Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are active arbitrators. Expression error: Missing operand for +. support or oppose votes are a majority.

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Under no circumstances may this page be edited by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee or the clerks. Please submit comments on the proposed decision in your own section on the talk page.

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Motions require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still result in sanctions.

Support:

1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4. Worm^TT(talk) 16:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Additionally, editors should presume that other editors, including those who disagree with them, are acting in good faith toward the betterment of the project, at least until strong evidence emerges to the contrary. Even when an editor becomes convinced that another editor is not acting in good faith, and has a reasonable basis for that belief, the editor should attempt to remedy the problem without resorting to inappropriate conduct of their own.

Support:

1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4. Worm^TT(talk) 16:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

3) Civility is one of the five pillars. Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, to refrain from making personal attacks, to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions. Fellow editors should be treated as respected colleagues who are collaborating on an important project. New users who contribute constructively should be welcomed and treated with patience, but non-constructive newcomers should be politely discouraged or, where appropriate, counseled as to how to make more constructive contributions.

Support:

1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4. Worm^TT(talk) 16:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

4) Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and editors are welcome to edit without disclosing their identity. Revealing private information about an editor that they have not disclosed on Wikipedia themselves is prohibited. Although editors are strongly encouraged to disclose any conflicts of interest they may have with topic areas in which they edit, and are required to disclose if they are being paid for their edits, knowledge or suspicion that an editor has a COI or is editing for pay does not excuse revealing that editor's personal information. If necessary, these concerns can be handled privately.

Support:

1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4. Worm^TT(talk) 16:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

5) Wikipedia is created online. Editors are not required to engage in any way other than open on-wiki communication. Editors who welcome private communication typically post their preferred contact information on Wikipedia, sometimes enabling email through the Wikipedia interface; while email availability is encouraged, it is not mandatory. Contacting an editor using any other contact information, without first obtaining explicit permission, should be assumed to be uninvited and, depending on the context, may constitute harassment. Unexpected contact using personal information as described in Posting of personal information may be perceived as a threat to the safety and well-being of the person being contacted.

Support:

1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4. Worm^TT(talk) 16:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

6) In deciding what sanctions to impose against an editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioral history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of their participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehavior or questionable judgment in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed.

Support:

1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4. While true, other factors we should consider are severity of actions, likelihood of any other person to take similar actions outside of communtiy norms (i.e. "common" sense) and repeating behaviours, especially after stating that they would not. Worm^TT(talk) 16:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

7) Editors who have been sanctioned or warned, whether by the Arbitration Committee or the community, for improper conduct are expected to avoid further conduct that is inconsistent with Wikipedia's expectations. Repeated failure to demonstrate appropriate conduct may result in the editor's being subject to increasingly severe sanctions.

Support:

1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4. per my comments above Worm^TT(talk) 16:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

1) This dispute centers around the conduct of Jytdog (talk · contribs), a prolific editor with more than 187,000 edits over twelve years.

Support:

1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4. Noting he scrambled his password and currently has account at Jytdog2. Worm^TT(talk) 16:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

is it maybe helpful to mention the new account created to participate in this case? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2) Jytdog has previously been subject to oversight blocks for revealing non-public information about other editors (block log). He received his first oversight block in 2015 for outing another editor by posting email addresses to that editor's talk page. He promised that he would not repeat this behavior, and he was unblocked eleven days later. Approximately seven months later, Jytdog was oversight blocked again for outing, this time for posting a LinkedIn profile to an editor's talk page. After a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, he was unblocked after two months with a topic ban from COI-related editing, including "investigations and allegations against other editors" ([1]). This topic ban was lifted in 2017 by an Arbitration Committee motion based on Jytdog's assurances to the committee that he would not repeat his previous improper behavior ([2]).

Support:

1. Important background. I'm not sure I know of any other editor who's managed to accumulate three outing-related/oversight blocks (counting the 2018 one). GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4. Noting that similar blocks have been made as indefinite for other users and remain in force. The fact he had oversight blocks overturned twice is telling. Worm^TT(talk) 16:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

3) Following several prior disputes, Jytdog was subject to editing restrictions:

1. A voluntary agreement not to interact with a specific other editor (2015 ANI discussion)
2. An indefinite topic ban from genetically modified organisms (2015 Genetically modified organisms case)
3. A two-way, mutually agreed-upon interaction ban with a second specific editor (2017 ANI discussion)

Support:

1. As background. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4. Worm^TT(talk) 16:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

4) Jytdog has a history of edit warring with multiple editors (Smallbones' evidence, Julia W's evidence, [3]), as well as being uncivil toward and making personal attacks against multiple editors ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8]).

