I don't enjoy arbitration cases, let alone the process of filing one - I'll make this short and to the point. Jytdog has acted in a grossly inappropriate manner, as described at Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Off-wiki contact, and I believe this falls short of our harassment policy. I don't enjoy blocking editors, and having Jytdog unable to edit the project will be a loss, but something needs to be done, as our unwillingness or weak actions give the message that we don't care, and that behaviour like this is acceptable.

I blocked Jytdog indefinitely per their previous blocks. This block was reduced to 24 hours by BD2412, citing a first offence. I don't think this is the case because of the previous Oversight and blocks reserved to ArbCom which involved private information. As this case involves information which administrators who are not functionaries cannot access, it is explicitly within ArbCom's remit.

(I don't think that BD2412 did anything against policy here, but as they reduced the initial block, I'm adding them as a party and ArbCom can keep or remove them.)

I ask ArbCom to review Jytdog's history with off-wiki issues and to take any action as they deem necessary.

Thank you for your time - TNT ^💖 22:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EdChem: Thank you for the direct questions, I am of course happy to clarify:

Why a block justified more than four hours after Jytdog had stated twice that he would not make such a call again?

I have no faith in empty promises - we've heard "I won't do it again, honest!" more than once. I dislike speaking of a colleague in such a way, but I still genuinely believe actions such as these will be repeated in the future.

What part of the harassment policy was clearly violated?

In letter, I'm relying heavily on the section 'Off-wiki harassment', in spirit it's fairly clear we shouldn't find a work phone number of another editor and ring them. We shouldn't need a section to our harassment policy which states that, but by golly it looks like it's going to have to be added.

On what basis was an indefinite block justified by the discussion you cited?

Tony actually puts it as well as I could - third offence, previous two being indefs. I'm a big supporter of the whole "indef isn't infinite", to me it means blocked until a successful unblock, nothing more.

What the block was supposed to prevent and how, given it did not limit Jytdog's ability to make phone calls and he had already undertaken not to repeat his action?

A good question, and I made it very clear I did not want my block to be perceived as WP:PUNITIVE - obviously I don't have the ability to prevent anyone from making phone calls, but I do have the button to stop edits to Wikipedia. Does this stop off-wiki harassment? No, it does not. It does send a clear message, it is a sanction and is explicitly mentioned as a remedy in the harassment policy ("As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely."

I hope these go some way to clarifying why I took the actions I did. - TNT ^💖 08:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EdChem: Again, thank you for your comments. I'd like to respond to just one element of your statement for now;

"The second reason that I think your actions appear punitive is that you declared a "clear violation" of the harassment policy in the block log entry and made no mention of earlier incidents, but now declare that you are relying on its spirit."

I stated above, unequivocally, that "In letter, I'm relying heavily on the section 'Off-wiki harassment'" - my actions were based both on my understanding of the 'letter of the policy', which again I believe was violated, and the spirit in which it was designed (i.e. to protect our community against harassment of all kinds). I would not have made such a block, with such a log entry, if I did not feel the policy by letter had been violated.

As for not mentioning previous incidents in my block log entry, I'd state that was a mistake on my behalf - I truly believed it would have been clearly apparent.

Thank you - TNT ^💖 13:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a general clarification, it strikes me as rather odd there is some question as to these actions being acceptable - they're not, and this case wasn't created to discuss that. If we as a community feel it's A-OK to phone another editor using a phone number we found, without permission, then I'm not just disappointed but downright disturbed. The reason behind my rename and other changes was due to getting harassment over the phone - this upset me greatly and still affects me. I don't wish that on anyone, "good faith" or not. - TNT ^💖 08:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Shih: I was waiting for your comment, and whilst I respect your opinion on the matter, I'm disappointed you need to air your apparent dislike of me here of all places. Regardless, I will respond:

Did There'sNoTime block Jytdog indefinitely mostly based on their oversight block in June 2016 that was handled by ArbCom, of which the information There'sNoTime have no access to?

Other than being previously aware of the actions which caused that block, I can also view the revisions Jytdog has added which have been suppressed. I have access to enough information to make an informed decision. I do not have access to the full picture, obviously, but that's part of the reason we're here.

Do we block editors based on assumptions now?

No - I'm not sure what you do Alex, but I do not block editors based solely on assumptions.

To me this is close to being an act of intimidation which is equally a problematic behaviour.

I couldn't be intimidating if I tried Alex, and is definitely not the result I want from any actions I take here. I did what I did with the mindset of protecting the Wikipedia community - as pointed out, a block is physically fairly useless in preventing off-wiki harassment (whilst still having merits of a sort), yet it's listed explicitly as a remedy.

On a personal note Alex, if you have a problem with my conduct as an administrator generally, I'd really welcome a frank discussion on my talk page (or by email if you'd prefer) - these pot-shots are tiring - TNT ^💖 08:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: I just wanted to say thank you for "There is no acceptable reason for a Wikipedian to look up another Wikipedian's personal contact details to contact them about any Wikipedia matter, without an explicit invitation to do so, and just because it happens does not mean we have to tolerate it." - TNT ^💖 15:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jytdog

Context: The person whom I telephoned is a WP:SPA who has edited one article, Specific carbohydrate diet (SCD). Their first edit rewrote the page into an advertisement for the diet complete with the closing selling statement. The edit note refers to a specific conference. Their edit was reverted by me and then by another person. I gave them the WPMED welcome. The editor opened a discussion at my talk page, which you can see here. I assumed that what they wrote in that edit note was true -- that they are a "doctor of pharmacy" and understand the medical literature. As the discussion at my talk page was bizarre, I went and looked at 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. After a few days the person copied the discussion from my talk page to the article talk page, and sought a 3O. I removed that pasted content and left a link to the discussion at my talk page, and warned the person not to do that in the future. A few days later yet -- yesterday -- they melted down and ended up edit warring to restore the pasted discussion and requesting more 3O, as you can see in the history of the article talk page and their contribs. I filed an EWN case which is here, but it was also clear that the user was floundering, and I thought actually talking could help.

I first asked if they wanted to talk at their talk page, but given the difficulties they were having with the platform itself and the fact that they have never edited their own talk page, I was not confident they would even know to respond. I recalled the number from the exhibition booth, and went ahead and just called them. Please bear in mind, that this is a phone number that was posted for the advocacy organization for the diet, and this person had posted an advertisement for the diet in WP. I expected that they would want to talk, as odd as that might sound to folks here.

I introduced myself, and asked if the person wanted to talk about what was going on. The person said "yes". I would have ended the call, had they said "no". In any case, after they said yes, the conversation very quickly went south - what happened on the phone was pretty much a duplicate of what you see on my talk page. I allowed myself to get frustrated and abruptly ended the call. It is entirely my fault, that I allowed myself to do that.

After the call, I removed the request to talk, as it was now pointless.

So:

I called to try to help them -- that was truly my intention. I talk advocates/conflicted people off the ledge, a lot, on WP. Sometimes it goes badly. Often it goes well.
I should have waited to see if they accepted the invitation at their talk page, instead of just calling them.
I should not have taken the multiple risks of calling them, and will not use contact information someone does not themselves post on WP, ever again.

--Jytdog (talk) 02:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some notes
- So, I was ready to work through this, and deal with whatever the outcome is. However...
- I am upset by arbitrators writing that I went looking for the person's contact information, or that I called the person out of the blue in order to continue the dispute, or in order to argue with them. Not what I did, not what I intended.
- I find Opabina's and RickinBaltimore's remarks particularly hurtful. I suppose you enjoyed producing the rhetoric, Opabina, but you have dehumanized me.
- Mkdw's notion of a "case that reviews all of Jytdog's history with respect of off-wiki conduct relating to Wikipedia." is just.. bizarre. What does that even mean and how would we even do that?
- I understand the passion for privacy, which is a core value here that I share and respect. I understand the shock and dismay people feel about me contacting somebody at all, using information they didn't post here. Being passionate about the value of privacy, is not a license to write hurtful stuff about me or anybody else; especially not in this forum and especially not when you are an arbitrator.
- Responding to you again, Opabina. I understand you are identifying with the person I called, but I think anybody reviewing their approximately 30 contribs or who already interacted with them, will agree with the description of that actual person as "combative and unwilling to learn"; and no, I did not offer that description in defense of the interaction here. I fully own my role in initiating the call with that specific person, and in allowing that discussion to become a rehearsal of the dispute here. Not what I intended, not what I wanted. Then or now. I failed to keep my act together. I actually do keep my act together countless times here. There are people who are aware of that, as well as the difficulties I create for myself and others. I do fail. Too often.
- In any case, volunteer time is the lifeblood of this beautiful project. This has already taken up a lot of time, all over my inappropriate and failed effort to try to help an advocate, whose career here is likely to be very short no matter how much anybody tries to work with them. What a waste.
- I debated whether to just end this here and walk away from the project; as far as I can see this arbitration is derailed. More time on it is just more time wasted for everyone, and additionally I have no desire to be exposed to more of this hurtful stuff from arbitrators. But instead, I decided to write what I am experiencing and see what happens.... Maybe we can reset this, dealing with what I actually did.
- And let me just repeat, in case this arbitration is righted and if I remain in good standing in some way - that I will never try to contact another editor again, using information that they themselves have not directly posted here in WP. Jytdog (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Premeditated_Chaos about your statement ...completely failed to do so in this case.... see above where I wrote "I first asked if they wanted to talk at their talk page, but given the difficulties they were having with the platform itself and the fact that they have never edited their own talk page, I was not confident they would even know to respond....".

again it is very hard to see Arbs weighing on in this without dealing with what actually happened. I understand everybody is human and time-limited and makes mistakes (me included) but my sense of despair is deepening Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BD2412

The offense cited for this block was that Jytdog made a single phone call to a publicly advertised phone number of a new editor who was struggling with Wikipedia's policies, but who had provided no other means to contact them. It appears that Jytdog politely offered advice or assistance to put that editor on the right track. There was no repetition of this incident, no outing of the other editor's private information. Our own policy on harassment defines harassment (correctly) as "threats, intimidation, repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention, and repeated personal attacks" (emphasis added). Notably, off-wiki communication is not directly addressed in the policy; it only remarks upon off-wiki harassment, which is not separately defined, so must be presumed to mean the same as on-wiki harassment. Since no contact was repeated, and no threats are alleged, the assertion appears to be that telephone contact is inherently intimidating, but we have no policy saying that. If that is going to be our policy, then we should say so, and should address violations prospectively, rather than retroactively defining the term to mean that.

I would also note that our policy states that "[i]ncidents of wikihounding generally receive a warning. If wikihounding persists after a warning, escalating blocks are often used, beginning with 24 hours". Although it has been noted in various discussions that Jytdog has been blocked in the past for abrasive interactions, the interaction at issue in this discussion is completely different from anything that has previously been addressed, and should stand on its own. That being the case, the 24-hour block that resulted from my reduction of the initial indefinite block should be considered to resolve the issue. Trout-slaps all around, and let's not do it again.

Full disclosure: I did not consult this policy before reducing the block to that amount, but it happens to coincide, which is fine with me. I stand by the outcome. bd2412 T 23:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One additional thought: The question here is not whether Jytdog did anything wrong. Everyone, including Jytdog, agrees that his action in this case was wrong, and should never be repeated. He agreed on this point well before a block was imposed for it. The question is merely what response is appropriate, i.e., what purpose is to be served by the consequence imposed. If it is to prevent the disfavored behavior from being repeated, we have already accomplished that. I note that the 24 hour block that I left has itself been removed by another admin for the purpose of allowing for participation in this discussion, which I suppose became inevitable once arbitration was requested. That action has not been challenged, so clearly it is not a problem for Jytdog to be permitted to continue editing even while this discussion proceeds. bd2412 T 18:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ivanvector

This is certainly within the Committee's jurisdiction as it involves off-wiki communication which has been alleged to be unwelcome by the recipient (whether or not that constitutes harassment is being argued on-wiki), as well as previous private communication. I'll write more later but noting I agree with TNT's view that BD2412 was not wheel-warring. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that my close of this discussion from just a few months ago will be relevant if this is accepted as a full case. I noted in closing that discussion that Jytdog was continuing to wear the community's patience despite having been warned many times and having promised many times to do better. I have little opinion on that matter myself but the sentiment was evident in that discussion, and it is apparent that the sentiment has been building for some years. See, for example, this ANI discussion from March 2015 about Jytdog's incivility and alleged harassment, in which it was also recognized that his behaviour was inappropriate, he was warned and he promised to reform. The move to telephoning editors without invitation to discuss Wikipedia disputes is an alarming trend in the opposite direction, in my view, even if he believes his intentions to be good. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is another one of my "general comment"s. When one applies for a functionary position, a questionnaire is sent out privately which contains a preamble warning the applicant that their application, when made public, is likely to attract considerable scrutiny on- and off-wiki. It further warns that past applicants have had private personal details revealed, and employers and families contacted, among other unwanted attention. Applicants are then asked to confirm they want to continue with their application, noting these potential consequences. No part of this is consenting to this sort of contact - we're warned that it can be a consequence of the position, not advised that it's acceptable.

