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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored or removed. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

Submitting evidence

Word and diff limits

Supporting assertions with evidence

Rebuttals

Expected standards of behavior

Consequences of inappropriate behavior

Evidence presented by Jusdafax

The emails that changed this case

Jytdog admitted to at least two (he initially said it was one) uninvited phone calls to new editor Beall4, one to a phone answering device and one to Beall4's workplace, a call he also admits "...quickly went south... ...I allowed myself to get frustrated and abruptly ended the call." Beall4 described the phone conversation in strong terms, noting "I was alarmed to be contacted by phone beginning and ending with derogatory comments." As noted by Voceditenore in the 2018 case statements, Jytdog's initial description of how he aquired the phone number(s) was falsely characterized by Jytdog.

Jytdog was blocked by Administrator There'sNoTime (who took some major pushback from Jytdog's supporters.) Emails from a private party or parties subsequently had a tremendous impact on this case, resulting in Arbitrator votes being changed. Abruptly, Jytdog retired from editing Wikipedia, and was indefinitely blocked by ArbCom. Obviously I can't provide links to these emails, but they are the key to this case. Thryduulf has mentioned seeing these emails on the Functionaries list, and other emails regarding Jytdog, stating "...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"..." I submit this statement remains a devistating indictment of Jytdog.

I thank Thryduulf for the disclosures and await their promised further clarification, which will be crucial in determining the path forward, as I see it. Hopefully we will be getting a better sense of the email messages recieved by the Committee soon, even if redacted.

Evidence presented by Thryduulf

As discussed, I have copies of old emails regarding Jytdog. Where possible I've summarised these below, along with public evidence I've found while researching them. I have also forwarded these to the committee, for ease of reference I've numbered each email (there are 4 emails, but three of them relate to threads of discussion). This goes back to 2015 when I joined the Arbitration Committee, I do not know if there is anything that predates this. The presentation of material this old is for completeness and to establish that this is a pattern of behaviour.

Given that I commented about an eight offence in the original request, but have not identified 7 discrete incidents here, I can only assume that I am missing something now or that what appeared at the time to be multiple incidents were actually a single one. I do stand by my comments in the previous case request and my initial statement in this one, that welcoming jytdog back would not be a good thing for the community and thus the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence presented by Ivanvector

In the previous case request I referred to several past incidents, which seem to be in addition to those that Thryduulf has referenced.

-- Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by wbm1058

Jytdog's behavior has been discussed many times on the administrators' noticeboards

Jytdog has been blocked five times (four violations)

