Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde 2/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by JzG

John Gohde is incivil

• [1] describes an edit he dislikes as vandalism
• [2] characterises this arbitration case as a grudge match (n.b: I don't think I ever encountered Mr-Natural-Health)

John Gohde engaged in off-wiki attacks

• [3] advances the thesis that Wikipedia admins are mentally ill

John Gohde inappropriately views himself as a martyr

• describing others as a "mob" [4]
• response to a block [5]
• [6] - page is looking like it will be deleted per concerns raised.

Note the comparison with a rape victim harshly treated in Iran. I think Gohde does sincerely believe his treatment to be comparable, despite the many, many attempts made over the years to help him not to run into these problems.

John Gohde abuses Wikipedia as a soapbox

• using his user page as an advertisement and fund raiser for his personal fork [7]

undue weight

• [8] John Gohde appears to assert parity between minor complementary and alternative medicine topics, and the entirety of mainstream medicine. Surely an exaggeration on his part, but an illustrative one (see also WP:ALLORNOTHING)

Examples

As an example of seriously problematic editing, this [9] 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.

Dawkins

The account of the Dawkins quote [10] is at odds with documentation at the time [11], which shows that Mr-Natural-Health was in fact removing the quote, which was added by user:Theresa Knott. But this case is not about refighting old cases which John Gohde considers were unfairly awarded against him.

Beck

I have no idea what the supposed relevance of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Oldspammer/Robert C. Beck is, but it should be noted that userfying to rework is not an indefinite license to keep unencyclopaedic or deleted material lying around. The MfD was proper; after some months of work, the article was still in user space and consensus was that it still failed the notability standards for biographies.

Evidence presented by John Gohde

An established history of no conflicts

I have accomplished a lot of editing, without incident, prior to the filing of the RfC.[12],[13] I was asked to once again participate on Wikiproject on Alternative Medicine[14]. A lot of editing related to CAM, was likewise accomplished without incident.[15] ,[16] All together, I had made close to 1,000 edits with absolutely no problems prior to the RfC.

Basic line of argument

I have had next to no editing contact with the parties to this case. The only editor that I have been having problems with was User:Fyslee[17] who made the first personal attack [18]. And, who was constantly badgering me with his/her edit summaries. But, after I figured out that User:Fyslee was trying to goad me into making personal attacks, I have been exceedingly careful to avoid anything that could be construed as a personal attack.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 as well as the comments made on my talk page. 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.

The editors whom I supposedly violated are not parties to this case. As a result, the issues being raised by the parties are:

1. ancient history about their excessive obsession with the activities of User:Mr-Natural-Health
   • Guy-[19],[20],
   • Orangemarlin -[21]
2. simply ludicrous[22],
3. or are just trivial issues.

The problems on complementary and alternative medicine were mostly due to User:Fyslee[23] trying to force his/her partisan point of view on this article that is related to alternative medicine[24].

Reply to Talk:Guy

1. Bearer of truth -- I never met a skeptic (ie, participant in Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism) that did not introduce themselves as being anything other than a "bearer of truth."
2. Odd comments about "destroying" hyperlinks -- See long hyperlinks at the bottom of the lead. [25] Nothing strange about me fixing the damage done by another editor at all.
3. Disruptive editing -- . I managed to go over the limit on reverts only one time on only one article.
4. Richard Dawkins--I was the first editor to introduce a quote by Richard Dawkins into the article.[26]
5. Fork Edition of Wikipedia--Was added 05:51, 18 March 2005 during my 2nd stay at Wikipedia.
6. As far as the comments on the bottom of my talk page go, they were there to point out an analogy that was recently in the news that applies to the RfC. No names of editors were referenced at all. Doing a search on Google [27] ,[28] my talk page with those comments of mine were never in Google's index. Nor, will they ever be.
7. Self-referential citation--A reference was requested.[29] Guy's response was to move to have that project page deleted.[30]
8. Off-wiki comments--What I write on my various other websites, as long as I leave out the names of specific editors is entirely my own business.
9. On being a martyr: NOT! -- I have absolutely no interest in being a martyr.

