Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence

The emails that changed this case
Jytdog admitted to at least two (he initially said it was one) uninvited phone calls to new editor Beall4, one to a phone answering device and one to Beall4's workplace, a call he also admits "...quickly went south... ...I allowed myself to get frustrated and abruptly ended the call." Beall4 described the phone conversation in strong terms, noting "I was alarmed to be contacted by phone beginning and ending with derogatory comments." As noted by Voceditenore in the 2018 case statements, Jytdog's initial description of how he aquired the phone number(s) was falsely characterized by Jytdog.

Jytdog was blocked by Administrator There'sNoTime (who took some major pushback from Jytdog's supporters.) Emails from a private party or parties subsequently had a tremendous impact on this case, resulting in Arbitrator votes being changed. Abruptly, Jytdog retired from editing Wikipedia, and was indefinitely blocked by ArbCom. Obviously I can't provide links to these emails, but they are the key to this case. Thryduulf has mentioned seeing these emails on the Functionaries list, and other emails regarding Jytdog, stating "...it's increasingly clear to me that this isn't just a third offence, it's closer to an eighth offence that we know about.  After every single one there are different people independently describing just how bad Jytdog is in terms like "bully" and "serial abuser"..." I submit this statement remains a devistating indictment of Jytdog.

I thank Thryduulf for the disclosures and await their promised further clarification, which will be crucial in determining the path forward, as I see it. Hopefully we will be getting a better sense of the email messages recieved by the Committee soon, even if redacted. (Statement posted March 9, 2020, per this page's edit history.)

Evidence provided by Voceditenore and Premeditated Chaos
The decisive evidence provided below by Voceditenore, with supplementary evidence by Premeditated Chaos, demonstrate that Jytdog is a tremendously problematic editor. As pointed out by Voceditenore in the aborted 2018 case, Jytdog's own admitted off-Wiki investigations of Beall4 violate his 2016 topic ban, an ArbCom sanction handed down via Gorilla Warfare's notification. Jytdog's contact and verbal abuse of a new editor, and Jytog's subsequent grudgingly-admitted falsehoods, when added to previous blocks, topic bans, editor outings and rampant uncivil bullying, unequivocally establish multiple violations of repeated warnings and sanctions, and core Wikipedia policy, including the fourth of the Five pillars. Additionally, the emails noted above that resulted in Jytog's indefinite ArbCom block make conclusive the preventative nature of the current block. The Workshop phase of this case should address this evidence in drafting resolutions. Jusdafax (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Jytdog's reply here
Jytdog writes below: "...I've acquired enemies and angered people who could have been allies. And sometimes I am way too hot. That is all true." Indeed. This is an editor who, again, has been warned, topic banned, and blocked repeatedly. He consistently exhibits poor to no impulse control, even under direct sanctions, and I believe the evidence, and the subsequent remedy, is clear. With a bow to the ArbCom members, Jusdafax (talk) 02:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Thryduulf
As discussed, I have copies of old emails regarding Jytdog. Where possible I've summarised these below, along with public evidence I've found while researching them. I have also forwarded these to the committee, for ease of reference I've numbered each email (there are 4 emails, but three of them relate to threads of discussion). This goes back to 2015 when I joined the Arbitration Committee, I do not know if there is anything that predates this. The presentation of material this old is for completeness and to establish that this is a pattern of behaviour.


 * July/October 2015, in October 2015 Atsme alleged that Jytdog sent them an abusive email. This was in the context of a July 2015 a COIN case and the then-ongoing GMO arbitration case.
 * In the COIN case (July 2015) Atsme accuses Jytdog of outing. The case was closed by Risker with the summary "Incorrect application of a 2014 policy to 2011 edits; not even the current ToU requires extirpation of all edits related to a COI." I think, but I'm not certain, the actions were performed by Jytdog.
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Evidence has many links by many people relateed to Jytdog's inapropriate conduct. He was found to have "engaged in edit warring, [...] belittled other editors and [have] engaged in non-civil conduct."
 * reference: emails 1 and 2
 * November 2015 Jytdog outed (or attempted to out) Minor4th on the GMO case PD page and, after that had been supressed, on his (Jytdog's) talk page  (diffs visible to oversighters only). This resulted in his first block (placed by HJ Mitchell, initially indefinite, lifted 10 days leter)
 * June 2016 Jytdog was idef blocked for a second time again (this time by GorillaWarfare) for outing, again in the context of an alleged COI (diff visible to oversighters only). There followed a long private discussion about Jytdog's actions and unrepentedness over the matter (his third instance of outing). The block was lifted in August (see below)
 * reference: email 3
 * August 2016 (1): a private discussion about paid editing included relevant comments about Jytdog by user:DGG.
 * reference: email 4
 * August 2016 (2): Jytdog was unblocked with a topic ban "from all matters related to COI editing. This includes investigations and allegations against other editors, and edits to the COIN noticeboard and its talk page." following an appeal to the committee unblock notice. I was not on the committee then so did not see any relevant private discussion. This was lifted in February 2017 with a warning that "any subsequent incident in which you [jytdog] reveal non-public information about another user will result in an indefinite block or siteban by the Arbitration Committee. To avoid ambiguity, "non-public information" includes (but is not limited to) any information about another user including legal names and pseudonyms, workplace, job title, or contact details, which that user has not disclosed themselves on the English Wikipedia or other WMF project."
 * December 2018 AE report of violating his GMO topic ban was closed as moot due to the indef ban. This should be taken into account if he is allowed to return to editing.

Given that I commented about an eight offence in the original request, but have not identified 7 discrete incidents here, I can only assume that I am missing something now or that what appeared at the time to be multiple incidents were actually a single one. I do stand by my comments in the previous case request and my initial statement in this one, that welcoming jytdog back would not be a good thing for the community and thus the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Ivanvector
In the previous case request I referred to several past incidents, which seem to be in addition to those that Thryduulf has referenced.

-- Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * September 2018 - an ANI request by for intervention because of Jytdog's aggressive behaviour against a supposed COI editor. Although the discussion boomeranged and closed with one-way sanctions against Andy Dingley, the long discussion revealed many participants felt that Jytdog's behaviour warranted a sanction. I stand by the close, but it is relevant to this case that many members of the community strongly objected to Jytdog not being sanctioned at that time. (See also Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive992). (Andy's interaction ban is still in effect, but in my opinion he should be permitted to participate here).
 * September/October 2018 - following my controversial close of the discussion above, an exasperated editor reached out to me seeking an interaction ban with Jytdog, although I think they were mistaken about how interaction bans work. They were exhausted by what they saw as Jytdog's ongoing interference in their edits over topics relating to historicity of the Bible, which in my view was a content dispute and entirely unrelated to conflict of interest. It appears they continued working together on the article for at least a month or two before Jytdog retired; Jenhawk777 brought up conflict with Jytdog again in December 2018 in a discussion about the same topic on another involved editor's talk page, and the account stopped editing in January 2019. I had struck a comment referring to this incident from the 2018 case request, but I believe it's relevant to show that Jytdog's approach to disputes drew complaints from other editors in situations not involving conflicts of interest.

