→Discretionary sanctions notification - BLP: new section Tag: contentious topics alert |
rv - let's let things be Tag: Manual revert |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{banned user|by=the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]]|link=[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog#Jytdog banned|arbitration decision]]}} |
|||
{{editnotice |
|||
| header = Hi, welcome to my talk page! |
|||
| headerstyle = font-size: 150%; color: #9900FF; font-family: 'Copperplate Gothic Light' |
|||
| text = |
|||
*'''If you came here to discuss article content, please post at the article Talk page.''' That is where discussions about content belong, so that everybody watching the article can participate, and so the discussion becomes part of the page's historical record, and is easy to find. |
|||
*'''Please''' <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jytdog&action=edit§ion=new click here]</span> '''to leave a new message'''.}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
||
|maxarchivesize = |
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
||
|counter = |
|counter = 29 |
||
|minthreadsleft = |
|minthreadsleft = 0 |
||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
||
|algo = old( |
|algo = old(30d) |
||
|archive = User talk:Jytdog/Archive %(counter)d |
|archive = User talk:Jytdog/Archive %(counter)d |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{Archives |auto= short|search= yes |
{{Archives |auto= short|search= yes |bot= MiszaBot |age=30 |collapsible=yes}} |
||
[[Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery]] |
|||
== That's all folks == |
|||
'''Welcome!''' |
|||
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 23:17, 30 November 2028 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1859239047}} |
|||
So... I made a very bad error in judgement, and called a person who had added raw advocacy content to WP, who is clearly deeply passionate about the topic. |
|||
The call went very badly. I shouldn't have called them, I shouldn't have allowed it to become an argument, and I shouldn't have ended the call the way I did. |
|||
Hello, Jytdog, and [[Wikipedia:Introduction|welcome]] to Wikipedia! Thank you for [[Special:Contributions/Jytdog|your contributions]]. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:Five pillars|The five pillars of Wikipedia]] |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:Tutorial|Tutorial]] |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:How to edit a page|How to edit a page]] and [[Wikipedia:Article development|How to develop articles]] |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:Your first article|How to create your first article]] (using the [[Wikipedia:Article wizard|Article Wizard]] if you wish) |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] |
|||
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]]! Please [[Wikipedia:Signatures|sign]] your messages on [[Wikipedia:talk page|discussion page]]s using four [[tilde]]s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out [[Wikipedia:Questions]], ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place <code><nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki></code> before the question. Again, welcome! <!-- Template:Welcome --> --[[User:Edcolins|Edcolins]] ([[User talk:Edcolins|talk]]) 18:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC) |
|||
In the past, I violated the OUTING policy by posting off-WP information here. That was also a terrible error in judgement. |
|||
==Cabbage and hypothyroidism== |
|||
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. |
|||
Jytdog -- as an editor frequently supporting [[WP:MEDRS]] as you did today on the Antioxidant page, could you provide input on the Cabbage Talk page debate and yesterday's article revisions for hypothyroidism under [[WP:PRIMARY]] and [[WP:MEDRS]] please? I feel it's an example qualifying case where one editor, AliMD7176, appears to be a physician with a clinical opinion about preliminary research applying as MEDRS. This would also be educational for me, as well as other users. Appreciate your point of view, with thanks.--[[User:Zefr|Zefr]] ([[User talk:Zefr|talk]]) 17:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
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. |
|||
Jytdog -- I can live with your edit and your advice. Thank you. Just to be clear here.....primary sources used were simply to establish a relationship, one that has been known for approximately a 100 or so years. That there are thiocyanates in cabbage and that thiocyanates inhibit a specific pummp are not controversial positions, for which I was providing original research. These compounds are commonly used in the lab to do just that. |
|||
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 think that my frustration stemmed from the fact that my edit was wholly undone. If, an edit such as the one you have done to that section had occurred, I would not have felt the need to reply as I did. And although of most of what I wrote there was also true, as it served a didactic purpose, I do apologize for a claim of "vested interests" on part of the other editor. [[User:AliMD7176|AliMD7176]] ([[User talk:AliMD7176|talk]]) 19:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:: thanks that is very gracious of you. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog#top|talk]]) 19:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
I just want to say '''thanks''' to everybody I have worked with, and I wish you all, and our beautiful project, the best. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog#top|talk]]) 16:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::: I thought that this went through; your history doesnt show that you deleted it, so I'm posting it again to bring a detail into focus, and ask a few relevant questions: |
|||
:Dammit man. -[[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy,''' <small>the naughty dog</small>.]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''wooF''']] 17:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::: One last thing, please realize that the abstract you cited references thiocyanate and its ability to inhibit transport of iodine into breast milk. Although that is great for knowledges sake, the implication therein is that only lactating females need consider this. Now although all glands are similar to some extent, the following abstract better mentions thiocyanates ability to suppress iodine transport into the thyroid gland specifically: |
|||
::That is not a foregone conclusion. Do as you will, but the case will surely go on anyway. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Zefr|Zefr]] ([[User talk:Zefr|talk]]) 17:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Sad to see this. Best wishes,[[User:Smeat75|Smeat75]] ([[User talk:Smeat75|talk]]) 17:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::::::+1 to what Zefr said. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk: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. -- ''[[User:Bonadea|bonadea]]'' <small>[[Special:Contributions/Bonadea|contributions]] [[User talk:Bonadea|talk]]</small> 3:17 am, 4 December 2018, last Tuesday (3 days ago) (UTC+9) |
|||
:::::::And another +1 here.--[[User:Iztwoz|Iztwoz]] ([[User talk:Iztwoz|talk]]) 10:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
{{u|Jytdog}} The whole episode is a storm in a teacup. I am sad to see you going dude. The place will be worse without you. Take care mate. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black;">[[User:scope_creep|<span style="color:#3399ff; font-family:Papyrus;">scope_creep</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:scope_creep#top|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk</span>]]</sup></span>''' 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 [[WP:CON|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. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|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. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 20:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=The+Effect+of+Perchlorate%2C+Thiocyanate%2C+and+Nitrate+on+Thyroid+Function+in+Workers+Exposed+to+Perchlorate+Long-Term |
|||