The reason I'm bringing this up here is that there are some editors who seem to believe that anyone who dares to edit here ought to reasonably expect these forms of abuse, as a consequence of merely editing; some are even saying that editing here implies consent for these unwanted investigations and forms of contact, as though Wikipedia:Communication is required extends to a person's personal life. Those editors are not just wrong but dangerously wrong. There is no acceptable reason for a Wikipedian to look up another Wikipedian's personal contact details to contact them about any Wikipedia matter, without an explicit invitation to do so, and just because it happens does not mean we have to tolerate it. Like I said somewhere else, someone who goes to the trouble of scouring public records to compile your personal information to contact you is already a creep, but are they a creep who just wants to talk or are they a creep that's going to send a pipe bomb to the factory where my brother works if I don't agree with their point of view? Need I remind everyone again that Gamergate started with fundamentally this same kernel: someone insisting on contacting someone else who did not invite contact to discuss an internet dispute. There is no form of this that can be acceptable on Wikipedia at all, and I hope that if nothing else the Committee will make a statement to this effect. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I realize I didn't explain well: I brought up the extraordinary messaging in the functionary application questionnaire to demonstrate that functionary candidates are warned about this unusually abusive behaviour. It should not be and is not taken for granted that all editors on the site should expect this sort of abuse. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore for what it's worth I endorse TNT's block as warranted within admin discretion, I don't disagree with BD2412's reduction although I would not have done so myself (noting the past oversight block and topic ban) without discussing the matter with anyone first, and I was going to log in this morning and suggest that Jytdog be unblocked to participate here so I endorse Kelapstick's unblock as well. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know my statement is getting long and if the clerks need me to trim it please let me know. I have two more incidents to add for consideration. After closing the discussion I mentioned above, a number of editors approached me to argue that my one-way interaction ban close was not sufficient and demanded that Jytdog should also be sanctioned (see ANI archive and my talk page). There was no consensus to modify the close, but strong opinions were expressed in that post-close discussion that Jytdog had already exhausted their more than generous number of last chances. That sentiment should be taken into account if the Committee is deciding on sanctions here.

Following that discussion editor Jenhawk777 contacted me asking to be interaction banned from Jytdog (she was confused about the process, actually she was asking for Jytdog to be ibanned from her) because she found his actions on several articles quite emotionally frustrating. Her request is archived here. I don't know who her "friend" is who directed her to the Andy Dingley thread, but by her contribs I determined that she was in a dispute with Jytdog over some articles on historicity of the Bible. I should apologize to Jenhawk777 that I was distracted away from her complaint (I don't recall by what, likely bees) and never did follow up on it, and so whether this is another case of Jytdog hounding an editor inappropriately or just content disputes in the course of editing a topic in common I really don't know, but this could not have been related to Jytdog's noted passion for COI or MEDRS at all.

I'm bringing up these two incidents as more examples of editors' patience being exhausted, and of individual editors (noting Julia W's statement) avoiding areas that Jytdog edits because of Jytdog's aggressive behaviour. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck per Smeat75's statement. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TonyBallioni

Given the subject matter and previous blocks, I think the committee should accept this as a private case. I’ll also state that I think both administrators acted in good faith and within policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KrakatoaKatie, the relevant motion is here that lifted the topic ban. It did include a strong warning on PII, however. That isn't directly relevant here, but it is related in my opinion. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EdChem: taking the liberty of speaking for There'sNoTime here, but I think the reason for an indef was that this was the third time something like this has happened (see Thryduulf’s diplomatically worded statement). Someone who has had two oversight blocks and was given a warning by ArbCom that if they came near it again they could be site banned should at least have had the common sense not to call a COI editor IRL. TNT’s actions here were reasonable in that context and his actions as well as BD’s in reducing the block should not be a focus of this case if it’s accepted: both of them were acting on policy as they understood it, and TNT’s reading of the policy certainly has consensus even if the words aren’t spelled out in part because until now we thought it was obvious.

That being said, I also strongly believe that people who have given a lot to this project should be allowed to explain themselves, which is why I support Kelapstick’s unblock and I think the committee should do something here, even if it’s an abreviated private case. Let people be heard and tell their side of it, then come to a conclusion on how to respond. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This’ll be my last response as I’ve said enough already, but just a general comment to respond to EdChem and RickinBaltimore: the policy basis for the block is As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely. Other than showing up at someone’s doorstep, I don’t know of anything that is more of an “off-wiki privacy violation” than calling someone’s place of work. We don’t spell out every possible violation or the harassment policy: we couldn’t possibly do that. We list clear principles. I think this is a bit to Worm That Turned’s point: the behavior was clearly not okay. Whether the intent was to harass or it meets the real world definition of harassment is not ArbCom’d question. The question is whether Jytdog acted in accords with our behavioral norms in this area and the principles in the English Wikipedia harassment policy. I think the answer there is no.

I’ve also been saying for the last 24 or so hours that Jytdog should be given the opportunity to explain themself and I don’t know what I think the correct response here is and am not advocating any particular sanctions, but this actually is a pretty big deal, and not something that should go away without a serious discussion by ArbCom. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

The Committee needs to consider carefully how much of this should be dealt with on-site, and how much handled privately. But I think that the reduction of the block to 24 hours was entirely appropriate, and the original indefinite block may require some scrutiny. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know whether the Committee will or will not accept a full case, but if you do, I will present evidence about what I said just above about scrutiny of the first block. Also, if there is a full case, you need to consider changing the case name. Recently, ArbCom has been avoiding case names that are the names of a single editor, in favor of case names that refer to the area of the dispute. In this case, perhaps "Off-wiki contact" might be better. ~~Also, I see a clerk note about adding a party, but I do not see that reflected in the party list at the top of this page.~~ fixed --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that Arbs are thinking about what role if any the Committee should take with respect to how policy applies to the requested case. In my opinion, ArbCom is not authorized to go beyond what the community has done, in terms of determining policy. Consequently, I would like to provide links to what I think are the relevant community discussions:

Most recent community discussion about blocking procedures for violations of the harassment policy: link.
Present-day ongoing discussion about what the policy has said about off-wiki contact, and what might need to be added to the policy: link.

--Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the Committee is considering a motion (or some sort of "shortened" case), I think you have to be careful here. Even if the facts are not in dispute, the interpretation of those facts is very much so. However you decide to deal with the on-wiki aspects of the issues, you need to leave sufficient space and time for community feedback and workshopping. I am very concerned about the danger here of rushing through it, perhaps because of concern over the seriousness of the harassment policy (which is an entirely valid concern, but one that nonetheless requires thoughtful rather than impulsive reaction), or about the fact that we are nearing the end of the year (which is a completely invalid reason to hurry). --Tryptofish (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr Ernie

Restore the indef and upgrade to a full arbcom ban. This is one of the most disturbing things I’ve ever seen on Wikipedia. Calling an editor whose number you snooped from a couple disclosures? Incredibly shocking and even more so that Jytdog thought it would be ok. This represents a fundamental incompatibility with what’s acceptable. I have sympathies per the long history of improvements to the project, but it is clear to me that Jytdog has such a deep seated COI about COI or MEDRS issues that they aren’t able to see when they’ve crossed a line. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Doc James

In my opinion it would depend on the content of that conversation. I have had an editor with whom I was in a dispute call me. It was not a big deal. Should we have a policy against such content, I think so as that form of contact can easily go sideways and does not easily leave a paper trail. Jyt appears to understand the gravity of his mistake. I am fairly certain he will not repeat it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iridescent

Per my comments on Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Off-wiki contact and Jytdog's talk page, I think this behavior is grossly unethical and totally unacceptable; however, I do feel that Jytdog genuinely believed they were being helpful and didn't realise just how inappropriate this kind of thing is. As User:Only in death points out at the WT:HA thread, we don't actually have a written policy forbidding this; as per my comments there I personally feel that the reason we have no written policy is because when the policies were being drafted, nobody ever thought it necessary to formalize something so glaringly obvious, but nonetheless there's a just-about-plausible "since it wasn't expressly forbidden I thought it was OK" argument. (To prevent any future incidents like this, we should put it in writing that this isn't appropriate; whether Arbcom wants to toss the call back to the community, invoke the To resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion clause of WP:ARBPOL and write policy directly, or punt the decision upstairs to Trust and Safety, is up to you.) I'd be inclined to agree with Doc James above that this incident isn't going to be repeated, since Jytdog is surely aware that there won't be a third chance. ‑ Iridescent 00:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(adding) Unless there's something in suppressed contributions or off-wiki evidence to justify it, I don't see the need for a case here. This is the kind of situation for which "deal by motion" is eminently suitable; given that I don't think anyone is going to question the legitimacy of the actions of There'sNoTime or BD2412 (regardless of whether they agree with them or not), ultimately there are only two people and a single piece of evidence involved. Consequently, all a full case will consist of is a long parade of whoever happens to turn up, each offering their own opinion on whether Jytdog should be blocked or not, and you already have the evidence to make that call on your own. ‑ Iridescent 01:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

I am aware of some, but not all, of the non-public context that led to Jytdog's previous blocks. In the light of that context, the comments by Ivanvector giving details of more history that I was not aware of, and the comments from other editors about this sort of behaviour in general at Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Off-wiki contact I believe Jytog has already exceeded the number of chances an editor can reasonably be given.

Harassment and/or behaviour that is or is reasonably and likely to be interpreted as harassing by the recipient cannot be excused. None of the quality or volume of your edits or the length of your tenure are relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do feel it important to say that I think BD242 was acting in good faith and was not wheel warring. However when an editor's block log indicates previous blocks based on non-public information, I would very strongly encourage every admin to check with those who have access to that information before removing or reducing a block, even if the most recent block was not related to non-public information (except where it is unquestionably unrelated). This is something arbcom should consider adopting as a principle or stronger. Thryduulf (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having read again some of the old private discussions about Jytdog on the Functionaries list, 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" - these threads go back years. Every single time Jytdog promises not to do it again, and while he doens't do the exact same thing again he does something equally harmful that is very slightly different (Opabini Regalis gives one good example but there are others too) - for the exact same reason we have WP:BEANS we do not need to spell out every single possible way it is possible to harass someone and explicit prohibit it. Editors have to be intelligent enough to realise that if you get in trouble for putting dog turds through someone's home letter box that you will also get in trouble if you then put fox turds in somebody else's pigeon hole at work. Jytdog has serially demonstrated he is not capable of this. When you give an AI a goal you have to explicitly train it about all the means that don't justify the ends - you have to teach it that running over the baby because that will get you a cup of tea quicker, you then have to teach it that this applies to all babies not just that one, and then you have to teach it that this also applies to toddlers, and then you have to teach it that it also applies to the cat, and to the dog, and that locking all the dogs, cats, toddlers and babies into the cupboard under the stairs so they aren't in the way is not acceptable either. This is the sort of thing that we will continue to have to do with Jytdog.

That the victim is (alleged to be) a single-purpose account could not be less relevant - the victim is a human being. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite: Why do you think a 30 day block will work this time when neither of the previous indefinite blocks did? Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite: So? His first two blocks were preventative blocks that did not prevent his most recent action, nor did they prevent all other other times he has come close to being blocked but not been. I don't see why an arbcom sanction would make any difference what so ever - his previous topic ban didn't prevent this either. His previous promises never to do it again haven't prevented this action. What other options does arbcom have? How many last chances does someone get? Thryduulf (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite: Jytdog has, on multiple occasions, promised not to engage in behaviour such as harassing and outing with the knowledge that repeating that behaviour will lead to serious sanction, implicitly including restoration of indefinite block. I'm not sure how many exactly were explicitly "last" chances, but there have been multiple that were implicitly so. Thryduulf (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: WP:BITE is indeed very relevant. However I've long given it up as a lost cause in relation to those users (including but not limited to Jytdog) with significant focus regarding COI, paid editing (disclosed and undisclosed), and allegations and suspicions thereof. This is not a good state of affairs by any means, but it's tangential to this episode. Thryduulf (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

This behavior is not excusable at all and should not be tolerated, especially by a person with a history of harassment. Just think of the chilling effect this could have. Am I now to expect a call or perhaps a visit at work to discuss my Wiki posts? I can't imagine how someone can think contacting a stranger on the internet via phone is acceptable. We need a strong message and harassment by Jytdog has gone on long enough. I also think the block should not have been reduced pending a discussion. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

Context: I've been doxxed by an article subject, had them phone my house in the small hours, I've had to get a court order to unmask an anonymous harasser. I'm not a fan of harassment. I've also had unsolicited calls from people trying to help (the editor of a magazine, for example, who knew one person who was creating grief). I appreciated that. There is a difference between reaching out in person and harassment.

I have spoken to Jytdog on the phone before, at his request, I do not think he is an aggressive person (very mellow, in fact, despite a distinctly heated exchange between us on-wiki) and I am inclined to assume good faith here: I think Jytdog was almost certainly trying to be helpful in the absence of any other way to contact the user. That said, it was a terrible idea. All admin actions here are 100% understandable and in good faith.