Jytdog's behavior has been discussed many times on the administrators' noticeboards
Noticeboard search Block log
 * 1) January 2014 – User:Jytdog‎ reported by User:FelixRosch
 * 2) April 2014 – Recurrent violation of Civility policy by Jytdog
 * 3) September 2014 – User:Jytdog reported by User:Blacksun1942
 * 4) September 2014 – User:Jytdog and User:Gandydancer reported by User:SW3 5DL
 * 5) March 2015 – Jytdog's behavior
 * 6) March 2015 – Jytdog: Protracted uncivility and harrassment
 * 7) March 2015 – Request review of closure of ANI against Jytdog
 * 8) April 2015 – User:Jytdog
 * 9) April 2015 – JYTDog - Vote Stacking
 * 10) May 2015 – Jytdog needs administrator intervention, please?
 * 11) May 2015 – Strong-arm tactics by Jytdog
 * 12) May 2015 – User:Jytdog reported by User:Anmccaff
 * 13) July 2015 – Mass deletion / PROD / redirect of mall articles under the guise of WP:COI
 * 14) * Suggestion to Jytdog and GregJackP
 * 15) July 2015 – What is our CoI policy actually?
 * 16) August 2015 – Would like Jytdog to leave me alone
 * 17) September 2015 – User:Jytdog reported by User:DrChrissy
 * 18) September 2015 – Editor Jytdog's none neutral GMO edits
 * 19) November 2015 – Block #1
 * 03:06, 17 November 2015 blocked Jytdog with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (please contact ArbCom or the functionaries team)
 * 22:04, 27 November 2015 unblocked Jytdog (per email discussion; has promised not to repeat the relevant edit)
 * 1) December 2015 – Genetically modified organisms case closed
 * 2) * Jytdog and DrChrissy are placed indefinitely under a two-way interaction ban.
 * 3) * Jytdog is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
 * 4) * Jytdog is admonished for their poor civility in relation to the locus of this case.
 * 5) February 2016 – Jytdog's bullying over editing Craig J. N. de Paulo
 * 6) March 2016 – Grave threat of harm made by User: Jytdog
 * 7) March 2016 – Jytdog Enough is Enough!
 * 8) March 2016 – More WP:BATTLEGROUND from Jytdog at Berylliosis
 * 9) June 2016 – (Enforcer) Jytdog has lost objectivity in COIN
 * 10) June 2016 – Doxxing? "During the ArbCom there were 3 people outed! All 3 of them on the side that was challenging the Jytdog et al. It is logical to suspect foul play." คุก 01:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 11) June 2016 – Block #2
 * 12) * 17:34, 27 June 2016 blocked Jytdog with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (OversightBlock)
 * 13) * 19:51, 27 June 2016 changed block settings for Jytdog with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (OversightBlock)
 * 14) * 16:00, 8 August 2016 unblocked Jytdog (Successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee: He is warned that any further violations of the outing policy will be cause for a site ban. Unblock
 * 15) September 2016 – Disruptive editing by Jytdog; possibly article ownership or edit warring
 * 16) September 2016 – User:Jytdog removing talk pages comments based on their opinion
 * 17) September 2016 – Edit-war with jytdog over Teledermatology
 * 18) September 2016 – Verbal and Psychological Abuse of a female editor by Jytdog
 * 19) November 2016 – User:Jytdog reported by User:CanadaRed
 * 20) November 2016 – Jytdog
 * 21) January 2017 – Block #3
 * 22) * 04:15, 15 January 2017 blocked Jytdog with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule)
 * 23) February 2017 – reporting myself (and Jytdog)
 * 24) February 2017 – Arbitration motion regarding Jytdog
 * 25) March 2017 – request for block of user @Jytdog: to prevent him from removing valid edits
 * 26) April 2107 – Jytdog abusing WP:THREATEN
 * 27) August 2017 – Boomerang for Jytdog
 * 28) August 2017 – Unjustified reverting by User:Jytdog
 * 29) November 2017 – User:Jytdog
 * 30) December 2017 – Jytdog Ban breaking/request of Enforcement and further actions
 * 31) January 2018 – User:Jytdog reported by User:Prokaryotes
 * 32) February 2018 – GLAM / WIR / COI
 * 33) April 2018 – Malicious editing and AfD actions by Jytdog
 * 34) June 2018 – User:Jytdog
 * 35) August 2018 – User Jytdog Misconduct.
 * 36) August 2018 – User Jytdog Should Be INDEFINITELY Blocked
 * 37) September 2018 – Jytdog (yet again) and Yakult
 * 38) November 2018 – Unnecessary block caused by Muse (disambiguation) content dispute and User:Jytdog's harrassment
 * 39) November 2018 – Block #4
 * 40) * 20:47, 27 November 2018 blocked Jytdog with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Clear violation of our harassment policy - see Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Off-wiki contact)
 * 41) * 21:13, 27 November 2018 changed block settings for Jytdog with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (The block is excessive for a first asserted violation of the policy at issue. This is a generally good editor who has been sufficiently warned.)
 * 42) * 02:56, 28 November 2018 unblocked Jytdog (Participate in ArbCom case. Blocks are preventative. Likelihood of reoccurring in next 20 hours is unlikely)
 * 43) December 2018 – Arbitration motion regarding Jytdog
 * 44) * Block #5 07:23, 5 December 2018 blocked Jytdog with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, email disabled) (Enforcement of Arbitration Motion: must contact ArbCom to resume editing (Special:Diff/872117489))

Evidence presented by Kingofaces43
While Jytdog had a good track record of discussing with new editors having trouble with how Wikipedia works over phone/Skype (with permission), that approach was fraught. It's clear Jytdog finally realized why back in 2018 when they crossed the line into not even having direct permission. There's no excuse for that, and even though the person they called practically identified themself on-wiki, Jytdog should have known better.

However, WP:PREVENTATIVE is policy. Especially considering Jytdog has made it clear they're not even going near with-permission contact, a sort of no email sanction that's been floated seems to fit that policy. Those saying Jytdog shouldn't be allowed to come back doesn't seem to fit though, especially given the improving tack record two years before Nov. 2018.

