Jytdog

[AndyTheGrump]

...none of the IPs that Jytdog has posted from here on Wikipediocracy are Canadian.

Is it customary to reveal such information about Wikipediocracy contributors?

[The Garbage Scow]

I can certainly see the similarity, but for what it's worth (which isn't much, I know), 104.163.147.121 geolocates to Canada, and none of the IPs that Jytdog has posted from here on Wikipediocracy are Canadian. Moreover, if you look at some of the early revisions of his user page, like this one, he says he's American, and I don't think he's made a huge secret of that in general (though he did eventually remove that reference). So hopefully he won't lose his shit if I divulge the fact that all of the IPs he's posted from here are American. It's not like that narrows it down much...

I did notice that too, but another thing I noticed is that the IP editor didn't start editing until three weeks ago, but seems to have significant experience with Wikipedia. First edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =829468367]. He says he's voted in 1,000 or more AfDs [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =832186681].

On top of that, the IP editor says their IP is static (I can't find where he said that now, but I confirmed it anyway [https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/104.163.147.121]). Jytdog hasn't posted here in some time, so maybe he just moved to Quebec, or is there on work assignment, or is on vacation.

This editor also displays Jytdog's obsessive fixation on whatever he deems "COI editing".

He also displays standard Jytdog behavior: goading people, then claiming victimhood when they become angry with him.

It's hard to say for sure, but this could be someone who is good at playing the sock game. Jytdog has been very careful about not letting anyone find out who he really is. I'll keep looking.

[The Garbage Scow]

It looks like some others have suspected our friend of sockpuppetry in the past.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... og/Archive

JzG blocked whomever filed the last investigation (which asserted Jytdog was a sock of Cirt).

[Smiley]

And now he's accusing his opponents of "Reichstag-climbing," which is quite frankly one of the stupider (and most self-defeating) classes of accusation the Wikipedians have managed come up with over the years.

Originally created by JzG as a "New policy".

I always thought "No climbing the church steeple dressed as Terry Fuckwitt" would have been more appropriate:

non-carborundum_-_2018-03-28_20.42.23.png

Terry Fuckwitt (T-H-L) from Viz

[Poetlister]

...none of the IPs that Jytdog has posted from here on Wikipediocracy are Canadian.

Is it customary to reveal such information about Wikipediocracy contributors?

Jake's already answered that one: "he says he's American, and I don't think he's made a huge secret of that in general (though he did eventually remove that reference). So hopefully he won't lose his shit if I divulge the fact that all of the IPs he's posted from here are American. It's not like that narrows it down much..."

[The Garbage Scow]

Editor interaction analysis between 104.163.147.121 and Jytdog. Not a huge amount, since the IP only started editing (with this IP) at the beginning of March, but some interesting stuff here anyway.

They've both edited Zefr (T-C-L)'s talkpage (Zefr is another of the MEDRS folks).

And DGG (T-C-L)'s talkpage

And Bearcat (T-C-L)'s talkpage

They've both edited Theranos (T-H-L) and Autonomous Car (T-H-L)

Of greater interest: Potential votestacking at a couple AfDs?
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queens of Hearts Couture Cakes

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Kabza

This really shows the similarities of their edit summaries.

[The Garbage Scow]

For sh!ts and giggles, I filed a sockpuppet investigation and predictably it was blanked as "Disruptive report" with absolutely nothing done... which is the third time this has happened with Jytdog SPIs. So, at this point I think we can all assume Jytdog and his likely abusive sock(s) are untouchable. (Either that or the Wikipediots hate me even more than I thought, which is just as likely LOL)

[Kumioko]

For sh!ts and giggles, I filed a sockpuppet investigation and predictably it was blanked as "Disruptive report" with absolutely nothing done... which is the third time this has happened with Jytdog SPIs. So, at this point I think we can all assume Jytdog and his likely abusive sock(s) are untouchable. (Either that or the Wikipediots hate me even more than I thought, which is just as likely LOL)

Maybe some combination of the two. I would confirm that unless the submission to SPI is done by a Checkuser with evidence attached, nearly any accusation of an admin being a sock will be dismissed out of hand with some excuse regardless of it's merits. The admins look out for each other and they will go to extraordinary efforts to cover for one of their own.