:::Just fyi, they ''do'' have the authority. And they are a lot more likely to pull the trigger if they do it by motion. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 21:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::::You've just been proven wrong at the case page. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 19:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::: I hope you can appreciate my zeal for specificity here. Just because thiocyanate may inhibit iodine transport into breast milk, does not mean it does so at the thyroid. Shouldn't a source detailing specifically its inhibition at the thyroid be used? And one is a human study while the other is bovine. And in this case, what makes one source better than the other, when they both come from PubMed? Im not asking you to change them, and neither will I edit it as the message is conveyed, but wouldn't that make more sense? [[User:AliMD7176|AliMD7176]] ([[User talk:AliMD7176|talk]]) 20:19, 3 December 2014 (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. [[User:Boghog|Boghog]] ([[User talk:Boghog|talk]]) 19:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}} hi. quick note. if you look up the pubmed ID (pr "PMID", which is at the bottom of every Pubmed abstract, all you have to write is "PMID 15572417" and the Wikipedia software ''automatically'' creates a hyperlink to the pubmed abstract. Nice, right? OK, with regard to sourcing, one of the many "policies and guidelines" I linked to, was [[WP:MEDRS]]. Please read that - it is our guideline for sourcing health related content. Bottom line, we classify sources using historiographical terminology, as primary, secondary, and tertiary. Primary sources present actual experimental data (bench, clinical, or epidemiological); secondary sources are reviews, treatment guidelines, etc; tertiary sources are textbooks. What we '''always''' aim for, are ''recent'', [[WP:INDY|independent]], secondary sources. What you cite above, is a 10 year old primary source. Not good. There a zillion reasons why we stay '''far, far''' away from primary sources. Some of them are described in a draft essay (draft, b/c it needs a lot of trimming) I wrote called [[User:Jytdog/Why_MEDRS%3F|Why MEDRS?]]. But believe me, you are almost never going to get content sourced to a 10 year primary source to "stick". Hope that makes sense. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog#top|talk]]) 20:43, 3 December 2014 (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. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk: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. - [[User:R9tgokunks|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.0em 0.0em 0.9em black'>''R9tgokunks''</span>]] [[User talk:R9tgokunks|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em red'>⭕</span>]] 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. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk: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! [[User:Smartse|SmartSE]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Blackmane|Blackmane]] ([[User talk:Blackmane|talk]]) 00:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
*'''[[Desiderata]]'''--[[User:Ozzie10aaaa|Ozzie10aaaa]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Skeptic from Britain|Skeptic from Britain]] ([[User talk:Skeptic from Britain|talk]]) 02:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
* Your positive work is appreciated. best regards, —tim /// [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 07:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
**[[User:Flyer22 Reborn]] I have been thinking the same thing. Our core community is irreplaceable. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|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. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Clayoquot|Clayoquot]] ([[User_talk:Clayoquot|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Clayoquot|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. [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 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. [[User:Innisfree987|Innisfree987]] ([[User talk:Innisfree987|talk]]) 08:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::<small>Just to say, I was edit-conflicted by four other well-wishers trying to post this! You will very much be missed. [[User:Innisfree987|Innisfree987]] ([[User talk:Innisfree987|talk]]) 08:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)</small> |
|||
*I want to add myself to the list of people who are grateful for all the good work you've done here and to tell you that you'll be missed. I hope you do come back some day, in some form. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk: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". -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Money emoji |<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml"><b style="color:#060">💵Money💵emoji💵</b></span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Money emoji|💸]]</sup> 14:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
*Please, don't pull the trigger just yet. By all means give yourself a break if you need it. Do something else for a while. Ignore this place and allow the drama processes to grind through as they will. Then reconsider if you could simply accept some boundaries and then resume making your hugely constructive contributions within those boundaries. This will be a lesser place without you.[[User:LeadSongDog|LeadSongDog]] <small>[[User talk:LeadSongDog#top|<span style="color: red; font-family:Papyrus;">come howl!</span>]]</small> 18:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
*Just another voice in the crowd. The volume and quality of the work you've done here speaks for itself; you've been inspirational. Plus what Mathglot said. [[User:Girth Summit|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#294;">Girth</span><span style="font-family:Impact;color:#42c;">Summit</span>]][[User talk:Girth Summit|<sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)</sub>]] 18:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
* The project is weaker, and will quickly become even weaker, without you. [[User:JoJo Anthrax|JoJo Anthrax]] ([[User talk: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, — [[User:Kashmiri|<span style="color:#30C;font:italic bold 1em Candara;text-shadow:#AAF 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;">kashmīrī</span>]] [[User talk:Kashmiri|<sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK</sup>]] 00:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
* Do you hear the support. All is voluntary here and the decision is yours. [[User:Eschoryii|Eschoryii]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:GermanJoe|GermanJoe]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:MrBill3|MrBill3]] ([[User talk:MrBill3|talk]]) 03:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
* Thanks for all your work and help. I hope you'll be back. Take care. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:SamHolt6|SamHolt6]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:TheSandDoctor|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">The</span><span style="color:#009933; font-weight:bold;">SandDoctor</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:TheSandDoctor|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 16:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
* :( – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 16:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
* I'm not sure whether you'll (ever) see this but thanks for helping me over the last few year improving and updating many of the articles covering pharm and biotechs, it's been great to work with you, whenever our paths crossed. Like the tribute wall above, you'll be missed and I hope that there are editors out there who can take up your torch in ensuring that the quality of WP does not degrade and become filled with promotional bluster! I wish you the best outside of this project and hope one day you will somehow be able to return! [[User:XyZAn|XyZAn]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Banning policy|banning policy]] some years ago clarifying the scope of community ban discussions (approximately [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_140#Unblocking_after_community-imposed_block here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy/Archive_8#Proposed_clarifying_change_here_and_to_blocking_policy 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. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 20:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
* I am sad to see things turned out this way for you, maybe, one day, you'll be back! Enjoy your retirement! '''''[[User:Polyamorph|Polyamorph]]''''' ([[User talk:Polyamorph#top|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. [[User:Valeince|Valeince]] ([[User talk: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, –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color: blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color: orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color: navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 22:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
*Rather selfishly I will miss your help on my [[User:Ponyo/BLP talk project/COIPROMO|little side project]]; the work you put into improving [[Rockdrigo González|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, -- [[User:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">Jezebel's '''Ponyo'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">''bons mots''</span>]]</sup> 23:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