Reply to User:Orangemarlin

1. Orangemarlin filed the exact same complaint in a Request for Clarification[31], and was likewise reviewed in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement[32].
2. I find it totally incongruous that Orangemarlin knows the differences between being "cautioned" versus "put on probation" for RfCs[33], but did not know that the remedies in the earlier 2004 arbitration case had expired some three years ago.
3. I was asked to advise one editor on editing[34],[35]. I pointed out that he could in the future avoid a lot of unnecessary bickering over his sandboxes, if he would simply give them a nondescript name.

Reply to User:MastCell

1. Canvassed to !vote-I have asked a few fellow participants to vote on certain issues that they might be interested in, but I have never ever dictated how they should vote on those issues.[36],[37]
2. I can quote the same quote of mine -- "Any non-NPOV editing made today, can always be corrected next week."[38] Except, what Mastcell left out is more telling than what Mastcell quoted.
3. blocked by Thatcher - "John only has one recent block. However, as a matter of common sense, if an editor is sanctioned for poor behavior twice and continues, taking new action should not require clearing an impossibly high bar. Blocked for 48 hours and recommend filing a new Request for Arbitration if the behavior continues."[39]
   • This is hardly confirmation of disruptive behavior, as the parties to this case have been suggesting.
4. The Civility Requirement of Wikipedia applies to ALL posting on my user talk page. I read every message posted on my talk. Out of date messages and those with a hostile tone, are deleted after being read by me.
5. Publicly violated means that the process is more public than ever before.[40]

Reply to User:Ronz

Those issues have been resolved. Therefore, they are absolutely not a basis for seeking a remedy here. Furthermore, my talk page is my home. And, I do what I want with my home because it is my house.

Reply to User:Jim Butler

• I have responded on numerous occassions to the sour grapes of Jim.[41]
• Jim admits[42] that he fails to understand the differences between scientific and traditional acupuncture and really only wants one article. Jim, would like to interject his chi nonsense into more articles on Wikipedia, and thinks any opposing viewpoint constitutes disruptive editing. -- John Gohde (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by MastCell

John Gohde has a long history of failing to follow Wikipedia's behavioral standards

He's been the subject of 2 prior Arbitration cases: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Theresa knott vs. Mr-Natural-Health way back in 2004, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde. In both cases, his behavior was deemed to have substantially violated Wikipedia's code of conduct; in the second case, he was banned for 1 year and subject to an additional year of probation.

John Gohde's recent actions continue his prior pattern of poor user conduct

I first encountered John Gohde in December (contrary to the "vendetta" assertion), when he was canvassed to !vote in a contentious AfD. Shortly thereafter John Gohde canvassed 2 editors, selected for their known viewpoints on related topics, for a fairly contentious MfD discussion: [43], [44]. I asked him to respect WP:CANVASS ([45]); he deleted this message as a "nasty rude threat". After Shortly before the closure of the MfD as "delete", John advised the creator of the deleted article to game the system by simply recreating it under a more difficult-to-detect name ([46]). He has been blocked twice in the past few weeks, once for edit-warring and once for a range of unconstructive behavior, both times by uninvolved admins; hardly the track record of someone who's turned over a new leaf.

Additionally, John Gohde seems to have a flawed understanding of WP:3RR and WP:CONSENSUS. Here he advises another relatively new editor: "Making 3 reverts in one day will get you kicked off of Wikipedia for 24 hours. But, waiting 24 hours between each revert wont. I would advise that you edit boldly and correct all errors and all non-NPOV edits made by Guettarada. The article is what counts, rather than the talk page."

I have not interacted with John Gohde beyond this limited sphere; it is my understanding that there are other indications of incivility, edit-warring, etc (for which Thatcher blocked John Gohde recently), but I will leave it to others to present evidence of those as they see fit.

Inappropriate talk page comments

John Gohde was blocked for 48 hours by an uninvolved admin as a result of a WP:AE thread. He responded by comparing his situation to that of a woman raped and then sentenced by an Islamic court to be flogged ([47]), stating he had been "publicly violated".

Subsequently, an apparent throwaway account left a blatantly anti-Semitic message of "support" for John Gohde ([48]). One might have hoped that an editor who revises his talk page so aggressively to portray himself in the best possible light, and who writes at the top of his talk page that "Nasty, rude, threatening, and / or impolite comments, or postings by editors that I just plain do not like because they have NOT been nice, will be deleted", would perhaps remove such a comment. Instead, John Gohde amplified on it by further comparing himself to the tiger which escaped from the SF Zoo.