[The Garbage Scow]

Maybe some combination of the two. I would confirm that unless the submission to SPI is done by a Checkuser with evidence attached, nearly any accusation of an admin being a sock will be dismissed out of hand with some excuse regardless of it's merits. The admins look out for each other and they will go to extraordinary efforts to cover for one of their own.

Jytdog isn't an admin (but he does have some well-known admin friends, and of course if he's Cirt, though Cirt was desysopped in 2011).

[Kumioko]

Maybe some combination of the two. I would confirm that unless the submission to SPI is done by a Checkuser with evidence attached, nearly any accusation of an admin being a sock will be dismissed out of hand with some excuse regardless of it's merits. The admins look out for each other and they will go to extraordinary efforts to cover for one of their own.

Jytdog isn't an admin (but he does have some well-known admin friends, and of course if he's Cirt, though Cirt was desysopped in 2011).

Oh good to know, he acts like one so I guess I should have looked closer. I have my fingers crossed he turns out to be a sock but then again I am still pretty sure that BURob13 is as well and he made it to the Arbcom and the inner sanctum of the circus.

[Bezdomni]

Your faithful court reporter would be remiss in not mentioning the request for amendment provided by Factchecker_atyourservice to AE. Basically, FactCheck wants Jytdog's comment redacted, because, he argues, it was BS. Twenty-five minutes later, his request was shut down for procedural reasons by Sandstein, after comment by OID. NOTBURO. ^^

Note how difficult it will be to find the outline of the complaint, doubly hatted. §§

Is factcheck being litigous? From what I've read of it, I think he was objecting to a sloppy smeary investigation undertaken (why?) by Jytdog. Speaking of camels & gnats...

edit: In fairness, nearly every sentence in the triply hatted bit about Palin contains the word "argued" or "complained".

[Anroth]

Is factcheck being litigous?

Only as a byproduct of being a clueless obsessive fuckstick.

Essentially he is unhappy Jytdog wrote a mean comment about him in Factcheckers topic banning discussion. Factchecker believes Jytdogs characterization of his editing history is wrong and wants it struck. Almost certainly never going to happen to a closed and archived discussion. The only time that happens is if there is something that would violate privacy, or obscene personal attacks etc. Its not going to happen just because he doesnt like what someone (reasonably accurately) said about his editing.

There are few exceptions to topic bans, and when editors get topic banned from a significant section of their past editing, opening discussions about the nature of that past editing is not one of them. Had he taken the quite sensible advice to withdraw his complaint, he might have got away with a slapped wrist rather than an instant block. But then again, since he had already been told by an admin (Neil) to drop it, maybe not.

So standard clueless obsessive unwilling to drop it once they have been thwarted. The usual for topic banned editors.

[Kumioko]

NeilN is a scumbag who should have been blocked himself. I wouldn't have listened to him either.

[MadManz]

NeilN is a scumbag who should have been blocked himself. I wouldn't have listened to him either.

He can't be blocked, he's one of the most active admins and has over 100K edits (most of which are reverting vanfalism or tagging blocks, but still enough to get a sense of how much he has done). Also he has been around for longer than most

[Kumioko]

I have over 1 million edits, the number of edits doesn't matter. All it will take is for someone to submit a request to the arbcom with a good enough reasoning.

[MadManz]

I have over 1 million edits, the number of edits doesn't matter. All it will take is for someone to submit a request to the arbcom with a good enough reasoning.

You were never an admin, nor did you go with virtually no enemies like Neil has.

[Kumioko]

True on the first part and I had lots of friends back then. Neil has plenty of enemies too, most admins do.

[Anroth]

True on the first part and I had lots of friends back then. Neil has plenty of enemies too, most admins do.

When you spend a significant amount of time dealing with vandals, disruptive editors and other assorted annoyances, you will always have enemies. Its a job hazard of being an admin.

The key difference is Neil doesnt have any enemies with either the reputation or standing to be a threat to him as they consist almost entirely of people who are either banned, have been banned, or have dubious reputations.

You had a large amount of 'enemies' (more accurately, editors who wished to see you gone, I doubt the majority of people you consider an enemy cared about you at all to personalise it that much) who were more respected than your limited friends*, in positions of greater influence and defacto power, and were both willing and able to make the effort to be rid of you.