Unfortunately we're likely to see a pile on here from people who do not appreciate Jytdog's robust editing of articles related to antivaccinationism, quackery and undisclosed paid editing. You make a lot of enemies by opposing vested interests. Guy (Help!) 00:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 28bytes

I strongly agree with what BD2412 says above. I would add that both BD2412 and There'sNoTime made reasonable admin actions in good faith and I would not want to see either of them sanctioned or warned for their actions.

I do not think there's anything ArbCom needs to do here. For the sake of clarity the harassment policy should probably be updated to include a warning about unsolicited telephone contact. In almost any other context, calling someone on the phone to more efficiently sort out things when written messages aren't working well is a perfectly reasonable thing to do; on Wikipedia, for a variety of reasons, it is very much not the done thing, so this would be helpful information for new editors especially. Jytdog, of course, is not a new editor, but as he has promised not to do that again I don't see much benefit in having a case about his actions. 28bytes (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn's statement provides valuable context as well, and is worth reading.

A few people seem to be saying that calling an editor to try to help them when they're struggling with Wikipedia's not-always-intuitive messaging interface is equally objectionable to (or indistinguishable from) calling them to harass them. I don't think that's a helpful way of framing the situation. I think we can say "don't call people without an invitation to" without characterizing a particular phone call (or indeed all phone calls) as malicious.

I have reached out in the past to such new editors who seem to be struggling with communicating on-wiki, although I've done it by email rather than by phone; sometimes it does indeed help them get their bearings on Wikipedia more easily than an on-wiki conversation. Sometimes it doesn't. Let's not frame such outreach as unequivocal "harrasment" when it isn't. Better to just explicitly state in the harassment policy that unsolicited contact via phone (or Facebook message, or whatever) is often unwelcome and thus strongly discouraged. Let's fix this at the policy level rather than focus on one editor who broke an "unwritten rule" that is either "too obvious a violation to mention" or "fine depending on the context" depending on who you ask. 28bytes (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Davey2010

This was a terrible idea and was certainly poor judgement on Jytdogs part .... that being said it's certainly plausible that they simply tried to help the editor the best they could,

I feel his actions were done with good intentions and there was no harassment or malicious intent here, As noted above we don't actually have any sort of policy forbidding this so maybe one should be created,

Should the case be accepted (publicly or privately) ? - Personally I'd say no, Clearly it was done in good faith so in this specific case I feel this should be declined. –Davey2010^Talk 01:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with BD changing the block from indef to 24hrs - TNT and BD both acted in good faith but personally I feel indef is OTT but ofcourse we all judge things differently. –Davey2010^Talk 01:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Both comments updated/amended 19:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC))

Statement by RexxS

I've worked with Jytdog on numerous articles to help him clean up inappropriate contributions, usually breaches of MEDRS, so I do appreciate the work he does. On the other hand, I've been in direct and strong conflict with him in a case where I felt he was damaging a wiki-colleague (a Wikimedian-in-Residence), over allegations of paid editing that I felt missed the mark. During that confrontation, Jytdog suggested in email that he'd like to talk to me, but we never quite managed to fix up a Skype call before it all petered out.

I'm therefore aware of the store that Jytdog puts in talking though issues – and he's quite right that in real life, that's how problems and misunderstandings are best resolved, i.e. in real-time by two-way dialogue. So I'm not at all surprised that he would see the chance to talk as an "obvious" helpful step, and I have no problem assuming good faith on that.

What went wrong, IMHO, in this case is that Jytdog had been looking at the other editor's edits because of the problem of their posting possibly spam or promotional external links. Examining the content of the external sites linked, in itself, is perfectly normal (and actually vital) if you're trying to understand the nature of that sort of problem. It seems that one of the possibly promotional links contained a clear phone number which Jytdog saw. Where it went wrong was that he seems to get too involved in an issue and that clouds his judgement. He should have realised that using that phone number to make contact had the potential to blow up in his face. Most uninvolved observers would form that conclusion, I believe.

Having said all that, I sincerely believe that Jytdog has now come to his senses and understands how bad an idea that phone call was. I only hope he'll give us some reassurance that he now understands how he sometimes allows himself to be so involved that he can follow a bad idea like that, and that he'll be particularly careful to recognise how it can happen, and will take measures to reduce the chance of anything like it ever happening again. Heck, I'll even offer to take a Skype call from him myself if he wants another opinion when he has another idea like this last one. --RexxS (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by olive

Simply put: I don't support an indef. I would suggest a line has been crossed and I would assume Jytdog realizes he went too far. Above all our first consideration must be to treat other editors with respect and patience as if we want them to stay around. We are editors but we are also the ones who help train new editors - support them. It takes time and may be frustrating but that's part of the job in my opinion. ~~And while the end never justifies the means, as I said, a sanction is probably not necessary this time~~. Littleolive oil (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kelapstick

I’ve unblocked Jytdog, as noted on his talk page. Blocks are preventative and the likelihood of reoccurance in the next day is nil. Now he can participate correctly.

Related to this request. Jytdog, while a villagant combatant of COI, has been down this road before (oversight blocks are nothing to take lightly), and so far as I know, the topic ban mentioned by KK hasn’t been lifted. Simply put, he should know better.

Thanks to those pointing out the lifting of the topic ban. The fact that a ban is lifted does not mean that a user should not tread lightly in formerly problem areas. Even if there are no active sanctions. —kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Montanabw

While I can appreciate that Jytdog cares about the issues where he edits, and on at least one issue we agree, I think his behavior in this instance, however provoked he thinks it may have been, went over the top. If we don't have a policy that "off-wiki communication which has been alleged to be unwelcome by the recipient" is unethical, then it's high time we get one.

Jytdog has exhibited this pattern for years of being unable to cool down when he is challenged, and he can't hide behind MEDRS as an excuse to be a vigilante. We all get tired of the various tendentious editors we come across from time to time, but that's what article protection is for. That's what ANI is for. That's what AIV is for. That's what SPI is for. What happens on wiki stays on wiki unless BOTH sides agree otherwise.

To be clear: If someone enables email, they agree to be contacted via email. But unless we create a little checkbox that says "here is my phone number and I consent to be contacted via telephone," then HELL NO, we don't breach the anonymity of Wikipedia. No one should just be called up out of the blue unless they have previously agreed to such contact via an agreed-upon method.

A gray area is if someone does post their name or phone number on their userpage or something. But personally, I still think it is wise to never initiate contact with another editor that I know only via WP other than with the "email this user" feature.

I mean, in some jurisdictions, including where I live, unwelcome contact triggers the warning provision of the stalking statutes. (and the intent of the initiator is irrelevant.) If I tell person X, "do not contact me again" and they contact me again, it doesn't matter a flying f--- what they say, it's my privacy that is to be respected. Their behavior is enough for me to to file a stalking complaint in my jurisdiction.

All that said, maybe Jytdog meant no harm, but he's got to learn how to dial it back. I am not certain what the appropriate sanctions on Jytdog should be at this point, as I have not reviewed the situation fully, nor at the moment do I have time to do so. BUT, this is classic Jytdog: disagree with him and if you don't completely roll over and play dead, he just keeps upping the ante until he goes nuclear.

As far as whether Jytdog needs to be indeffed, or given a 12-month ban, or just have an assigned nanny to remind him that it's sunset and sing kumbayah, something has to be done to get it through his head that no matter how passionate he feels, he has to quit being such a bully. His block record speaks for itself. He goes in cycles and it's time to break this infinite loop. I encourage ArbCom to take this case and consider it within the broader context of where to draw a firm line on off-wiki stalking. Montanabw^(talk) 04:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

Some good points have been made and I particularly endorse Montanabw's statement just above. However, I cannot see what use a case would be. Once started, a case would grind on for months and would reach the obvious conclusion which we know already—just read Montanabw's statement. My reading of WP:Harassment is that the policy is silent about what Jytdog did (although I agree that do not phone people is in the bleeding-obvious category). I do not see how Arbcom could justify a sanction because arbitration has to be formal and the policy only prohibits certain on-wiki behaviors. The "repeated annoying and unwanted contacts" in the nutshell refers to repeatedly posting on an opponent's talk, or pinging them, etc. WP:OWH would not justify an Arbcom sanction.

A proposal to expand the policy to cover the issue under question is at WT:Harassment#Suggested revision. Johnuniq (talk) 04:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdChem

Maybe there are things that I am missing, but the reaction that Jytdog has received seems to me to be over the top and statements appear based on large assumptions. For example:

Montanabw states that If we don't have a policy that "off-wiki communication which has been alleged to be unwelcome by the recipient" is unethical, then it's high time we get one. That's reasonable, as far as it goes, but where is the evidence here that the call was unwelcome to Beall4? Jytdog has said, repeatedly, that his first act on the phone call was to identify himself and ask to discuss the situation, and that he received a response of "yes". That doesn't suggest the call was unwelcome, rejected, or found to be harrassing / intimidating, and those statements are (as far as I am aware) undisputed. Now, the call became problematic / unproductive and heated and, it appears, Jytdog hung up, but that is not proof that it was experienced by Beall4 as harassment.
Others have made similar statements, such as Ivanvector: ... off-wiki communication which has been alleged to be unwelcome by the recipient (whether or not that constitutes harassment is being argued on-wiki). Contrast also Mr Ernie's declaration that This is one of the most disturbing things I’ve ever seen on Wikipedia or Iridescent's statement that I think this behavior is grossly unethical and totally unacceptable with Doc James' rather more nuanced (and realistic) In my opinion it would depend on the content of that conversation. Are the former comments really reasonable if the call was agreed to by Beall4 at the start and included frustration and disagreement but no threats or harassment?
Ivanvector's statement also cites a previous ANI case to support the implicit assertion that the call constituted harassment even if Jytdog was trying to be helpful: See, for example, this ANI discussion from March 2015 about Jytdog's incivility and alleged harassment, in which it was also recognized that his behaviour was inappropriate, he was warned and he promised to reform. The move to telephoning editors without invitation to discuss Wikipedia disputes is an alarming trend in the opposite direction, in my view, even if he believes his intentions to be good
In short, I suspect that Jytdog's reputation with some editors (as JzG noted) and the previous ban (which I do not know recall details of, but which I presume was serious) are colouring views of the present event. It is surprising how few comments even note that hearing from Beall4 would be helpful (and thanks to Cameron11598 for contacting Beall4 and adding them as a party).
Jytdog's view that a call might be acceptable can be seen in Beall4's editing. The report to the edit warring noticeboard shows Beall4 re-adding content to talk:specific carbohydrate diet six times on 26 November. Five of those re-additions (01:56, 02:19, 16:55, 21:14 and 21:42), include the sentence I would like to communicate with you directly regarding reverting the update to the SCD from Beall4 to Jytdog. At the end of this last edit, Beall4 declared I can see that it is not possible to have an academic discussion in this venue, as one editor can simply delete or re-arrange the comments of another, as my response has been deleted 3 x by jytdog and then removed a comment from Jytdog about talking once MEDRS-compliant sources were suggested. Mathglot then added a post that explained, inter alia, that Talk pages are about discussing how to improve the article. Academic discussions that don't forward this goal are off-topic. In this context, is Jytdog's idea for changing the venue to a verbal conversation so unreasonable?
I will not defend Jytdog's decision to call without waiting for a response to the user talk page message that he left, as it was (at best, in my opinion), foolish. I do not see any evidence, however, that makes offering the suggestion unacceptable or inappropriate. Perhaps he might not have identified where he got the phone number, but that is a minor detail.
I do not see the justification for jumping to an indefinite block by There'sNoTime as a "Clear violation of our harassment policy - see Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Off-wiki contact". As Tryptofish noted, the block was made more than four hours after Jytdog had said I am hearing what people are saying. I should not have taken the risk and will not do so again. Jytdog had also already said Calling the person was a high risk thing to do for sure. If it would have gone well -- if the person had come away understanding how we use MEDRS and what they were doing wrong -- it would have been good for everybody. However I should have a) had my act way more together in the call instead of getting upset by the person's combativeness and b) beforehand, considered the risk that (i) it would go south (ii) it would be badly received by the person afterwards if it went south; (iii) considered how it could be framed here. Considering those things now, I would not have done it and I will not be be trying that again. Just what was it that was being prevent by this block? I note the context of Drmies preceding comment that Even if you're trying to be helpful this is not cool, a comment followed by discussion of threats and genuine harassment and feeling fearful. These are reasons why Jytdog calling without having permission was unwise and potentially frightening, but it must be remembered that there is no evidence (as far as I am aware) of Jytdog having made threats or engaged in harassment. There'sNoTime, I think you need to explain:

Why a block justified more than four hours after Jytdog had stated twice that he would not make such a call again?
What part of the harassment policy was clearly violated?
On what basis was an indefinite block justified by the discussion you cited?
What the block was supposed to prevent and how, given it did not limit Jytdog's ability to make phone calls and he had already undertaken not to repeat his action?

