Jytdog

[BrillLyle]

I personally think blanking those pages tends to just lead to a lot of useless drama. People revert war over banned tags and/or blanking, maybe someone gets blocked, at the end of the day nothing important has changed but a lot of people got upset anyway.

But if I remember correctly in your case you got an office ban, which is a whole other thing entirely out of our control.

Apologies. I know it's not the same thing. The thing with the Dawg, he was so miserable and awful to me, I don't want him to have any nice things, even as a remnant. Super petty of me, but hey, I think he deserves nothing good after what he has done for so freaking long to so many flipping people.

[Vigilant]

I personally think blanking those pages tends to just lead to a lot of useless drama. People revert war over banned tags and/or blanking, maybe someone gets blocked, at the end of the day nothing important has changed but a lot of people got upset anyway.

But if I remember correctly in your case you got an office ban, which is a whole other thing entirely out of our control.

Apologies. I know it's not the same thing. The thing with the Dawg, he was so miserable and awful to me, I don't want him to have any nice things, even as a remnant. Super petty of me, but hey, I think he deserves nothing good after what he has done for so freaking long to so many flipping people.

[Death To Wikipedia]

That's just it, you are telling people what to do. You should stick to explaining how what they were doing, was violating policy. There is no policy that says don't concentrate on deletion, there are only policies that say how to do it. It's got to be pretty insulting to those who do it properly, to be told it somehow takes less skill or is less valuable to be removing content than adding it. It's like people don't even realize that pulling out the crap from that so called encyclopedia is a brand new profession. Nobody working for Brittanicca ever had to do it. By contrast, adding content to Wikipedia is a skill that is easily transferred from traditional encyclopedias, not that the vast majority of those writing Wikipedia has ever held a job writing for a real encyclopedia in their life. On a final note, on the general subject of gauging what's best for Wikipedia, well, what's worse for readers, not finding information, or finding crap information? Productivity is about what's best for readers, whereas it's pretty obvious most of Wikipedia's writers are doing it for entirely selfish reasons, and more often than not, the source of these spats with deleters is when they delete something they wrongly consider theirs.

[Death To Wikipedia]

Saying it's not important to publicly note Jytdog is no longer an editor in good standing because he got banned, is both a further slap in the face for all his victims, and those who have made thousands of edits to Wikipedia and have never once even come close to the sort of harmful screwup he was becoming known for. The supposed leaders of the community should be more mindful of the messages they send, as indeed was noted by many who took the time to participate in the Case.

[Beeblebrox]

You obviously suck at picking your battles, so I sure wouldn't take advice from you on this point.

[Death To Wikipedia]

You obviously suck at picking your battles, so I sure wouldn't take advice from you on this point.

I'm not offering an advice service. Just plain exposure. So thanks for the easy win on that score. If you like, I can perhaps find a Wikipedian who would make the same argument, if only to see if you'd be brave enough to blow them off over there.

[Poetlister]

The thing with the Dawg, he was so miserable and awful to me, I don't want him to have any nice things, even as a remnant. Super petty of me, but hey, I think he deserves nothing good after what he has done for so freaking long to so many flipping people.

Never ever expect justice, even-handedness or fair play on Wikipedia. I think that's rule number 42, the oldest rule in the book.

[Midsize Jake]

Looking at the pages in question, I don't see why you couldn't put a banner-box thingy at the top of each one to note that he's banned and still leave the existing material beneath it...? Or is that too much of a compromise?

[Beeblebrox]

Looking at the pages in question, I don't see why you couldn't put a banner-box thingy at the top of each one to note that he's banned and still leave the existing material beneath it...? Or is that too much of a compromise?

People with "fan clubs" love to make drama about this sort of thing. So it just seems easier to me to avoid that drama, he's just as banned whether the pages are tagged or not.

[Vigilant]

Looking at the pages in question, I don't see why you couldn't put a banner-box thingy at the top of each one to note that he's banned and still leave the existing material beneath it...? Or is that too much of a compromise?

People with "fan clubs" love to make drama about this sort of thing. So it just seems easier to me to avoid that drama, he's just as banned whether the pages are tagged or not.

See Corbett, E

[Midsize Jake]

People with "fan clubs" love to make drama about this sort of thing. So it just seems easier to me to avoid that drama, he's just as banned whether the pages are tagged or not.