*There are no friends on Wikipedia. You either have people you can work with, or editors you have yet to disagree with. But do not make the mistake of thinking that anonymous person on the internet is a friend.

[MadManz]

True on the first part and I had lots of friends back then. Neil has plenty of enemies too, most admins do.

When you spend a significant amount of time dealing with vandals, disruptive editors and other assorted annoyances, you will always have enemies. Its a job hazard of being an admin.

The key difference is Neil doesnt have any enemies with either the reputation or standing to be a threat to him as they consist almost entirely of people who are either banned, have been banned, or have dubious reputations.

You had a large amount of 'enemies' (more accurately, editors who wished to see you gone, I doubt the majority of people you consider an enemy cared about you at all to personalise it that much) who were more respected than your limited friends*, in positions of greater influence and defacto power, and were both willing and able to make the effort to be rid of you.

*There are no friends on Wikipedia. You either have people you can work with, or editors you have yet to disagree with. But do not make the mistake of thinking that anonymous person on the internet is a friend.

Of course most admins' enemies are vandals. Some like DoRD constantly get attacks, including some that have to be RevDel'd and suppressed.

[Kumioko]

True on the first part and I had lots of friends back then. Neil has plenty of enemies too, most admins do.

When you spend a significant amount of time dealing with vandals, disruptive editors and other assorted annoyances, you will always have enemies. Its a job hazard of being an admin.

The key difference is Neil doesnt have any enemies with either the reputation or standing to be a threat to him as they consist almost entirely of people who are either banned, have been banned, or have dubious reputations.

You had a large amount of 'enemies' (more accurately, editors who wished to see you gone, I doubt the majority of people you consider an enemy cared about you at all to personalise it that much) who were more respected than your limited friends*, in positions of greater influence and defacto power, and were both willing and able to make the effort to be rid of you.

*There are no friends on Wikipedia. You either have people you can work with, or editors you have yet to disagree with. But do not make the mistake of thinking that anonymous person on the internet is a friend.

I was disliked by 2 fairly small groups of people Anroth, those admins who wanted to continue to be allowed to do whatever they want, regardless of policy, simply because they are admins and; those people who disliked WikiProject United States and wanted to see it fail. That's it. The vast majority of the community got along with me fine, most of the community would probably still rather have me editing than have a high output passionate editor bullied out and banned. It is again, a very small segment of the community, a vocal minority if you will, that wanted me out at all cost and were willing to manipulate and flat out violate policy to do it. That you don't agree, don't recognize it or don't care isn't my problem.

[Randy from Boise]

True on the first part and I had lots of friends back then. Neil has plenty of enemies too, most admins do.

When you spend a significant amount of time dealing with vandals, disruptive editors and other assorted annoyances, you will always have enemies. Its a job hazard of being an admin.

The key difference is Neil doesnt have any enemies with either the reputation or standing to be a threat to him as they consist almost entirely of people who are either banned, have been banned, or have dubious reputations.

You had a large amount of 'enemies' (more accurately, editors who wished to see you gone, I doubt the majority of people you consider an enemy cared about you at all to personalise it that much) who were more respected than your limited friends*, in positions of greater influence and defacto power, and were both willing and able to make the effort to be rid of you.

*There are no friends on Wikipedia. You either have people you can work with, or editors you have yet to disagree with. But do not make the mistake of thinking that anonymous person on the internet is a friend.

I was disliked by 2 fairly small groups of people Anroth, those admins who wanted to continue to be allowed to do whatever they want, regardless of policy, simply because they are admins and; those people who disliked WikiProject United States and wanted to see it fail. That's it. The vast majority of the community got along with me fine, most of the community would probably still rather have me editing than have a high output passionate editor bullied out and banned. It is again, a very small segment of the community, a vocal minority if you will, that wanted me out at all cost and were willing to manipulate and flat out violate policy to do it. That you don't agree, don't recognize it or don't care isn't my problem.

Be that as it may, you have to admit you went out of your way to inflame the situation and that you have ultimately reaped what you have sown.

What big issue were you fighting for? None that I could discern.

RfB

[Kumioko]

I will certainly agree I got more upset than I should have, but hey, I had a bunch of A-holes manipulating and violating policy, trolling me, intimidating people who opposed the ban, lying, etc. Yeah that upset me and I think naturally so.

