is entirely irrelevant to whether it should have happened
3. Why the call was made can be relevant, yet it appears not to be in this case (no emergency and he had other options)
4. This may be a first offence in the narrow genre of problematic initiation of off-wiki contact (we don't actually know)
5. It is not the first offence as regarding a general pattern of poor judgement by Jytdog
6. It is yet another example of Jytdog's approach to COI issues causing unintended consequences
7. It is yet another example of Jytdog acting unilaterally, as if he and Wikipedia were a symbiant, and all of its governance apparatus simply doesn't exist
8. Jytdog is about as experienced as any editor can be (and regularly cites his experience as relevant and important)
9. Jytdog has been sanctioned multiple times before, leading to many declarations of what he will and won't do in future
10. There was a very wide variance in what Administrators believed to be the correct course of action after this incident (an indefinite block is pretty far removed from a 24 hour block, and these came after others deemed a mere warning to sufffice)
As such, the need for a full case is what is blindingly obvious.
So, let's all sit back and watch as they figure out some way to either let Jytdog off because Wikipedia doesn't exactly know where they might get another similarly dedicated editor, warts and all, or they otherwise find some way to fuck it all up. My view would be by, ironically, missing some of the blindingly obvious things.
Oh, and what a fucking surprise.....
If Jytdog wants to be seen as being judged fairly and without bias, he should be making clear statements that he does not need or want this sort of support. Sadly, all too often he relies on and even takes pride in gaining the endorsement and support of these scumbags.
I am laughing my ass off at the thought it will be Jytdog who is the reason why Wikipedia feels the need to convert "the blindingly obvious" concept that if an editor has not explicitly said they want to be called, then don't call them, into concrete policy.
There is the usual fog and confusion as to what actually happened, with people prepared to comment without knowing the facts. This is always unhlepful, it is high time they figured out a way to stop it.
But the facts are blindingly obvious.....
1. There person never explicitly said "I want someone to phone me up" or reasonable variants
2. How the call went is entirely irrelevant to whether it should have happened
3. Why the call was made can be relevant, yet it appears not to be in this case (no emergency and he had other options)
4. This may be a first offence in the narrow genre of problematic initiation of off-wiki contact (we don't actually know)
5. It is not the first offence as regarding a general pattern of poor judgement by Jytdog
6. It is yet another example of Jytdog's approach to COI issues causing unintended consequences
7. It is yet another example of Jytdog acting unilaterally, as if he and Wikipedia were a symbiant, and all of its governance apparatus simply doesn't exist
8. Jytdog is about as experienced as any editor can be (and regularly cites his experience as relevant and important)
9. Jytdog has been sanctioned multiple times before, leading to many declarations of what he will and won't do in future
10. There was a very wide variance in what Administrators believed to be the correct course of action after this incident (an indefinite block is pretty far removed from a 24 hour block, and these came after others deemed a mere warning to sufffice)
As such, the need for a full case is what is blindingly obvious.
So, let's all sit back and watch as they figure out some way to either let Jytdog off because Wikipedia doesn't exactly know where they might get another similarly dedicated editor, warts and all, or they otherwise find some way to fuck it all up. My view would be by, ironically, missing some of the blindingly obvious things.
Oh, and what a fucking surprise.....
JzG wrote: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. Guy (Help!) 00:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
These are the real conflicts of interest that are highly damaging to Wikipedia.Doc_James wrote:Jyt appears to understand the gravity of his mistake. I am fairly certain he will not repeat it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
If Jytdog wants to be seen as being judged fairly and without bias, he should be making clear statements that he does not need or want this sort of support. Sadly, all too often he relies on and even takes pride in gaining the endorsement and support of these scumbags.
Re: Jytdog thread
This is the main problem with Wikipedia governance. They extend more good faith to experienced users, not less. That is ass backwards. They see posts like this.....
Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaboration, their editors are supposed to posses good judgement and be rational, not emotional. And yet how many fucking times have their most problematic users been the ones who (and still are) acting as if they are Lone Warriors, singular Defenders Of Teh Wiki, and more often than not, see their supposed colleagues as ignorant fools or worse?
Wikipedia clearly has a problem in not being able to identify much less reform or expel such people as being entirely incompatible with their model. In the exact same way they refuse to eject productive contributors who can't or won't stop being disrespectful assholes, wedded to the idea there can sometimes be a justifiable use of "fuck off" et al. To a rationalist who possesses good judgement, for Wikipedia, there is never such a case. Literally never.
This is an example of why Wikipedia doesn't work in practice. But this is their theory - they owe it to people, specifically those donors they keep extracting money from through deception (by not admitting their reality), to ensure it is followed. That they do not follow it, and likely never will, is why we are here.
We are the medicine they refuse to take. And for that, they will surely die.
HTD.
....and they always focus on the 'oops, I won't do that again' part, rather than the bit which makes it clear Jytdog didn't simply make a mistake or do something he thought was allowed, he did something he had already figured out in advance would be controversial, and did it anyway. He acted off his own back, without asking anyone else if this was a good idea, and by his own admission, not properly thinking through all the ways it could go south (and deeming the ones he did think of to be acceptable risks). Why? Because of his weird and entirely unhealthy relationship with Wikipedia.I tried something boundary-pushing to try to help someone who was melting down, and it blew up in my face, and yes there is no way in hell I will be doing that again. Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaboration, their editors are supposed to posses good judgement and be rational, not emotional. And yet how many fucking times have their most problematic users been the ones who (and still are) acting as if they are Lone Warriors, singular Defenders Of Teh Wiki, and more often than not, see their supposed colleagues as ignorant fools or worse?
Wikipedia clearly has a problem in not being able to identify much less reform or expel such people as being entirely incompatible with their model. In the exact same way they refuse to eject productive contributors who can't or won't stop being disrespectful assholes, wedded to the idea there can sometimes be a justifiable use of "fuck off" et al. To a rationalist who possesses good judgement, for Wikipedia, there is never such a case. Literally never.
This is an example of why Wikipedia doesn't work in practice. But this is their theory - they owe it to people, specifically those donors they keep extracting money from through deception (by not admitting their reality), to ensure it is followed. That they do not follow it, and likely never will, is why we are here.
We are the medicine they refuse to take. And for that, they will surely die.
HTD.
Re: Jytdog thread
Wikipedia in a nutshell.....
The implications of this dumbfuck's comment is that either Jytdog is too stupid to infer from all the existing policies that what he did was questionable (something his own words have already cast doubt on). Or, he is so stupid that he blindly follows policies without any understanding of why, other than the fact he knows he has to follow policy (and pointing out you are not supposed to blindly follow policy just because it is policy, is a fucking Wikipedia policy).
What scares me most is, if you can believe this guy's user page, he should actually be quite smart. One of their top of the line models.
Those who think Jimmy Wales is so bad, find me a time he has ever even come close to saying something as clueless as this?Jytdog is meticulous in following (his interpretation of) our WP:PAGs, 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 Wikipedia attracts a diverse crowd with divergent understandings of social norms. It's up to the community to make our expectations explicit. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 00:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
The implications of this dumbfuck's comment is that either Jytdog is too stupid to infer from all the existing policies that what he did was questionable (something his own words have already cast doubt on). Or, he is so stupid that he blindly follows policies without any understanding of why, other than the fact he knows he has to follow policy (and pointing out you are not supposed to blindly follow policy just because it is policy, is a fucking Wikipedia policy).
What scares me most is, if you can believe this guy's user page, he should actually be quite smart. One of their top of the line models.
-
Dysklyver
- Sucks Critic
- Posts: 391
- Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:14 am
- Has thanked: 8 times
- Been thanked: 25 times
Re: Jytdog thread
CrowsNest wrote:What scares me most is, if you can believe this guy's user page, he should actually be quite smart. One of their top of the line models.