History

Thryduulf's section about the GMO case partly concerned me due to lack of context, so I can at least comment on GMOs. There, only a few other editors were initially sanctioned because of being unable to handle the sheer number of tendentious editors in one case. Many of the remaining editors in dispute with Jytdog (about 12 at my count, most were disputing the scientific consensus on GMOs, etc.) later were sanctioned for battleground behavior when you look at the DS log for GMOs. Jytdog was active in dealing with pseudoscience topics prone to problems with battleground editors. That means their name was going to come up a lot at ANI because either those editors were causing trouble, or tendentious editors were pursuing Jytdog as you see in wbm1058's partial list. Generally, Jytdog was patient with editors despite issues trying to tamp down edit warring; Tryptofish gave a good even-handed description of this at the original GMO case

Even experienced editors quickly lost patience with the sheer amount of battleground going on in the subject (here's one later AE that summarizes the topic for me), so we do have to remember that many (not all) of Jytdog's issues there were confounded with sheer volume of problematic editors or those who were actively pursuing Jytdog. Their topic ban in GMOs did act as a baby with the bathwater approach keeping some other battleground editors out, but Jytdog at least respected it. Thryduulf mentions the 2018 AE report, but that wasn't a violation of the topic ban. Jytdog had been editing genetics since their ban, and we spent a great deal of time at the ArbCom case specifying the scope of the DS. Genetics as a whole were not supposed to be covered by the DS/topic bans, and the areas Jytdog had been editing related to CRISPR and gene editing were explicitly not supposed to be considered GMOs at the time. To include those subjects in the GMO DS/bans would have required a clarification request.

That can show how quickly this can get into the weeds if the focus isn't related to first two paragraphs. We do need to be wary of dealing with old inappropriate grudges against Jytdog vs. legitimate issues if they come back. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Jytdog engaged in disruptive editing practices
Jytdog opened an Afd on Ethics in the Bible, and it was downvoted and closed. 
 * He then deleted the content anyway. When asked by another editor, not the author, to not do that but to get consensus instead, Jytdog refused. mass-deleting content unilaterally
 * This was not unusual for Jytdog; it was the norm. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Jytdog regularly engaged in insulting combative behavior

 * Jytdog's main accusation toward me was that I was an evangelical practicing advocacy. He was wrong. This started on Christianity and violence that was flagged for bias and for needing a total re-write for good reasons. I attempted to make it more neutral by putting in balancing material. I explained to Jytdog: He didn't accept my explanation, didn't allow my editing, and followed me from then on, showing up on every article I attempted to work on, with nearly every edit becoming a battle. It shouldn't matter, but I am not an evangelical.  I value NPOV. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk777 (talk) 09:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC) Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Response to Comment by Smeat75

 * Jytdog could not have been trying to maintain a neutrality that didn't exist in the article where this began which was tagged for bias.


 * Please note, the quote is referenced and not my personal opinion. It references the Apostle Paul's historical views and beliefs.


 * Smeat quotes from my Talk page only shows I wanted to include everything about biblical ethics without leaving out something just because it happens to say something good about Christianity.


 * I object to characterizing anything I wrote as a sermon. I studied world religion, philosophy, and ethics at the grad level. I see the positive and the negative in them all.

Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC) Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Response to Evidence by PaleoNeonate

 * In the beginning I had to learn what Wikipedia considered good sources. Later on what Jytdog called unscholarly were scholarly works he didn't like because they were from religious publishing houses. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC) Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Jytdog's talk page trickery of new editors
Looking back through Jytdog's many disputes with other editors leads me to the talk page of Randolph Stone, a deceased quack-therapy practitioner. The article was being edited by someone using an account named Polaritytherapie and Jytdog quickly began hounding this editor on their talk page with what a third-party described as passive-aggressive trickery in an attempt to get them to out themselves. Evidence below.


 * Standard COI template placed by Jytdog
 * Editor responds to Jytdog
 * Jytdog hounds them saying their answer is insufficient
 * Jytdog provides them an example of someone else who self identified by posting their real name on Wikipedia, calling it "a beautiful example of disclosure".
 * Third party editor accuses Jytdog of trying to mind-game a new editor into self outing.
 * Jytdog denies the accusation, accusing third party of distortion.

I'm having a look at his other interactions to see if this is not the only example of this. ♟♙ (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Response to comment by PaleoNeonate
The continual excuse presented for Jytdog's behavior has been "but that person was an SPA guilty of advocacy". The comment you made as regards my evidence attempts a variation of this with "but Kindzmarauli *might* have been guilty of promotion". There's an extensive pattern of behavior here by Jytdog and characterizing his critic in that instance, who has retired from the project and isn't here to respond, as a promoter of quack science doesn't justify that behavior. The point made (which I tend to agree with) is that a new editor would be easily tricked and were expected to read between the lines. That's a pretty common mind game that lots of people in positions of power are known for playing. Taken with the entirety of the evidence above and below mine, I tend to see this interaction with the new editor as highly questionable. ♟♙ (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

General comment regarding other evidence, particularly that of Julia W
Julia's comments summarize a behavior I've repeatedly witnessed from Jytdog towards others. I don't have diffs at the moment, but the behavior she describes, particularly dropping edit warring templates on the talk pages of editors with whom he is in dispute (while engaging in edit warring himself) has been common and frequent. As I'm not offering diffs, arbs may feel free to disregard this particular comment. ♟♙ (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment on evidence by wbm1058
I will not go through links but from memory of instances I recall, I am convinced that very few of those resulted in sanctions for jydog. A better presentation may be annotating each with a short result. If the goal was only to count instances, it's unsurprising that people complain about him considering the work he's doing, when they cannot have their way. His block log is more informative (I acknowledge that there were previous blocks).

Comment on evidence by EnPassant
All links are about a single event. The claim that Jytdog tried to trick an editor into self-outing appears to be misrepresentation: Kindzmarauli was trying to put words in jydog's mouth he didn't say. His original post did link to an example disclosure while at the same time specifying that it was unnecessary to reveal their name: "... You do not have to disclose your name ...". Kindzmarauli, making the accusation, apparently retired as unable to promote (and suppress valid criticism), a possible motive: 1, 2.

Comment on evidence by Jenhawk777
In relation to Innisfree987's message: KDS4444 is now blocked for socking and banned for soliciting paid work, and accepted articles written by paid editors at WP:AFC violating WP:NOPAY. I would not say that Jytdog was mainly preventing productive editing.

In relation to FourViolas' WP:PRESERVE mention: it is not a license to accumulate everything: "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't ... appropriate ... belong in an encyclopedia", "Adding another point of view" (or removing an unscholarly one), this even includes: "Merging the entire article into another article", "Problems that may justify removal" with mentions of WP:V, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, WP:RS...