Well, it's a tricky problem, since most of the time we're arguing against obvious ban notices, not in favor of them. It's just that when you have someone who's made that many edits, many of them controversial, who has Youtube videos and Reddit threads about him, and has even been partly the subject of a Vice.com article... If certain people find out he's banned from some other source (like Reddit) and don't see the ban-notice where they'd normally expect to see it, they'll probably accuse y'all of "playing favorites" and/or trying to hide something, FWIW.

Still, I don't see it as a huge deal... though it probably qualifies as a double-standard, more or less.

[The Garbage Scow]

Looking at the pages in question, I don't see why you couldn't put a banner-box thingy at the top of each one to note that he's banned and still leave the existing material beneath it...? Or is that too much of a compromise?

People with "fan clubs" love to make drama about this sort of thing. So it just seems easier to me to avoid that drama, he's just as banned whether the pages are tagged or not.

This whole thing about special classes of banned/blocked people whose pages aren't tagged while others are has always pissed me off. They should be on every blocked/banned userpage or none of them. Otherwise, Wikipedia might as well codify different classes of people based on stupid middle-school cliques. "Billy gets one because he's a big poop face, but Jerry doesn't cos he's so kewl". The tags supposedly serve a function, like the old "banned users list" did, but nobody can explain how they do in one case but not in another. Someone should MfD the lot.

[BrillLyle]

That's just it, you are telling people what to do. You should stick to explaining how what they were doing, was violating policy. There is no policy that says don't concentrate on deletion, there are only policies that say how to do it. It's got to be pretty insulting to those who do it properly, to be told it somehow takes less skill or is less valuable to be removing content than adding it. It's like people don't even realize that pulling out the crap from that so called encyclopedia is a brand new profession. Nobody working for Brittanicca ever had to do it. By contrast, adding content to Wikipedia is a skill that is easily transferred from traditional encyclopedias, not that the vast majority of those writing Wikipedia has ever held a job writing for a real encyclopedia in their life. On a final note, on the general subject of gauging what's best for Wikipedia, well, what's worse for readers, not finding information, or finding crap information? Productivity is about what's best for readers, whereas it's pretty obvious most of Wikipedia's writers are doing it for entirely selfish reasons, and more often than not, the source of these spats with deleters is when they delete something they wrongly consider theirs.

Listen, I don't know you, or know your story. But what's pretty clear is that you don't know me or know what my story is, what my skills are.

What you describe above is a pretty clear example of what's wrong with Wikipedia editors. Prove it! Where's the policy?!? Insult! Lash out!

Instead of empathy, help others, believe what they have to say because gasp! they might have a clue about the situation.

I try not to do this but it's clear you have problems so I'll just go ahead and block you.

Oh, and thanks for reminding us all how many people there are like Jytdog out there. You have done him PROUD! (If you aren't his sock, which would just be sad and pathetic).

[Death To Wikipedia]

Well, let's all keep in mind that as of right now, we don't know if the reason Jytdog's user pages aren't properly informing users of his status is because he has a fan club. One could suggest that if he still even has got a fan club, they're feeling rather weak and timid, having barely even mounted a defence in his Case, nor left the sort of mournful and rebellious comments on learning the terrible news of his loss to them that they did last time. So they could probably be easily defeated in the seemingly unlikely event they dared object to their boy duly having his status noted. Y'know, as a counter point to "I believe in Wikipedia's Five Pillars."

It does appear someone tried to add a template to his talk page, and while maybe the following edit by Administrator JJMC89 was intended to remove it, but maybe it wasn't. It is still there, in the source code. He didn't explicitly say what he was doing, and he does have a reputation for communication issues and technical incompetence, neither of which the community spotted in his RfA, evidently.

At the moment, all we really know is that Beeblebrox doesn't care to add a template because he doesn't really think it matters, isn't interested in the argument that not doing so is a further insult to his victims or doing so is a benefit to outsiders/novices, and thinks that if he did it might be a hassle because he might have to, shock horror, block someone, to impose his will.

Also worth noting that Jytdog's user page is fully protected, which makes it doubly unlikely that a template could be removed by some mere dingleberry, and rather obvious that if a person charged with identifying corrupt Administrators on Wikipedia thought about it for a few seconds, tagging the dog's user page is a perfect opportunity to perhaps entrap an Administrator who is probably long overdue an audit before the Committee.

Additionally worth noting, Jytdog's talk page is not just unprotected, as in open to any unregistered editor, it has a large banner on it that directs people to leave him a message. Ironic to think that if he had actually died, rather than having been banned with no realistic possibility of appeal, ever, as seems to be the consensus of this Committee and a view that is unlikely to change for any future one, someone would think it appropriate to update the page.