Whenever I see "one of our best" or a "smart" person on Wikipedia, it generally means they have as much clue as an inane dingbat when it comes to basic psychology, which is needed to make any assessment of editors at all, and without that, there is nothing!
The rules aren't real, there is a layer of unwritten "consensus" that dictates the operation of everything on the site, and if you don't understand the editors, that layer is completely invisible to you. That is why long term admins do so well, they know and enforce their invisible ever changing rules, and everyone else has no clue what it is, they either give up trying to figure it out, or in rare occasions, see it as a cult.
Re: Jytdog thread
Oh dear....
It's a classic he said she said. We're gonna need those tapes.
HEY NSA! Spill. Person of interest #7236239-RATBOY
I am now wondering how he even began this call?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.
It's a classic he said she said. We're gonna need those tapes.
HEY NSA! Spill. Person of interest #7236239-RATBOY
-
Dysklyver
- Sucks Critic
- Posts: 391
- Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:14 am
- Has thanked: 8 times
- Been thanked: 25 times
Re: Jytdog thread
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jytdog&diff=871816286&oldid=871762728
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)
Re: Jytdog thread
Was just about to post that.....
Anyway, after I said "Holy shit", here was my take on it...
My instant reaction is to view this is a Hail Mary, a last gasp effort to avoid the case. If it isn't, then it either means he took under an hour to decide his entire Wikipedia future, or he was thinking about making this statement at the same time as he just carried on pootling along, making edits and pursuing issues where his continued participation would be assumed. Either explanation merely adds weight to the evidence that he's got serious issues with judgement.
It is worth noting, on the issue of judgement, it follows a grand tradition in Wikipedia - happily participating in fighting your corner right up until the last minute, then surrendering and claiming you're doing it out of concern for everyone else's time. Fuck off. The time for that was when it was filed, if not before. Not days later, after SIXTY SEVEN views of those not directly involved, have been registered. If you can believe it, he hasn't even bothered to note this retirement on the Case Request page....
Again, what speaks to his judgement, I think he has made a grave tactical error. While many seem to think with the case looking to be accepted, he was destined for a site ban, I do not see where they got that confidence from. This is the same ArbCom who, right now, can't even be bothered to Admonish an Administrator who violated WP:INVOLVED to influence their own election.
If there is any editor who is well equipped to fight a rear guard action at ArbCom, it is Jytdog. I pity anyone who took on the task of actually proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he is irreformable, that there was literally no other options than a site ban. And even if he was banned, it was a fair bet it would only be for six months. A pretty sweet deal, compared to leaving Wikipedia forever.
And you just know there would have been a string of powerful people lining up, if not to fight his corner, but to, far more importantly, plead clemency on account of his (perceived) good works, which, as with all editors brought before ArbCom, form the vast majority his edits.
It is hard to fathom. I will say this, he isn't coming back as a sock. If he has plans to, if anyone has suggested to him this is even possible, he has made me even bigger tactical error. He is far too easy to spot, and there isn't a single Wikipedia user, not even the mighty Bishonen, who would be able to argue this would be acceptable. It would be an open and shut case of evading scrutiny, and it would be a final nail in the coffin of whether or not be deserved another chance.
There is a small possibility this is a tremendous piece of strategy. He likely already knows that it isn't certain the case will be shelved due to his retirement. Given the particulars, and given he has already posted a wealth of evidence, the Arbs might be minded to continue with the case in his absence. And he might be gambling that without him around, the temptation of participants to skewer him will be removed, plus the effect of his absence will become clear, and so it may end with him receiving clemency, escaping a ban. He'd get heavy restrictions, obviously, but he would mad to assume he wasn't headed for those. Just because you say your goodbyes and scramble your password, doesn't mean you can't return to Wikipedia.
Anyway, assuming Jytdog is no genius, it is time to celebrate. With Jytdog gone, there will be far less innocent victims of his faulty judgement, and the end of Wikipedia will be hastened, because for all his faults, he got a lot done. They know they're not equipped to take up the slack (and that was his biggest tactical strength).