* In looking back on a conversation we had in 2013, I realized that I haven't encountered someone who has been willing to completely engage in such a detailed discussion in a long, long time. As someone who strongly believes in raising the [[WP:CIVILITY|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. [[User:ImperfectlyInformed|<span style="font-family: Times">II</span>]] | ([[User_talk:ImperfectlyInformed|t]] - [[Special:Contributions/ImperfectlyInformed|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. [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']] ([[User Talk: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. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 06:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC) -- and see below for what I will try to do in practice. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk: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]]. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|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. - [[User:Sitush|Sitush]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:MaryGaulke|Mary Gaulke]] ([[User talk:MaryGaulke|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”.--[[User:Literaturegeek|<span style="color:blue">Literaturegeek</span>]] | [[User_talk:Literaturegeek|<span style="color:blue">''T@1k?''</span>]] 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, [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk: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. — [[User:Neonorange|Neonorange]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Blue Rasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 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. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk: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--''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">[[User:DBigXray|D<span style="color:#DA500B">Big</span>]][[User talk:DBigXray|X<span style="color:#10AD00">ray</span>ᗙ]]</span>'' 20:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
*If any efforts are made to bring Jytdog back to the project in any capacity--please ping me as I would support. Personally, I feel like exceptions should be made for exceptional editors. Best wishes to Jytdog wherever you are [[User:TeeVeeed|TeeVeeed]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Dr-Bracket|Dr-Bracket]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Reyk|<b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b>]] <sub>[[User talk:Reyk|<b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b>]]</sub> 08:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:Impatient me......the second sentence of your source clearly states that "sodium iodide symporter (NIS), also responsible for iodine transport in the thyroid" ! Yes, ok, thank you, I had assumed everything on pubmed would be classified as a primary source. Another question. How about the prelude to an abstract of a study that is a primary source.....Even though the study itself is a primary source, the first few sentences of an abstract are never experimental data yet are established background information. The "setup" if you will. Is such a distinction made? Or, if the study itself is classified as a primary source, then all information contained therein, in toto, is also classified as primary? Just looking for a clear delineation here between primary and secondary. Obviously, if the same information is contained within both secondary and primary sources (as in the case here, the secondary source takes precedence), but lets say there is no secondary or tertiary source, yet, the opening paragraph of the abstract (not the data, not the results of the data, etc) states the fact you wish to write on. In that case what happens? Thank you for taking the time out to answer.[[User:AliMD7176|AliMD7176]] ([[User talk:AliMD7176|talk]]) 21:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::you are asking real questions and I appreciate that very much. Yes the intro section and conclusion sections of many primary sources often a bit of review, and if one's back is to the wall it is OK to cite those sections (it is usually good to note that you are relying on the intro in your edit note!) but those are still pretty suboptimal, as generally the authors are trying to craft a story for whatever hypothesis they are working with... so not the best. Straight-up reviews are by far preferable (although they are sometimes a bit tendendentious too). You have referred a few times to abstracts. Generally you ~should~ read the whole article. If you don't have access to medical journals, WP has "deals" with some of the big publishers that give individual editors who sign up for it, access their journals. There is information on this [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Shared Resources|here]]. Also, if you are not aware of it, please consider joining [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine|WikiProject Medicine]] - you can formally sign up at the link there, or just start watching the talk page. :) [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog#top|talk]]) 21:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
* In my opinion it's disastrous to see you go. You are/were a breath of fresh air in Wikipedia.[[User:SylviaStanley|SylviaStanley]] ([[User talk:SylviaStanley|talk]]) 10:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
* (just heard about this) Goddammit man. I'm in complete agreement with [[User:ජපස|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. |
|||
==ANI notifications== |
|||
: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"; [https://songmeanings.com/songs/view/3458764513820543846/ lyrics].) Happy New Year & IRL-ing. --[[User:Middle 8|Middle 8]] <small>([[User talk:Middle 8|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Middle_8|c]] | [[User:Middle_8/Privacy|privacy]] • [[User:Middle_8/COI|acupuncture COI?]])</small> 10:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
Thanks for the tip for protecting Quercetin. Was going to take care of that, but got diverted by work. Doc James stepped in to create a block on the student editors.--[[User:Zefr|Zefr]] ([[User talk:Zefr|talk]]) 03:09, 5 December 2014 (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.--[[User:FeralOink|FeralOink]] ([[User talk:FeralOink|talk]]) 00:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Concerning [[Intellectual property]] == |
|||
*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. --[[User:Tronvillain|tronvillain]] ([[User talk:Tronvillain|talk]]) 22:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
[[Intellectual property]] is a topic distinct from [[intellectual property rights]]. I believe there is enough material on this subject to make a nice article. Let me work on it for a couple days, and see how you like it. |
|||
* 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. [[User:Sjones23|Lord Sjones23]] ([[User talk:Sjones23|talk]] - [[User:Sjones23/Wikipedia contributions|contributions]]) 15:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
No need for alarm, warnings, etc. |
|||
== Block == |
|||
Wikipedia is unbreakable. Everything can be undone. If you don't like the intellectual property article after a couple days of me working on it, I'll be happy to request deletion of it myself. [[User talk:The Transhumanist|<i>The Transhumanist</i>]] 03:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 04:48, 8 December 2028 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1859863718}} |
|||
:I am just blown away. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog#top|talk]]) 04:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
{{Arbcomblock}} |
|||
You can see the relevant motion [[Special:Diff/872117489|here]]. -- [[User talk:DeltaQuad|<span style="color:white;background-color:#8A2DB8"><b>Amanda</b></span>]] <small>[[User:DeltaQuad|(aka DQ)]]</small> 07:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
*I am very sad to see this. I can only echo the words of {{U|DGG}} and say how much I appreciated your support on the various issues we were working on. Take care of yourself. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 06:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== Toxicology and {{u|Myat T. Aung}} == |
|||
*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. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 14:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
Hello, |
|||
*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. --[[User:Randykitty|Randykitty]] ([[User talk:Randykitty|talk]]) 14:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
I appreciate your editing and paraphrasing.. however, I would appreciate more if you give the reason especially when you delete entirely. I would like to know what perspective you want to discuss in toxicology page since I have an interest to edit more to the page. Thank you.[[User:Myat T. Aung|Myat T. Aung]] ([[User talk:Myat T. Aung|talk]]) 03:53, 6 December 2014 (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. [[User:Alex Shih|Alex Shih]] ([[User talk:Alex Shih|talk]]) 09:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:please open a discussion on the article Talk page. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog#top|talk]]) 04:26, 6 December 2014 (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. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 15:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
