Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Proposed decision

Comment by spryde
Remedy 3.3.3 seems overly complex and easy gamed/gotcha'ed. If that many restrictions need to be placed on an editor, there should be a strong consideration if the editor is worth all that.  spryde |  talk  16:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Barkeep49
For proposed remedies 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 how does the COI topic ban intersect with the Jytdog's contention that the inciting incident with Beal was not COI, ? If allowed back would Jytdog be permitted to engage in the kind of work they'd done with Beal (outside of the phone call obviously)? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC) Also in 3.3.2 I think I think should read. Otherwise it appears Jytdog may email people who've set that up but not leave talk page messages? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've made your change to 3.3.2. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

When the case request was opened I was pretty open to the idea that 16 months would be a fair "time served" penalty for the transgression. Then the evidence started coming in. For me, as seemingly with the Arbs, the one two punch of Julia (the impact Jytdog can have even on well established and well connected editors) and Smallbones (who really should be an ally for Jytdog) put me firmly in the banned camp. However, I really do think Brad's and Xeno's point about need to setup a path for Jytdog to return to the community - as he is not a bad faith actor deserves a reckoning. I hope the Arbs add to this decision in that regard. For me it would be about a firmer commitment to change in the ways that produced Julia's and Smallbone's evidence. I do, however, respect those like GW who suggest no such path should be given owing to Jytdog's repated issues in violating our harassment/outing policies. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Thryduulf
Overall this is a good proposed decision, I want to raise just a couple of small points:
 * Remedy 2.1 Point 2 and remedy 2.2 point 3: These should both include an explicit exception for emergency@ to avoid any theoretical issues should he need to use it (at least some of the people who respond to that email address are enwp editors in addition to their role at the Foundation).
 * Remedy 2.1 Point 3 is not brilliantly worded (what does being limited to a restriction mean?). The easiest way to solve this would be to replace the world "limited" with "subject". Actually Remedy 2.2 point 4 seems to achieve the same goal with clearer wording overall. Thryduulf (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Finding of fact 1: in the note added by Maxim, "now using as Jytdog2" should be either "now using Jytdog2" or "now editing as Jytdog2" - "using as" doesn't make sense. Thryduulf (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for spotting that. Clearly I tried both constructions and split the difference?  Maxim (talk)  19:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the wording in the second, and added an exemption for Trust & Safety (which should cover emergency@ as well as a few other cases). Thanks for the feedback. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Pbsouthwood
,
 * 1) Am I correct in assuming that your suggested remedy would constrain Jytdog to edit content only in draft space in articles he creates, and to only discuss anything at all on his own talk page? If so, I would suggest modifying that to allow him to discuss draft articles he creates on their own talk pages too, as that would keep discussion history for such articles with the article if/when it gets moved to mainspace, at which time I assume Jytdog would no longer be allowed to edit either the article or the talk page.
 * 2) In the event of a breach of these conditions, would the correct response be an indefinite block under discretionary sanctions?
 * 3) Jytdog has enemies. Some may attempt to goad him into inappropriate behaviour. How do you propose to manage this? Discretionary sanctions for all pages he is allowed to edit as stipulated above? &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 21:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If my suggestion had gained any traction at all, you’re right that some tweaks are probably required to prevent gaming on either side. And yes, draft talk was implied, but would need to be specified to be clear. Thank you for tossing my idea around in your head. –xenotalk 23:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It is worth considering as conditions for unblocking for a probationary period if a future arbcom feels the urge to unblock.&middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 07:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Jytdog
Looks like the decision is made. I just wanted to thank the committee for opening the case and working through this. Jytdog2 (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Pine
Given the choices of two sets of multiple restrictions and one option for an indefinite ban with options to review at 12 month intervals, and several comments about a pattern of problems from this user, I understand the Committee's current preference for the latter. Giving the user 12 months to work on self-improvement is something that makes sense to me given the many comments about prior issues.

