This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched To request an amendment or clarification of an arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. To report a violation of an arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To request the assistance of an arbitration clerk, see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks.

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

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, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

@Jenhawk777: I believe you have accidentally misused the templates provided in the Analysis of evidence section of the Workshop. When posting an analysis, the three comment lines should be left untouched and the analysis posted above them. The comment lines are for comments on the analysis, not the analysis itself. I do not believe you have done this in bad faith, but would advise some caution in future. Tantusar (talk) 03:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although on that point, the template probably needs updating to make that clearer. I'm also wondering why "Analysis of evidence" is a subsection of "Proposed final decision" when the final decision never includes an analysis section of its own. Tantusar (talk) 03:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops! Thank you! That is so me! I clearly misunderstood the instructions. I thought at first that rebuttal should be under my section and started to put it there--then I read the second line and decided I was wrong--but it was then that I was wrong--right?  :-) What do you think I should do? Should I move it or leave it now that the goof has been made? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I am neither an arb nor a clerk, and you shouldn't take what I'm saying as gospel: The rebuttal should be moved to the top of that subsection, and the "Evidence by Paleonate" placed immediately afterward, before the three comment lines. Then put the "Comment by parties:" line back where it was and fix up the other template you used. Tantusar (talk) 06:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will do my best. I have been off Wikipedia for a couple years now and have forgotten more than I remember about how to do tings here--though I never was an expert. I was still a newbie when I left. Do I just copy-paste for that? Would it be imposing on your good nature if I asked for a reminder of how to include links to difs? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, probably just copy-paste. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid= is the start of links to old versions of pages, and links comparing two diffs can probably just be copied and pasted from the relevant page. Tantusar (talk) 03:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fixed now--I hope... :-) Thanx again! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello case clerks @Cthomas3 and Liz: I left a comment on the Workshop page. Please feel free to reformat it or move it if necessary. Thank you. ↠Pine (✉) 04:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check it out. We typically don't move on to the Workshop phase until the Evidence phase has concluded. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: OK. I wanted to comment mostly regarding rules, principles, and possible consequences but not so much regarding evidence. The general discussion section on the Workshop page appeared to me to be the best place for what I wanted to say. If you prefer, I can move my comment to my sandbox and then consider re-adding it after the evidence phase. ↠Pine (✉) 02:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the Evidence phase is over, activity moves over to the Workshop phase. If you are new to Arbitration Cases, here are some tools to understand the process:

• Check out Guide to Arbitration's guidance on Workshop phase
• It can be more helpful to look at Workshop phases from previous cases from earlier in 2020 or from 2019 and modelling your contributions based on what you see there.

Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just ban him and get it over although I would not. Eschoryii (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how arbitration works, nor is it how arbitration should work. Thryduulf (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You act like you are being fair when a group of insiders are in control. Eschoryii (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of the arbitrators were elected by the community to make these decisions, Eschoryii. They were given any "control" they have by the editors of Wikipedia. You are not making helpful contributions to the discussion of this case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm done. Eschoryii (talk) 05:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC) Maybe not. Jytdog was a dead man walking. Those who put him through the process feel good because they followed the guidelines. He is banned. What I see as wrong is the past work and benefit to the encyclopedia gets very little weight. The same was true for Kudpung. 03:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz and Cthomas3: Clerk question at this point if they can redirect things, but one of the expectations is:

• Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all).