And I really think you are just trolling me because my message has been consistent the entire time, so if you don't know what it is, then you really shouldn't be an admin on Wikipedia because you aren't paying attention. I have consistently been fighting for the admins to not be abusive to the community and held to a lower bar than the community and for them to treat the community members who are doing the work to actually improve the project. They shouldn't be insulted, degraded or talked to condescendingly just because 10 years ago a bunch of people who don't even edit anymore trusted them to not delete the 'pedia. Just because they can block people who disagree with them, doesn't mean they should be a-holes to the community. But you already knew that and you just wanted me to repeat it to be pointy right?

Also, I've said it before and I'll say it again. Anyone who says I did not improve Wikipedia is a flat out liar! Anyone who says I cannot be trusted is a liar and anyone who says I should be banned is a self serving liar who doesn't have the projects best interests in mind. Including you if that is how you feel and if that offends you or anyone else that I said that, I don't really care, because I know I improved it more than almost anyone else. And that's not arrogance, that's a statistical fact based on the areas I edited, the volume of edits and the impact that my contributions continue to have on the project to this day. Most of the scripts I created are still used; so are the templates; the articles I got promoted are still promoted or have improved since then, the WikiProjects are still chugging along, though at a much lower activity, etc. If I wasn't banned I would still be doing at least thousands of edits a month to improve it, but no one cares about that because improving Wikipedia has become a second or third level effect of the WMF's money making empire these days.

The WMF wanted me banned and so did some in the community and although the same may be true of me as well, they have also reaped what they have sown by turning a high output and dedicated positive editor who was passionate about improving Wikipedia into an enemy.

I was banned for fighting abusive admins and corruption to benefit the community and the project and anyone who says otherwise....is again, just lying about what really happened and I will continue to fight them on and off wiki forever! Because I will not, ever, allow cyberbullies and cyberterrorists to ban me so they can show the community what happens when you stand up to abusive admins and incompetent WMF employees like James Alexander!

[Bezdomni]

There are no friends on Wikipedia. You either have people you can work with, or editors you have yet to disagree with. But do not make the mistake of thinking that anonymous person on the internet is a friend.

We are off-topic. Still, I wonder what consequences there are for "community" in a post-friendly world...

I think there was a link in this thread where one monad (Soft Lavender, I believe) was waxing on about how the community felt about K. I wonder how one can purport to speak for a community, without any sense of affect.

You mean to tell me Bishonen's only trew friends are Bishzilla and Darwinbish? That pillar posers like Neutrality and NeilN don't have friends?

[MadManz]

I will certainly agree I got more upset than I should have, but hey, I had a bunch of A-holes manipulating and violating policy, trolling me, intimidating people who opposed the ban, lying, etc. Yeah that upset me and I think naturally so.

And I really think you are just trolling me because my message has been consistent the entire time, so if you don't know what it is, then you really shouldn't be an admin on Wikipedia because you aren't paying attention. I have consistently been fighting for the admins to not be abusive to the community and held to a lower bar than the community and for them to treat the community members who are doing the work to actually improve the project. They shouldn't be insulted, degraded or talked to condescendingly just because 10 years ago a bunch of people who don't even edit anymore trusted them to not delete the 'pedia. Just because they can block people who disagree with them, doesn't mean they should be a-holes to the community. But you already knew that and you just wanted me to repeat it to be pointy right?

Also, I've said it before and I'll say it again. Anyone who says I did not improve Wikipedia is a flat out liar! Anyone who says I cannot be trusted is a liar and anyone who says I should be banned is a self serving liar who doesn't have the projects best interests in mind. Including you if that is how you feel and if that offends you or anyone else that I said that, I don't really care, because I know I improved it more than almost anyone else. And that's not arrogance, that's a statistical fact based on the areas I edited, the volume of edits and the impact that my contributions continue to have on the project to this day. Most of the scripts I created are still used; so are the templates; the articles I got promoted are still promoted or have improved since then, the WikiProjects are still chugging along, though at a much lower activity, etc. If I wasn't banned I would still be doing at least thousands of edits a month to improve it, but no one cares about that because improving Wikipedia has become a second or third level effect of the WMF's money making empire these days.