[Poetlister]

Ironic to think that if he had actually died, rather than having been banned with no realistic possibility of appeal, ever, as seems to be the consensus of this Committee and a view that is unlikely to change for any future one, someone would think it appropriate to update the page.

Obviously, if someone who is an editor in good stead dies, that's a very very different situation from someone who is an atrocious editor being banned. How can any comparison be made?

[Death To Wikipedia]

Ironic to think that if he had actually died, rather than having been banned with no realistic possibility of appeal, ever, as seems to be the consensus of this Committee and a view that is unlikely to change for any future one, someone would think it appropriate to update the page.

Obviously, if someone who is an editor in good stead dies, that's a very very different situation from someone who is an atrocious editor being banned. How can any comparison be made?

Well, to seemingly repeat what I already thought I had said, there's the simple fact that in both cases there is little reason to think it is appropriate to keep telling outsiders or newbies that the talk page in question is still open for routine business, contrary to what is currently written at the top. The only difference being what the template actually needs to say, "dead", or "might as well be dead". The fact that like actual dead users, passers by are also meant to leave flowers for Jytdog, can merely be implied from the messages left for him when he dearly departed the first time around.

[Poetlister]

We seem to be in agreement here. If unfortunately someone dies, it is right and proper to allow people to pay their respects. If someone is Arbcom banned, it isn't (unless the ban is unjustified).

[No Ledge]

Look at the documentation for Template:Banned user (T-H-L)

It clearly shows under Examples of usage that when a user is Banned by the ArbCom there is (No tag) output.

To see why this is as it is, see Template talk:Banned user#Suppressing the banner for arbcom bans

Instead of the banner, these users are now documented in Category:Wikipedia users banned by the Arbitration Committee (T-H-L)

[charliemouse]

I would have frankly been surprised if they hadn't banned him, and surely I am in the vast majority of seasoned Wikipedia watchers. This is the fucked up reality of Wikipedia governance - ArbCom is really the only part of the dispute resolution process which is remotely functional, loosely speaking.
<snip>

This is a very good analysis, but I would not have been surprised because he was given so many previous chances. Nor am I surprised that they have left his Memorial Page intact and not treated him like other banned editors.

[Beeblebrox]

This whole thing about special classes of banned/blocked people whose pages aren't tagged while others are has always pissed me off. They should be on every blocked/banned userpage or none of them.

I can find no fault with this position. The broader community seems to be of two minds about it however.

[Beeblebrox]

Look at the documentation for Template:Banned user (T-H-L)

It clearly shows under Examples of usage that when a user is Banned by the ArbCom there is (No tag) output.

To see why this is as it is, see Template talk:Banned user#Suppressing the banner for arbcom bans

Instead of the banner, these users are now documented in Category:Wikipedia users banned by the Arbitration Committee (T-H-L)

Huh, can't say I was really paying much attention to what arbcom was doing around that time, seems like they maybe had a private discussion and just made the change.

[Poetlister]

This whole thing about special classes of banned/blocked people whose pages aren't tagged while others are has always pissed me off. They should be on every blocked/banned userpage or none of them.

I can find no fault with this position. The broader community seems to be of two minds about it however.

"The broader community" means the limited number of people who frequent the drama boards. The great majority of even regular editors are unaware of, or at least totally uninterested in, the issue.

[Vigilant]

This whole thing about special classes of banned/blocked people whose pages aren't tagged while others are has always pissed me off. They should be on every blocked/banned userpage or none of them.

I can find no fault with this position. The broader community seems to be of two minds about it however.

This stupidity happened to my talk page too.

Lost of score settling or shrine building, depending on how you got checked out.

[Death To Wikipedia]

Look at the documentation for Template:Banned user (T-H-L)

It clearly shows under Examples of usage that when a user is Banned by the ArbCom there is (No tag) output.

To see why this is as it is, see Template talk:Banned user#Suppressing the banner for arbcom bans

Instead of the banner, these users are now documented in Category:Wikipedia users banned by the Arbitration Committee (T-H-L)

Just when you think you have seen it all.

Probably time to revisit that decision, because it is clear that even as late as 2016, ArbCom weren't properly taking account the views of victims or needs of outsiders.

How perverse that in the situations where the tag is likely to be most deserved and most valuable, they take the view it needn't be seen.