ArbCom, if you are to take this on (either as a case or a motion), please look at what has been said with an eye to what is fact and what is assumption. I do think the initial block was questionable given that the evidence for harassment on which it was based appears to be all assumption, and as it prevented nothing (especially given Jytdog's prior statements on wiki). That Jytdog was stupid to call without waiting for permission is evident, but that does not make it harassment. Doc James and others have received such calls and found them unproblematic, others have found them disturbing and unwelcome, but I don't think that they become sanctionable unless they are truly harassment, threats, or other inappropriate behaviours. EdChem (talk) 06:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Thanks for your comments, and I do see that a stronger reaction makes sense for the third time something like this has happened, but that leads to another problem. TNT's block log entry asserts a Clear violation of our harassment policy - see Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Off-wiki contact. It makes no mention of prior incidents and so is, at best, highly deficient in presenting necessary information to anyone viewing the log. Further, for Jytdog's action to be a clear violation of the harassment policy, there needs to be some evidence of harassment, and I don't see that clear evidence. Finally, lacking any clear policy basis for a block to be imposed, the appropriate action would have been to start an ANI discussion or an ArbCom case, not to unilaterally impose an indefinite block. I don't accept that the harassment policy implicitly prohibits off-wiki contact of this nature unless the content of the contact is harassment, etc. I also don't accept that it should as it would class as harassment an action that may be poorly considered but certainly need not be harassing. Now, Jytdog should have waited for a response to his post to user talk:Beall4, but stupidly not doing so doesn't turn a single phone call where he identified himself and asked for permission to discuss the on-wiki situation into harassment. EdChem (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@There'sNoTime: Thank you for providing direct replies to my questions. I appreciate your willingness to explain and I do see the reasons for your choices, but I remain concerned about some of your choices. Regarding the timing of your block, I can understand having no faith in empty promises, but given that you did not want my block to be perceived as WP:PUNITIVE, I am struggling to see the wisdom in acting unilaterally. You could have started this RfAr or an ANI thread without making a block and sought consensus on what to do. That would have avoided concerns about punitive actions far more convincingly than by [making] it very clear I did not want my block to be perceived as WP:PUNITIVE. Given the actions were off-wiki and so not prevented by a block and given Jytdog's posts, the chances of any repeat in the short term seem low, and so there was no urgency.
The second reason that I think your actions appear punitive is that you declared a "clear violation" of the harassment policy in the block log entry and made no mention of earlier incidents, but now declare that you are relying on its spirit. Your comment that in spirit it's fairly clear we shouldn't find a work phone number of another editor and ring them reads to me as saying that simply making such a phone call, irrespective of what is said, is harassment, and I don't agree – Doc James has spoken of not feeling harassed by such calls, for example. While I would not make such a call without first receiving permission, I don't think a blanket prohibition that declares any and all such calls are harassment is reasonable or justified. I really think that acting hours after Jytdog's comments on a "clear violation" that is arguably no violation makes your action look punitive and suggest another agenda – especially when the block itself cannot prevent the problematic action.
Had you taken it to ANI, suggesting Jytdog's actions were outside community norms and suggesting a ban, you would have been on much more solid policy grounds. I wonder if the reason you did not take (or perhaps even consider) this response was due to projection from your own experiences? You write in your general clarification that the reason behind my rename and other changes was due to getting harassment over the phone - this upset me greatly and still affects me. I don't wish that on anyone, "good faith" or not. I am sad to hear that you have been harassed, and I note that harassment is never acceptable and certainly is a grounds for blocks and bans. I am further saddened to learn that you continue to feel the effects of harassment and had to take steps to protect yourself. I am glad that you choose to continue to contribute to WP and I do understand why you might view Jytdog's actions as obviously being harassment. However, may I ask you to reflect on whether this makes you the best person to impose the block rather than the best person to start an ANI discussion. Your ability to empathise to how Beall4 might have felt is an asset in discussing why such actions are serious and unwise and potentially sanctionable... but they are also a potential liability to objectively deciding whether there was harassment in this case.
It appears to me now that you made two mistakes: you imposed a block asserting a policy violation that was not clearly established and you failed to record in the log the important fact that you took into account previous oversight actions. I think both happened because your experiences led you to see the situation as much nastier than it appears to me to be. A more conservative consensus-seeking approach would have been wiser in the circumstances, and I hope that you will reflect on whether your choices here were truly objective. For the record, I am not suggesting that you should be sanctioned, but I do think your choices here were less than ideal. EdChem (talk) 11:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WBG

Echo EdChem, in entirety who has superbly crafted the entire stuff and Guy's last line. And, whilst TNT certainly acted in good faith, IMO, that was a bad call.∯WBG^converse 06:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alex Shih

The initial block needs to be scrutinised. Did There'sNoTime block Jytdog indefinitely mostly based on their oversight block in June 2016 that was handled by ArbCom, of which the information There'sNoTime have no access to? Do we block editors based on assumptions now? As Tryptofish and EdChem have pointed out, blocking Jytdog four hours after they have made the reflection on not to repeat the behaviour with the mere basis that "you don't believe them" needs to be better justified (paraphrased from User_talk:Jytdog#November_2018). What is the purpose of this block, "to send a message"? Excuse me, but the blocking tool should never be used for the purpose of one administrator sending a unilateral message without the explicit backing of a community consensus. To me this is close to being an act of intimidation which is equally a problematic behaviour. Communicate first before you act; ArbCom needs to comment on the policy aspect of this entire issue (not just the technical aspect of the block itself).

Once we have the block issue resolved, we can move on to the next issue, in which there is of course no excuse for Jytdog's recurring poor decisions and aggressive editing behaviours despite of years of promise "to do better" (they have improved in their approach, but the occasional relapse is deeply unhelpful). Jytdog's tireless works in combating COI and paid editing are under appreciated, especially in the face of many ArbCom members past and present that are far too disconnected from the community to realise the lasting damage paid editing has on our project; instead there seems to be a trend to claim moral high ground and inadvertently shelters (in the name of "protection") those whose only intention is to use Wikipedia as a platform for their promotion. Regardless, Jytdog need to know when to stop, and we cannot continue going in circles about this. Ask for help from administrators/functionaries whenever possible instead of being creative and come up with solutions that are often very inappropriate in the context of communication on Wikipedia. But this has been blown way out of proportion despite of the fact that talk page discussion was going in the right direction. A case is unnecessary, please handle this by motion. Alex Shih (talk) 08:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@There'sNoTime: Focus on the content please, there is no need to make anything personal. Labelling legitimate concerns as "pot-shots" is not okay, so please don't make another remark that could be incompatible with "standards of conduct and decorum" as expressed in WP:ARBPOL. If you are uncertain about the consequences in which of your administrative actions in this case will bring (your uncertainty was apparent in the immediate aftermath of the unblock discussion), is it unreasonable to ask you to ask first, which would be the same response you should be giving to Jytdog? Did you seek any input from oversight-l or other functionaries, or did you simply decide that you should be the one to make example out of Jytdog and send out a general message about your interpretation of Wikipedia:Harassment? I think this is a legitimate question to ask, but of course your opinion may differ. Alex Shih (talk) 08:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick: Your disagreement is noted, but your personal commentaries about my "incompetence" and other assumptions irrelevant to this case request is not. L235, Miniapolis, Cameron11598: would one of you please consult ArbCom on whether or not Nick's commentary is compatible with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Participation? If yes, please declare so; if no, please remove them accordingly. Alex Shih (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some parts of the responses by Opabinia regalis and Worm That Turned below are based on the very "assumptions" that EdChem have highlighted in their statement. To characterise this as some sort of "dispute" between Jytdog and Beall4 is incorrect; although this apparent impression is mostly the fault of Jytdog, who frequently gets far too aggressively involved in their attempt to maintain MEDRS standards over edits by single purpose accounts that seemingly has promotional intents; it is wrong and a ban (after renewed discussion) would certainly be justified. One has to follow the entirety of exchange on Wikipedia starting here ([1]) between Jytdog and Beall4 to get the perspective of Jytdog. There is no justification for Jytdog's action in the context of Wikipedia, but we need to understand perspectives of different sides before jumping to conclusions. Context matters; Jytdog can be justifiably sanctioned for persistent poor decisions, but we must not give false equivalence by characterising their action as some sort of harassment attempt or comparing them to unsolicited contacts from a male stranger to a female. What they did was simply a very poor decision lacking the common sense expected for a experienced editor, particularly from someone that has been sanctioned for similar editing behaviour before. But I cannot emphasize enough on the importance of having a discussion first in non-emergency situations so that we can make sure all of the implications are being resolved. Alex Shih (talk)

@KrakatoaKatie: "We can relate as women": How inappropriate, the gender comparisons really needs to stop. Harassment comes from all genders and affects all genders in the context of Wikipedia, and you know that very well. I understand the analogy was introduced to illustrate a point, but it is irrelevant and off topic to this very case request. This case request is not about harassment, but about Jytdog's inappropriate actions that constitutes a pattern, as you and others have identified. So please do as you said in your very same statement and focus on nothing but the conduct of an established editor accessing and acting on off-wiki contact information instead of continuing to promote a potentially divisive rhetoric that was produced with no evidence that it's at all relevant to this discussion, as noted by Opabinia regalis herself. Alex Shih (talk) 07:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Smartse

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I'm in the camp of this being a bad idea but it was done with the intention of helping and not harassing the user. I've read through all of he harassment policy and there is definitely nothing to say that you shouldn't do this. I get that some people think it's blindly obvious that you shouldn't but we can't enforce non-existent policies. Given the admission by Jytdog that he realises now it was a bad idea and won't do it again, the block was unnecessary and I don't see what opening a case would achieve. SmartSE (talk) 08:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nick

I disagree entirely with Alex Shih, who is once again demonstrating his staggering incompetence. The initial block was 100% justifiable given the circumstances alone, never mind Jytdog's previous behaviour and the question of the topic ban potentially still being in force at the time the block was made. The community remains enormously fortunate Alex stepped away from ArbCom and isn't running this year, given how wrong he is yet again. I would strongly encourage the community to explicitly prohibit the type of contact Jytdog has made by expanding and modifying the relevant policies, so nobody can be under any illusion as to how the community views such behaviour, or that such behaviour is anything other than entirely inappropriate. If you want to telephone someone, you must wait for them to ask you and to offer their phone number themselves, freely, willingly and not under any sort of duress. Nick (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC) [reply]

@Alex Shih: I believe, in light of the allegations you have made concerning There'sNoTime and their administrative actions in this case, your incompetence be flagged to the committee and the wider community so they can understand why you're wrong. I don't believe you're being malicious, just that you lack the necessary competence to correctly understand what it is There'sNoTime was doing and why. I have no issue with my comments being redacted by a clerk, in fact, to make life easier, if my concerns regarding your incompetence Alex are judged to be in breach of the arbitration policy, a clerk can replace my entire statement with The initial block was 100% justifiable given the circumstances alone, never mind Jytdog's previous behaviour and the question of the topic ban potentially still being in force at the time the block was made. I would strongly encourage the community to explicitly prohibit the type of contact Jytdog has made by expanding and modifying the relevant policies, so nobody can be under any illusion as to how the community views such behaviour, or that such behaviour is anything other than entirely inappropriate. If you want to telephone someone, you must wait for them to ask you and to offer their phone number themselves, freely, willingly and not under any sort of duress.. Nick (talk) 09:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Literaturegeek

There is no policy or even guideline against what jytdog did. ArbCom can’t, in my view, even give an admonishment without it being the arbitrators ‘original opinion’ of social decor. In any event, off-wiki emails or social media messages are routinely sent, often unsolicited, by Wikipedians to each other - is a phone call much different? Is verbal communication egregiously more intrusive than non-verbal text communications? What ArbCom could do is pass a recommendation to the community that it consult to form a policy or guideline on initiating off-wiki contact during disputes.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think where jytdog went wrong is that he should have attempted email contact asking permission to call/voice chat first, that could have made this situation less intrusive/problematic. Perhaps, we could have a section added to WP:HARASS policy pertaining to intrusion and personal boundaries as it could be seen to be borderline harassment.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Softlavender

Jytdog's phone-call was boneheaded, idiotic, and wildly inappropriate. I think nearly everyone agrees with that. However, he had already agreed never to do that again, four hours before TNT blocked him indefinitely, apparently as a retroactive punishment and unilateral banishment from the realm. In terms of this RFAR, no prior dispute resolution has been attempted. If TNT merely wanted the Committee to review "previous Oversight and blocks reserved to ArbCom which involved private information [involving] information which administrators who are not functionaries cannot access", in order to disprove or confirm BD2412's claim of a first offence, it seems to me all he had to do was email ArbCom and leave the matter with them. Otherwise, in terms of Jytdog's fate, the matter should have been brought to AN or to ANI, to assess if any sanction gained community or administrative consensus.

