Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde/Proposed decision

Requested Decision

I'd like to note, with 16 diffs of personal attacks so far (And I can find more), a past record of two arbcom cases, and a general mess of disruption, that I request a full year ban against John Gohde. Snowspinner 23:03, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Temporary Injuction request

The evidence shows that the opening of this case has not stopped John Gohde making personal attacks, so would a temporary injunction that allowed admins to ban him for 24/48 hours per attack be apropriate? Thryduulf 11:21, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Infoboxes

I don't think that I've ever cited a policy in critique of the infoboxes, though it remains my belief that they are not infoboxes in any meaningful sense of the word. It was simply my conviction that they were (and are) a bad idea - a conviction shared by several other editors who removed them, as well as the editors who voted to delete them. Certainly there was nothing wrong with their being offered. But John's response - accusing their removal and replacement with categories of being vandalism, personal attacks, and general maliciousness - was beyond all reason and defense. Keep in mind that I was not involved in either of his previous arbcom cases, and that there was no history between us prior to this. I didn't like the infoboxes, so I removed them. When he objected, I offered to replace them with categories. I was met with rants about how categories are evil, declarations of his intentions to drive traffic to his site, accusations of vandalism, personal attacks, et cetera.

As for the question of policing John, when I first came to the articles, I came as an editor looking to clean up and standardize some articles. When the invective started flowing, I became a user trying to contain and handle a pernicious editor. Notably, I explained the rules regarding personal attacks, disruption of Wikipedia to prove a point, and other things calmly, and did not request arbitration against John. I went as long as humany possible trying to assume good faith and work with John, until he, not I, requested arbitration. Yes, I was briefly maintaining a public evidence page. The evidence page was begun on the mistaken belief that the infobox was content recreated from a previous, deleted template - it was not. By the time I realized this, however, the personal attacks were flowing freely, and the issue had changed. Even still, I thought better of it and removed the page, leaving it blanked so as not to even give the impression of trying to hide something. I then, and I stress this, did not pursue the matter. Were I interested in policing John, I could have requested arbitration several personal attacks ago. I didn't. Indeed, I still haven't. John brought me here to call me megalomaniacal a lot. I was perfectly content to wait longer to see if he ever actually contributed any content instead of personal attacks.

I don't think a ruling on the status of the infoboxes is needed or possible. Their status is clear anyway - they've been deleted on TfD. i think a ruling on personal attacks, sterile edit wars, false accusations, and disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point is needed. That this happened in the course of an edit war over infoboxes seems to me beside the point, no? Snowspinner 19:58, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Suggested remedies

Speaking as someone who's dealt with John over a long time, and brought the second arbitration case, he's improved a lot this time around. Policies like WP:3RR have helped greatly in this regard. Though he is very far from a model editor.

He knows a hell of a lot about alternative medicine and wants to add it to Wikipedia. He pushes his own POV a bit much in my opinion, but that's correctable if the information is in, checkably referenced and so on.

He needs a really short personal attack leash, and he still seems to feel he owns the alternative medicine topic articles. He certainly reverts almost any change anyone else makes to the wikiproject page; claims that the project owns a page or topic, not him personally, are thus disingenuous.

I suggest the following remedies be included with whatever else is decided:

• One-year short leash personal attack parole. "Any edit considered by any administrator to be a personal attack per policy."
• John Gohde must read and acknowledge he has read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and write 200 words each on why articles and topics having custodians on Wikipedia is a bad idea and why personal attacks on Wikipedia are a bad idea, before being allowed to edit Wikipedia again.

Neither of these is onerous and would relieve a lot of the actual problems with John's edits and comments and style of working with others. - David Gerard 00:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Specifically, 200 words on the control of articles section :-) - David Gerard 01:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I note that Ambi has put my proposed essay remedy in - needs a note of where to put it, i.e. his user page or user talk page, email to AC or AC contact, etc. - David Gerard 11:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If email is the chosen method, I feel it would be apropriate for John Ghode to put a datestamped note on his user or talk page to the effect of

"I have emailed (the arbitration committee|[arbitartor]) as required"

wich an arbitrator should add a note along the lines of

The arbitration committe acknowledge that the email was received, and agree that John has fulfilled the requirements of the committee's ruling.