**{{re|Doc James}} Unlikely, since for the short amount of time I have been there I have seen too many members along the lines of paid editing is not big deal or everyone including spammers should have the right to enjoy "protection" in order to feel "safe" to "work" here without understanding the purpose of 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. [[User:Alex Shih|Alex Shih]] ([[User talk: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. — [[User:Kashmiri|<span style="color:#30C;font:italic bold 1em Candara;text-shadow:#AAF 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;">kashmīrī</span>]] [[User talk:Kashmiri|<sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK</sup>]] 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 [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung]], [[User:Ritchie333|Ritchie333]], [[User:Randykitty|Randykitty]], and [[User:Alex Shih|Alex Shih]]. {{U|Tryptofish}} has removed the DNAU template. Do you guys want the template replaced? [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 23:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
**I put it back. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 02:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
****{{(:}} --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk: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. —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 06:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog]] closed == |
|||
== Thanks == |
|||
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 10:09, 12 March 2029 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1868004554}} |
|||
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted: |
|||
#{{user|Jytdog}} is indefinitely [[WP:SITEBAN|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. |
|||
You do good work. I know it can be wearing at times, and might seem [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Organic_food&curid=1421913&diff=636912351&oldid=636898907 thankless], but it truly is appreciated. [[User:Bobrayner|bobrayner]] ([[User talk:Bobrayner|talk]]) 20:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:thank you, that is very kind. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog#top|talk]]) 20:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::Fyi: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.143.45.120&curid=44618954&diff=636929291&oldid=636909477]. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 21:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::: thanks :) [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog#top|talk]]) 21:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
Good work indeed. There's a lot of unneeded crap to deal from some editors in topics you deal with especially, but articles typically end up better when you're involved. Hopefully users learn a bit in the process too, especially when you try to steer them in right direction on how to deal with scientific content. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 22:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:more kindness! thank you. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog#top|talk]]) 22:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
For the Arbitration Committee, [[User:Cthomas3|'''''<span style="font-family: Courier New; font-size: larger; color: black;"><span style="color: brown;">C</span>Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3</sup></span>''''']] ([[User talk:Cthomas3|talk]]) 00:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Correct to remove == |
|||
: Discuss this at: '''[[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 46#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog closed]]'''<!-- [[User:ArbClerkBot|ArbClerkBot]] ([[User talk:ArbClerkBot|talk]]) 00:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes--> |
|||
==Carrying on== |
|||
Hey I saw you had to remove a number of Talk page comments per [[WP:TPG]], I thought that was the correct thing to do, if more like that keeps happening let me know and I'll try to help deal with it. <code>[[User:Zad68|<span style="color:#D2691E">'''Zad'''</span>]][[User_Talk:Zad68|<span style="color:#206060">''68''</span>]]</code> 04:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 04:48, 8 December 2028 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1859863695}} |
|||
:thanks for the check-in on that. felt a little dicey so good to get admin reassurance. :) [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog#top|talk]]) 04:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
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. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jytdog/How 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? --[[User:Zefr|Zefr]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Natureium|Natureium]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Zefr|Zefr]] ([[User talk:Zefr|talk]]) 00:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::::: But things don't just disappear around here, it should hang around without any special preservation. [[User:Natureium|Natureium]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Jytdog/How|Jytdog/How]] qualifies as a useful essay and should be moved to [[Wikipedia:Essay directory|where we put those]]. [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] ([[User talk:Jonathunder|talk]]) 21:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:Yes. And for starters, it will be reproduced in the next issue of ''The Signpost''. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 12:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Jytdog should consider returning back == |
|||
== December 2014 == |
|||
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 06:36, 5 March 2029 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1867387001}} |
|||
<s>[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=Stop icon]] Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]]. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to work toward making a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See [[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle|BRD]] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. |
|||
[[File:Monument of the Duke of Lower Lorraine Godfrey of Bouillon in Brussels.jpg|thumb| The knight is sorely missed ''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">[[User:DBigXray|D<span style="color:#DA500B">Big</span>]][[User talk:DBigXray|X<span style="color:#10AD00">ray</span>ᗙ]]</span>'']] |
|||
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 back'''<s>Support</s> as I feel his absence has left a huge gap in areas Jytdog helped. No one is infallible, we learn and move on. I am sure you will read this, Hoping to see you back some day. --''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">[[User:DBigXray|D<span style="color:#DA500B">Big</span>]][[User talk:DBigXray|X<span style="color:#10AD00">ray</span>ᗙ]]</span>'' 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. [[User:Natureium|Natureium]] ([[User talk: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. --''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">[[User:DBigXray|D<span style="color:#DA500B">Big</span>]][[User talk:DBigXray|X<span style="color:#10AD00">ray</span>ᗙ]]</span>'' 19:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Hoping he'll come back'''. Ok, so this is not a !vote and "support" or "oppose" is not appropriate. But I for one sincerely hope that Jytdog will reconsider and come back. If this account has indeed be scrambled, then under a new account. Jytdog is sorely missed. --[[User:Randykitty|Randykitty]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|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. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 23:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
***** <nowiki>[citation needed]</nowiki> -- [[User:Fuzheado|Fuzheado]] | [[User talk:Fuzheado|Talk]] 23:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
***{{ping|Doc James}} I get where you are coming from, but please consider the effect your words have on the people who are victims of harassment. Here's a member of the board that oversees the organization charged with protecting 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. [[User:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">Gamaliel</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">talk</span>]])</small> 23:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
****People mess up. And we all agree that Jytdog messed up in this case. The question is more about what is an appropriate punishment for someone who has done this, admits it was wrong, and agrees to never do it again. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 23:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
*****Actually, I don't think that the community ''can'' overrule ArbCom, nor should we. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|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. - [[User:Bilby|Bilby]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk: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. - [[User:Bilby|Bilby]] ([[User talk:Bilby|talk]]) 04:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
*****{{tq|...Jytdog messed up in this case.}} And in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=872162508 two and seven] previous cases. ~ <span style="color:#DF00A0">Amory</span><small style="color:#555"> ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])''</small> 01:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
*Jytdog may appeal his block by contacting ArbCom. That is not up for debate. What happens after that is as-yet unknown, neither set in stone nor explicitly laid out by ArbCom. There's no point in trying to parse unknowns, even the unknowns about whether Jytdog could regain access to this account or whether the password is forever blocked. What we can do is offer our support re: wishing for his return. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk: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, [[User:Swarm|<span style="color:Green">'''~Swarm~'''</span>]] [[User talk:Swarm|<span style="color:DarkViolet">'''{talk}'''</span>]] 07:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