An issue that is continuing to give me significant pause is phoning someone regarding an on-wiki issue without asking for permission in advance. That's a risky thing to do even in good circumstances, and there's something to be said for trying to limit recurrences and trying to deter other users doing the same thing. ↠Pine  (✉)  06:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Responding to comments from and : If Jytdog requests permission to return, I have every reason to think that if the request is granted that it will come with extensive restrictions, such as limiting the user to editing in their userspace and writing article drafts for the first several months. I doubt that a future Arbcom or the community would be willing to accept Jytdog back without restrictions in place and an understanding that any future violations of a similar nature are likely to result in a ban which is permanent.  ↠Pine   (✉)  17:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Questions from Nick
Regarding a path to return, he has the same one that is open to the dozens of editors who are indef blocked every day: start contributing to other projects and show that he can do so without the same problems resurfacing.


 * 1) I'm curious as to whether our Arbitration Committee finds it appropriate that a user who has been indefinitely banned from English Wikipedia for off-wiki harassment should be encouraged to edit other projects, particularly as the majority of sister projects lack an Arbitration Committee or other body who could effectively handle any off-wiki harassment should it occur on (or via) those projects. I would particularly appreciate s thoughts on this, as it's their comment I'm quoting initially.
 * 2) I'm also curious as to whether  considers it appropriate for the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee to make sister projects, which are arguably more open to off-wiki harassment due to the absence of an effective reporting and managing body such as the Arbitration Committee, part of a process which could allow Jytdog to appeal their indefinite ban. I'm also curious as to how WMF Office sees an indefinite ban for off-wiki harassment on a single project in light of continued access to functions such as Special:Emailuser on those sister projects. What is the trade off between protection users from off-wiki harassment through placing a global ban, and allowing individual communities to control their own affairs, and how that works when a number of communities have no effective way to handle some of the issues raised here.