This will serve as a public notice that he has complied with the arbcom ruling in both his and their opinion and that any temporary enforcement measures associated with it are no longer required/apropriate. (e.g. if editors/administrators are encouraged to revert any edits of on sight, then this notice would serve to say that this is no longer the case). Thryduulf 13:40, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Will the essays be graded as well? What is the pass/fail threshold? Would an essay stating "Ownership of articles and personal attacks are wrong" repeated a hundred times be sufficient?

This has got to be the silliest suggestion I've ever heard - made even more silly because an equally "in the wrong" admin is not party to such a remedy. You want my suggestion, let them both be on the same revert limitation and personal attack patrol until each presents a 200 word essay on these topics. Lift the parole only when each accepts the other's essays and endorses it. Let them re-write until they come to a common understanding. -- Netoholic @ 23:11, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

This assumes the AC agrees with you about this unnamed admin - David Gerard 01:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thoughtcrime

Are we really going to start forcing users to make statements they believe to be false as a prerequisite to editing Wikipedia?

"Do you remember", he went on, "writing in your diary, 'Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four?'"

"Yes", said Winston.

O'Brien held up his left hand, its back towards Winston, with the thumb hidden and the four fingers extended.

"How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?"

"Four."

"And if the party says that it is not four but five — then how many?"

"Four."

The word ended in a gasp of pain.

—George Orwell, 1984

➥the Epopt 22:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wonder what John will write for your questions in 4.1. Should be interesting - David Gerard 01:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More seriously: instead of "why x is bad", essays on "why x is considered bad". That's less telling people what to think, and more asking them for their understanding of what the standard is - David Gerard 01:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vote against personal attacks remedy?

I mean, what on earth. John Gohde has a lengthy track record of egregious personal attacks. Fred, if you could go through the claimed personal attacks by John and point out the diffs of the statements you claim he's mirroring ... - David Gerard 18:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was looking the "attacks" cited in the finding of fact. There may be other attacks which were not cited. Fred Bauder 21:35, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

You may want to check the evidence page directly, and possibly add some diffs to the FoF - the attack record just this time around is, I fear, considerable.

I should point out I originally suggested the essay remedy as an alternative to a long ban. But his personal attacks have been bad this time around, though not as bad as the previous couple of times IMO - David Gerard 23:22, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mirrors?

I was wondering if Fred would be willing to point to what accusation I've made against John that is mirrored by his claim that I am megalomaniacal, particularly remembering that John brought this arbcom case against me, not the other way around. I'm also curious what any of these personal attacks mirror on my part: "Spinmeisters" "you little people" [1] bingo [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Snowspinner 18:56, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Are you really serious? Can you please quote the relevant "personal attacks" and cite where they violate WP:NPA? -- Netoholic @ 20:08, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

Ban

I have to admit, I'm a little surprised by the shape of the ruling so far. A user who has been previously banned twice for personal attacks returns, continues making personal attacks, disrupts Wikipedia to prove a point, is wildly uncivil, and explicitly says he's editing to further his own project, while mocking Wikipedia for, among other things, its server outages. While doing this, he contributes little to no content to any articles. And all that's being proposed are some paroles? May I ask what the thinking in not proposing any sort of ban here is? What signs is anybody seeing that John Gohde is, has, or will contribute usefully to this project? Snowspinner 13:34, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

I also encourage all arbitrators to look at the evidence just submitted by Mykreeve, which goes a long way towards dispelling any notion that this is somehow about John's problem with me - he's just as querelous to any other editor. Snowspinner 14:29, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed - if this was called "Mr Natural Health 3" it would be clearer that he hasn't changed his ways in many important respects - David Gerard 15:02, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then there is this edit [9], which is John's response to Evidence_submitted_by_MykReeve. John presents it as for himself, but it strikes me as exemplifying his problems editing and would be good to add to the needed FoF on article ownership - David Gerard 16:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some Additional Findings

I'd like to suggest the following additional findings. I've included a few relevent pieces of evidence for all of them.

John Gohde is dismissive of the contributions of other editors, treating alternative medicine and related articles as "his" as in [10] and in his tendency to revert all other contributions to the articles.