There seems to be no point of ArbCom blocking or re-blocking Jytdog for making an egregious error in judgment and engaging in sleuthed unsolicited phone contact, because such a block would be merely punitive. There may be a case to be made for looking into Jytdog's unilateral missteps, which seem to pop up from time to time, but at this point I think all that is needed is to admonish him to stop taking matters into his own hands and to instead bring them to a noticeboard when there are problems with an uncommunicative editor.

Back to TNT, I think Alex Shih is correct that TNT stepped way out of bounds on this one and his actions bear looking into even more than Jytdog's, but at this point do we really need a case about the whole thing?

Let's just step back and reflect that at least two people screwed up royally and that two wrongs do not make a right. I think it can probably end there unless ArbCom does want a full case as opposed to a decline or a motion. Softlavender (talk) 10:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I am not excusing Jytdog's genuinely boneheaded action in the least, but one fact he has stated elsewhere but neglected to put in his statement here is that Beall4 did not and does not have email enabled on Wikipedia, therefore he could not be contacted that way. At least not until he enabled email -- which Jytdog should obviously have suggested if he really wanted to help the person or resolve things privately off-wiki. Softlavender (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 28bytes' statement:
Better to just explicitly state in the harassment policy that unsolicited contact via phone (or Facebook message, or whatever) is often unwelcome and thus strongly discouraged. Let's fix this at the policy level rather than focus on one editor who broke an "unwritten rule" that is either "too obvious a violation to mention" or "fine depending on the context" depending on who you ask.
I agree with that, but I would add that it's never OK. Unsolicited contact via phone is never OK, period. I find it kind of bizarre that this needs to be spelled out, but apparently it does.
And I agree with 28bytes that it's better handled at the policy level than trying to parse an unrecorded phone conversation involving an editor who has not communicated anything on-wiki about said conversation, and an editor whose motives we really cannot parse either beyond what he tells us. Lack of evidence therefore prevents examination of the particular case in question, beyond the few diffs leading up to the call. Softlavender (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carrite

I would like to point out that there are a range of possible sanctions between a toothless admonishment and the death penalty. An Arbcom-imposed 30 days might be the wake-up call needed to end the problematic content warriorism, which is the true source of this horrible judgment off wiki. Carrite (talk) 10:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf — None of the previous blocks were Arbcom sanctions. An irreversible shortish Arbcom block would be a big shot across the bow. I urge the committee not to think in terms of a dichotomy between "Do Nothing" and "Terminate User." Carrite (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf — Per: "How many last chances does someone get?" — By definition, one. Has he received this yet? Now, how many chances does one get? That's a more accurate question. And that answer is: as many as necessary before the collective decision is made that the negatives outweigh the positives and that there is no point in attempting to further keep a person in the project. JYT has generated big positives and big negatives. Balancing that scale is not easy. Carrite (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A good point was made in the JYTDog thread at Wikipediocracy: JYT should have given the new user his phone number, that way the contact would be made at the option of the other user. Carrite (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pldx1

The worse here was the transformation of a Wonderland's conflict between User:Jytdog and User:Beall4 into a real life conflict between 'The Wikipedia Company' (to name it that way) and 'The COI Company' (to name it that way).

Saying "this was not intended to harass anyone", together with promising to not reiterate such a bad move doesn't solve the real life problem. Moreover, this doesn't solve the Wonderland problem either. You can promise to not repeat something voluntary done from bad will, but you cannot promise to not repeat something involuntary done from stupidity. Previsional timeline: Jytdog will be given an iterative n-th last chance, until The Wikipedia Company cuts the Gordian knot. Being at risk when you are rich is not what you want to live with. Pldx1 (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kurtis

As with many other issues, I am of two minds.

Do I feel that Jytdog behaved inappropriately in giving another editor a phone call over an on-wiki disagreement, particularly in light of the fact that the recipient of his off-wiki interaction never explicitly gave him her number? Of course I do. Frankly, if I were on the receiving end of such a phone call, I'd be deeply unsettled, to the extent where I would likely contact somebody associated with Wikipedia about it. I don't believe that there was any malice in his actions, nor do I feel that it constitutes harassment in the strictest sense (i.e. attention that is persistent as well as unwanted), but it nevertheless falls outside the bounds of socially acceptable behavior.

Now, do I feel that his actions merit some sort of sanction? That I'm not so sure of. I know that Jytdog has a history of inappropriately escalating disagreements with other editors, so this cannot be dismissed as an isolated incident. However, unless I'm missing something, it's the first time he's done something of this nature in a long while. He has also apparently expressed remorse, which is a positive sign that something like this will hopefully not happen again. Should we take his assurances at face value, or does his history preclude offering him another chance?

I don't know if arbitration is necessary at this juncture. While it might involve sensitive information, the community knows the basic gist of what happened, and we likely have the power to make a decision on that basis. Then again, I'm not privy to all the details, so I think it would be a good idea for the committee to review the private evidence and decide whether a full case is needed. Kurtis ^(talk) 11:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX

An Arbcom case is not necessary and would not be particularly helpful. The incident is not in dispute. There is no private evidence that needs to be heard that would be informative. Jytdog made an unsolicited call to an editor with whom he was in dispute, violating the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:OUTING. The recipient of the call was "combative" and Jytdog ended the call "abruptly" (hung up?).

A reading of recent harassment policy talk page archives, especially this one, shows that Jytdog has an aggressive viewpoint concerning COI and UPE and has received ample feedback from the community about it. He should have known that his actions would lead to negative consequences.

Please decline the case request. The original block should have stood until it could be reviewed by the community. At this point, it should be referred back to the community so that a proper remedy can be determined through consensus, taking into account Jytdog's substantial positive contributions but also his previous history of aggressive anti-COI/anti-UPE actions. This will also provide an opportunity to bolster the WP:HARASSMENT policy, and make it explicitly clear that this behavior is intolerable. - Mr X 🖋 12:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nsk92

People who claim that what Jytdog did here is not forbidden by policy are incorrect. The WP:OWH portion of the policy says: "As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely." The policy does not, and in fact cannot, explicitly list every particular type of action that constitutes off-wiki harassment. An in-person unsolicited phone call from a stranger in relation to Wikipedia editing is an incredibly intrusive action and an egregious and jarring invasion of privacy, quite incomparable with an e-mail sent through the Wikipedia e-mail system. Most people, if it were to happen to them, would regard receiving such a phone call as harassment, even if the stated and sincere purpose of the caller was to ``help". I am not familiar with Jytdog prior editing and history, but Arbcom needs to make a clear statement that what Jytdog did in this case was completely unacceptable, block worthy, and must not be done by anyone else in the future. I think Arbcom also needs to clearly state that theWikipedia:Harassment policy should not be interpreted as allowing specific kinds of actions that are not explicitly listed as prohibited there, but rather as a general prohibition of any conduct in relation to Wikipedia, on and off wiki, that can be reasonably viewed as aggressive pressure or intimidation. Nsk92 (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ryk72

Let's be clear - if a Wikipedia editor makes unsolicited phone calls to another editor on a phone number that they have not explicitly provided on Wiki, it is an act of harassment - intent is immaterial; how the call is received is immaterial - it is an act of harassment. Anyone who believes otherwise is misguided, misinformed, misaligned, or malicious. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SashiRolls

I have been the target of a fair bit of bullying from Mr. Jytdog. In any study of a contributor's harassing behaviour, the context is important. So... here is some context as to how their bullying has been used. In Nov. 2016, Jytdog made up stuff about promotional editing on the Singapore page, which he then retracted here. This false, retracted, accusation was used against me by Cirt / Sagecandor in December 2016.

Much less "stale": during my unblock request (after it had been recognized I had been railroaded out of the project by a sockpuppet of a former sysop), Jytdog would not drop the stick (cf. here), and shortly thereafter became disruptive, again battlegrounding on the syphilis page. (A short background on this matter can be found either at the talk page itself or in my close to their bullying behaviour on my talk page). As with the original incident about Singapore, they were incorrect in their assertions and ended up by recognizing this fact.

Though I have since found good material about both Rabelais' & Shakespeare's relationship to syphilis/the pox. I have refrained from adding it because of this contributor's threatening behaviour (though I have added it it to fr.wp, and to the en.wp article on Rabelais). This is an example of how jytdog's harassment/disruptive behaviour has prevented improvements being made to the encyclopedia.

As many of you know there are very detailed complaints about jytdog in the "governance" thread at Wikipediocracy. It is, I believe, the most visited thread about a single contributor on that site. (rapidly approaching 30,000 views)

I have provided these examples of Jytdog's errors concerning my edits on Singapore and on syphilis as a service to the inquiry into their problematic behaviour. Please ping me if you need any further input. — 🍣 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Coretheapple

The points raised below by arbitrator Opabinia regalis and Thryduulf above are spot on. This is not an isolated event. Look at his block record. He has been problematic in this area and the very ambiguity of his block record, the fact that revealing precisely what he did in his two previous indefs is too sensitive to allow, is an indication of that.

Let's rewind for a second. The purpose of this case is to determine whether the initial block was correct. It was. This is not complicated. Just because there is no specific prohibition on something doesn't mean that you can do it. You can't expect the harassment policy to cover every possible form of harassment known to man (or woman). Do we have to go back to the harassment policy and make it so airtight that every form of possible harassment is covered, so that all the loopholes get closed? Tracking someone down and phoning them is a ghastly and creepy thing to do, and this is not the first time he's done something indicating a total cluelessness in this area. Jytdog is not a newbie and it is plain that there is going to be more of this and it just is not acceptable. Coretheapple (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just one additional point that I think needs to be highlighted. Jytdog's claim that the phone number of the person was "easy to find" is utter rubbish. He tracked down this person. See the first paragraph of Voceditenore's statement below. Coretheapple (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker

Following up on Coretheapple, it must always be remembered to never treat WP: HARASS like a law. No one is making a legal claim, it is a website policy. We do not WP:CREEP policy to cover every act. So, certainly people can reasonably hold that an additional personal contact (here in the form of an uninvited call) in the midst of an ongoing online dispute is by its nature intimidation or persistent within the meaning or spirit of policy. All the more so because although we do not know the call, we do know that above Jytdog seems to say he became "angry" during the rather unheard of call he initiated. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Voceditenore

I am very concerned about Jytdog's false assertion that the person he telephoned had provided information about their contact phone number that was easily findable via "one step". He based this solely on Beall4's edit summary "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, I felt the need to reflect the current science supporting the role of dietary therapy and SCD.". (Redacted). Nor does their edit summary specifically refer to (Redacted), nor does it refer to the (Redacted), nor did that editor provide a link to (Redacted) in their version of the article in dispute. I tried all of them. Finding that phone number involved (Redacted). This was not one step. (Redacted)

In my view, this is the same kind of "research" that got him an indef block and a "topic ban from all matters related to COI editing. This includes investigations and allegations against other editors". I'm sorry, but while there was no outing per se, this completely violates the spirit of that ban. Furthermore, I personally consider his act of telephoning an editor about a dispute he was having with them—without their prior permission on-wiki or via their on-wiki email and whose phone number had required considerable research and guesswork to find—to be harassment or at the very least intimidation and a gross violation of privacy. This whole affair needs much closer examination (whether it is by ArbCom or a community discussion) rather than simply writing it off as "trying to be helpful gone wrong". It's much more than that. Voceditenore (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC) Updated by Voceditenore (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cameron11598: ~~I think you've added the wrong name as a party. It should be User:Beall4 not User:BD2412.~~ Voceditenore (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cameron11598: Whoops! What I should have said was I think you forgot to add User:Beall4 as a party. Was that intentional? Voceditenore (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding that the fact that Beall4 hasn't complained on-wiki is no defense at all. First of all, they were blocked for 24 hours for edit warring right after the phone call, and unsurprisingly have not edited further here even after the block expired a few hours ago. If I had been a newbie and the recipient of such a call, I would have run a mile from this place. Since I am not a newbie, I would have contacted the WMF immediately. Voceditenore (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: I have no problem with your redactions if the clerks or arbs feel they're appropriate. However, I want to emphasize that the information Beall4 provided in the edit summary was not remotely sufficient to easily find their phone number. It required multiple steps and active research to do so which I had attempted to demonstrate (not wisely in retrospect). Jytdog's framing this as the recipient's fault for providing him with enough information to successfully go sleuthing for a phone number is completely unacceptable, let alone actually phoning the person. Voceditenore (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alexbrn

Some bigger issues here.

(As personal context, I receive quite a few personal emails - often abusive - and have literally had green ink handwritten letters arriving at my work about my WP editing, which is largely in the WP:FRINGE space.)

First, I don't think it's quite right to characterize Jytdog and Beall4 as being "in dispute" in the usual sense. On 18 Nov, Beall4 arrived at Specific carbohydrate diet and began their Wikipedia career by inserting some content with over-ripe unsourced claims (calling the diet "among the most active and exciting areas of research for all human diseases") and making medical claims sourced to non-WP:MEDRS sources. So far so usual for a medical article.

