User talk:Jytdog2

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Jytdog2! Thank you for your contributions. I am Money emoji and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Money emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 00:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. Money emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 00:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back indeed, —Paleo Neonate – 09:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What they say. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Puddleglum ^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 19:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I missed this until now. Welcome back, it will be an interesting Arbcom-case, you malicious so-and-so. I see Wikipediocracy is discussing it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back its very good to see you again Jytdog, good luck--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case opened[edit]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.

The Jytdog2 account will remain unblocked solely to allow edits to the case pages, in line with the committee’s original permission to Jytdog prior to ARC 2 being filed.

The original Jytdog account will remain blocked.

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas³ (talk) 05:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't email you, so I have to say it here: I'm sorry to see you having to go through this again, and I and many others, including a a board member, very much miss your work and you being around. Worse than RfA, Arbcom cases are a place where users, both involved and uninvolved, can use any extent of PA, harassment and be as vindictive as they like, even resorting to clear distortion of the facts, on the case pages and elsewhere, with total impunity (diffs available). Worse is the character assasination and total negation of all the good work you have done. I know first hand what it's like. You have my sympathy, but you have overstepped the mark with some of your actions so all you can do is grin and bear it. Let's just hope that the Committee will reach a truly equitable solution. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to chime in here for Jytdog too. I like to think I was being even-handed at my evidence posting in that you were doing really risky things with good intent, but you shouldn't have any problem moving on from that either, especially after a year-long away period even with a few other legitimate issues out there. That said, I have seen some of your recent comments about the MEDRS community chiming in. I can't speak for everyone as some may be distracted with coronavirus issues, but some of it may just be the nature of ArbCom too.

When it comes to disruptive editors with axes to grind against you causing even more disruption, you know I'm plenty familiar with the problems that causes. A lot of the "evidence" I'm seeing is either periphery or outright misleading just talking about the non-phone call stuff, but it doesn't do much good to address that at this stage if at all because "ideally" arbs should be discarding much of that to focus on the core issue. Some have already mentioned that at evidence. My guess is editors are waiting to see what's actually carved out in workshop decisions before committing time when this might just boil down to you being clear about how you're going forward rather than a broad "discuss Jytdog" case.

That said, if arbs do decide to evaluate wider topics, the workshop stage is better suited for addressing claims and pointing out whether something is valid or just someone trying to paint you as bad for dealing with disruptive behavior that got the editor sanctioned. I know I don't have the time or energy document all the good work you've or refute much of the the misleading stuff, and I suspect others may think that's getting into the weeds for ArbCom too (hence the lack of MEDRS community so far). However, if things do move in this wider direction, I do at least have an idea or two for the workshop phase to maybe help on non-phone call stuff. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingofaces43: I don't think anyone's doubting that you wouldn't welcome Jytdog back with open arms, after all you have chimed in to support him in almost every time he was brought up on the noticeboards (seriously: if you go check the AN/I links in wbms1058's evidence and CTRL+F Kingofaces43, you're in almost all of them). It's the editors who are facing his abuse that might be a little more hesitant to welcome him back. --Pudeo (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Pudeo, please don't misrepresent me and bring that to this talk page. Referring to others as a "supporter" camp isn't helpful (and part of the problem) when I've also been appropriately critical of Jytdog while also trying to deal with all the problems associated with him that are sourced to other editors back when I used to edit many of the same topics they did. If you wish to make comments like that, ArbCom is the place for that, not here since it's also expected Jytdog won't be editing this talk page right now. That's also why I'm not addressing other issues with your comments here that should be hashed out at ArbCom. ArbCom is the place where legitimate issues are supposed to be sorted out from those pursuing old disputes and handwaving evidence or just blindly supporting an editor. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence[edit]

Hello, Jytdog,

This note is just a reminder that the Evidence phase of the arbitration case is closing tomorrow, March 23rd, if you want to post anything. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jytdog,

We will probably stop accepting evidence testimony early tomorrow morning. Just FYI in case you think it will be closing any second now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom Notification[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Medical pricing and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed decision posted[edit]

Hi Jytdog2, in the open Jytdog arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 16:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog closed[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Please let me know if there is a reopened case or reconsideration case. I was not aware of the first two cases, and would like to provide evidence if there is ever a third case. Thanks. Declanscottp (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]