Noticeboard search Block log

  1. January 2014 – User:Jytdog‎ reported by User:FelixRosch
  2. April 2014 – Recurrent violation of Civility policy by Jytdog
  3. September 2014 – User:Jytdog reported by User:Blacksun1942
  4. September 2014 – User:Jytdog and User:Gandydancer reported by User:SW3 5DL
  5. March 2015 – Jytdog's behavior
  6. March 2015 – Jytdog: Protracted uncivility and harrassment
  7. March 2015 – Request review of closure of ANI against Jytdog
  8. April 2015 – User:Jytdog
  9. April 2015 – JYTDog - Vote Stacking
  10. May 2015 – Jytdog needs administrator intervention, please?
  11. May 2015 – Strong-arm tactics by Jytdog
  12. May 2015 – User:Jytdog reported by User:Anmccaff
  13. July 2015 – Mass deletion / PROD / redirect of mall articles under the guise of WP:COI
  14. August 2015 – Would like Jytdog to leave me alone
  15. September 2015 – User:Jytdog reported by User:DrChrissy
  16. September 2015 – Editor Jytdog's none neutral GMO edits
  17. November 2015 – Block #1
    • 03:06, 17 November 2015 HJ Mitchell blocked Jytdog with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (please contact ArbCom or the functionaries team)
    • 22:04, 27 November 2015 HJ Mitchell unblocked Jytdog (per email discussion; has promised not to repeat the relevant edit)
  18. December 2015 – Genetically modified organisms case closed
    • Jytdog and DrChrissy are placed indefinitely under a two-way interaction ban.
    • Jytdog is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
    • Jytdog is admonished for their poor civility in relation to the locus of this case.
  19. February 2016 – Jytdog's bullying over editing Craig J. N. de Paulo
  20. March 2016 – Grave threat of harm made by User: Jytdog
  21. March 2016 – Jytdog Enough is Enough!
  22. March 2016 – More WP:BATTLEGROUND from Jytdog at Berylliosis
  23. June 2016 – (Enforcer) Jytdog has lost objectivity in COIN
  24. June 2016 – Doxxing? "During the ArbCom there were 3 people outed! All 3 of them on the side that was challenging the Jytdog et al. It is logical to suspect foul play." คุก 01:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  25. June 2016 – Block #2
    • 17:34, 27 June 2016 GorillaWarfare blocked Jytdog with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (((OversightBlock)))
    • 19:51, 27 June 2016 GorillaWarfare changed block settings for Jytdog with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (((OversightBlock)))
    • 16:00, 8 August 2016 GorillaWarfare unblocked Jytdog (Successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee: He is warned that any further violations of the outing policy will be cause for a site ban. Unblock
  26. September 2016 – Disruptive editing by Jytdog; possibly article ownership or edit warring
  27. September 2016 – User:Jytdog removing talk pages comments based on their opinion
  28. September 2016 – Edit-war with jytdog over Teledermatology
  29. September 2016 – Verbal and Psychological Abuse of a female editor by Jytdog
  30. November 2016 – User:Jytdog reported by User:CanadaRed
  31. November 2016 – Jytdog
  32. January 2017 – Block #3
    • 04:15, 15 January 2017 King of Hearts blocked Jytdog with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule)
  33. February 2017 – reporting myself (and Jytdog)
  34. February 2017 – Arbitration motion regarding Jytdog
  35. March 2017 – request for block of user @Jytdog: to prevent him from removing valid edits
  36. April 2107 – Jytdog abusing WP:THREATEN
  37. August 2017 – Boomerang for Jytdog
  38. August 2017 – Unjustified reverting by User:Jytdog
  39. November 2017 – User:Jytdog
  40. December 2017 – Jytdog Ban breaking/request of Enforcement and further actions
  41. January 2018 – User:Jytdog reported by User:Prokaryotes
  42. February 2018 – GLAM / WIR / COI
  43. April 2018 – Malicious editing and AfD actions by Jytdog
  44. June 2018 – User:Jytdog
  45. August 2018 – User Jytdog Misconduct.
  46. August 2018 – User Jytdog Should Be INDEFINITELY Blocked
  47. September 2018 – Jytdog (yet again) and Yakult
  48. November 2018 – Unnecessary block caused by Muse (disambiguation) content dispute and User:Jytdog's harrassment
  49. November 2018 – Block #4
    • 20:47, 27 November 2018 There'sNoTime blocked Jytdog with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Clear violation of our harassment policy - see Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Off-wiki contact)
    • 21:13, 27 November 2018 BD2412 changed block settings for Jytdog with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (The block is excessive for a first asserted violation of the policy at issue. This is a generally good editor who has been sufficiently warned.)
    • 02:56, 28 November 2018 Kelapstick unblocked Jytdog (Participate in ArbCom case. Blocks are preventative. Likelihood of reoccurring in next 20 hours is unlikely)
  50. December 2018 – Arbitration motion regarding Jytdog
    • Block #5 07:23, 5 December 2018 DeltaQuad blocked Jytdog with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, email disabled) (Enforcement of Arbitration Motion: must contact ArbCom to resume editing (Special:Diff/872117489))

Evidence presented by Kingofaces43

While Jytdog had a good track record of discussing with new editors having trouble with how Wikipedia works over phone/Skype (with permission), that approach was fraught. It's clear Jytdog finally realized why back in 2018 when they crossed the line into not even having direct permission. There's no excuse for that, and even though the person they called practically identified themself on-wiki, Jytdog should have known better.

However, WP:PREVENTATIVE is policy. Especially considering Jytdog has made it clear they're not even going near with-permission contact, a sort of no email sanction that's been floated seems to fit that policy. Those saying Jytdog shouldn't be allowed to come back doesn't seem to fit though, especially given the improving tack record two years before Nov. 2018.