Many of John Gohde's personal attacks are made in edit summaries. [11] [12] [13]

As User:Mr-Natural-Health, John Gohde has been previously sanctioned by the arbitration committee for personal attacks and for the use of edit summaries to intimidate other users.

Following the deletion of a template and list article on alternative medicine, john listed Template:Buddhism and List of Buddhist Topics for deletion. These listings constitute disruption to prove a point. [14] [15].

John Gohde has made statements indicating a lack of faith in the Wikipedia project at large, broadly dismissing established parts of the project such as meta.wikimedia.org and the category system, and has indicated that he is editing primarily to divert traffic towards his own website. [16] [17] [18].

When users have attempted to discuss John's breaches of policy with him, he has been dismissive and removed their comments, indicating a lack of good faith [19] [20] [21]

Snowspinner 21:38, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Harrassment

Can we please get some sort of remedy to deal with the harrassment aspects of this case? John Gohde, since his return, has not been able to freely edit without constant pressure from Snowspinner, and others. Frankly, none of them have approached him as editor on equal footing, nor attempted to get to a compromise or understanding. Instead, his edits (as I've shown in my evidence section) have been held under extreme scruntiny by Snowspinner in particular. Certainly, an editor under so much pressure is not working at his best. -- Netoholic @ 22:55, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

When have we ever seen John Gohde's best? He has been, from the beginning of his editing on Wikipedia, supercilious, rude, and aggressive. RickK 23:20, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Those adjectives can describe a large number of people, many of whom are good overall editors and admins. -- Netoholic @ 23:20, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

There is a difference between "occasionally" (or even "often") and "usually". --Calton | Talk 02:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To say nothing of "exclusively." Snowspinner 03:21, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Putting RickK's personal attacks aside, editors who are difficult to get along with need guidance, patience, and extra civility directed towards them. John has never been rude to me, nor to many others I would think. Those that believe he is rude, should be better people, and find ways to make him feel welcome on the project -- starting with ending the attacks on every one of his creations. Were those silly CAM info templates really worth this much of a bother? -- Netoholic @ 08:17, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

John apparently thought so, which is why he brought this case - David Gerard 17:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Statements of fact are not personal attacks. We have given this guy multiple chances, and yet he continues to be obnoxious. Our social policies are not a suicide pact. They are in place to help us write the encyclopedia. ... We need to take due process seriously, but we also need to remember: this is not a democracy, this is not an experiment in anarchy, it's a project to make the world a better place by giving away a free encyclopedia.. - Jimbo Wales. RickK 20:42, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

While it's hard to see how your quote from Jimbo helps justify your "true" personal attacks, it does help with one thing. Let me turn it around... when someone with a lot of knowledge in a particular area comes to edit here, such as John with alternative medicine, do harrassment and personal attacks help further the goal of creating a free encyclopedia? How have the harrassing actions of Snowspinner helped further the goals? -- Netoholic @ 21:21, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

I think the claim that John came to edit in good faith with the intention of improving Wikipedia's coverage of alternative medicine is dubious at best - especially since he made clear that he was only editing to drive traffic to his site. Snowspinner 21:29, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Another plea

[22]

This is what John Gohde is like. This is what he posts. This is what he has behaved like since he arrived, over a year ago, and was banned by the arbcom. It is still how he acts.

If the arbcom has issues with my continually raising cases, they should pass a finding to that effect. Or talk to me about it. If they think I am harassing John Gohde, nail me for it. I'll accept any finding the arbcom wants to make against me if I've been acting inappropriately, and I'll mend my behavior.

But either way, I ask the arbcom to not let the fact that I raised this case get in the way of the very transparent fact that John is an abusive and disruptive editor who has continued the behavior that got him banned twice before. And I ask the arbcom to PLEASE finally move on this case. Snowspinner 23:26, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Closing

2.1 and 4.1 would pass only if Mav or Nohat showed up to vote... which seems unlikely. :) Snowspinner 17:26, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

mav and Raul have already voted throughout this case - they can at least vote on 2.1 (in Raul's case) and 4.1 (in mav's case) to pass them or indicate that they won't pass. Since Nohat has just been flagged as inactive, that's now the only thing keeping me from closing this case. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 19:06, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)