Anyway, after I said "Holy shit", here was my take on it...
My instant reaction is to view this is a Hail Mary, a last gasp effort to avoid the case. If it isn't, then it either means he took under an hour to decide his entire Wikipedia future, or he was thinking about making this statement at the same time as he just carried on pootling along, making edits and pursuing issues where his continued participation would be assumed. Either explanation merely adds weight to the evidence that he's got serious issues with judgement.
It is worth noting, on the issue of judgement, it follows a grand tradition in Wikipedia - happily participating in fighting your corner right up until the last minute, then surrendering and claiming you're doing it out of concern for everyone else's time. Fuck off. The time for that was when it was filed, if not before. Not days later, after SIXTY SEVEN views of those not directly involved, have been registered. If you can believe it, he hasn't even bothered to note this retirement on the Case Request page....
Again, what speaks to his judgement, I think he has made a grave tactical error. While many seem to think with the case looking to be accepted, he was destined for a site ban, I do not see where they got that confidence from. This is the same ArbCom who, right now, can't even be bothered to Admonish an Administrator who violated WP:INVOLVED to influence their own election.
If there is any editor who is well equipped to fight a rear guard action at ArbCom, it is Jytdog. I pity anyone who took on the task of actually proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he is irreformable, that there was literally no other options than a site ban. And even if he was banned, it was a fair bet it would only be for six months. A pretty sweet deal, compared to leaving Wikipedia forever.
And you just know there would have been a string of powerful people lining up, if not to fight his corner, but to, far more importantly, plead clemency on account of his (perceived) good works, which, as with all editors brought before ArbCom, form the vast majority his edits.
It is hard to fathom. I will say this, he isn't coming back as a sock. If he has plans to, if anyone has suggested to him this is even possible, he has made me even bigger tactical error. He is far too easy to spot, and there isn't a single Wikipedia user, not even the mighty Bishonen, who would be able to argue this would be acceptable. It would be an open and shut case of evading scrutiny, and it would be a final nail in the coffin of whether or not be deserved another chance.
There is a small possibility this is a tremendous piece of strategy. He likely already knows that it isn't certain the case will be shelved due to his retirement. Given the particulars, and given he has already posted a wealth of evidence, the Arbs might be minded to continue with the case in his absence. And he might be gambling that without him around, the temptation of participants to skewer him will be removed, plus the effect of his absence will become clear, and so it may end with him receiving clemency, escaping a ban. He'd get heavy restrictions, obviously, but he would mad to assume he wasn't headed for those. Just because you say your goodbyes and scramble your password, doesn't mean you can't return to Wikipedia.
Anyway, assuming Jytdog is no genius, it is time to celebrate. With Jytdog gone, there will be far less innocent victims of his faulty judgement, and the end of Wikipedia will be hastened, because for all his faults, he got a lot done. They know they're not equipped to take up the slack (and that was his biggest tactical strength).
Re: Jytdog thread
Classic NewYorkBrad.....
Also, what actually is the meaning of "may not resume editing......without notifying and obtaining permission from the Arbitration Committee"? Can he come back and resume editing without the Case proceeding? Can he come back with a different username, without identifying his previous account?
Sort your fucking life out Brad, you shyster.
As if he can possibly know if Jytdog actually scrambled his password. He's a lawyer, a profession where you are meant to pay attention to what you are saying.The request for arbitration was accepted, but the case will not be opened in light of Jytdog's statement that he is retiring from Wikipedia 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.
Also, what actually is the meaning of "may not resume editing......without notifying and obtaining permission from the Arbitration Committee"? Can he come back and resume editing without the Case proceeding? Can he come back with a different username, without identifying his previous account?
Sort your fucking life out Brad, you shyster.
Re: Jytdog thread
ROCK PAPER SCISSORSI oppose any block and would rather allow him to leave with dignity. WormTT(talk) 21:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
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. Mkdw talk 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. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)