History

Thryduulf's section about the GMO case partly concerned me due to lack of context, so I can at least comment on GMOs. There, only a few other editors were initially sanctioned because of being unable to handle the sheer number of tendentious editors in one case. Many of the remaining editors in dispute with Jytdog (about 12 at my count, most were disputing the scientific consensus on GMOs, etc.) later were sanctioned for battleground behavior when you look at the DS log for GMOs. Jytdog was active in dealing with pseudoscience topics prone to problems with battleground editors. That means their name was going to come up a lot at ANI because either those editors were causing trouble, or tendentious editors were pursuing Jytdog as you see in wbm1058's partial list. Generally, Jytdog was patient with editors despite issues trying to tamp down edit warring; Tryptofish gave a good even-handed description of this at the original GMO case

Even experienced editors quickly lost patience with the sheer amount of battleground going on in the subject (here's one later AE that summarizes the topic for me), so we do have to remember that many (not all) of Jytdog's issues there were confounded with sheer volume of problematic editors or those who were actively pursuing Jytdog. Their topic ban in GMOs did act as a baby with the bathwater approach keeping some other battleground editors out, but Jytdog at least respected it. Thryduulf mentions the 2018 AE report, but that wasn't a violation of the topic ban. Jytdog had been editing genetics since their ban, and we spent a great deal of time at the ArbCom case specifying the scope of the DS. Genetics as a whole were not supposed to be covered by the DS/topic bans, and the areas Jytdog had been editing related to CRISPR and gene editing were explicitly not supposed to be considered GMOs at the time. To include those subjects in the GMO DS/bans would have required a clarification request.

That can show how quickly this can get into the weeds if the focus isn't related to first two paragraphs. We do need to be wary of dealing with old inappropriate grudges against Jytdog vs. legitimate issues if they come back. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Jenhawk777

Jytdog engaged in disruptive editing practices

Jytdog opened an Rfc on Ethics in the Bible, and it was downvoted and closed. [5]

He then deleted the content anyway. When asked by another editor, not the author, to not do that but to get consensus instead, Jytdog refused. mass-deleting content unilaterally [6] [7] [8]
This was not unusual for Jytdog; it was the norm. About once a month someone would come to Jytdog's talk page upset that he had done that to them. He would do mass deletions, refuse to respond when asked for explanation, would revert further efforts to rewrite, and then send an edit war warning to prevent you from trying to write anything else--leaving nothing for an ordinary editor to do but leave his articles alone.

Jytdog regularly engaged in insulting combative behavior including personal insults detrimental to work on Wikipedia

Jytdog was fond of throwing people off his talk page, and once told me he was going to shun me.
His main accusation toward me was that I was an evangelical who wanted to rewrite everything from an evangelical point of view. I am not an evangelical. This started on Christianity and violence that was flagged for bias and for needing a total re-write. I attempted to bring in what was missing to make it more neutral. Of necessity, this was one-sided--which I explained to Jytdog: [9] He didn't accept my explanation, didn't allow my editing, and followed me from then on, showing up on every article I attempted to work on.
Jytdog regularly interfered with other people's productivity on Wikipedia. He ran a number of editors off. It would not be in the best interests of the encyclopedia to have him back doing more of the same. Jenhawk777 (talk) 09:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC) Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Response to Comment by Smeat75

Smeat's statement that "Jytdog was trying to keep these articles neutral and encyclopedic"--is 100% inaccurate in my view. Jytdog could not have been trying to maintain a neutrality that didn't actually exist in the article where this began. He was defending it as it was which was tagged for bias.
Smeat quotes a single sentence in Ethics in the Bible which they found offensive. It is a quote from a book by Harper, Kyle (2013). From Shame to Sin: The Christian Transformation of Sexual Morality in Late Antiquity. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. p. 4,7. ISBN 978-0-674-07277-0 which I did reference. Please note, it is not my personal opinion. It references the Apostle Paul's historical views and beliefs. It is offensive, but I wonder how it is possible to make it less so, since this is what Paul believed. I object to having a historical reference assigned to me as personal opinion just because it's an objectionable point of view.
Smeat quotes from my Talk page on what I wanted to include in Ethics as proof Jytdog was right and I am a closet evangelical, but it isn't. It is proof I wanted to include everything about biblical ethics without leaving out something just because it happens to say something good about Christianity. If writing this article today, I would include as a reference Tom Holland's book, Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World (Little, Brown, 2019) which says everything I said I wanted to in Smeat's quote. Tom Holland is an atheist.
Smeat adds that "I don't think Jenhawk777 has any awareness that WP is not the place for such POV preaching." Of course I'm aware! I object to that characterization of anything I have ever written on Wikipedia. I went to my state's university and then to Vanderbilt for grad school. I studied religion--not Christianity, but world religion--as well as philosophy, as a prelude to ethics at the grad level. I write as someone who majored in world religions might be expected to write! I find religion fascinating and see the positive and the negative in them all. If Smeat is correct, and I got defensive when they accused me of writing a sermon, I was no doubt so over-sensitized by then, that I negatively over-reacted. I was a little crazy by the end of my time here as I had been harassed for two years. I don't mean to make excuses, I offended them, and I apologize--sincerely and genuinely. I have now done so on their talk page as well. However, I would hope they could find some more specific, constructive and less inflammatory manner of characterizing and correcting my errors in the future.
In closing I would add that Smeat was not privy to the majority of my long interaction with Jytdog. They are mistaken on some key points because of that lack of information. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC) Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Evidence by PaleoNeonate