-- Nick (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This actually used to be standard advice not just for bans but regular blocks, but has generally fallen out of favor in recent years. It is my understanding that this is at least partially because some of those projects explicitly asked us to stop advising it. That being said, a sanctioned user could make that deduction themselves and just move to another project whether we said so or not. I would also point out that this was one comment from one arb, and not part of the actual decision. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I know it used to be standard advice, and it's not unreasonable advice when it's an editing issue or a copyright issue, where getting involved in different projects with different editing cultures, copyright experts etc, can round off a somewhat jagged user who has earned themselves an indefinite block here. I don't really recall it ever being something we suggested when it was a serious and significant problem, particularly if that problem is not realistically solvable by some editing elsewhere for a period of time. Nick (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd flip your question around and ask whether it's appropriate for enwiki ArbCom to discourage editors from contributing to other projects where they are in good standing. If there's a need for a global ban, that's a matter for meta and the WMF, not us. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between encouraging a user to begin editing on another project, which is what Jytdog is being encouraged to do here, purely as a way to overturn their indefinite ban, and allowing a user already established and contributing to another project to use their work elsewhere to demonstrate an indefinite ban is no longer necessary or proportionate. Nick (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * @2601, I'm fairly certain there's a good number of administrators (and I suspect, an Arbitrator or two) who were, at one point, indefinitely blocked and/or banned, and have quietly returned to be a productive, upstanding member of the community, donating their time and in the case of Arbs, their sanity, for the cause of free knowledge. That is not something that can be encouraged or even tolerated with Jytdog, given their history of off-wiki contacting and their more general disregard for the privacy of their fellow contributors. It seems to be escaping the attention of some people, but anonymous editing, the use of pseudonyms and such like, is a way of allowing people to edit in contentious areas and/or to edit from locations where their employment or in extreme cases, their lives, may be endangered by being publicly linked to content being edited on Wikipedia. I remain as far from being convinced as it's possible to be that Jytdog 'gets' this issue, despite their talk around the issues. I say that with a heavy heart, recognising how good at content work Jytdog generally is, but when they go rogue, they have the capability of causing real world ramifications on their opponents. Nick (talk) 09:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments by 2601:648:8202:96B0:E0CB:579B:1F5:84ED
I think the phone call matter is long since resolved and there would be no obstacle to an unblock if it weren't for the extensive other history. Regarding the other proposed restrictions: I believe I've seen cases in the past where someone was banned and restricted, so that if and when the person got unbanned, the restriction would still be in force (unless lifted separately). Other times, I've seen unban requests at WP:AN whose outcome was to unban the person but under restrictions proposed during the AN discussion. In this case, I'm guessing that extending the ban without enacting any other restrictions is intended to leave the question of restrictions to the participants of a future unban discussion. 2601:648:8202:96B0:E0CB:579B:1F5:84ED (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Meh, that view reflects a Wikipedia fairly far along the path of bureaucraticization. In the old days there was a tacit (and sometimes acknowledged) acceptance of quiet returns as long as the person stayed out of trouble. It made for very genuine rehabilitations of problem editors. Quiet returners would still have stylistic tells, so you could often figure out when one was taking place and who it was, but people noticing would keep the knowledge to themselves unless the person got in conflict again, at which point they could pull the plug. The returner understood this, so would be very careful to stay drama-free. Then eventually, certain editors (specific usernames come to mind) decided that they wanted to be "that guy" at every opportunity, since after all, in a proper bureaucracy, rules and policy completely take priority over good contributions and writing an encyclopedia. So we got the de facto situation you're describing, though it's never been the case that everyone liked it. 28bytes some years ago was elected to arbcom with the highest vote count of any candidate that election, and then someone noticed he had expressed tolerance toward quiet returners on an off-wiki forum. There was a big kerfluffle and he had to decline the arbcom post that term. He later ran again and was elected again, by people who remembered the kerfluffle perfectly well. His re-election tells me that the viewpoint he supported was, at minimum, philosophically legitimate. So as I see it: NOTBURO. 2601:648:8202:96B0:E0CB:579B:1F5:84ED (talk) 06:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC) I commented above about quiet returns. Another possibility (I don't know if past practice supports this) would be for jytdog to appeal privately to arbcom after 12 months, with the possible outcome that he is allowed to create a new account whose identity is disclosed to arbcom and CU but not published. There could still be restrictions or probation in force. I remember Eric Corbett changed accounts and edited hassle-free for a while some years back, but then word got out and the usual drama erupted. I don't know what private discussions (if any) he engaged in before the account change. But I thought that it at least temporarily worked ok. 2601:648:8202:96B0:E0CB:579B:1F5:84ED (talk) 06:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC) thanks for taking this gracefully. If you return to editing someday, I hope you can stay completely away from areas of significant conflict. Your supporters who wanted you back in those areas were imho not doing you any favors. 2601:648:8202:96B0:E0CB:579B:1F5:84ED (talk) 07:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Mz7
I also find Maxim's statements about socking extremely problematic. Bradv is 100% in the right here. Yes, if a banned user creates a new account and initially edits far away from the topic areas that led to their ban, it is difficult for us to detect them—but that doesn't make it right. If a user's disruptive behavior was limited to a specific topic area, then the correct solution from a policy standpoint would be to issue a topic ban from the relevant topics. When we ban a user from editing the entire site, we are stating that there are issues with the editor that have the potential to extend to the entire project. We are saying that the negative costs associated with a user's participation in the entire project outweigh their contributions. These costs are not just associated with the account or with a specific topic area, but rather the person behind the account.