This was reverted both by Jytdog and (after Beall4 re-made their edit) by me, and discussion moved to Jytdog's Talk page where Beall4 opening words[2] were "Hello, I would like to communicate with you directly regarding reverting the update to the SCD" [my bold]. There followed a perfectly cordial one-on-one exchange with Jytdog explaining the relevant WP:PAGs in what seems a helpful way. Again, nothing unusual here.

The problems seemed to start when discussion moved to Talk:Specific carbohydrate diet where Beall4 made repeated copy-paste edits from the previously discussion with Jytdog, to the exasperation of Jytdog; Beall4 was also reverted in this by Bradv. This is not so much a content dispute as an attempt by seasoned editors to keep the Talk page in order.

So I take Jytdog's call as an attempt to contact a new editor obviously having basic difficulties operating Wikipedia, in the context of an already-established pattern of one-on-one discussion, rather than furthering a content "dispute". Jytdog says he has phoned new editors a number of times to resolve issues, and in the past this has gone well. I trust this was attempt to do the same again.

If Jytdog is to be sanctioned, presumably it will be for all these previous (successful) contacts too, since some people are arguing that any such contact is ipso facto "harassment"?

In WP:DR it is stated "Talking to other parties is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia". Are we saying that if this is done electronically, you're with the angels; but initiate it by phone (actually, "talking") and you're the very Devil? If so, this could be usefully clarified somewhere in the WP:PAGs.

(I also note the recipient of the call did not complain, but rather the issue was raised by Bilby who really is in dispute with Jytdog – see e.g. here – which all seems a bit rum).

Statement by Guerillero

We are on the ∞th chapter of Jytdog v. Shaky Science, and this chapter feels almost like the last one that I had the displeasure of looking at. Jytdog seems to have missed the point of the last ∞ chapters of this story and will probably see the ban hammer because he has run out of last chances. At the same time, xe is one of the very few Wikipedians willing to enforce WP:MEDMOS and related policies in the area of alternative medicine and other areas that use our project as a booster for their cause. Please take this case, or you will have to cut this knot the next time it appears before you. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Primefac

I have removed a number of comments by Voceditenore - the cat is still mostly in the bag, and giving a play-by-play rundown of how they searched out this individual is inappropriate. If a clerk or Arb feels that the information that has been suppressed is acceptable, I have no issues with it being un-suppressed. Primefac (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]

@Voceditenore:, I did try to keep the point of your message (that it wasn't easy) in the text while removing the specifics. Thanks for understanding. Primefac (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RegentsPark

Definitely reeks of poor judgement on the part of Jytdog. Imo, you should never call someone off-wiki without first getting permission to do so, either on wiki or through wiki-email - no one wants to receive a "I'm calling from Wikipedia and your edits suck" phone call! If those routes are not available, and the user is behaving disruptively, then an "indef block and move on" option is the best way out. That said, I don't see the need for a case or any action here. Jytdog acted in good, if misguided, faith and will hopefully not do this again. An indef block was probably over the top but it was, again, in good faith and rightly reduced (and then removed). If we need a policy on off-wiki communication as Montanabw says, then that's something that should be discussed by the community so this isn't the right forum for that anyway. --regentspark (comment) 17:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tornado chaser

I normally do not support sanctioning someone for a single good faith mistake that was not explicitly prohibited by policy, even if it was very stupid. However, anything related to outing/privacy/off wiki contact is in a whole other category of seriousness, as it can have very serious social and professional/financial consequences that cannot be predicted in advance by the person doing the outing, in extreme cases, outing may even be life-threatening. I see how Jytdog could have thought that Beall4 wanted to be called[3] but tracking down a phone number that wasn't explicitly provided (and that Jytdog had no way to be certain belonged to Beall4) was not acceptable and could have lead to Beall4 being outed (what if there was someone else around when Jytdog called?). This violated at least the spirit of WP:OUTING and, while not intentionally malicious, recklessly created a risk of outing, something that should not be tolerated coming from an experienced user who should know better. Also, Jytdog appears to be misrepresenting the original message asking for permission to call, this message was somewhat confrontational "you are wasting time" ect and said he had already tried to call and would be interested in facetiming. Jytdog says he got upset on the phone too, so we really can't blame Beall4 for leaving wikipedia and not commenting here. On top of all this, Jytdog has had 2 oversight blocks in the past and has apologized for their uncivil attitude in 2015 [4], only to be warned again about civility in 2018[5] and 5 days later assume bad faith of me[6] (likely a continuation of a previous ad faith assuption[7][8]). Because of the repeated and continuing incivility despite apologies, and multiple blocks, I am concerned about Jytdog's ability to learn from mistakes. The fact that Jytdog has called editors before and it went ok is no defense at all, and niether is the fact that he was calling a problem editor, better to indeff someone than track down their number. I am surprised that anyone here thinks it is ever ok to call someone on a number that they haven't explicitly provided to other wikipedians, if I got a call from another wikipedian, I would probably have to stop editing and would call WMF. I do not endorse any specific sanction, as I do not have access to the oversight logs, but if this really is a third privacy offense a site ban does seem necessary. It is dangerous to allow repeat privacy offenders to stay with the project, no matter how good their other edit are, and I can't believe that some editors are using the fact that communication is required as justification for calling someone on a number that they did not explicitly provide. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies

I didn't count the votes below but I think the arbs are leaning toward accepting the case, which I think is a good thing. There's broad consensus, I believe, that this wasn't outing; there seems to be some consensus that this maybe wasn't harassment, but even if it wasn't by the letter of the policy, this was beyond what should be acceptable. That it was "one click away" doesn't matter--it was a greatly overblown and unacceptable response to a fairly run of the mill situation. Jytdog, I'm sorry, but this was unacceptable behavior, and worse, it falls into a pattern. How this will mark your editorial career here is for ArbCom to decide and I wish them much wisdom: it is not an easy thing to do, throw the book at a longtime editor. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

The acceptance of a case by the ArbCom should not mean that sanctions will be imposed. Contrapositively, the ArbCom should not decline to accept a case simply because they may decide not to impose sanctions. This case request raises enough unanswered questions that the ArbCom should accept it. That is especially true because there is clearly past information of a privileged nature that is relevant, since there were two functionary blocks that can be assumed to have been made based on privileged information. (If an Oversighter blocks an editor as an admin, it isn’t an Oversight block. If an Oversighter blocks an editor based on suppressed information, that is privileged.)

I think that the idea of changing the name of a case from that of an editor to the type of conduct that is alleged simply to avoid pre-judging the case is silly. This case is not about off-wiki conduct in general. It is about alleged off-wiki conduct by User:Jytdog. A case should be given an area name if it is about conduct in an area, such as Israel and Palestine, or Alternative and Complementary Medicine, or American politics. A case that is about the alleged conduct of an editor should have the name of the editor. I point to Michael Hardy as an example where the ArbCom correctly named the case after an editor, and did not impose sanctions on the editor.

The ArbCom should accept this case, not because of wrongdoing by Jytdog, but because of allegations of wrongdoing by Jytdog and the likely need to review privileged data.

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

With regard to Jytdog offering to talk with the person over the phone/skype, I can say here that Jytdog offered to do the same with me here during an unrelated case. I did not accept the offer (I prefer email), so we didn't end up actually going through with it. Thus, Jytdog's story seems plausible to me.

I have no comment on any other aspect of the matter. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Serialjoepsycho

My question is what comes next? This cat's kind of out of the bag isn't it? If the matter is no one ever thought to formalize this but we have a consensus here that this is a "WTF moment", then to me it would seem reasonable that upon close that the necessary and appropriate steps are taken to formalize this. While there is alot of focus on what steps to take address what steps to take against Jytdog, shouldn't the Elephant in the room be addressed? To me it would be of a higher importance to do just that.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from SN54129

I wasn't going to comment, but this cuts to the heart of the policy, which states a pattern of repeated offensive behaviour(my emph.) must be established to qualify as such. Does this/can this only apply to on-wiki harassment, which, by its nature, is easily established; or, is a single episode off-wiki sufficient due to the possible impossibility/likely improbability of finding out the full story? A single episode could be part of a broader campaign which is never discovered (to take this case as an example, it appears that User:Beall4 has not edited since, and therefore any other instance remain unreported. Apologies for the insinuation: I'm sure that there were none, of course, but it's the case in point). And although, as in this case, some self-outing may already have occurred on-wiki, the committee may wish to consider whether the extra degree of deliberation—premeditation? Taking that extra step—that goes into approaching someone off-wiki may itself qualify as forming a pattern—or part of one if the off-wiki contact is combined with on-wiki confrontation.

Regardless, I'm rather surprised that in the so-far ~20,000 words of statements, no-one has mentioned WP:BITE. It seems to apply here, writ large, if nothing else does. ——SerialNumber54129 11:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hijiri88

I'm of two minds on this. I think (based partly on my own prior experience of such matters) that the policy should clearly state that contacting another editor's workplace without their explicit consent, even if they have disclosed the name of their employer on-wiki, is unacceptable regardless of motivation or circumstance. But it does not currently say as much, and so whether doing so is "harassment" must, unfortunately, be taken on a case-by-case basis, based on what can be gathered about the intent of the accused editor. I think indef-blocking off the bat was a little extreme given that Jytdog's stated motivation (explaining, in private, how Wikipedia works) is not completely implausible, but I think doing so was not unacceptable on the blocking admin's part either, but if Jytdog is allowed continue editing (and based on what I've seen, which I will admit is not everything, I think he should be) he should be strongly cautioned that the proper avenue would have been to post on the user's talk page requesting that they enable email.

Statement by Julia W

Although I'm working in the field of medicine and healthcare, I have completely given up editing in that area (after a very brief foray) because Jytdog is one of the most frustrating users to deal with, and his vigilantism is often completely misplaced. His idea of "helpful" is stuff like blanket reverts and boilerplate templates. His idea of "helpful" is convincing others that he is absolutely right about everything. I am entirely convinced that if he had found my work information and called me to tell me I violated a tiny part of MEDRS, he would have described his actions as "helpful". He may think he's some sort of self-appointed Wikipedia ambassador but he is not. Jytdog is a bully, and that is all. His repeated pattern of apologising and promising never to repeat his actions is serial abuser territory and for some reason others keep believing him. Julia\^talk 14:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TParis

Jytdog fucked up. But he's not malicious. There are editors that take our COI policy very seriously and give very little weight to WP:OUTING. Jytdog isn't one of them. It was a boneheaded mistake and one I don't expect he'll repeat - although I don't have access to the private data that TNT mentions. I sympathize with JuliaW's comments about being frustrated with Jytdog, I've been there many a times. I think a brightline was crossed. But I also think he's truly apologetic and I don't think a case it warranted. Simply a very strong admonishment.--v/r - T P 15:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Qwirkle

A comment: the ad hominem “Single Purpose Account” has been used here. I’d suggest that many, perhaps most, wikipedians make many of their first few edits to an area they are familiar with, and its entirely possible this fellow would have made edits in other areas if he hadn’t (IMO, of course) been run off. Describing him as an SPA is poisoning the well. Qwirkle (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Smeat75

Ivanvector says above Jenhawk777 contacted me asking to be interaction banned from Jytdog...I determined that she was in a dispute with Jytdog over some articles on historicity of the Bible...whether this is another case of Jytdog hounding an editor inappropriately or just content disputes in the course of editing a topic in common I really don't know. As someone who was involved in a lot of discussions with both of these editors on the articles concerned, I feel I should say that no, Jytdog did not "hound" Jenhawk. Jenhawk was concentrating on controversial articles (The Bible and violence, Christianity and violence,Women in the Bible, for instance) and Jytdog was trying to keep these articles neutral, properly sourced and encyclopedic. Jenhawk eventually found a way to work with Jytdog but has withdrawn from the project for other reasons. I just point this out so that is not counted as another "black mark"against Jytdog, it would not be deserved.Smeat75 (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by David Tornheim

will comment shortly.