What Jytdog called unscholarly views were generally references from religious publishing houses (Zondervan, Intervarsity, Westminster John Knox Press, Eerdmans, and Wipf and Stock). They are all long-standing, recognized, reputable publishers of scholarly work, but Jytdog would object and call the material 'unscholarly.'
I promoted including all the scholarly writings on a topic and not just some of them. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC) Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by EnPassant

Jytdog's talk page trickery of new editors

Looking back through Jytdog's many disputes with other editors leads me to the talk page of Randolph Stone, a deceased quack-therapy practitioner. The article was being edited by someone using an account named Polaritytherapie and Jytdog quickly began hounding this editor on their talk page with what a third-party described as passive-aggressive trickery in an attempt to get them to out themselves. Evidence below.

I'm having a look at his other interactions to see if this is not the only example of this. ♟♙ (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comment by PaleoNeonate

The continual excuse presented for Jytdog's behavior has been "but that person was an SPA guilty of advocacy". The comment you made as regards my evidence attempts a variation of this with "but Kindzmarauli *might* have been guilty of promotion". There's an extensive pattern of behavior here by Jytdog and characterizing his critic in that instance, who has retired from the project and isn't here to respond, as a promoter of quack science doesn't justify that behavior. The point made (which I tend to agree with) is that a new editor would be easily tricked and were expected to read between the lines. That's a pretty common mind game that lots of people in positions of power are known for playing. Taken with the entirety of the evidence above and below mine, I tend to see this interaction with the new editor as highly questionable. ♟♙ (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by PaleoNeonate

Comment on evidence by wbm1058

I will not go through links but from memory of instances I recall, I am convinced that very few of those resulted in sanctions for jydog. A better presentation may be annotating each with a short result. If the goal was only to count instances, it's unsurprising that people complain about him considering the work he's doing, when they cannot have their way. His block log is more informative (I acknowledge that there were previous blocks).

Comment on evidence by EnPassant

All links are about a single event. The claim that jytdog tried to trick an editor into self-outing appears to be misrepresentation: Kindzmarauli was trying to put words in jydog's mouth he didn't say. His original post did link to an example disclosure while at the same time specifying that it was unnecessary to reveal their name: [10] "... You do not have to disclose your name ...". Kindzmarauli, making the accusation, apparently retired as unable to promote (and suppress valid criticism), a possible motive: 1, 2.

Comment on evidence by Jenhawk777

In relation to Innisfree987's message: KDS4444 is now blocked for socking and banned for soliciting paid work, and accepted articles written by paid editors at WP:AFC violating WP:NOPAY. I would not say that jytdog was mainly preventing productive editing.

In relation to FourViolas' WP:PRESERVE mention: it is not a license to accumulate everything: "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't ... appropriate ... belong in an encyclopedia", "Adding another point of view" (or removing an unscholarly one), this even includes: "Merging the entire article into another article", "Problems that may justify removal" with mentions of WP:V, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, WP:RS...

"Jytdog was fond of throwing people off his talk page": WP:NOBAN: "If a user asks you ... it is sensible to respect their request, although a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices ..."