"Jytdog was fond of throwing people off his talk page": WP:NOBAN: "If a user asks you ... it is sensible to respect their request, although a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices ..."

About Jytdog's behavior towards Jenhawk777, it wasn't always smooth and he didn't always get his way either even if he often was right when contesting material that seemed to promote non-scholarly views. Some of his edits were reverted by other editors when he had to stop to avoid warring. A common problem is articles on notable enough topics to be preserved, but that mostly need rewriting (WP:TNT). Jytdog often tried to boldly fix those, I remember issuing him an "article rescue award" once. In relation to civility: he can sometimes overreact, apparently when tired and a break, or posting to a noticeboard, would be a good idea. Signs of impulsivity may show, like submitting an edit to then revert or retract it. Constatations of incivility does not justify the material he objects to, but if he is allowed to edit again, I hope that he will consider this comment (and a clear warning may be justified).

Comment on evidence by Adrian J. Hunter
The full thread in context shows that it was more than an issue between two editors.

Off-wiki contact
Relevant links:
 * Initial indirect complaint by Bilby and follow-up:
 * The initial edit that Beall4 made to the Specific carbohydrate diet article: Special:Diff/869474734 (note the edit summary, the on-wiki information Jytdog used)
 * Evidence of Beall4 struggling in relation to promoting health claims for a diet, with comments of various editors, and hoping to find someone to help, on talk pages: Beall4's, David Tornheim's and WP:TPG problems at the, Jytdog's, (civil) discussion on Jytdog's

Prior to the controversial phone contact, discussion seemed smooth and some evidence make Jytdog's claim to want to help plausible. Some justifiably find creepy that their phone number was not part of the summary or prior discussions, that Jytdog found it off-wiki using the on-wiki partial info, and that there was no explicit previous on-wiki agreement for voice communication. Jytdog admits that this was unacceptable in retrospection and promises to never do it again (some find this hard to believe).

WP:HARASSMENT would usually implicate "a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person", it's debatable that one call after some routine wiki interaction fits. WP:OUTING would have been posting information on-wiki or elsewhere public, that was not provided on-wiki, there appears to be no evidence of that.

An interpretation could be that it was someone editing in relation to their work, who supplied work-related information, who was then contacted at work, business as usual. I don't have enough information to really judge, some may do. If ARBCOM has access to private information, it's also part of their trusted role.

Worthwhile remarks: 1) unsolicited, 2) possible intimidation (plausibly felt, even if unintended), 3) history of previous similar issues, yet apparently all unique, 4) potential eventual legal implications for the foundation or some editors if this type of behavior is not strongly discouraged or forbidden, 5) similar to (4), simply to oppose this practice for project reputation, community and safety reasons...

At least where I live, apart from legal restraint orders, automated calls need to be addressed to a person by name, reasonable unsolicited non-automated calls are permitted, but must be stopped on request (to put the number on a no-call list, suggesting at least one previous communication). The content of calls obviously matters.

Jytdog and Jenhawk777
As user Ivanvector has linked to a discussion Jenhawk777 initiated on my talkpage, and as I was involved in numerous discussions involving Jytdog and Jenhawk777, I feel Jenhawk777's complaints about Jytdog need some context. Jenhawk777 spent almost all of her time on WP attempting re-writes of very contentious articles involving Christianity, The Bible and violence, Christianity and violence, Ethics in the Bible,Women in the Bible, etc. This did bring her in conflict with Jytdog, who felt that Jenhawk777 had a tendency to produce not encyclopedia articles but theological essays with a strong evangelical POV. Jytdog was trying to keep these articles neutral and encyclopedic, perhaps their manner was a little abrupt or rude at times but I think they were protecting the encyclopedia from inappropriate content. Jenhawk777, for instance, in the article Ethics in the Bible inserted the statement Same-sex attraction spelled the estrangement of men and women at the very deepest level of their inmost desires. This was in a discussion of the theology of the Apostle Paul, perhaps what is meant is that is what he thought, but that's not what it says, it is an unreferenced assertion in wikipedia's voice that gay people represent "the estrangement of men and women at the very deepest level", totally outrageous. In a discussion on Jytdog's talk page Jenhawk777 wrote, in reference to her goals in trying to re-write Ethics in the Bible '' Foundational concepts like human value and human rights--the Hebrew Bible is what changed the view of mankind and protecting the weak, the stranger, the elderly, and women and children. See, that is shifting in our modern day as people move away from the biblical ethic; society is shifting to a utilitarian value of man instead. Soon, they will be knocking off people who don't earn their keep anymore!! ...I want to say what ethics the Bible teaches. I want to write down the teachings that changed the world and made western society what it is today. I want to list--and describe--those ethical principles that are found in the Bible'' I don't think Jenhawk777 has any awareness that WP is not the place for such POV preaching. I said that a section she added to Women in the Bible was "like a Christian sermon" and Jenhawk777 took great offence, repeating in numerous places that I "attacked her for being a Christian", when I did no such thing. Saying that WP is not a place to preach a Christian sermon is not attacking the editor who did that for being a Christian. Despite all this, Jenhawk777 is a knowledgeable editor and a good writer, she listens to what people say and can adjust her edits accordingly. I never campaigned to have her blocked or banned, neither did anyone else, and we were all sorry when she retired.

I don't know anything about Jytdog's activities with WP:COI or WP:MEDRS where I believe they were most active, I only observed what they did on these articles on religion, where I felt their contributions were valuable.Smeat75 (talk) 02:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify - looking at that diff more closely I see that the sentence  Same-sex attraction spelled the estrangement of men and women at the very deepest level of their inmost desires. is referenced, it's a quote from a book. I still think that it was inappropriate.Smeat75 (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Xxanthippe
I was not aware of the 2018 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog, but when I heard at the end of 2018 that he had been blocked and had retired I was overjoyed as I has seen him in action elsewhere. When I hear in 2020 that he is seeking to return my heart sinks. Here is my tardy contribution to the renewed ArbCom case.

My own experience of Jytdog's behavior is not as extensive as those of some of the other contributors here, but based on observation of his interaction with other editors, it mirrors User:Julia W's Preliminary statement made at the 2018 case request, which statement I endorse strongly. Her shocking treatment by Jtydog is recorded below on this page. It seems that Jtydog has a predilection for bullying women.

In my own interactions with him I have been falsely accused by Jytdog of Stalking and Hounding  and I have been called by him  incompetent and corrupt.

The offense of Outing and Harassment outside Wikipedia that Jytdog was indicted for in 2018 would in some real world jurisdictions attract criminal penalty. It is unforgivable, and deserves a permanent ban from the English Wikipedia.