The WMF wanted me banned and so did some in the community and although the same may be true of me as well, they have also reaped what they have sown by turning a high output and dedicated positive editor who was passionate about improving Wikipedia into an enemy.

I was banned for fighting abusive admins and corruption to benefit the community and the project and anyone who says otherwise....is again, just lying about what really happened and I will continue to fight them on and off wiki forever! Because I will not, ever, allow cyberbullies and cyberterrorists to ban me so they can show the community what happens when you stand up to abusive admins and incompetent WMF employees like James Alexander!

Even if you ban was unfair, doing stuff like trolling on Jalexander's talk page is obviously going to get you blocked.

[Kumioko]

Sure, but not all of the posts on his page were me, although he often credits me with them. Also, WMF bans are final and non appealable, so as far as I am concerned, at this point unless he revokes my ban, he has created me into an enemy so an enemy I shall be as long as my ban is in place. If at some point in the future he or others change their attitudes and want to start improving Wikipedia and supporting article development and the community again, then they can unban me and I will go back to doing that. But as long as I am banned, and especially since the ban was implemented by people who violated policy to get it in place, I will continue to fight it and him. Maybe someday the WMF will fire his worthless ass and hire someone competent and I can petition them.

[The Garbage Scow]

Mr. Dog is up to his old tricks again, shutting down talk page discussions he doesn't like and then templating the regulars linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ikithreats[/link]

Oh, and WP:BLUDGEONing people

And look at this, his old pal Alexbrn just happens to be templating the same person in disagreements with Jytog!

[Anroth]

Regulars should be templated. They dont get the courtesy of a polite detailed explanation - they should know better.

[Kumioko]

Yep, typical admin shit.

He is exactly the type of admin doing exactly the kind of shenanigans that I am referring to when I talk about "abusive admins".

[Midsize Jake]

Hmmm... while this behavior is certainly objectionable, it's also clear that Mr. HiLo48 (T-C-L) claims to be Australian and, judging by his user page, probably doesn't really understand the depth and sincerity of current anti-Russia sentiment in the United States, nor does he even know where it's actually coming from (i.e., definitely not "middle American Christians").

I do understand that from the perspective of people like this, it's unfortunate that Wikipedia is dominated by Americans. That's why he should quit Wikipedia altogether - it isn't something he can fix by complaining about it. The best he can probably hope for is a war between Russia and the United States in which both populations are completely decimated, which will leave Australian WP'ers in a much more advantageous position, numbers-wise. There might be negative consequences for Australia if the war goes nuclear (i.e., something like an On the Beach (novel) (T-H-L) scenario), but either way, it's much more feasible than any plan that involves sitting around waiting for Jytdog to change his behavior, or for Wikipedia to do anything about it.

[Dysklyver]

Hmmm... while this behavior is certainly objectionable, it's also clear that Mr. HiLo48 (T-C-L) claims to be Australian and, judging by his user page, probably doesn't really understand the depth and sincerity of current anti-Russia sentiment in the United States, nor does he even know where it's actually coming from (i.e., definitely not "middle American Christians").

I do understand that from the perspective of people like this, it's unfortunate that Wikipedia is dominated by Americans. That's why he should quit Wikipedia altogether - it isn't something he can fix by complaining about it. The best he can probably hope for is a war between Russia and the United States in which both populations are completely decimated, which will leave Australian WP'ers in a much more advantageous position, numbers-wise. There might be negative consequences for Australia if the war goes nuclear (i.e., something like an On the Beach (novel) (T-H-L) scenario), but either way, it's much more feasible than any plan that involves sitting around waiting for Jytdog to change his behavior, or for Wikipedia to do anything about it.

Order of probability:

1. Nuclear war
2. Wikipedia dealing with Jytdog.

[The Garbage Scow]

Regulars should be templated. They dont get the courtesy of a polite detailed explanation - they should know better.

I don't disagree, but WP:DNTTR is also something Mr. Dog has run to the Hall Monitors about... so it's amusing that he regularly engages in it himself. Just another form of passive-aggressive bludgeoning.

[The Garbage Scow]

Yep, typical admin shit.

He is exactly the type of admin doing exactly the kind of shenanigans that I am referring to when I talk about "abusive admins".

