Case Opened on 06:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Case Closed on 22:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. Only add a statement here after the case has begun if you are named as a party; otherwise, your statement may be placed on the talk page, and will be read in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but it should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

• John Gohde ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Orangemarlin ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• JzG ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (filing party)

There are a number of problems with John Gohde's editing, principal among which is his tendency to see himself as a bearer of WP:TRUTH. Problems include, for example, describing content edits he disputes as "vandalism" [1], odd comments about "destroying" hyperlinks [2], off-wikipedia attacks [3], describing admins as "mentally ill", using his user page as an advertisement and fund raiser for his personal fork [4], blocked by Thatcher for 48 hours [5] with a recommendation to bring a fresh case if behaviour continues.

As an example of seriously problematic editing, this [6] is a doozy. Replaces a Wikilink with a weblink to the same article, and replaces {{ fact}} with a self-referential citation of a WikiProject subpage largely written by himself, Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicine/Classification Systems (  | [[Talk:Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicine/Classification Systems|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This might be forgivable in a newbie, but this user has been active for over four years.

Since then he's continued to escalate disputes in a foolish way, e.g. [7], describning others as a "mob" [8], and his response to the block was uncivil and shows a strong and highly inappropriate martyr complex: [9]. Guy ( Help!) 18:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I hate to repeat myself from previous discussions about User:John Gohde, but the following pushed me to be involved with this editor's arbitration:

• Identifying edit by a long-time editor as vandalism
• Implying an editor is a liar
• Rude edit summary
• Major reversion against NPOV
• Personal attack #1
• Nominating an article for GA that has significant issues with NPOV
• Identifying pseudoscience as nonsense
• False accusation of personal attack and intentional misrepresentation of comments
• Personal attack #2
• Personal attack #3
• Personal attack #4

Based on reading his contributions in the discussion areas of Complementary and alternative medicine, John Gohde is either unaware of (doubtful, given his long history on this project) or completely ignores Wikipedia policy in the following areas: WP:NPA, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:POINT, WP:VERIFY, WP:OWNand WP:NOR. It is obvious that the one-year blocking had no effect on his behavior. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC) reply

This case can best be described as an action by a handful of disgruntled editors who apparently have an obsession with the historical activities of User:Mr-Natural-Health. Being that there is no obvious connection between the current me and the Historical Mr-Natural-Health, their obsession is very telling.

The parties filing this case, clearly have not pursued any of the usual dispute resolution methods.

I find it hard to respond in any meaninful way when there is absolutely no basis for this Arbitration, since they have chosen to skip the entire dispute resolution process. For the last 1 and 3/4 years I have been editing articles in peace on Wikipedia, minding my own business. But fairly recently, a group of skeptics have been trying very hard to goad me into making personal attacks against them.

So, I will just respond to each statement of the principle parties, one by one.

Talk:Guy

Who is Guy? I do not recall ever running into him.

User:Orangemarlin

I have had next to no edit contact with this editor.

Orangemarlin filed the exact same complaint in a Request for Clarification [10], and was likewise reviewed in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement [11]. Apparently, Orangemarlin is not interested in comprehending what User:Newyorkbrad told him: "It appears that the remedies in the earlier arbitration case expired three years ago (although it may still be relevant as background). Therefore, any problems with this editor should be pursued through usual dispute resolution methods, culminating if necessary in a new request for arbitration. You can also take the situation to WP:ANI if you believe there is an issue warranting administrator attention." [12] The facts are that I have gone out of my way to be civil to absolutely everyone for a couple of weeks prior to all of this complaining. Therefore, as all of the alleged behavior has not persisted, was in fact not taking place at the time of all the complaints, nor have any new problems arisen; there is absolutely no basis for seeking a remedy, here.

In summary, I do not like to be publicly violated [13] by a couple of editors whom I have had next to no edit contact with. And, who have been abusing the dispute resolution process because they have not pursued any of the usual dispute resolution methods.

Contrary to their position: I did pay attention to the comments posted on my talk page. I have corrected my behavior. The alleged behavior has not persisted, was in fact not taking place at the time of their complaints, nor have any new problems arisen; Thus there is absolutely no basis for seeking a remedy, here. -- John Gohde ( talk) 10:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

• Accept; the previous case is so old that starting a fresh one is probably better than adding a motion to the old one. Kirill 21:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Accept; per Kirill. FloNight ( talk) 22:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Accept. I don't think we'll hand out any requirements for 200-word essays this time, though. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 19:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Accept. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision Information

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Proposed final decision Information

Decorum

1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Passed 12 to 0 at 22:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC).

Dispute resolution

2) Users should not respond to inappropriate behavior in kind, or engage in sustained editorial conflict or unbridled criticism across different forums. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism.

Passed 12 to 0 at 22:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC).

Purpose of Wikipedia

3) Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Passed 12 to 0 at 22:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC).

Recidivism

4) Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions.

Passed 12 to 0 at 22:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC).

John Gohde

1) John Gohde ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was previously sanctioned in three Arbitration cases ( Theresa knott vs. Mr-Natural-Health, Mr-Natural-Health, and John Gohde) for inappropriate behavior. Since then, he has continued to engage in a variety of such behavior, including incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith ( [14], [15], [16], [17]), grossly inappropriate commentary ( [18], [19]), attacks in external forums ( [20]), soapboxing ( [21]), and gaming the system ( [22]).

Passed 12 to 0 at 22:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC).

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

John Gohde banned

1) John Gohde ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Passed 12 to 0 at 22:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC).

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

• 22:45, January 12, 2008 Daniel ( Talk | contribs) blocked " John Gohde ( Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 year (By decision of the Arbitration Committee: see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde 2#John Gohde banned)