In his interactions with other editors Jytdog has a long and repeated record of recalcitrant behavior that is intimidating and bullying. He acts as an attack-dog with a ferocious zeal that would do credit to the religious police of a theocratic tyranny. He is not here to build an encyclopaedia but to indulge his proclivity for fighting and bullying. ArbCom should impose a permanent site ban. If it mistakenly imposes a lesser penalty, the ban should start from now, not from one year ago, so that his attempt to escape judgement in 2018 by retiring does not give him any advantage. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC).

Aggression
Jytdog becomes unacceptably aggressive when editors disagree with him. Spanning 2015–2018:, , , , , , ,. He often minimizes such behaviour, e.g. describing this comment to  AfD "Keep" !voters as him merely "venting". Or, he projects it onto his "adversaries". The most egregious example is his off-wiki harassment of Beall4 that triggered this case. Even now he states: "In the midst of a dispute with a new editor who was melting down...".

Beall4 wasn't melting down. Jytdog was. So much so, that despite previous blocks, topic bans, and warnings, he searched for her off-wiki phone number, phoned her twice without permission, got through the second time, became abusive and then hung up on her,. He now describes his behaviour as "dumb". It wasn't "dumb". It was reprehensible—a gross invasion of privacy completely contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia's privacy policy as well as intimidation and harassment. Had he done it to me, I would have gone straight to the WMF.

Falsehoods
Jytdog has falsely characterised the Beall4 incident and only admits to lying when caught out. He previously claimed the information was findable via "one step". He left a note on her talk page: "I tried to call the phone number for the "Nutritional Therapy for IBD" given in the NASPGHAN 2018 abstract book that you mentioned in this diff, but it just went to voicemail.". In the 2018 case he stated: "The conference page that the user pointed to, and indeed an organization advocating for SCD was listed there as an exhibitor, with a phone and address"

Beall4's edit summary (the "diff" Jytdog refers to):


 * "I have updated the core content. As a doctor of pharmacy with experience in analyzing and presenting medical data, and as an organizer of the "Nutritional Therapy for IBD" exhibit at NASPGHAN in which four of the referenced published authors participated..."

Oversighters, read this version of my 2018 statement detailing the off-wiki research he had to do and the falsehoods he propagated and still does. Summary: Voceditenore (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Beall4 mentioned no book and no date in her edit summary, or anywhere else. It took considerable searching on the NASPGHAN site to find the relevant PDF file.
 * 2) Beall4 provided no link to the book in her version of the disputed article
 * 3) There was nothing in that listing indicating advocacy for the Specific Carbohydrate Diet (SCD), or that it was an organization rather than simply the exhibit title.
 * 4) No name or even a job title was listed with the telephone number. Beall4 said she was "an" organizer not "the" organizer. Jytdog called it anyway. Why? Because further research, and only that, would have led him to conclude the number was hers. See also.
 * 5) He strenuously denied phoning her twice until caught out. He then described it as "remembering wrongly".
 * 6) He still falsely depicts his actions: "I had gone to the conference website to see what they were referring to. They had posted contact information there." No. Jytdog researched the real life identity of Beall4 and matched it to the anonymous phone number.

Evidence presented by Premeditated Chaos
Expanding somewhat on Voceditenore's evidence under Falsehoods, point 5. Jytdog stated that he had asked permission before calling, doubled down on that, then finally tried to backpedal it as a mistake when he was contradicted by a diff that he himself provided. I was quite bothered by this exchange at the time. I felt Jytdog was trying to pull the wool over the arbs' eyes and present himself as a victim of our alleged inaccuracies, when in reality it was Jytdog who was making a misleading statement.
 * 1) I commented that he had asked for permission to contact other editors in other instances, so he knew to do that, but chose not to in this instance. (Special:Diff/871253793)
 * 2) Jytdog replied with the edit summary "mistakes", asserting that he had asked permission, linking this diff, and stating that he felt Arbs were not "dealing with what actually happened". (Special:Diff/871263679)
 * 3) The linked diff is a message from him to Beall4 saying that he had already called and gotten voice mail, then he asks Shall we try to talk via skype or something?.
 * 4) I pointed out that the diff he had linked contradicted what he was now saying about having asked first. (Special:Diff/871267364)
 * 5) Jytdog replies stating that I had misunderstood the meaning of the word "recalled", and again asserts that he asked first, then tried to call. (Special:Diff/871268184)
 * 6) I called him out explicitly on the contradictions between his assertion on the case request and his own post on Beall4's talk page. (Special:Diff/871270199)
 * 7) Jytdog finally admits that he was incorrect and strikes his earlier posts. (Special:Diff/871271365)

Something that I didn't get into at the time: Jytdog never actually got permission from Beall4 to make phone contact, so even if Jytdog was correct and he had asked before making the first phone call, he still shouldn't have phoned without actually getting permission. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Jytdog is an extremely uncooperative editor
The above heading doesn't express the depths of my feeling on this. I removed my first attempt at phrasing it out of respect for the ArbCom process and to prevent getting myself banned for a personal attack. I find this statement very painful and don't have very much time over the next week. So I'll try this once. Arb's should feel free to remove this statement if it doesn't meet the requirement here.

I first ran into Jytdog AFAIK in June 2014 and have never been able to work with him, despite supposedly "being on the same side" of the paid editing issue. His extreme impoliteness alienates almost everybody, and as a result I believe his "my way or the highway" attitude has done more to hurt the process of paid editing reform than any other Wikipedia editor. I avoided WP:COIN for years simply because I didn't want to deal with him in any way.

I'll just give one example of our dealings. In Sept 2016 Mylan was the biggest news story there was (other than the US presidential election) over its price gouging on EpiPen. I added a short completely new paragraph at the end of the article on an investigation by the NY Attorney General of the company, sourced to the very reliable Bloomberg (for business stories at least). What followed is the simplest revert war in history.
 * He reverted it leaving "WP:NOTNEWS" in the edit summary.
 * I reverted his revert
 * he reverted
 * I reverted his revert
 * he reverted warning me about 3RR in the edit comment (that's his 3rd revert, following my 2nd)
 * I reverted him again
 * he reverted again (his 4th revert)
 * 7 consectutive edits

As I recall, I didn't report him to 3RR but had a mutual acquaintance intervene. And my edit was accepted by consensus eventually on the talk page. Every dealing with him struck me in much the same way. If that's how he deals with somebody "on the same side" of an issue, you can imagine how he deals with others.

No, this wasn't my best moment as a Wikipedia editor, but sometimes I (and other editors) just have to take a stand. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 00:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Toxicity and bullying
Jytdog is by far the most unpleasant, least collegial, and most toxic editor I have encountered. He bullies and browbeats people, especially newcomers. His behavior has changed not one wit over the years despite repeated complaints and blocks.

