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.

Involved parties

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)

Statement by JzG

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 (edit | [[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]

Statement by Orangemarlin

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:

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]

Statement by John Gohde

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]

Preliminary decisions

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

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

Proposed final decision

Principles

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.