I find it shameful that The Signpost lionized Jytdog in this manner. In last month's issue I expressed my satisfaction at seeing him gone. I suppose re-publishing this essay was an easy lay-up, forgetting that Jytdog isn't gone for no reason. It's only a matter of time until he creates a fresh-start account, anyway. Chris Troutman (talk)07:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
”Outrageous personal attack?” Nonsense. Reader, look though the talk history and see. (Quickly, before someone covers his tracks with a revision deletion). Hyperbolic? Sure, the explicit reference to Godwin in the edit summary is a clue that that just might be deliberate.
What is outrageous is this attempt to polish the reputation of one of Wikipedia’s serial offenders just in time for his inevitable return. Qwirkle (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While I acknowledge that referencing Jytog's leaving is, to an extent, inevitable, I do think the blue box user testimonials are over the top and distract from the actual essay. Especially given their placement further down the page. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
JYT was a mixed bag. On the one hand, he was an effective force for nipping the distortions of COI charlatans in the bud. On the other hand, he was a bully who embodied the old maxim that "the end justifies the means," and could not rein in his aggressive and biting behavior in a collaborative editing environment. He's certainly not one to be worshiped or emulated; neither was he wholly a villain. Ya gotta know where the line of appropriate behavior is and stay behind it -- anti-COI obsessiveness can become its own negative form of COI editing... Carrite (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We'd need to fix the essay's egregious misrepresentations of policy first; for example, it has "We ask you... not edit content directly where you have a COI" where the policy actually says "you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits11:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those seem like identical statements to me, and what's more, both phrases appear in the guidelines: "COI editors should not edit affected articles directly" (11th sentence) and "You are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly" (20th sentence). Regards, Spintendo 23:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is something of a testament to Jytdog's presence on Wikipedia that in this matter I find myself in complete agreement with Chris Troutman and Carrite. Gamaliel (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you mention it, I found myself in the same dilemma as I almost never agree with Carrite, particularly on matters relating to COI and paid editing. Coretheapple (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will say it was disheartening to see this user being promoted in such a way. It would have been better not to highlight their work at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that dealing with plausible material from an editor who is/was disagreeable is one of Wikipedia's strong suits. If this essay could be useful, then it could be put wherever, in Wiki space, and a swarm of editors would buzz around it correcting its flaws, after which the original author would hardly recognize his own work, and his name wouldn't be anywhere on it except in the History. It wouldn't be the first time I had seen the names of dubious editors in the History of articles that I liked well enough to read and edit. Of course, then the question is, would it be useful? The essay gathers together various things which most of you probably already know, because they're already somewhere in Wiki space. Would the people who need most to read it, ever see it? I don't know, but it seems plausible. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
← Back to Essay