I can cite many examples, but here's is a sampling of his behavior at BP, when I myself was a relative newcomer:

Jytdog hid my response to a comment that he made.. "Collapsing tangent" was the edit summary.

I went to his talk page and told him "please don't do that." 

He deleted my request with the edit summary " please back off, you are all over me." And then he came to my talk page with a section titled "you are all over me," saying "please back off. all you do is attack me. thank you."'

Note that from the diffs above I did not "attack" him. I politely asked him to not hide my comments. The diff above shows my full exchange with Jytdog.

A few days earlier, I made a self-deprecatory comment on the BP talk page. It arose in a civil discussion, which can be found here. Jytdog seized on my remark and, misconstruing it (I was referring to the percentage of negative coverage of BP) flung it in my face on my talk page under the header "question":

"You wrote: 'I hesitate to give hard-and-fast percentages because I simply don't know enough about BP to do so.' How can you be, on the one hand, this openly and self-acknowledgedly ignorant, and at the same time so demanding and harsh in your discussion with people who know a lot more than you do? This is a really hard thing for me to understand. That is a real question, if you care to answer it."

These diffs are not recent. But we are dealing with an editor who has been a long-term detriment to the project, spanning many years. The incident that led to his ban is but the most recent example of longstanding problematic behavior by this editor, many dozens, perhaps hundreds of negative incidents and problems, no single one of which (until the telephone call) was sufficient to separate him from the project. Coretheapple (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Additional comment
See my preliminary statement of 3 & 4 December 2018. I felt at the time that we would be here again after memories had faded and that the 2018 proceeding should continue despite his "resignation." And lo and behold, here we are. Arbcom should consider whether Jytdog's behavior in 2018, his statement that he would never come back, his "scrambling of his password" and the supposed finality of his "resignation" were not carried out in good faith, were not intended to be final, and constitute WP:GAMING of the system that should not be tolerated. Coretheapple (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Evidence presented by FeydHuxtable
It's perhaps inaccurate to view Jytdog as a bad faith editor. They may strongly desire to be truthful, yet despite their exceptional skills, remain excessively error prone, due to intemperance.

Hasty editing to hunger
From a historical perspective, hunger relief has arguably consumed more human energy than any other field, save War itself. Even in an advanced city like London, there's at least 25 food donation collection points, to help local hungry people, within a square mile of where I live. (In supermarkets and offices). Yet Jytdog merged our hunger article to malnutrition – reasons why this was so objectional are here & here. They were so over confident, they seemed to think they could blend these huge scope articles in less than two hours. They messed up even at low level, for example leaving the Women section incoherent & largely useless to readers, which wasn't fixed for over a month.

Jytdog has a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jytdog&oldid=614828323#My_work_here "life-long interest in food." and "worked in soup kitchens and food pantries"]. Yet still made the blatant blunders. In this light, it's believable the false statements re the phone call were genuine errors. Not that they seriously imagined they could get away with doubling down on an easily disprovable lie, in the face of scrutiny from Arbs & other perceptive editors.

Beall4 a mainstream scientist
While there was a valid policy-based case to revert Beall4's SCD edits, they were phenomenally good edits for a newbie, largely inline with the POV from the latest systematic reviews. Without wishing to demoralise Jytdog's buddies, who mostly do a great job keeping quackery out of main space, their support of Jytdog is often excessive. For example, contrary to earlier statements, Beall4 never claimed that SCD is "among the most active and exciting areas of research" (which would be absurd). They claimed that about AI/BigData augmented study of the gut (which is correct.) Such excessive support probably amplifies Jytdog's apparent belief that their bluntness is justified.

Edit: removed subsection which Coretheapple was questioning. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Adrian J. Hunter
was a net-positive, good-faith contributor and academic who unequivocally left due to hounding by Jytdog. Jytdog would specifically revert DP's additions while leaving similar nearby content alone (eg). In my view, many of the reversions were due to Jytdog misapplying WP:MEDRS standards to WP:SCIRS content. I can't find the diff, but DP saw the community's failure to subdue Jytdog as reflecting poorly on all of us. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 09:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The contact info
Several people stated in the preliminary statements that the facts of the case are not being disputed. I thought that was true but some of the remarks above do contest them. In particular Voceditenore has made an argument that it was actually very difficult to find Beall4's contact information. . I deal with content in medical conference websites regularly in the real world, and it was trivial for me to find the information that Beall4 referenced in their edit note.

People have written some pretty intense imaginings about what happened in the call itself. I want to re-iterate that I when I reached Beall4 on the phone, I introduced myself, explained how I got their contact information, said that I recognized that this was probably weird for them, and asked whether they wanted to talk. If they had said "no", that would have been it. But they wanted to talk. So we started talking. I am not excusing what I did, but some people have been framing like this I called them up and just started yelling at them.

DennisPietras
I summarized the issues with this editor here. I tried very hard to show them how we edit about medical content and the problems their approach was creating. Some people could be great content generators but won't learn the principles for generating content here (something experts can really suffer from), and create bad content instead (search that thread for "autism"). When their effort to get community support for writing WP like they write scientific papers, failed to gain any consensus (see this and this) they quit. I felt bad about that, but this was really not the place for them, since they didn't want to write encyclopedic content. They wanted to write review articles.

Some things I am proud of
I debated posting a bunch of content I am proud of, but nobody is contesting my content work. So I won't belabor that.

I developed a series of templates to use, to open discussions with editors who - based on their edits - appeared to be driven by advocacy or conflict of interest issues. They are in my old sandbox here, with many variations. Here are some conversations that went really well -- the kind of thing I was aiming for -- here, here, and here, and a non-financial COI (a son writing about his father) here. In the last post, that person had used up all the patience of the other editors working on his dad's article, and was about to get topic-banned at ANI (closed case is here).

But nobody had done the simple conversation with him, about his COI and how it messes things up for him and people trying to collaborate with him, and what he should be doing. Once I did that (and he was in a place to listen), the situation improved. Not to perfection, but he was able to stay and contribute.

That is the kind of thing that makes me happy. It is also the kind of situation that draws me away from just working on content, to trying to help people understand better what we do here, and how, and even why things are like this. People write better, and behave better, when they understand those things.

It may sound weird to some of you, but that work is really about community building. Which is the kind of interaction I had been hoping for and tried to generate in a completely inappropriate way, with Beall4.

My behavior generally
I cannot contest that I get in disputes about content and WP policy. My interests are wide and I care very much about the fundamentals of what we do here. I've acquired enemies and angered people who could have been allies. And sometimes I am way too hot. That is all true.