To be clear, he's not an admin. Though I'm surprised he's not.

[Kumioko]

Oh really? Damn, I thought he was. I really need to start double checking.

[Dysklyver]

Regulars should be templated. They dont get the courtesy of a polite detailed explanation - they should know better.

I don't disagree, but WP:DNTTR is also something Mr. Dog has run to the Hall Monitors about... so it's amusing that he regularly engages in it himself. Just another form of passive-aggressive bludgeoning.

I got in major trouble once for templating the regulars, it's a definite no-no.

[Bezdomni]

Oh really? Damn, I thought he was. I really need to start double checking.

You do. I think we've already had this discussion about jytdog, among others... ^^

[Poetlister]

The best he can probably hope for is a war between Russia and the United States in which both populations are completely decimated, which will leave Australian WP'ers in a much more advantageous position, numbers-wise.

[pedant]Obviously, Jake knows that people often misuse the word "decimate". It really means "kill one in ten", which would only help our Austrlian friend a small amount.[/pedant]

[Kumioko]

Oh really? Damn, I thought he was. I really need to start double checking.

You do. I think we've already had this discussion about jytdog, among others... ^^

Yeah I know, I just don't spend as much time on Wikipedia as I used to now that they no longer care about nor want editors so I'm not as up to speed with the statuses of losers these days as I used to be.

[Midsize Jake]

[pedant]Obviously, Jake knows that people often misuse the word "decimate". It really means "kill one in ten", which would only help our Austrlian friend a small amount.[/pedant]

I'm surprised nobody dinged me on the fact that the south-spreading fallout scenario in On the Beach is based on meteorological theory that has long-since been shown to be completely inaccurate.

[Bezdomni]

This shit is BORING.

source

?

CrowsNest has found a bit of drama conflict for you. You could switch forums if it gets too dull here.

I'm surprised nobody dinged

Well now it's been done. Andy Dingley v. Jytdog. Make a prediction before you go look now Jake...

[charliemouse]

The Dog has artfully turned the conversation from Dingley vs Dog into the World vs. Dingley.

[Midsize Jake]

Well now it's been done. Andy Dingley v. Jytdog. Make a prediction before you go look now Jake...

Wikipedian behaves like an arsehole, another Wikipedian (who typically behaves as badly or even worse) complains about it, both Wikipedians gather their Wikifriends and have a long drawn-out argument, many pages of repetitive blather are posted, nothing is resolved, nothing happens, stay tuned for next week's episode of As the Wiki Blows.

[Kumioko]

Well now it's been done. Andy Dingley v. Jytdog. Make a prediction before you go look now Jake...

Wikipedian behaves like an arsehole, another Wikipedian (who typically behaves as badly or even worse) complains about it, both Wikipedians gather their Wikifriends and have a long drawn-out argument, many pages of repetitive blather are posted, nothing is resolved, nothing happens, stay tuned for next week's episode of As the Wiki Blows.

I'll be here like...

[Dysklyver]

Well now it's been done. Andy Dingley v. Jytdog. Make a prediction before you go look now Jake...

Wikipedian behaves like an arsehole, another Wikipedian (who typically behaves as badly or even worse) complains about it, both Wikipedians gather their Wikifriends and have a long drawn-out argument, many pages of repetitive blather are posted, nothing is resolved, nothing happens, stay tuned for next week's episode of As the Wiki Blows.

I'll be here like...

So true...

[charliemouse]

In any other system of governance anywhere, no matter how trivial the subject matter, the whole concept of "boomerang" would be considered inherently unfair, as it means that anyone seeking redress can be immediately subject to retaliation.

[Poetlister]

Well now it's been done. Andy Dingley v. Jytdog. Make a prediction before you go look now Jake...

Wikipedian behaves like an arsehole, another Wikipedian (who typically behaves as badly or even worse) complains about it, both Wikipedians gather their Wikifriends and have a long drawn-out argument, many pages of repetitive blather are posted, nothing is resolved, nothing happens, stay tuned for next week's episode of As the Wiki Blows.

This site would get very boring if there weren't people like that to create amusing stories. We might be reduced to discussing the finer points of the Manual of Style.

[Midsize Jake]

This site would get very boring if there weren't people like that to create amusing stories. We might be reduced to discussing the finer points of the Manual of Style.