By encouraging editors to create new accounts in violation of their bans for the purpose of a "quiet return", we risk allowing the user to further their disruptive behavior while also inhibiting our ability to scrutinize the account. Perhaps past "bespoke remedies" have failed, but imagine the frustration and wasted time for the community and administrators if the "go ahead and quietly sock" remedy fails. We would have to start the entire dispute resolution process from scratch. I hope that this view encouraging evasion of scrutiny is not reflective of that of the committee as a whole. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 03:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

isaacl's section
While I acknowledge the essay on a quiet return reflects what can happen in practice, I also join those in saying the community should not give this approach the status of a recommendation. In my opinion, a quiet return is more likely to be beneficial with editors who realize on their own what it would take to resume editing quietly. isaacl (talk) 03:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment by qedk
Just noting that quiet returns are very rare for any editor and virtually impossible for editors not in good standing as other editors are on the lookout for such editors (me included, albeit if I have to ask them for their old account, I don't consider that a finding) as WP:SOCK dictates. Either way, the case just seems to be a natural procedural outcome that would have happened before as well, the committee did not consider the aspect of "time served" (or maybe ruled it inconsequential, who knows why) it seems. Regarding Xeno's oppose vote for the indef, it is actually somewhat likely that an appeal with be accepted, the committee has unbanned all sorts of sockmasters before, including people in a position of trust, with or without community feedback, even when eliciting feedback, ignoring very important aspects of the consensus and making the unblock, so yeah. What I am confident is that if community feedback is sought, it is unlikely to ever be in favour of Jytdog. -- qedk ( t  愛  c ) 06:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment by Nsk92
I am relieved to see that the site ban passes with a significant majority. However, the case decision, as it stands now, would be incomplete since it says nothing about any conditions for Jytdog's return to editing if and when the site ban is lifted. IMO, there needs to be an additional remedy included in the decision which says something like this (the text is largely taken from remedy 2.1):

If and when the site ban is lifted, Jytdog is subject to a [some specific period, in years] topic ban from all matters related to conflict-of-interest editing. This includes investigations of and allegations against other editors, and edits to the COIN noticeboard and its talk page. If he is concerned about COI editing, he may contact the Arbitration Committee or the functionary team by email, without restriction.

Without such a remedy Jytdog may be unblocked a year from now with no editing restrictions, and then the whole cycle could begin again. Nsk92 (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Any future Committee will have this case available to them when making an unblock decision, with all the evidence therein. I don't think I'd want to set any restrictions on their future decision, not because I think they might unblock freely, but because I wouldn't want to set a "minimum" set of restrictions that they would then assume is enough. I'd rather that committee had a free reign to make that decision in the way they wish. I fully expect they would consult with the community on such matters too. WormTT(talk) 17:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I understand your argument but I think in this case, similarly to sanctions related to other ``unblockable" users, the greater danger is that an unblock after the site ban is lifted will be either unconditional or will have inadequate and insifficient restrictions. The community input in such situations, where an ``unblockable" editor is involved, follows a familiar pattern that we see in ANI and RFAR threads related to this case. There is always a large group of defenders trying to understate and minimize the conduct in question, and consensus is near impossible to attain. That's why these situations tend to fester for years and years. It is much better to specify now a minimum set of editing restrictions for any unblock in this particular case. The wording of such a remedy could make it clear that these are necessary but not sufficient restrictions for an unblock if and when the site ban is lifted. I also agree with SandyGeorgia regarding the scope of the topic ban. Nsk92 (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We aren't able to bind future committees to follow our instructions. So there's that. They could simply vote on their own ideas and go with those no matter what we say now. I would expect and hope that, were a future committee to seriously consider lifting this ban, they would look to the restrictions that were proposed here as a starting place for any appeal.The committee does try to keep some institutional memory going about things, sometimes drawing on the knowledge of persons who were arbs during a previous case for background. I doubt this will all be lost to the fog of history anytime soon. When he is first able to appeal, a year from now, many of the same arbs will still be on the committee. For now he's banned entirely so this is all entirely hypothetical. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment by SandyGeorgia
Before the arbs close this case, I hope they will heed the suggestion above by Nsk92; however, I suggest that COI editing should not be the only area covered. It should include COI editing, medical editing, and avoiding any previously targeted editors. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)