I am probably at or over my limit, but I just want to end with this.

I know I have blown past policies that are not just policy but are really sacred to people. I had a series of breaches of OUTING (which this was not, although people have discussed it like it was) and I have not OUTED anyone since my last block for that, and as I have said before, I never will again.

The Beall4 thing was a completely bad judgement on my part.

And I get that it the community might just see my judgement as too consistently flawed - as me being too unable to control myself - to allow me back. I would understand that.

If it would bring comfort, I would accept a bar on me talking with anybody on WP about where they are coming from, limiting me to focus solely on content and never discuss contributor motivations. There is still tons of content that needs work -- our medical device content is thin and poor; many articles about drugs need rewrites, and our content on many basic infrastructure technologies (e.g. Paper recycling) don't help people understand how this actually happens in the real world, and I would love to work on that kind of stuff.

I would prefer to continue to be able to help the community manage COI and advocacy issues (as I did with the son writing about his father mentioned above, and as I did when I drove the community effort to address the EJustice situation here and in the prior AE case).

But again, I get it if you don't want me to go there. Or don't want me at all. Jytdog2 (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Jytdog bludgeons without discretion
What Jydog claims is that it is always for the good of the project that he gets too hot, crosses boundaries, and he wants you to forgive him on those grounds. I contest that by giving you an example of his misplaced crusading.

I'm an academic researcher, an admin here for 10+ years, an oversighter over half of those, a content creator, consistent avoider of drama, etc. I'm not one of the bad ones: you'd have to be exceptionally deluded to think I am. Without provocation, in two brief interactions (early 2018), I was in Jytdog's estimation "editing like a newbie", "edit-warring", "funky", "spamming", adding "nothing useful", and my behaviour was "unbecoming of an administrator". That's quite a rap sheet. Have I been fooling everyone else but him, all this time?

My disagreeable interactions with Jytdog are well-presented by in. I read a lot of medical literature on tyrosine kinases. As such, I contributed to osimertinib. Jytdog made some edits amongst mine, fixing small things I'd messed up in my unfamiliarity with MEDMOS. I didn't dispute or undo any of these. He then removed a paragraph, stating my reference wasn't okay. (I was uninvolved in the ensuing edit war over that.) A few days later I reinstated the blanked content with a better reference from a secondary source, thereby fixing the problem, and it's still in place today.

A couple of months later at rociletinib, Jytdog removed almost everything I added, along with 2 references I hadn't (diff, before my edits, after his cull). His edit summary vaguely implied his issue was my calling a section "Medical uses" – easy to fix, but he deleted en masse instead. Days later, I reinstated my edit; as far as I could tell, nothing was wrong with it except the section name and it needed another ref, which I intended to fix straightaway. Before I could, he immediately reverted me (in the same minute) (his edit summary: "spam. see your talk page"), and pasted a welcome template onto my talk. Being templated made me very angry; I removed it with an expletive.

Since he considered my edit "spam", I reinstated, and at the same time removed content about the drug manufacturer supplying the drug for special cases : a sentence added in 2016. Perhaps he thought I was trying to solicit business for a failed drug, through content I didn't even add...?

But he reverted me again, put an edit-warring template on my talk (as if he wasn't party to this exchange!), and then criticised me on the talk page of rociletinib. I remember feeling publicly humiliated. Read the conversation there. He says I added content from the manufacturer's website: I didn't. He says my edit warring and responses are unbecoming of an administrator, admits he has been following me around, references the edit war at osimertinib I wasn't involved in, as though it's my fault. He talks like I consistently edit in contravention of standards, like I'm wilfully ignorant. Note his condescension, the tone of high-mindedness, where everything he has done is generous and right and good (despite being incorrect), and everything I have done is bad and detrimental. It's ridiculous, a complete twisting of my contributions, a staggeringly unwarranted assumption of bad faith, and wholly blind to my history here. I was offended by the way he treated me; I'd been effectively punished for having wandered into his territory.

I left rociletinib as he wanted it, didn't touch it again, and avoided any remotely medical article from then on. Jytdog was demeaning, demoralising, and mean-spirited. I was made to feel useless, stupid, and unwelcome, so I dreaded ever running across him again. Life is hard enough without random internet malice to ruin your day.

I don't want to make out that I'm a decorated expert or that I'd have single handedly given us all textbook quality featured articles on oncogenic protein kinase pathways (neither are true), but I did consciously withdraw from improving articles, solely because of him, and I do think that's WP's loss. Are we building an encyclopaedia, or just policing it? And if he is welcomed back into the community he so clearly despises, I'll be forced to either put up with him following me around, blanket reverting me, and telling me I'm incompetent, or to withdraw again, to avoid conflict. He's not without usefulness entirely, but to me, he's a bully who doesn't have the will or the temperament to be here constructively. Julia\talk 12:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

A contradiction between Jytdog's statement here and his behaviour
Jytdog states in the section above mine, "There is still tons of content that needs work -- our medical device content is thin and poor; many articles about drugs need rewrites, and our content on many basic infrastructure technologies..." (emphasis mine) Rociletinib is an anti-cancer drug, and the article is sparse on information, like many of those often are. Isn't it ironic that he claims to care about seeing improvements to drug content but then actively chased me away from doing just that? Because he showed that he couldn't be even minutely collaborative or at least leave me alone, I then avoided making contributions to that very topic area. I believe I can't be the only one who sees a disconnect between his stated desire now, in an effort to come back, and his willingness to actually let good content be added to articles. And I welcome anyone to look critically at my contributions to osimertinib and rociletinib specifically, where he was so hostile, and judge for yourself whether or not his aggressiveness in wholesale removing my edits was even remotely warranted. Julia\talk 13:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment on evidence by Ivanvector
In his evidence, Ivanvector referenced this ANI thread from 2018. The thread boomeranged on the filer, with numerous editors acknowledging Jytdog's behavior was problematic but preferring to focus on the filing editor's behavior instead. I believe that ANI thread should be seen as evidence that the community has shown itself incapable of properly dealing with Jytdog's conduct. Numerous individuals who supported a one-way iban against the filer reasoned that if Jytdog's behavior was problematic, someone else would deal with it. What they may have failed to realize was that by silencing someone who had complained about Jytdog, they were creating a disincentive against anyone speaking up in the future. We cannot be confident that the community will hold Jytdog accountable if they resume problematic behavior after being unblocked. Far too often, the community "resolves" a dispute in favor of whichever editor has the most friends. I don't need to tell the committee that Jytdog has a sizable number of friends. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 20:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Response to comment by Alexbrn
Below, Alexbrn has written that [i]f some way can be found to focus Jytdog's energies on that and prevent recurrence of behavioural problems, that would surely be to the Project's advantage. That's a nice thought, but not a realistic one. Jytdog wasn't banned after just a few incidents. On the contrary, they had ample opportunity to refocus their energies and avoid behaving in problematic ways. It didn't happen. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 23:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Atsme
I can't begin to describe the humiliation, embarassment and anxiety that was brought upon me, in part because of my own stupid newbie mistakes, but largely because of the malicious actions and ill-will imposed on me by Jytdog. My love for Wikipedia, what it represents on a global scale, and the wonderful people and colleagues I've had the pleasure to work with are the reasons I'm still here. I was not going to participate in this case because I knew it would stir the worst memories of my time on WP - memories I wanted to forget but that a small few still won't let die - but above all, the outcome of this case will likely play a significant role in my future as an editor, so with reluctance I chose to provide evidence that demonstrates Jytdog's pattern of broken promises, unapologies and malicious intent. Based on my own experiences and what I've seen happen to others, I seriously doubt Jytdog will ever change his compulsive and rather obsessive bullying behavior, or the ill-will he has shown toward editors with whom he disagrees. His malicious behavior is not limited to COI, and is project-wide over many different topics. He may be on his best behavior for a few months, but revert he will and our trusted Arbs need to carefully consider at what cost? As a former recipient of Jytdog's apologies and harsh treatment, just the thought of him returning is disconcerting. Following is a small sampling of diffs - there are many more but I stayed within the limit.