*What Swarm says. [[User:Winged Blades of Godric|<span style="color: red">∯</span><span style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#070">WBG</b></span>]][[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|<sup><span style="color:#00F">converse</span></sup>]] |
|||
* [[If—]] . We miss you, come back. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Widefox|Widefox]]</span>; [[User talk:Widefox|talk]]</span> 11:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment''': The best way IMVHO would be for Jytdog to ask for ArbCom's continuation of the case that was opened (and then closed after Jytdog's voluntary departure). It would make re-entry quite easier ''and'' in accordance to Wikipedia rules. -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 03:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*Hmm so he did and [[Special:Diff/950246924|accepted]] the [[Special:Permalink/950365962#Motion_to_close|decision]]. Thanks for everyone's time and maybe there's a possibility in another 12 months... —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 09:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*It makes me angry when I see this, and note the number of tossers who edit this project. -[[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy,''' <small>the PROD. </small>.]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''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 {{tl|information page}} or other advice piece, both on how to avoid COI (especially in STEM, GLAM, etc.), and on how to detect it and help others avoid it. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 23:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*: Jyt, dog! Missing your consideration and spirit today in particular. I just ran across your thoughtful contribution to a discussion elsewhere and wanted to consult you, and remembered this was just the commemorative-tea-cozy version of a talk page now. Hoping you're very well indeed. <span style="color:#666">– [[User:Sj|SJ]][[User Talk:Sj|<span style="color:#f90;"> +</span>]]</span> 00:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== Jytdog's good work noted in the media == |
|||
'''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''—especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting|reverts]] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 03:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)</s> |
|||
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 10:09, 12 March 2029 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1868004554}} |
|||
::While here is your edit warring warning because this looks like the direction we are going in with edits like this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oseltamivir&diff=637107838&oldid=637107550] Your position is not supported by policy. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 03:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
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. [[User:JamesG5|JamesG5]] ([[User talk:JamesG5|talk]]) 23:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::: Thanks, let's discuss on talk - and i would say it was your edit that was not supported by any sourcing so violated [[WP:VERIFY]] and also didn't follow [[WP:LEAD]], as described [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOseltamivir&diff=637119321&oldid=637117547 here]. but whatever, i guess i got you mad at me today. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog#top|talk]]) 04:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:[[User:JamesG5|JamesG5]] good share. Worthy appreciation of good work. Hope Jytdog also notices this.--''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">[[User:DBigXray|D<span style="color:#DA500B">Big</span>]][[User talk:DBigXray|X<span style="color:#10AD00">ray</span>ᗙ]]</span>'' 06:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::Hey Jytdog. Apologies this got a little overheated. While we may disagree some I think we agree on most things and hope that we can find a compromise on the bits where we disagree. The work you do here is exceedingly important. Best [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 19:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{tps}} {{Ping|Doc James}} I'm glad to see that. I've been watching with concern, especially since I have high respect for you both. Peace. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 19:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::oh so happy! thank you. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog#top|talk]]) 20:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks for sharing. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 07:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== MDMA article == |
|||
: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. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 11:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
I read some of your "bio" and it seems that you like protecting articles from "cognitive bias", which I can sure appreciate. |
|||
::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. [[User:Mramoeba|Mramoeba]] ([[User talk:Mramoeba|talk]]) 14:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
I know I am only some random IP-address editor in your eyes, but I get irritated by the complete lack of organization and obvious cognitive bias of this article (i.e. [[MDMA]]). As a neurosocientist, it is painful to see such a messy, horrendously organized article. |
|||
Please explain, how does this statement "MDMA is neurotoxic and can cause symptoms of dependency due to its effects on the mesocorticolimbic projection" (A) belong in the opening paragraph, which should be reserved for general characteristics, with complete disregard for any coherent order, whereby the third paragraph clearly summarizes more relevant medical properties, and (B) belong in a proposed protected article without any source whatsoever, in the state that it is currently in? |
|||
It is clear that this article is target for vandalism from both sides, with some wanting to emphasize the potential benefits of this substance, and some others wanting to emphasize the potential harms. But, as of now, there is a lot wrong with this article in particular -- in its current form it is a complete embarrassment for Wikipedia, and I feel appalled that someone respectable as you would want to protect it in the state that it is in. |
|||
Thanks for your thoughts and contributions. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.161.139.121|67.161.139.121]] ([[User talk:67.161.139.121|talk]]) 07:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
: Please feel free to create an account and join the discussion. When you do, please own the various comments that have been yours. I cannot tell who is who among the IP editors commenting and reverting on the article. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog#top|talk]]) 08:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
==Special barnstar== |
|||
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" |
|||
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | {{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|alt|[[File:Special Barnstar Hires.png|100px]]|[[File:SpecialBarnstar.png|100px]]}} |
|||
|rowspan="2" | |
|||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Special Barnstar''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Thank you for taking the time and trouble to advise new editors in a patient way. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 10:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
|} |
|||
:thanks! [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog#top|talk]]) 12:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Mass blanking of talk page at Vani Hari == |
|||
I note you blanked a significant amount of content on that page and then set a "bot" to blank content from the talk page as well. Please return to the talk page and explain yourself. [[User:Let's Have Some Science|Let's Have Some Science]] ([[User talk:Let's Have Some Science|talk]]) 15:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:i replied to you on the Talk page. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog#top|talk]]) 15:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
==Toning it down== |
|||
Would be good to tone things down a bit. You have made comments such as "you took out content that everybody but you agreed to; and above you are personalizing the discussion. Both are out of line." with bolding. Than when the RfC comes around [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#RfC_on_adding_the_following_wording] the community is not in favor of your position. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 02:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:Sorry to have offended and will work on that. I would appreciate the same. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog#top|talk]]) 02:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Owe you a reply == |