Support:

1. Important to note that although the outing-related issues are the most egregious, there have been ongoing issues with Jytdog's ability to collaborate with other editors. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4. I'll note that I had not realised the extent of users that Jytdog had affected and the evidence by Julia W (a user I'd worked with in the past and thought of as unflappable) has rather resonated with me. Worm^TT(talk) 16:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

5) In November 2018, Jytdog used external links to find the telephone number of an editor and called that editor without permission ([9]). Upon discovery of this incident, Jytdog was indefinitely blocked, then unblocked a few hours later (Jytdog block log). The editor had not posted their telephone number or other contact information on-wiki or given any indication they were willing to be contacted by telephone, nor did Jytdog obtain the editor's permission before calling them. Although Jytdog has stated that he called the editor in attempt to be helpful, he has admitted that the conversation became unfriendly and he wound up hanging up on the editor; he has also admitted that the call was improper. An arbitration case regarding the incident was accepted but not opened, because Jytdog stated that he would be retiring and had scrambled access to his account (motion). His account was re-blocked on December 5, 2018 as a part of that decision. In February 2020 he asked to be allowed to return, and this case was opened to consider his request.

Support:

1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4. Worm^TT(talk) 16:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) Jytdog (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

1. With regret, first choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. I just can't see any other remedy as proportional to the scope and duration of the problem, and explicitly reject the idea that we consider a "time served" argument. No second choice. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

2.1) Jytdog (as Jytdog2) is unblocked, subject to the following conditions:

1. Jytdog is subject to a topic ban from all matters related to conflict-of-interest editing. This includes investigations of and allegations against other editors, and edits to the COIN noticeboard and its talk page. If he is concerned about COI editing, he may contact the Arbitration Committee or the functionary team by email, without restriction.
2. Jytdog is prohibited from contacting any other editor, unless the editor in question has indicated on-wiki that they are willing to be contacted off-wiki. Jytdog is allowed to reply to off-wiki communication initiated by another editor if he wishes. As a sole exception to this rule, he may contact the Arbitration Committee or functionaries by email, without restriction.
3. Jytdog is limited to a one revert restriction.

The above restrictions shall apply indefinitely, and may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee in no less than six months, and every six months thereafter.

Support:

1. Equal to 2.2 as second choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I feel like a tailored restriction like this requires us to have some degree of trust that they will abide by it, (the second part is impossible to police unless someone aware of the restriction reports it with evidence) and given the track record I do not feel that at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

2.2) Jytdog (as Jytdog2) is unblocked, subject to the following conditions:

1. Jytdog is prohibited from interacting with anonymous and non-autoconfirmed editors, that is, IP editors and accounts which have existed for less than 4 days or have fewer than 10 edits.
2. Jytdog is subject to a topic ban from all matters related to conflict-of-interest editing. This includes investigations and allegations against other editors, and edits to the COIN noticeboard and its talk page.
3. Jytdog is prohibited from contacting other editors by any means other than open, on-wiki messages. As a sole exception to this rule, he may contact the Arbitration Committee or functionary team by email, for any reason.
4. Jytdog is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours, which shall apply in all namespaces.

The above restrictions shall apply indefinitely, and may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee in no less than six months, and every six months thereafter.

Support:

1. Equal to 2.1 as second choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Same as above, point 3 in this case requires trust. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Comments:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by ***ADD SIGNATURE HERE***; the last edit to this page was on 16:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC) by Worm That Turned.

Proposals with voting still underway (no majority)

Principles: All

Findings: All

Remedies: All

Enforcement provisions: Pass by default

Proposals which have passed

Principles: None, yet

Findings: None, yet

Remedies: None, yet

Enforcement provisions: Pass by default

Proposals which cannot pass

Principles: None, yet

Findings: None, yet

Remedies: None, yet

Enforcement provisions: Pass by default

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The Clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, unless an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.

Support

Oppose

Comments