Disruptive behavior

 * 01-10-2015 States position
 * 01-10-2015 Acknowledges differences; later proves well-wishes were contrived.
 * 03-26-2015 Targets editor (DePiep), admin shops, wikilawyers
 * 03-26-2015 Obsessive behavior
 * 03-27-2015 Profanity/bullying
 * 03-27-2015 Beligerence

Probed into my private life/business associations
His distorted truths and misconceptions caused me to be wrongfully branded as a paid editor.
 * 07-04-2015 COIN case against me
 * 07-04-2015 American paddlefish FA, COI tagged
 * 07-04-2015 Racz GA, tagged COI
 * 07-04-2015 Alligator gar GA, tagged COI
 * 07-04-2015 Sturgeon, tagged COI
 * 07-04-2015 Article I never edited tagged COI
 * 07-07-2015 warned about RL probe
 * 07-12-2015 Risker's advice re:ArbCom COIN abuse case
 * 07-12-2015 Arbs declined w/o prejudice
 * 07-26-2015 He took a break per ArbCom
 * 07-29-2015 Misrespresentations
 * 07-16-2015 WP:3O w/Tryptofish, Atsme said: ''"I guess the big question now is, can we believe his behavior will change?
 * 07/12/2015 - the diff that summed it up nicely.
 * 07-16-2015 Unapology 1
 * 07-16-2015 Unapology 2
 * 07-26-2015 Again admits to his anger toward me and another editor
 * 05-30-2016 Year later, says Like I said I have learned the boundaries of the community's tolerance on OUTING and believe me I have tested the limits of that in my COI work.
 * 05-30-2016 Again admits error w/Atsme

Malicious intent

 * 08-04-2015 - Jytdog participated in the ANI case I filed. He was obsessed with getting WP:AVDUCK deleted at my expense.
 * 08-06-2015 - misrepresented me to Bishonen
 * 08-09-2015 - created havoc on my TP; Bishonen advised him to stop commenting on my TP.
 * 08-09-2015 - disruption on my TP, diffs demonstrate that he went to TP of other editors advising to not show me kindness.
 * 08-09-2015 - others started taking notice.

Atsme Talk 📧 09:25, March 25, 2020

Some Positive Words
I would like to add Jytdog's user page: User:Jytdog showing his contributions to Wikipedia. Also please read User Talk:Jytdog to see the community thanks and those who felt he would be missed. Lastly for the record read: User: Jytdog/How an essay on Wikipedia and help for others. There seems to be lots of angry people against Jytdog but from my limited experience, all of the good and time he gave to this project needs to be remembered. Eschoryii (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

There are two sides. Those who hate Jytdog really hate him and sure are presenting "their pound of flesh". The community will speak but not under the stated "principles" of advancing a source of knowledge.Eschoryii (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

On medical content
Jytdog obviously blundered badly in the incident which triggered this case, and has had a forthright and sometimes abrasive approach in disputes which – since he edited in a lot of politically charged areas – has evidently got him a lot of enemies on Wikipedia in addition to those who consider just behavioural questions.

However, his content editing around topics with WP:Biomedical information was superb and in WP:WHYMEDRS he has given the community an excellent resource for helping editors to understand our medical sourcing guidelines. He is obviously completely comfortable with medical sourcing and writes to a high level and is industrious; time and again when I look at the editing history of medical articles Jytdog's hand is in evidence straightening out past problems (I am thinking of some potentially tricky topics like Electroconvulsive therapy, Finasteride and Ketamine).

In my view the quality of medical content is one of the most important considerations for Wikipedia. If some way can be found to focus Jytdog's energies on that and prevent recurrence of behavioural problems, that would surely be to the Project's advantage. Alexbrn (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Natureium
I'm surprised there aren't more people here showing Jytdog's contributions. I acknowledge that despite seemingly acting in good faith, he can be very difficult to work with. I do hope that after a year away from Wikipedia, he may have gained some perspective and be more willing to work with people. If he's willing to go through this arb case and see everyone post their opinions about what a terrible person he is, at the very least he seems to strongly want to return to editing despite the personal cost. What Jytdog needs to learn is that by caring so much about the quality of the encyclopedia at the expense of compromising with others, he's driving people away, which decreases the quality of the 'pedia.

That all said, he has more than 85,000 edits to mainspace, many of them in medical articles, and I don't have time to be digging through years old diffs of someone with that many edits. I do recall Jytdog being very responsive to requests to help at WTMED. In one instance, I posted on WTMED about a pseudoscientific article scheduled to be featured on the front page, and Jytdog largely rewrote the article using MEDRS sources. I'm sorry that I don't have the time to go through and list a bunch of specific examples, but the fact that he has made 85,000 mainspace edits, as well as more than 2,000 edits to WTMED collaborating with other editors, says something in itself. Natureium (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Infidelity to cites
Jytdog appears to believe that fidelity to actual cites is merely “tactical”, to use his own word, and has added sources apparently based on simple keyword search which prove to be the opposite of what he represented, and then edit warred to keep the same cites out of the article with their actual implications.

This run of edit history shows a representative sample of this, and other issues. Similar patterns can be found on several other articles.

Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.