About jytdog's behavior towards Jenhawk777, it wasn't always smooth and he didn't always get his way either even if he often was right when contesting material that seemed to promote non-scholarly views. Some of his edits were reverted by other editors when he had to stop to avoid warring. A common problem is articles on notable enough topics to be preserved, but that mostly need rewriting (WP:TNT). Jytdog often tried to boldly fix those, I remember issuing him an "article rescue award" once. In relation to civility: he can sometimes overreact, apparently when tired and a break, or posting to a noticeboard, would be a good idea. Signs of impulsivity may show, like submitting an edit to then revert or retract it. Constatations of incivility does not justify the material he objects to, but if he is allowed to edit again, I hope that he will consider this comment (and a clear warning may be justified).

Evidence presented by Smeat75

Jytdog and Jenhawk777

As user Ivanvector has linked to a discussion Jenhawk777 initiated on my talkpage, and as I was involved in numerous discussions involving Jytdog and Jenhawk777, I feel Jenhawk777's complaints about Jytdog need some context. Jenhawk777 spent almost all of her time on WP attempting re-writes of very contentious articles involving Christianity, The Bible and violence, Christianity and violence, Ethics in the Bible,Women in the Bible, etc. This did bring her in conflict with Jytdog, who felt that Jenhawk777 had a tendency to produce not encyclopedia articles but theological essays with a strong evangelical POV. Jytdog was trying to keep these articles neutral and encyclopedic, perhaps their manner was a little abrupt or rude at times but I think they were protecting the encyclopedia from inappropriate content. Jenhawk777, for instance, in the article Ethics in the Bible inserted the statement Same-sex attraction spelled the estrangement of men and women at the very deepest level of their inmost desires. [11] This was in a discussion of the theology of the Apostle Paul, perhaps what is meant is that is what he thought, but that's not what it says, it is an unreferenced assertion in wikipedia's voice that gay people represent "the estrangement of men and women at the very deepest level", totally outrageous. In a discussion on Jytdog's talk page Jenhawk777 wrote, in reference to her goals in trying to re-write Ethics in the Bible Foundational concepts like human value and human rights--the Hebrew Bible is what changed the view of mankind and protecting the weak, the stranger, the elderly, and women and children. See, that is shifting in our modern day as people move away from the biblical ethic; society is shifting to a utilitarian value of man instead. Soon, they will be knocking off people who don't earn their keep anymore!! ...I want to say what ethics the Bible teaches. I want to write down the teachings that changed the world and made western society what it is today. I want to list--and describe--those ethical principles that are found in the Bible [12] I don't think Jenhawk777 has any awareness that WP is not the place for such POV preaching. I said that a section she added to Women in the Bible was "like a Christian sermon" and Jenhawk777 took great offence, repeating in numerous places that I "attacked her for being a Christian", when I did no such thing. Saying that WP is not a place to preach a Christian sermon is not attacking the editor who did that for being a Christian. Despite all this, Jenhawk777 is a knowledgeable editor and a good writer, she listens to what people say and can adjust her edits accordingly. I never campaigned to have her blocked or banned, neither did anyone else, and we were all sorry when she retired.

I don't know anything about Jytdog's activities with WP:COI or WP:MEDRS where I believe they were most active, I only observed what they did on these articles on religion, where I felt their contributions were valuable.Smeat75 (talk) 02:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Xxanthippe

I was not aware of the 2018 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog, but when I heard at the end of 2018 that he had been blocked and had retired I was overjoyed as I has seen him in action elsewhere. When I hear in 2020 that he is seeking to return my heart sinks. Here is my tardy contribution to the renewed ArbCom case.

My own experience of Jytdog's behavior is not as extensive as those of some of the other contributors here, but based on observation of his interaction with other editors, it mirrors User:Julia W's Preliminary statement made at the 2018 case request[13], which statement I endorse strongly.

In my own interactions with him I have been falsely accused by Jytdog of Stalking and Hounding [14] [15] and I have been called by him incompetent and corrupt.

The offense of Outing and Harassment outside Wikipedia that Jytdog was indicted for in 2018 would in some real world jurisdictions attract criminal penalty. It is unforgivable, and deserves a permanent ban from the English Wikipedia.