Statement by Howcheng

Lord knows I hate getting involved in arbitration stuff, but it's starting to look like a lynch mob in here. My proposal is that ArbCom decline this case. Neither TNT nor BD2412 appear to have done anything wrong, and Jytdog appears chastened enough. My feeling is that his big mistake was to not obtain specific consent for calling beforehand as it appears that Beall4 did in fact want to speak with someone in person about the whole situation. For future reference in case there's a similar situation where Jytdog is involved with a newbie who is having on-wiki trouble, it would be best to leave a note saying, "I'd be more than happy to contact you on the phone about this, if you would care to give me your contact info via email" or something similar. Since we are now status quo ante bellum, let's agree not to beat this horse any deader. —howcheng {chat} 22:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Valeince

I am dismayed that there are Arbs that are trying to bring gender into this as if that has anything to do with the case. I believe that as an Arb, if you cannot look at the situation dispassionately, then you should recuse. Saying things like how creepy this would be if a woman received a call from a man for unsolicited help is unnecessarily dividing and does a disservice to actual, gender based, harassment Valeince (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beeblebrox

I'm at a loss as to why so many of the arbs seem reluctant to accept this case. This isn't just about the one phone call, it is about the history of this user, and that entails evidence that the community does not have access to, so it therefore cannot handle this. You pretty much have to take the case. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (other editor)

Jytdog: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

I've added Beall4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a party at the direction of the committee; per clerks-l. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bilby was mistakenly added as a party, I've removed them from the case request. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Cameron meant "Beall4 was mistakenly added as a party" here. (Ping Tryptofish.) Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Actually they were supposed to be added; for some reason my edit didn't stick on my end --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 03:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Jytdog: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

Awaiting Jytdog's statement. I'd like to hear how his behavior here does not violate his topic ban prohibiting investigations against other editors, under which he was unblocked by a previous committee in 2016 [9]. If this topic ban is no longer in effect, I cannot find where it was rescinded, so please give the diff where that happened. Katie^talk 02:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Thanks very much. Katie^talk 03:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now read the Oversight list threads surrounding the last oversight block (in 2016). I've not yet read the arbcom list archived threads about the unblock, as we have a problem with accessing the archives that has to do with the move of the arbcom list to Google Groups. I should get to read that on Friday.
  I'm stunned that anyone thinks this has to do with promotional or paid editing, or alternative medicine, or pseudoscience, or anything but the conduct of an established editor accessing and acting on off-wiki contact information. It is completely inappropriate, and it's even more disturbing because Jytdog seems to do something, he finds out it's not okay, he promises not to do "that" again, and then he finds something even more egregious to do. Lather, rinse, repeat. I don't know how to stop this cycle other than with some type of sanction.
  If we proceed, I agree with most that a full case probably won't be required. I'm considering proposing a motion, but I want to read the archived material first.
  Finally for now, I'd add that I concur completely with Opabinia's comments. We can relate as women because we've been in the position of receiving unwanted and/or unexpected aggressive contact. It can be frightening, and it changes you against your will. It conditions you to be defensive and withdrawn. I agree that Jytdog likely meant no harm, but that's not the point. He keeps doing this kind of thing, and we can't allow that to continue. Katie^talk 01:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The facts here are not under serious dispute, so I don't consider this ripe for a month-long case. As much as I know my colleagues dislike admonishments, I think passing one by motion fits perfectly here. It is important to send a clear message that this conduct was not okay and could/will lead to sanctions if repeated in the future. I do not have an appetite to take more substantive action when the person they called has not requested sanctions. We should hear directly from Beall4 before making any decision. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was this unwise? Yes, and Jytdog has made it clear that he now regrets having done this, as well he should. Is off-Wiki contact a violation of policy? No, as several people have made clear. Is there evidence that it was done to harass? Again no unless it can be proven that there were threats or or obvious intimidation, and I don't see how either can be definitely shown to have taken place nor do I think it likely. Perhaps we do need to amend policy to prohibit phone calls but we don't have one, and the argument that it should be obvious is not one that holds water for me. Thus I see no grounds for a sanction. Should we pass a motion? I don't see what good it would do and I think the discussions here and those at Wikipedia talk:Harassment have already sent a message and Jytdog's statements show that he's heard it. I won't oppose one however, although I think it would be only symbolic. I'm holding off from voting at the moment, but barring something completely new I shall vote decline. Doug Weller talk 08:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As others have pointed out, this isn't the first, but the third blockworthy incident involving Jytdog fundamentally misunderstanding appropriate boundaries between Wikipedia and real life. That's the sticking point for me here: last time, we had assurances he wouldn't do it again, and indeed he did not seek out the personal information of someone he was in a dispute with and use the results on-wiki - instead he sought out the personal information of someone he was in a dispute with and used the results off-wiki. I think a big part of the reason this has attracted so much attention, even in the absence of a complaint from the affected editor directly, is that people are imagining themselves in the position of receiving unsolicited phone calls about their Wikipedia activities and realizing just how intrusive they would find such an interaction. The reaction described is pretty much exactly how I'd expect to react - if a random guy I'd crossed paths with on a website called me up out of the blue and asked if I'd be willing to talk, I'd probably say something like "uhhh, sure?" out of pure perplexity, and then after a few minutes of him telling me all about how I was wrong on the Internet and he just had to get in touch with me because otherwise I'd keep being wrong, I would probably say something, ahem, not polite. If I then came back to Wikipedia and read something like this describing my impolite reaction as "combative and unwilling to learn", posted in defense of the interaction, I think I might actually be struck speechless. (As you can tell from the length of this post, this is not a problem I commonly have.)
Furthermore, at the risk of the flaming that usually happens when someone raises a point about gender in a discussion that wasn't previously about that topic, I am going to underline here just how creepy it is for a woman to receive unsolicited contact from a male stranger over something as trivial as a disagreement on a website. Even (maybe especially) if it's supposed to be "help". Of course I have no knowledge of the gender of the person on the other end of the phone, and no evidence that it's at all relevant to this incident; I mention it because it's relevant to the precedents under consideration here and to a full appreciation of the sheer magnitude of the misjudgment.
Yes, I am quite sure Jytdog really did mean to help, and really was doing this in good faith, and really won't do this exact thing again, but history doesn't show that the concepts are getting through here. I'm not sure if an admonishment is really more admonishing than a block, and I'm not sure a "you're on your last chance, really really for real this time" response is going to work any better this time than last time. Long-term committed volunteers are valuable and their investment should be recognized, but man, if somebody's judgment is this far off from community norms, I don't know what to do about that. We can't have "written policy" for every possible bad idea someone might have; we really have to be able to trust that once you've had an idea like "hey, I should give this guy a call!" your brain will kick in and say "oh wait, no, that would be creepy and weird, I'll just try his talk page again". I don't have a vote yet; I don't want a case with all the trimmings (there's no disputed evidence to speak of) but this just cannot keep happening and I don't think "admonishing" gets us there. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very concerned by Jytdog's behaviour here. I'm looking further into his previous actions, but given the history, I'm getting the impression that Jytdog simply does not understand why his actions were so inappropriate. Unsolicited phone calls, where you have not provided contact information, from a person you are in dispute with has lead to real consequences. It damages our community and proves this is not a safe space to work. If this was a first offence, I'd be willing to stop with a stern talking to. I'm not sure that it's enough here. Worm^TT(talk) 09:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No @Alex Shih: - I don't believe I'm basing my thoughts on those assumptions. I'm not calling this harassment - I'm stating that an unsolicited phone call to another editor who has not provided a telephone number as a point of contact is not ok. When combined with Jytdog's history, which I'm going through in detail, I'm seeing repeated not ok behaviours around off wiki investigation. Worm^TT(talk) 12:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to think about the best way to handle this, whether a motion would be sufficient (let alone what that motion would be), and actually, I think the principles that would come out of a case would be the most important thing. As such, I've would accept a case with a very short timetable (I like a week, per NYB), to develop community thinking on the matter. Worm^TT(talk) 09:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not ok with Jytdog's actions at all in the slightest. There comes a point where common sense has to be used, and calling someone off Wiki to confront them about edits they made on Wiki is, to be blunt, ridiculous. Is it harassment in the sense of WP:HARASSMENT? No not by the letter of the rule. Would any neutral party, who hasn't edited to Wikipedia fully, see this and ask if this is something we should allow? That's a bigger question. This isn't the first time this has happened either I will add. If someone called me out of the blue as took umbrage with an edit I made on Wikipedia, I'd be ticked off to put it mildly. And I know the argument has been made that this phone number was easily found, that isn't the point in this. It's not listed as an avenue of contact for someone on Wikipedia. With regards to a case, I'm not sure if one needs to be taken. I will say this however, an admonishment and a "don't do this again and we really REALLY mean it this time!" isn't going to solve this issue. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very poor, to put it bluntly. Agree this probably doesn't need a month-long debate given the facts are all agreed. But also agree with RickinBaltimore and WTT - admonishments are generally a waste of time, especially when this isn't the first "not ok" action in this space. Would support something more formal, either in a case setting or via motion. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is a serious matter. A full case is not needed but a motion might be useful. The alternative could be a very short (one week?) case primarily for the purpose of developing the community's and the Committee's thinking on the outcome, rather than on extensive development of the facts, which seem mostly undisputed. One issue to be addressed would be making clear, if there remains any doubt, that this conduct is not permitted (although community discussion on the policy page is also emphasizing this). Another issue is whether or not Jytdog should be further sanctioned or restricted and if so how. I see no need for a case against either the indef-blocking or the block-reducing administrator, but we might remind admins that it's often best practice to consult before drastically altering a block, especially where the blocking admin is available and the block wasn't manifestly unreasonable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Contacting another editor via off-wiki means without their consent is a serious issue and something we as a community have not necessarily considered in our policies and guidelines. I do not believe in the arguments that the outcome or discussion determines whether this is an appropriate course of action. The act must already have been committed in order to find out and the privacy and protections for individuals in our community must come first. Editors should be able to come to Wikipedia and edit its content without fearing the possibility that they will be contacted in person, by phone, or other means without their consent. Based upon what I have reviewed here, I do not endorse Jytdog's actions and consider the incident very serious. A full case may not be required here and potentially a motion could be enacted, or a shortened case that reviews all of Jytdog's history with respect of off-wiki conduct relating to Wikipedia. Mkdw ^talk 22:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is something we should handle, potentially as a motion or an extremely shortened case with a focus on principles. I think what disappoints me most here is that the link presented by Kingsindian here makes it clear that Jytdog does know to ask for permission to initiate off-wiki contact, but lost his patience and completely failed to do so in this case. This entire debacle could have been avoided if Jytdog had just asked first. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jytdog:, that very diff indicates that you tried to phone them prior to asking permission. The first call went to voice mail, and then you went to their talk page and asked about arranging to Skype - not before. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017 ArbCom and the GdB unban

Initiated by Fram (talk) at 11:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Fram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Doug Weller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Drmies (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Opabinia regalis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Mkdw (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

+ the other members of the ArbCom at that date:

Callanecc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Casliber (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
DGG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Keilana (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Kelapstick (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Ks0stm (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

All other parties have received a notification.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Fram

Someone, let's call them X, was community banned in 2008, ArbCom unbanned and rebanned in 2009. Problems continued, including socking in late 2015. These socks edited articles where X edited in the past (basic income, chronic fatigue), but also new interests (Liberland and Paraduin, for some reason also Kate Moss and cougar (slang), and Kristina Pimenova). X always denied that he was the same as these socks, which doesn't explain how these socks not only were able to edit the same articles X did before his ban, but also were prescient enough to edit the same articles X would move to after his unban.

When the ArbCom collectively unbanned X in 2017, they gave him editing restrictions[10], which were however not logged at the general editing restrictions page, were not communicated to admins, and were not well thought out, as they didn't take into account his clear new interests (and main reason for asking an unban[11]), editing about the "country" which he rules as "Prince", and editing about Pimenova. All this would have been abundantly clear if they had actually taken his 2015 socking into account, but apparently they believed X when he denied having anything to do with these. The actual dimension of the problems one invites by letting X edit again (and claiming, as Drmies did, that it is actually "good to see you again"[12]), could have been easily seen. X again socked after the ban, and of course denied this with rather implausible arguments[13]. But even after their continued fixation on some subjects was clear and they were rebanned, Opabinia regalis claimed "I almost always ask appellants to describe specifically how they plan to contribute", "An editor who's made a couple hundred edits in two months on a small handful of low-profile topics is not creating an emergency", describing X as "someone making a bunch of comments and being annoying " but nothing more.

After the reban by the community, it turned out to be impossible to learn anything meaningful of the deliberations of the ArbCom, not even how every ArbCom had voted, which is the basic element of accountability and openness. On the contrary, enquiries were treated with extreme dismissiveness by Opabinia Regalis, Mkdw, and Drmies. When people who were actually aware of the disruption caused by X and the topics he was interested in asked pertinent questions, Opabinia replied "The rest of this is backseat driving. Like I said last time this came up, we didn't just fall off the turnip truck". Right... Drmies stated " If we had known he would go all Paraduin we wouldn't have unbanned him", which shows the total lack of due diligence ArbCom exercised with one of their most powerful functions, unbanning editors.

Now I noticed some members of that committee wanting to run for ArbCom again, so I asked them about this whole situation. DGG had no idea what I was talking about, even though ArbCom unbans are very rare, swift rebans by the community are even rarer, and they were constantly active during the weeklong discussion that followed the reban. Drmies felt the need to insert a "fun fact" about X, and indicated that he was the one that proposed to unban with a totally inadequate topic ban, and showed himself a great judge of character with "if he comes to my house I'll still offer him coffee".