Part of the reason the case discussion is covering areas outside phone call topic is due to how often people have made and repeated assertions without grounding them in evidence at admin boards. That usually just stirs up sentiment and doesn't address actual problems in either direction. Case comments like these for instance make accusations of harassment, baiting, etc. (often with invective) without basing those comments in submitted evidence for the rest of us to discuss. I understand these cases can get heated, but it seems like a lot of comments lately have been drifting away from evidence-based discussion for workshopping and more into uncited narrative. (later sig for correct ping). Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree here - in particular, the Comments section of the "Jytdog is site banned" proposal is beginning to look like an ANI type pile-on; is that really the purpose of this page?-- P-K3 (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree here. Proposed findings of fact should be supported by evidence on the /Evidence page. You are expected to link to the applicable sections of the /Evidence page, and to include a few of the best diffs, to illustrate each aspect of the finding of fact. [1] I don't see a lot of wild, unsubstantiated allegations in the findings of fact, and comments don't require diffs. Coretheapple (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comments don't require diffs: no, the comments sections are not a safe-haven to cast WP:ASPERSIONS, especially at ArbCom. When someone says someone is baiting, etc. without grounding it in submitted evidence in any fashion, that is exactly what you quoted is trying to prevent. What you do is say here's additional evidence that the editor believes supports the FoF. What you quoted doesn't also say make additional claims without attribution, and the part I quoted is very clear across the board. There's a basic process of focus on evidence here, and many editors here are not inexperienced with ArbCom.

It's one thing if you've already made an attributed statement and are continuing the thread based a specific part of the FOF and someone was trying to play gotcha on no diffs on the 3rd reply (which is not what's being discussed here). It's instead jumping in with unattributed claims in the ANI-style fashion as P-K3 put it is what ArbCom is supposed to tamp down. I won't get into that particular section's actual listed evidence as that's for the case itself, but the procedural concern is when editors use an FOF as a sounding board without an evidence focus. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of this exchange, honestly, especially when it comes to baiting behavior, which is referred to throughout the evidence page by several editors, including myself. although, admittedly, not necessarily citing the WP:BAIT essay. You want a diff? OK, here's a diff of baiting by Jytdog directed at me. Here is where I discuss that baiting in my evidence. True, I did not refer to it as "baiting." I call it "bullying," It did not occur to me. I had forgotten that essay existed, to be honest. That was an oversight on my part, but it's too late to go back and fix. If there are any future proceedings concerning Jytdog I will make a mental note to reference WP:BAIT. But considering the amount of baiting-type behavior in the voluminous evidence I would suggest, with all due respect, that a bit of hair-splitting is going on here. Coretheapple (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's largely not the point and this isn't the place to "litigate" the case. The issue I'm asking clerks to help with is the lack of focus on evidence. In your response, you at least gave an example diff so others would be able to examine if a claim of baiting (or whatever other behavior) actually applied there. That's all I'm going to say here in response to that since that isn't being discussed in the case itself. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how it was my comment linked above (without a ping) as “out of focus,” let me comment, briefly. I was weighing in on several of the proposals and comments of others, including Coretheapple and Kingofaces43. The evidence presented by others is extensive. It is a bit disingenuous of Kingofaces43 to raise a concerns about a comment on a proposal, as the proposal was raising the issue of how to handle the frequent attacks on anyone challenging Jytdog’s that are aided and abetted by chief enablers. But they aren’t the focus of this case, for now. Montanabw^(talk) 02:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will check with the arbitrators about this and get back to you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the continued sniping above of chief enablers or For once, I partially agree with Jytdog’s supporters. . .[2] aren't helping matters either. It's one thing for people to get heated, but that's starting to get fairly pointy. I'm not aware of anyone here trying to dismiss Jytdog's behavior. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atleast five people who have participated in this workshop are getting multiple failed login attempts continously, myself included. See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Failed login attempts. Just a heads up. Keep a strong password. --Pudeo (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had same during last arbcase, as did many others. Change your passwords. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That seems be a general problem at cases, though it's been awhile since I ran into it personally. My guess is it's rarely case/party-specific and our more discontent that normal friends out there. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. Coretheapple (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There’s no need to change your Wikipedia passwords unless you feel your email account has been compromised, or your Wikipedia account shares a password from another website (bad password hygiene). Just ignore the reset request. –xeno^talk 23:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I experienced several attempts during Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung but, after changing my password, none in this one. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]