In his interactions with other editors Jytdog has a long and repeated record of recalcitrant behavior that is intimidating and bullying. He acts as an attack-dog with a ferocious zeal that would do credit to the religious police of a theocratic tyranny. He is not here to build an encyclopaedia but to indulge his proclivity for fighting and bullying. ArbCom should impose a permanent site ban. If it mistakenly imposes a lesser penalty, the ban should start from now, not from one year ago, so that his attempt to escape judgement in 2018 by retiring does not give him any advantage. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Evidence presented by Voceditenore

Aggression

Jytdog becomes unacceptably aggressive when editors disagree with him [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. He often minimizes such behaviour, e.g. describing this comment to AfD "Keep" !voters as him merely "venting" [22]. Or, he projects it onto his "adversaries". The most egregious example is his off-wiki harassment of Beall4 that triggered this case. Even now he states: "In the midst of a dispute with a new editor who was melting down...".

Beall4 wasn't melting down. Jytdog was. So much so, that despite previous blocks, topic bans, and warnings, he searched for her off-wiki phone number, phoned her twice without permission, got through the second time, became abusive and then hung up on her [23], [24]. He now describes his behaviour as "dumb". It wasn't "dumb". It was reprehensible—a gross invasion of privacy completely contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia's privacy policy as well as intimidation and harassment. Had he done it to me, I would have gone straight to the WMF.

Falsehoods

Jytdog has falsely characterised the Beall4 incident and only admits to lying when caught out. He previously claimed the information was findable via "one step". He left a note on her talk page: "I tried to call the phone number for the "Nutritional Therapy for IBD" given in the NASPGHAN 2018 abstract book that you mentioned in this diff, but it just went to voicemail.". In the 2018 case he stated: "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"

Beall4's edit summary (the "diff" Jytdog refers to):

"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..."

Oversighters, read this version of my 2018 statement detailing the off-wiki research he had to do and the falsehoods he propagated and still does. Summary:

  1. Beall4 mentioned no book and no date in her edit summary, or anywhere else. It took considerable searching on the NASPGHAN site to find the relevant PDF file.
  2. Beall4 provided no link to the book in her version of the disputed article [25]
  3. There was nothing in that listing indicating advocacy for the Specific Carbohydrate Diet (SCD), or that it was an organization rather than simply the exhibit title.
  4. No name or even a job title was listed with the telephone number. Beall4 said she was "an" organizer not "the" organizer. Jytdog called it anyway. Why? Because further research, and only that, would have led him to conclude the number was hers See also.
  5. He strenuously denied phoning her twice until caught out. He then described it as "remembering wrongly".
  6. He still falsely depicts his actions: "I had gone to the conference website to see what they were referring to. They had posted contact information there." No. Jytdog researched the real life identity of Beall4 and matched it to the anonymous phone number.

Voceditenore (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Premeditated Chaos

Expanding somewhat on Voceditenore's evidence under Falsehoods, point 5. Jytdog stated that he had asked permission before calling, doubled down on that, then finally tried to backpedal it as a mistake when he was contradicted by a diff that he himself provided. I was quite bothered by this exchange at the time. I felt Jytdog was trying to pull the wool over the arbs' eyes and present himself as a victim of our alleged inaccuracies, when in reality it was Jytdog who was making a misleading statement.

  1. I commented that he had asked for permission to contact other editors in other instances, so he knew to do that, but chose not to in this instance. (Special:Diff/871253793)
  2. Jytdog replied with the edit summary "mistakes", asserting that he had asked permission, linking this diff, and stating that he felt Arbs were not "dealing with what actually happened". (Special:Diff/871263679)
  3. The linked diff is a message from him to Beall4 saying that he had already called and gotten voice mail, then he asks Shall we try to talk via skype or something?.
  4. I pointed out that the diff he had linked contradicted what he was now saying about having asked first. (Special:Diff/871267364)
  5. Jytdog replies stating that I had misunderstood the meaning of the word "recalled", and again asserts that he asked first, then tried to call. (Special:Diff/871268184)
  6. I called him out explicitly on the contradictions between his assertion on the case request and his own post on Beall4's talk page. (Special:Diff/871270199)
  7. Jytdog finally admits that he was incorrect and strikes his earlier posts. (Special:Diff/871271365)

Something that I didn't get into at the time: Jytdog never actually got permission from Beall4 to make phone contact, so even if Jytdog was correct and he had asked before making the first phone call, he still shouldn't have phoned without actually getting permission. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

More