I was planning on giving this a rest, but apparently, according to Drmies in the recent AN discussion (which was not about ArbCom or X), it was necessary to state "That's fine, Floq, thank you, but be careful with handing out ROPE to an editor when Fram is involved". When asked for clarification, Drmies said ""handing out ROPE to an editor" is not identical with (that's what "i.e." means) "unblocking an editor who has not yet vandalized": I was referring to the ROPE ArbCom handed out (not me: ArbCom) to a formerly and now again banned editor. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC) " Apparently my efforts to get a problematic editor rebanned (which got unanimous support at AN, but where multiple ArbCom members felt the need to complain afterwards that the process hadn't taken long enough!) are something to warn other people about on a case where they unblocked an editor at my request. Where Drmies gets the idea that I would cause trouble for Floquenbeam for doing something I asked in the first place is completely unclear, but his reply shows clearly that there still is no realisation of what ArbCom in general and some members in particular did wrong, never mind any indication that similar cases would be handled any different. The only lesson Drmies has learned is that others need to be warned about me.

Can the current ArbCom please:

Finally release the actual votes of all ArbCom members in that 2017 unban discussion, so we can actually judge their work as ArbCom members?
Give some clear indication that future unbans will be noted at highly visible pages (preferably WP:AN), restrictions logged at the general restriction page, and the support/oppose/abstains listed just like it is done for other ArbCom actions?
Give some clear indication that future unbans will be discussed first with the admins, CUs, ... who were previously involved with the banned user, not to get their approval, but to get their input (e.g. on socking, necessary editing restrictions, things ArbCom may be unaware of) instead of simply relying on the word of the problem editor and their own clearly fallible collective wisdom
Send a strong message in whatever form necessary to at least Drmies and to a lesser degree Opabinia Regalis that requests for accountability for their ArbCom actions is not "backseat driving", something that can be dismissed or ignored, and definitely not something that other editors in unrelated (and in this case opposite) discussions should be warned about, as that is a very dubious case of casting aspersions, shifting the blame, and generally burying their head in the sand.

I know that this ArbCom request is way too long, but really, who gives a damn? Look at the actual problems instead of hiding behind burocracy please, read the listed discussions, and realise that this kind of episode and the collective ArbCom reactions afterwards are totally unacceptable, and that misusing this failure as if it is evidence that people need to be protected from me shows such a complete lack of self-awareness and lessons learned that one may wonder if such editors are fit to be admins or arbcom members.

Honesty, transparency, and competence, that's basically all that is asked from you. If that is too much for some members, then they shouldn't be on ArbCom.

NOTE This is a relisting, in the first version I explained the major problem with X too directly for the liking of some arbs so it was swiftly oversighted without giving me the chance to even correct this first. I have removed all mentions of his name and of his major problem, if I have left anything in it please remove that bit and then only revdel or oversight the offending older edits. It is a bit hard to explain the magnitude of error made by the 2017 Arbco if one isn't allowed to actually describe or point to the actual problem, but so be it.

I was only able to recuperate my statement, not the replies by Casliber, Alex Shih or Newyorkbrad. Fram (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, statements by Casliber and so on have been reinstated, the BLP comments by NYBrad are about the previous version of this case request, not the current one. And the bits that directly led to the filing now (the reply by Drmies at the An discussion) has also been oversighted, making it a bit hard to judge this case for people not involved. I still would like an answer to my questions, but removing all the strongest elements because, although highly relevant, they might be interpreted as BLP violations, makes it hard to ever discuss a case like this thoroughly of course. Any good solutions are welcome. Fram (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:BU Rob13: I understand the reasons for not posting a vote tally for declined requests, you get those way too often, and indeed from very problematic editors. But your arguments against posting it for a succesful appeal are rather weak. Many unban appeals happen at AN / ANI, and people there discuss and vote openly, and the returning editors can easily see who voted for or against their return. This in general doesn't cause problems, and an editor who would harass an opposer would swiftly be reblocked. Whether this request would have been better at ARCA? No idea, it was roundly ignored by most arbs at the arbcom noticeboard, so turning it into a case would make it harder for them to claim ignorance (excluding those genuinely not active at the time of course). And getting e.g. an admonishment for Drmies at an ARCA case seemed less likely as well, it would there mostly have been a call for some explanation, not a real inquiry into what went (and still goes) wrong. In any case, thank you for replying and taking this at least serious. Fram (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Doug Weller

Statement by Drmies

Fram and others know I voted for unbanning GdB, assurances of proper behavior having been received. Obviously I can't speak for the committee then, and I can't speak for the committee now, so I won't say what else was going on--just that it wasn't much, a standard unban request which was granted with the usual understanding that infractions would lead to a renewed ban. If the current committee wants to decide that the "votes" (or conversation) should be made public, that's their decision. For my part, I believe I said all there is to be said about my part in the matter on that Arb questionnaire.

That restrictions were noted was marked here (if they weren't logged properly, we obviously erred), where you'll also find my "good to see you again", which is pretty much my standard phrase when an editor returns, a mere expression of good faith (which would be betrayed very quickly, of course). I think Salvidrim noted in an earlier discussion that ArbCom did the right thing considering an unban request and granting it--sometimes, of course, it comes back to bite you on the ass quickly, as in this case. What all the drama is for, besides Fram's effort to sink my ArbCom nomination, is not clear to me. If Guido/Roadcreature did something to Fram, on- or off-wiki, that causes all this a year after the events, Fram probably should have notified ArbCom, and if this had been something private and terrible, as Fram suggested in edits that are now, I believe, oversighted, all the more reason to have let ArbCom know as soon as it happened. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Opabinia regalis

Statement by GorillaWarfare

Statement by Mkdw

Statement by Newyorkbrad

I have previously stated on-wiki in response to one of Fram’s previous inquiries that I was not an active participant in the 2017 unban discussion. In any event, this is not a proper case request but a misuse of this page as a cross between a noticeboard discussion and election campaigning. ~~The portions of Fram’s statement that violate the BLP policy must be removed.~~(This has been done.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis: This unblock and reblock were already discussed at great length on the arbitrators' noticeboard talkpage last year (Fram links to the thread above). Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cas Liber

I don't recall how I voted on that unban (come to think of it, I am curious now but do not have access to the archives obviously). I have no problem with releasing my vote or any material indicating my rationale for doing so. I do not think I was aware of the links as pointed out above but could not swear on that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alex Shih

As far as I am aware, there were not that many participation in the 2017 unban discussion which is not unusual, and release of votes should not be problematic since that is something which is routinely done although selectively. Alex Shih (talk) 12:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floq

This is not a case request, it's a soapbox. Decline it as such. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

This was one of the worst unblocks I've ever seen (indeed, I made the re-block) but I'm very unconvinced that this is a worthy cause for a case. Black Kite (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TParis

If Arbcom believes this is not a case request or appropriate for Arbcom to address, then identify a more appropriate forum. Who watches the watchers? A bit of transparency would be welcome here.--v/r - T P 15:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NewYorkBrad: You were fairly straight forward in this discussion. But not everyone has and there seems to be a resistance to answering the basic question: who was in support of the unblock? It's a matter of judgement for the new Arbcom votes and the snarky replies by some candidates seem defensive.--v/r - T P 17:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SN54129

@Fram: I think you can reasonably name the editor ('X') whose un/block this concerns, while omitting the colourful adjectives used earlier. ——SerialNumber54129 15:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

2017 ArbCom and the GdB unban: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

2017 ArbCom and the GdB unban: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/6/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

I’m not sure this is actually a case request, but to the extent it is treated as one I recuse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. Issues with the original request aside, as best I can tell, nothing is being asked for that would be advantaged by a month-long public inquiry. I do not think prior Committees exercising their judgement warrants any sort of admonishment. If they got it wrong, the remedy for the community is to demonstrate their displeasure during an election and vote accordingly. It is a very difficult task to separate those who say the right things in a block appeal but don't mean them from those who genuinely have changed their ways. That should be kept in mind by those who have not volunteered themselves to perform that task. We do make mistakes, but I think anyone in this role would make mistakes.
Answering the questions in the request, which would have been better suited to ARCA: Unblocks by the Arbitration Committee are not as rare as some people think, I believe. We've done at least half a dozen, probably more, while I've been on the Committee; it isn't some once-in-a-blue-moon event. Most of those involve CU blocks, and I don't think there's any benefit to publicly announcing those, since the community has no awareness of the circumstances of the original block or the accepted appeal. I do think we should publicly announce every time we overturn a community ban. We haven't done that at all while I have been on the Committee, to my recollection. Restrictions should always be logged on the restrictions page, and I have argued as such privately when it has come up. The current Committee does appear to be doing that. Personally, I prefer not to note who supports and opposes each unblock request publicly for a couple reasons. We receive a tremendous number of block appeals from editors who are LTA cases or have engaged in harassment in the past. From a risk management perspective, it's better not to tell them who exactly voted to decline their requests. We also run the risk that someone who is narrowly granted an appeal is seen as "less legitimate" of an editor than someone who is unanimously granted an appeal. I don't think that's likely to set those editors up for success. The Arbitration Committee regularly seeks the opinion of the blocking administrator when it would be useful to deliberations. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Decline as I said on Fram's page, this is not a case request, it's a soap box. The questions, however, are valid and I'm looking into them behind the scenes to see where our processes have could be improved. However, the long and short of it is that we will make the wrong decision some times. Otherwise, I echo what Rob says. Worm^TT(talk) 15:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Decline I believe that we should be more transparent with unblock/ban appeals, as best we can. I do not believe we should necessarily post the votes of individual arbitrators for the reasons Rob outlined. The questions Fram posits can be answered without a case, and we should answer as many of them as we can. Katie^talk 16:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Decline I did not participate in the unban discussion, which is why I did not remember it. As a general rule, not everyone participates in any particular discussion, though in 2018 there has been a definite trend to have more participation than in the past. As others have said, there was also a definite tendency in 2018 to accept more unban appeals than in the past, when very few were granted. Most have turned out well, but not all. It cannot be expected that any group here is immune to error. However, it has been my opinion from the beginning of my service on the committee that vote numbers for all formal decisions should always be publicly announced, and in almost all cases names also. Just as in arb cases, I think people on the committee should be responsible for their decisions--the possible consequences of our service are a known risk, and nobody is compelled to serve. Discussing this or other reforms is not appropriate for a case, which is the only reason I am declining this, and it should be done elsewhere. The committee does have power to change its own rules, but if it does not, the community has the annual opportunity to elect arbs who say they wish to change the internal rules. And, in the end, the community has the means to change arb com policy. (However, it is already provided in WP: Arbitration Policy, that " the Committee will make public detailed rationales for decisions related to cases, unless the matter is unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal or similar reasons." The way to reinterpret or change this will indeed be a problem, as much of our present work does have privacy considerations. ) DGG ( talk ) 16:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was one of the few committee members who responded at WT:ACN#Guido den Broeder despite having not voted as I was inactive at the time. In looking over the discussion and my response, I do not think I was "extremely dismissive" and rather a significant amount of information was communicated back to the community. I read the request and provided my opinion on the matter. Specifically answering whether socking was seemingly contemplated in the decision. I expressed support for the community's subsequent ban and I also supported publicly documenting unbans at ACN. As for being a case request, this seems to be more about criticism and, like last time and in several emails to Fram, can be discussed without a case. Decline from me. Mkdw ^talk 17:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally, the WT:ACN discussion was linked on a list discussion recently, before this case request, specifically raising the use of ACN for announcements when unbans are granted by the committee. The committee recently logged some unban restrictions at WP:EDR. Almost all unbans granted by the committee have some form of unblock condition. Even so, as stated before, I support making announcements at ACN as well. Mkdw ^talk 18:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline Transparency is a good thing of course, but within reason. I don't see a need to have every vote done internally between Arbs to be made public however. Did the ArbCom make a bad choice in accepting an unban last year? Perhaps, but that doesn't involve the creation of a case of this issue. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 496: / Line 496: @@
 *Contacting another editor via off-wiki means without their consent is a serious issue and something we as a community have not necessarily considered in our policies and guidelines. I do not believe in the arguments that the outcome or discussion determines whether this is an appropriate course of action. The act must already have been committed in order to find out and the privacy and protections for individuals in our community must come first. Editors should be able to come to Wikipedia and edit its content without fearing the possibility that they will be contacted in person, by phone, or other means without their consent. Based upon what I have reviewed here, I do not endorse Jytdog's actions and consider the incident very serious. A full case may not be required here and potentially a motion could be enacted, or a shortened case that reviews all of Jytdog's history with respect of off-wiki conduct relating to Wikipedia. '''[[User:Mkdw|<span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw</span>]]''' [[User talk:Mkdw|<sup>''<span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk</span>''</sup>]] 22:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 *I agree this is something we should handle, potentially as a motion or an extremely shortened case with a focus on principles. I think what disappoints me most here is that the link presented by {{u|Kingsindian}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kingsindian/Archive_4#Hitchens here] makes it clear that Jytdog does know to ask for permission to initiate off-wiki contact, but lost his patience and completely failed to do so in this case. This entire debacle could have been avoided if Jytdog had just asked first. &spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 21:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
+**{{yo|Jytdog}}, that very diff indicates that you tried to phone them ''prior'' to asking permission. The first call went to voice mail, and ''then'' you went to their talk page and asked about arranging to Skype - not before. &spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 23:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 == 2017 ArbCom and the GdB unban ==