|||
Hey Jytdog I owe you and everyone (likely many of your stalkers here) a reply at the [[WT:MEDRS]] discussion, I simply haven't apportioned enough time yet to do it. Still lots to read. <code>[[User:Zad68|<span style="color:#D2691E">'''Zad'''</span>]][[User_Talk:Zad68|<span style="color:#206060">''68''</span>]]</code> 03:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:so thoughtful -- thanks! i an sure you have seen the real world laboratory of that discussion going on at the Oseltamivir article... super interesting. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog#top|talk]]) 03:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
==Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion== |
|||
[[Image:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] |
|||
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring]] regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit warring]]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 17:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:oh for pete's sake! [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog#top|talk]]) 17:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== PTSD article == |
|||
Hello, |
|||
I was just reviewing the "Domestic Violence" sub section on the PTSD page. I want to know why you reverted the work that I contributed. I understand that we should not use primary sources but those sources were not primary as they were literature reviews and meta-analysis. I am new to wikipedia and would like a clarification on this. [[User:JambaJuicy|JambaJuicy]] ([[User talk:JambaJuicy|talk]]) 22:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:please open a discussion on the article's Talk page asking about this. thanks! [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog#top|talk]]) 23:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
No need to restore my edits; I warned the student, and pending discussion, was just identifying primary sources inline so they could be addressed later. Don't let a student upset you into 3RR ;) [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 02:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:) i put your tags back at the top. i see that what you had MEDREFFED was deleted anyway. thanks for all your great work!! [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog#top|talk]]) 02:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
==Remove load of content based on primary sources== |
|||
I had my most of my article on [[TAS-102]] deleted and the explanation was "remove load of content based on primary sources". I was wondering what that means? I felt the information was relevant to the drug and explained studies pertinent to its development and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties. The sources I obtained my information from were also from legitimate scientific journals. --[[User:Ukystu85|Ukystu85]] ([[User talk:Ukystu85|talk]]) 21:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks for talking and asking! Please bring the question at the article talk page so everybody who cares can participate. I'll be glad to answer there. thanks. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog#top|talk]]) 02:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::I included my question on the article talk page. Thanks! [[User:Ukystu85|Ukystu85]] ([[User talk:Ukystu85|talk]]) 02:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::: is this where you put it?: [[User_talk:Ukystu85]]? oy [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog#top|talk]]) 03:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
==Changes to article on antibiotic resistance== |
|||
I added a good infographic to this article because there doesn't seem to be much about the public health impact. It was immediately removed. I have left comments on the talk page about plans to try to improve the article. Changes will have to be a piece at a time. I am open to comments and critique. juanTamad 15:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jtamad|Jtamad]] ([[User talk:Jtamad|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jtamad|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:[[WP:COPYVIO]] is not something to mess around with. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog#top|talk]]) 15:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::The graph I added today is in the public domain. I added that information when I upload the file. If you check the page it's there: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AntimcrresUKreview2.jpg It's from a PDF I downloaded and it states on the last page: This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. I understand the necessity for copyright. What else am I supposed to do to indicate that it is not copyvio? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jtamad|Jtamad]] ([[User talk:Jtamad|talk]] • juanTamad 15:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[[Special:Contributions/Jtamad|contribs]]) 15:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
::::::I see that ''you claimed'' it was licensed under CC4 but when I went and looked ''at the source you took it from'', I did '''not''' see that there. You cannot take someone's material and claim it is freely available - '''they''' have to license it that way. Do you understand? (and PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTS. This is the second time i have had an edit conflict with the bot signing for you. Please do not argue while you are still learning the basics. Ask questions. Real ones. Thanks.) [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog#top|talk]]) 15:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Ok, it's on the last page of the PDF here: http://amr-review.org/sites/default/files/AMR%20Review%20Paper%20-%20Tackling%20a%20crisis%20for%20the%20health%20and%20wealth%20of%20nations_1.pdf Should I use that URL as source when I upload? I thought it said to use the web page it came from, not on downloaded materialjuanTamad 15:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jtamad|Jtamad]] ([[User talk:Jtamad|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jtamad|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
::::good, i will resinstate the image. '''ONE MORE TIME ON THIS. SIGN YOUR POSTS''' [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog#top|talk]]) 15:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::ok, juanTamad 15:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jtamad|Jtamad]] ([[User talk:Jtamad|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jtamad|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:::::::: do you know what I mean, when I say "please sign your posts"? again, the bot has signed for you. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog#top|talk]]) 15:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Nuklear == |
|||
Dear Jytdog, |
|||
I'm not a sock of Nuklear. What's the problem with him? I just know him for creating dozens of drug syntheses PNGs.--[[User:Kopiersperre|Kopiersperre]] ([[User talk:Kopiersperre|talk]]) 18:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi you will see I reconsidered already and self-reverted because I am not sure yet. I then reverted on the basis of [[WP:VERIFY]]. You should avoid behaving like him, whether you are him or not. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog#top|talk]]) 18:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
{{tps}} I've been curious since I've seen this name come up a few times in reverts, but never saw an obvious reason in the reverts at a quick glance that would indicate a sockpuppet. Is there an archive somewhere that explains what's going on with the user? [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 19:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:{{tps}} See [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nuklear/Archive]], inveterate copyright violator... <code>[[User:Zad68|<span style="color:#D2691E">'''Zad'''</span>]][[User_Talk:Zad68|<span style="color:#206060">''68''</span>]]</code> 19:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::thanks! sad case acually. :( [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog#top|talk]]) 22:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::Had all his lab equipment taken from him as he was trying to make drugs in his house. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 05:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::Please unblock him, it will save the UK some water!--[[User:Kopiersperre|Kopiersperre]] ([[User talk:Kopiersperre|talk]]) 14:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== What you're doing at G. Edward Griffin is still considered edit warring. == |
|||
