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

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Comment by spryde

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

Comments by Barkeep49

For proposed remedies 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 how does the COI topic ban intersect with the Jytdog's contention that the inciting incident with Beal was not COI, My work on COI issues has been raised a few times. The issue in the incident was not COI per se, but rather advocacy.? If allowed back would Jytdog be permitted to engage in the kind of work they'd done with Beal (outside of the phone call obviously)? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Also in 3.3.2 I think I think Jytdog is prohibited from contacting any other editor, unless should read Jytdog is prohibited from contacting any other editor offwiki, unless. Otherwise it appears Jytdog may email people who've set that up but not leave talk page messages? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I've made your change to 3.3.2. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Comments by Thryduulf

Overall this is a good proposed decision, I want to raise just a couple of small points:

• Remedy 2.1 Point 2 and remedy 2.2 point 3: These should both include an explicit exception for emergency@ to avoid any theoretical issues should he need to use it (at least some of the people who respond to that email address are enwp editors in addition to their role at the Foundation).
• Remedy 2.1 Point 3 is not brilliantly worded (what does being limited to a restriction mean?). The easiest way to solve this would be to replace the world "limited" with "subject". Actually Remedy 2.2 point 4 seems to achieve the same goal with clearer wording overall. Thryduulf (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
• Finding of fact 1: in the note added by Maxim, "now using as Jytdog2" should be either "now using Jytdog2" or "now editing as Jytdog2" - "using as" doesn't make sense. Thryduulf (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

  Thryduulf, thanks for spotting that. Clearly I tried both constructions and split the difference? Maxim_(talk) 19:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

  I've fixed the wording in the second, and added an exemption for Trust & Safety (which should cover emergency@ as well as a few other cases). Thanks for the feedback. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion by Xeno.

Xeno,

1. Am I correct in assuming that your suggested remedy would constrain Jytdog to edit content only in draft space in articles he creates, and to only discuss anything at all on his own talk page? If so, I would suggest modifying that to allow him to discuss draft articles he creates on their own talk pages too, as that would keep discussion history for such articles with the article if/when it gets moved to mainspace, at which time I assume Jytdog would no longer be allowed to edit either the article or the talk page.
2. In the event of a breach of these conditions, would the correct response be an indefinite block under discretionary sanctions?
3. Jytdog has enemies. Some may attempt to goad him into inappropriate behaviour. How do you propose to manage this? Discretionary sanctions for all pages he is allowed to edit as stipulated above? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 21:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Pbsouthwood: If my suggestion had gained any traction at all, you’re right that some tweaks are probably required to prevent gaming on either side. And yes, draft talk was implied, but would need to be specified to be clear. Thank you for tossing my idea around in your head. –xeno^talk 23:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your time

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