I'm not saying don't discuss the soap opera/sausage factory/slap-fight at all; I guess what I'm saying is that this incident isn't super-interesting in itself, and we - that includes me, btw - should try to show more consideration for casual readers, at least in threads that are viewable by the public.

In this case, Jytdog tried to have the article on Yakult (T-H-L) deleted, saying it was "blatant advertising," and when pretty much everybody voted to "keep," Jytdog swooped in and called the article "a pile of dogshit on the sidewalk." And oh-by-the-way, Yakult is marketed as a probiotic milk drink that helps regulate gut flora, so naturally Jytdog doesn't like that because it's not a product of the Big Pharma companies he's probably working for. And then Andy Dingley, who for all we know could be drinking a case of the stuff every day, got all upset, reported him on AN/I, and we're off to the races.

So, in this case, it would have been nicer if Mr. Bezdomni had simply stated, "Here's another example of Jytdog doing Big Pharma's dirty-work for them by trying, and failing miserably, to have an article deleted about some probiotic drink that's popular in Asia. And then getting complaints at AN/I when he has a shit-fit about it." Maybe a link or two would be nice. It's not that much to ask, is it?

[Ming]

Well, Ming is generally on the FT/N side of things, but on the one hand the idiotic fights over the word "pseudoscience" in shame-tagging things, and on the other Jytdog's "I'm from God and therefore I don't have to restrain myself" have made the whole thing a cesspool of bad behavior. When it comes down to it, probiotics are probably placebos, at least if you drink them, but he needs to rein in his crusade, regardless of big pharma.

[Bezdomni]

So, in this case, it would have been nicer if Mr. Bezdomni had simply stated, "Here's another example of Jytdog doing Big Pharma's dirty-work for them by trying, and failing miserably, to have an article deleted about some probiotic drink that's popular in Asia. And then getting complaints at AN/I when he has a shit-fit about it." Maybe a link or two would be nice. It's not that much to ask, is it?

Well, hm... I did add a link that allowed everyone here to read the story, and since CN had already done the work I didn't particularly feel like adding to it.. I even added a follow-up link in the thread I linked to to a strange SPI from years ago Mr. Dingley mentioned where Cirt & Jytdog appear to be working in tandem to ratchet up the toxicity. (§) This about a week before Cirt disappeared from en.wp as Cirt (that's to say before their Sagecandor mission began).

In fact, my interest in the story was not so much about jytdog as such. I've already said earlier in this thread pretty much all I have to say: I do not understand why the wiki-powers put up with jytdog's bogus accusations and inability to act like an adult. My immediate goal was to point out that Everipedia, which Beebs says is BORING, doesn't seem to be getting sidetracked into adding 100s of thousands of bytes bickering about why jytdog (for example) should be allowed to let his latrine overflow, cholera be damned.

The Dog has artfully turned the conversation from Dingley vs Dog into the World vs. Dingley.

Here's the thing: my impression is that it wasn't so much the Dog doing artful spinning, but the Cabals.

Since I don't know Eric (his drama generation was before my time), I don't know the degree to which Crowsnest's comparison between the cover given jytdog and the cover given Eric Corbett by the various cabals is apt. It does seem worthy of discussion.

Edit: (I may be distorting the most forceful part of CN's argument, which is more about the depersonalizing of personal attacks into a more generic form of diarrhea...)

[WhoReallyCares]

Well, Ming is generally on the FT/N side of things, but on the one hand the idiotic fights over the word "pseudoscience" in shame-tagging things, and on the other Jytdog's "I'm from God and therefore I don't have to restrain myself" have made the whole thing a cesspool of bad behavior. When it comes down to it, probiotics are probably placebos, at least if you drink them, but he needs to rein in his crusade, regardless of big pharma.

I agree with this. Yakult drinks are hugely popular in the Far East. Also very popular are bird's nest beverages. This:

http://www.brandsworld.us/Our-Products/Birds-Nest

Placebo or not, people seem to love them and they sell well.

[The Garbage Scow]

Someone else will notice if Jytdog is a problem. Johnuniq (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

People have been noticing it for a good couple of years now! Well, many of us have. I'm unsure whether the apologists notice or have cinder blocks where their heads should be.