I have asked you to please stop reverting my edits, but you continue. Consider this a friendly warning. You have no valid reason for reverting any of my edits, including your take on MEDRS because the sources I cited are from reliable, peer-reviewed journals, including PLOS. If it is your intention to keep reverting my edits, and preventing me from correcting a BLP violation and updating the article, please tell me now, and I will save us both some time by taking the issue straight to ANI as a conduct issue. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><b>[[User:Atsme|Atsme]]</b></font><font color="gold">☯</font>[[User talk:Atsme|<font color="green"><sup>Consult</sup></font>]] 14:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:<small>{{tps}} I shouldn't do that if I were you, unless you have your boomerang deflection field operating at maximum strength. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] <sup>[[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Alexbrn|contribs]]|[[User:Alexbrn#Conflict_of_interest_declaration|COI]]</sup> 14:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)</small> |
|||
:Hi Atsme. Sorry you are unhappy. fwiw, I suggest you make small edits, one by one, and avoid puffery. If you do that, you will find that more of them will "stick" and we will all be able to work on specific language on specific things that turn out to be actually contentious. And generally, it is a good idea to concentrate on the body of the article, and only work on the lead once the body is settled. Adding a bunch of contentious content to the lead only is highly likely to be reverted on multiple grounds. Take it slow! There is [[WP:NODEADLINE]]. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog#top|talk]]) 14:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:: On more thing, {{u|Atsme}} I appreciate you talking to me here about what you see as a behavior issue but you have barely used the Talk page of the article to discuss the changes you want. You have discussed the health-related content a bit, but not the other issues. You are not going to get much traction on any behavior board, if you haven't made calm, good-faith efforts to work through the content issues, deliberately and clearly, on the article Talk page. So really, I recommend you just take it slowly and deliberately - think about opening separate sections on Talk for each piece of content you want to change. Talk it out. Good luck! [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog#top|talk]]) 14:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::All good advice, Jytdog. Hope you are paying attention to it as well. You and I both know the Griffin article is an abortion, and represents the exact opposite of what WP expects of its content. The article is riddled with POV and undue weight issues, and as a GF editor, you should have already recognized the BLP violations. With reference to a comment made by one editor at the BLPN, the BLP debate actually does appear to be a contest, only I see it as a one-sided contest created by a group of misguided POV pushers who are trying to suppress information. My primary concern is correcting the blatant BLP violations in the article, and updating it with reliably sourced information per WP guidelines. My focus is on creating GAs and FAs. FWIW, I do not use "puffery". Instead of focusing only on my edits, why don't you focus on what my edits are replacing, including the pejorative terminology, contentious labeling, NPOV issues, undue weight, childish writing style, poorly sourced and outdated information, and the BLP violations? Surely you recognize them, don't you? There is no legitimate reason for deleting my edits, all of which were made in an effort to balance the article, improve and update prose, and eliminate the BLP violations. Your reverts have become disruptive, and are preventing me from doing my work as a GF editor who is simply trying to improve the article. Sorry if you disagree with the updated, properly sourced research I've provided, but it belongs in that article. I am more than happy to collaborate with you as a GF editor, but to be quite frank, that isn't what I have experienced so far. I point you to the following excerpt from a very important policy regarding fringe theories and [[WP:FRINGEBLP]]: {{xt|There are people who are notable enough to have articles included in Wikipedia solely on the basis of their advocacy of fringe beliefs. Notability can be determined by considering whether there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner, taking care also to avoid the pitfalls that can appear when determining the notability of fringe theories themselves. Caution should be exercised when evaluating whether there are enough sources available to write a ''neutral biography that neither unduly promotes nor denigrates the subject.''}} <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><b>[[User:Atsme|Atsme]]</b></font><font color="gold">☯</font>[[User talk:Atsme|<font color="green"><sup>Consult</sup></font>]] 15:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::truly, you and I ''don't'' both know that the article is an "abortion". (and again, using strong language like this is not helpful to you appearing calm and rational if this ever goes to a drama board). I have asked a few times for you to identify specific issues on the Talk page so we can work on them. I look forward to you doing that. Best regards. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog#top|talk]]) 16:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::You're saying you don't know where the problems are in the article? 16:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I am not a mind reader, no. :) Please do identify the specific problems you see on the Talk page, so we can work on them. Thanks! [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog#top|talk]]) 16:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== My edit on Levofloxacin page reverted. == |
|||
Hello Jytdog, It is Mbcap. I have just seen that you reverted my work on the levofloxacin page. Thank you for posting the link about the pharmacology guide. I had a read through the BNF and online sources and agree with you. Could you possibly enlighten me about drugs that have a lot of brand names for future reference. Obviously this case is simple because there are a few but what about others. I am a new editors so trying to learn the ropes and I would grateful for your advice. [[User:Mbcap|Mbcap]] ([[User talk:Mbcap|talk]]) 18:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi, thanks for talking, and more generally, thanks for your interest in editing health-related content! I don't understand your question though - can you please clarify? thx [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog#top|talk]]) 18:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:I just checked out your user page. Happy! Along with [[WP:MEDMOS]], which I encourage you to read carefully and in full, please also read [[WP:MEDRS]], and please consider signing up with [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine|WikiProject Medicine]] or at least putting its Talk page on your watch list. We strive for a high level of excellence in health-related articles and there is a lot to learn, on top of learning the regular [[WP:Policies and guidelines]] like [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:VERIFY]], [[WP:OR]] etc. . You are definitely on the right path with regard to asking questions and wanting to learn!! I will be glad to give you my perspective about how things work here, anytime you like. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog#top|talk]]) 18:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::Thank you Jytdog for being helpful. I shall read those documents, may take me a while. My apologies if the question above was not clear, but I was asking; lets say a particular drug has numerous trade names then which do you decide to list in the lead. I suspect I will find out once I read the above mentioned documents. [[User:Mbcap|Mbcap]] ([[User talk:Mbcap|talk]]) 18:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::I see. Well if there are a '''ton''' it might get its own [[WP:LIST]] article. See for example how [[Paracetamol]] is handled. The most prominent are named in the article, and we have a separate [[List of paracetamol brand names]] and a link to that WP article. If there are a few brands, they can just be listed in the lead paragraph or infobox, like [[Paroxetine]]. Then there is something like [[Esomeprazole]], which had a long, random list in a section near the end of the article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Esomeprazole&oldid=637079158 in this version] and an editor with a COI was edit warring to get his company's brand name into the lead, and I just removed the list and added text and a ref to an external page listing a bunch of brands, as you can see in the current version. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog#top|talk]]) 19:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::That makes a lot sense. Thank you again for your help. [[User:Mbcap|Mbcap]] ([[User talk:Mbcap|talk]]) 20:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Grammar MAM == |
|||
Ello jydog, thank-you for your feedback. I presume you find this October 2013 march paragraph the most ungrammatical part of my contribution? |
|||