[charliemouse]

Probably time to revisit that decision, because it is clear that even as late as 2016, ArbCom weren't properly taking account the views of victims or needs of outsiders.

How perverse that in the situations where the tag is likely to be most deserved and most valuable, they take the view it needn't be seen.

I don't want to get too "legal" about all this, but Arbcom should consider a "victim's impact statement" in dealing with editors who have proactively harmed others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_impact_statement

[Poetlister]

I don't want to get too "legal" about all this, but Arbcom should consider a "victim's impact statement" in dealing with editors who have proactively harmed others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_impact_statement

If they were a proper court, you'd expect that. However, they pretend to be a court when it suits them and deny it when that suits them.

[EllenCT]

Jytdog was nothing compared to Kingofaces43, but always took his side when it was time to poison bugs in support of the Maize Gods.

Kingofaces43 got me topic banned from talking about "agricultural chemicals" (when the aliens sift through our rubble I'm going to get at least a paragraph for that one) because I kept pointing out that the first time I asked him for a literature review, he offered a COI sponsored source instead. Also I am not allowed to question the motivations of other Wikipedians about that, but what I think ANI really meant was "...out loud."

[Randy from Boise]

Jytdog was nothing compared to Kingofaces43, but always took his side when it was time to poison bugs in support of the Maize Gods.

Kingofaces43 got me topic banned from talking about "agricultural chemicals" (when the aliens sift through our rubble I'm going to get at least a paragraph for that one) because I kept pointing out that the first time I asked him for a literature review, he offered a COI sponsored source instead. Also I am not allowed to question the motivations of other Wikipedians about that, but what I think ANI really meant was "...out loud."

Welcome to WPO, Ellen!

tim

[EllenCT]

Welcome to WPO, Ellen!

tim

<3 Thank you, Tim! <3

[Giraffe Stapler]

Is Jytdog back as Psychologist Guy (T-C-L)?

They have started a discussion on the COI noticeboard about one of their old enemies, Sbelknap (T-C-L) (AKA Dr Stephen Michael Belknap, internist and meat enthusiast).

Psychologist Guy and Jytdog have a very large overlap in articles edited. Psychologist Guy registered in 2017 (before Jytdog was banned) but after creating a properly formatted article on their first edit, made only 7 edits (all on the same day) before disappearing until 2019.

[The Garbage Scow]

Is Jytdog back as Psychologist Guy (T-C-L)?

They have started a discussion on the COI noticeboard about one of their old enemies, Sbelknap (T-C-L) (AKA Dr Stephen Michael Belknap, internist and meat enthusiast).

Psychologist Guy and Jytdog have a very large overlap in articles edited. Psychologist Guy registered in 2017 (before Jytdog was banned) but after creating a properly formatted article on their first edit, made only 7 edits (all on the same day) before disappearing until 2019.

That's worthy of an SPI, regardless of Tryptofish tipping him off on his talk page.

[Giraffe Stapler]

That's worthy of an SPI, regardless of Tryptofish tipping him off on his talk page.

I wasn't "claiming" that they were Jytdog, Tryptofish, I was asking if they were. I don't know the answer. If I did, I would have said so. ;)

[Vigilant]

A note from our dear readers.

[The Garbage Scow]

A note from our dear readers.

Bon Courage (T-C-L), formerly known as Alexbrn (and regular Jytdog tag-team partner) agrees with Tryptofish

[Giraffe Stapler]

A note from our dear readers.

Bon Courage (T-C-L), formerly known as Alexbrn (and regular Jytdog tag-team partner) agrees with Tryptofish

I have been informed by a uncannily reliable source that Psychology Guy is not Jytdog, but an entirely different oft-blocked user. Carry on.

[The Garbage Scow]

A note from our dear readers.

Bon Courage (T-C-L), formerly known as Alexbrn (and regular Jytdog tag-team partner) agrees with Tryptofish

I have been informed by a uncannily reliable source that Psychology Guy is not Jytdog, but an entirely different oft-blocked user. Carry on.

You tease.

[The Blue Newt]

A note from our dear readers.

Bon Courage (T-C-L), formerly known as Alexbrn (and regular Jytdog tag-team partner) agrees with Tryptofish

I have been informed by a uncannily reliable source that Psychology Guy is not Jytdog, but an entirely different oft-blocked user. Carry on.

You tease.

Isn’t it l.c. on the second lie in the user name there?