Anti-GM Organizers replied that <blockquote><p>The government’s brutal reaction to the March Against Monsanto protests, the social media censorship and the blatant mainstream media blackout of the millions of activists who marched against them </p></blockquote> are reliable sources as seen in the [[global]] [[context]] provided by [[independent media]] journalists [[in absentia]], given the historic record of occupying powers to [[censor]], of the supply of a substance which nourishes or sustains noteworthy events from being undermined, by choosing less longwinded and more explicit language as behooves the type of publication it is intended for, even with tested though not [[bureaucratic]] rules and experienced [[pro bono]] editors being in such high demand, and is likely to continue until this encyclopedic controversy is gone for [[good]].<ref name="MAM4">[http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/why-does-the-government-want-to-stop-march-against-monsanto/ March Against Monsanto planning site for future actions] Accessed December 15, 2014</ref> |
|||
I would appreciate your help clarifying the crystal ball so to speak, I don't grammar. I also do time in a way most people find peculiar. How do I find a better source than the announcement that the October 2014 march would, and presumably did not happen? I doubt you think I should find out about all the related marches during that month long period around the globe and source them collectively, just to briefly explain what happened instead of, and why it was too ambitious for another single MAM brand march on one day coordinated worldwide? That's starting to sound like original research to me. Perhaps we should not mention the October 2014 march at all, but I find it leaves a huge gap in my expectations that there would have been another event had not something big happened to change the future. I now wonder if you were not actually entirely refering to this paragraph, whatever time you can spare teaching grammar is sure to be appreciated; |
|||
No ''one day'' event in cities across the globe in joint action with the [[Navdanya]] network was organized in October, to consentrate more attention on the anniversary march every May.<ref name="MAM5">[http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/mam-event-announcement-october-2014/ March Against Monsanto planning site for future actions] Accessed December 15, 2014</ref>[[User:Riverstogo|Riverstogo]] ([[User talk:Riverstogo|talk]]) 00:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
{{reflist}} |
|||
:hi - what does the last paragraph mean? And I am sorry but using quotes for color, as you do in this case, is generally a really horrible idea; what you invite by doing that is inviting quotes from other "sides" of equal color, and then we have a wall of screeds, not an encyclopedia article. It is unclear to me what the core of your edit was, outside of adding color. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog#top|talk]]) 00:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Discretionary sanctions notification - BLP == |
|||
{{Ivm|2='''Please carefully read this information:''' |
|||
The Arbitration Committee has authorised [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions|discretionary sanctions]] to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes|here]]. |
|||
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means [[WP:INVOLVED|uninvolved]] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|purpose of Wikipedia]], our [[:Category:Wikipedia conduct policies|standards of behavior]], or relevant [[Wikipedia:List of policies|policies]]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as [[Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Types of restrictions|editing restrictions]], [[Wikipedia:Banning policy#Types of bans|bans]], or [[WP:Blocking policy|blocks]]. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. |
|||
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. |
|||
}} <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 04:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC){{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> |
Latest revision as of 12:10, 20 April 2024
Hi, welcome to my talk page!
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
That's all folks
So... I made a very bad error in judgement, and called a person who had added raw advocacy content to WP, who is clearly deeply passionate about the topic.
The call went very badly. I shouldn't have called them, I shouldn't have allowed it to become an argument, and I shouldn't have ended the call the way I did.
In the past, I violated the OUTING policy by posting off-WP information here. That was also a terrible error in judgement.
I also have generally been pretty aggressive in trying to maintain high quality in our content, and this has caused some people here to dislike and distrust me, and per the last ANI about me, there is weariness in the community with me.
In the current situation, there is rampant speculation about a three minute conversation and about my intentions. There is some fierce debate about the boundaries of the harassment policy. There are a lot of angry people. Probably hours have been spent, that could have been better spent elsewhere actually building the encyclopedia.
It looks like this will become a case, which will mean many more hours. The outcome of that case if pretty foregone, in my view. I see no good reason to put everybody through more of this.
So, I am out of here. I am scrambling my WP password and deleting my gmail account and "Jytdog" will cease to do anything, anywhere. If you see any other Jytdog doing stuff in the future, anywhere, it is not me. (And no, I will be not be coming back here as a sock.) I urge Arbcom to do just do a motion and indef or site ban me.
I just want to say thanks to everybody I have worked with, and I wish you all, and our beautiful project, the best. Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- Dammit man. -Roxy, the naughty dog. wooF 17:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- That is not a foregone conclusion. Do as you will, but the case will surely go on anyway. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- Very sad to hear it. Like Tryptofish says, Arbcom is not a foregone conclusion, but you should do what you think best. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- The frustrations for Arbcom and you are understandable, but the overall mission of the project – and your obvious love of and value to it – should not be hastily dismissed. Give yourself a 2 week break, then re-evaluate... and return with a fresh outlook. --Zefr (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- Sad to see this. Best wishes,Smeat75 (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- +1 to what Zefr said. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- Another +1 here. Nobody is irreplaceable but 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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_creepTalk 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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, –Davey2010Talk 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 Ponyobons 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)
- @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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:
- 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)
- But things don't just disappear around here, it should hang around without any special preservation. Natureium (talk) 01:29, 7 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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
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 back
Supportas 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)
- Hoping he'll come back. Ok, so this is not a !vote and "support" or "oppose" is not appropriate. But I for one sincerely hope that Jytdog will reconsider and come back. If this account has indeed be scrambled, then under a new account. Jytdog is sorely missed. --Randykitty (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- Him returning would require us dealing with the arbcom motion. The details of the case that resulted in arbcom action are more or less public: Jytdog inappropriately contacted an editor by phone and for that he needs to be significantly warned. Do we the community feel it deserves an indefinite ban? That would require further discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- For what little it is worth, any return would involve a private discussion between him and ArbCom, but the rest of the community would not be involved in that. That's how the process works. I do hope to see him back eventually, but it's not my decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Doc James: I get where you are coming from, but please consider the effect your words have on the people who are victims of harassment. Here's a member of the board that oversees the organization charged with protecting 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)
- 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)
...Jytdog messed up in this case.
And in the two and seven previous cases. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:39, 22 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. ∯WBGconverse
- 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)