John Gohde has also displayed an attitude toward his talk page which veers beyond the wide latitude traditionally allowed into inappropriate WP:OWNership ([49], [50]).

This is not a content dispute

I've listed examples of John Gohde violating WP:CANVASS and advising other editors to violate the spirit of WP:3RR, disregard article-talk discussion, and sneakily recreate deleted material to circumvent an MfD. This arb-enforcement thread provides a number of examples of edit-warring, incivility, personal attacks, and disruption. An uninvolved admin saw enough there to block John Gohde. All of these are recent, not ancient history. Those are not "content disputes"; those are user-conduct issues. The underlying issue is, and has always been to my reading, that this user is a tireless on- and off-wiki advocate for a specific POV. When such an agenda assumes greater importance than any interest in abiding by Wikipedia policy and custom, then there's a problem, and it has nothing to do with a specific content dispute.

User:Kendrick7's evidence

... is marked by several inaccuracies. First of all, contrary to his assertion, we do have an article on the inventor of the photographic flash. His name is Harold Eugene Edgerton. See his obituary in the New York Times. Secondly, a "martyr complex" is not a mental illness; it's a pop-psychology term describing a personality/coping trait. On second thought, this is off-topic and I'm starting to feel it's a bit petty as well.

Evidence presented by Kendrick7

The underlying issue here is a content dispute

JzG's argument insisting Gohde's talk page comments have violated (?) WP:UNDUE and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions should set off bells and whistles in the arbitrators' heads.

MastCell: "The underlying issue is... this user is a tireless on- and off-wiki advocate for a specific POV" = content dispute. Get rid of the editor espousing a POV we don't like helps get rid of the content reflecting that POV. Yes, he recently served a 48hr block for the problems we are going back over again,[51] the talk page incivility/sarcasm and the misleading "rv vandalism" comment.[52] [53] [54] He should be reminded not to do that again. Of course, despite that reasonable block, the knives were immediately being sharpened: "Excellent action. Hopefully, he gets the point, but I don't believe that will happen. I'm preparing the RfAr as we speak." per User:Orangemarlin.[55] And so here we are.

JzG accuses John Gohde of being mentally ill

Bizarrely, JzG in his evidence accused John Gohde of having a mental illness[56] (a martyr complex) while in the same breath complaining Godhe has made a similar, though completely impersonal complaint about Wikipedia's admins. Even if JzG takes Gohde's opinions about the project personally, although there's no reason he should, apparently he can dish it out but not take it.

You can't kill yourself by crucifixion

I've tried it; there's no way to hammer in the last nail. Sure, Gohde feels persecuted, but that seems to be the result of editors actually persecuting him, not as a result of mental illness as JzG contends. See, for example, the present case.

Wikipedia actually does operate under mob rule

I'm not sure why stating this fact deserves some sort of punishment, and I'm not sure the harm done by John Gohde in stating this. See WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY and mob rule if you are unclear on this. Next we'll want to punish editor's for stating the sky is blue, I imagine.

John Gohde's offwiki page is impersonal criticism of the project

Of course, there's nothing wrong with this. Calling it an "attack" is an attempt to invoke WP:NPA, but of course, there's nothing personal there.

Fundraising accusation

There's actually nothing in the diff JzG provided to support this accusation. [57] All Godhe does is mention that he runs his own for site for a penny an hour. There's nothing even remotely resembling solicitation.

Contacting two editors in a neutral fashion does not violate WP:CANVASS

In response to MastCell's accusation, see Wikipedia:CANVAS#Types_of_canvassing, in particular the section entitled "friendly notices." Furthermore, John Godhe stopped when asked by MastCell. There's no reasonable remedy for behavior which doesn't violate our policies, and MastCell's threat to have him blocked for the innocuous behavior, especially while acknowledging he was talking to an editor with years of experience,[58] actually was rude, IMHO.

Editors are encouraged to use sandbox pages to work on articles prior to their publication in WP:TIND

The WP:TIND essay encourages this behavior, and, as such, the MfD of a User's sandbox page was highly irregular to begin with. The User's response seems to explain everything sensibly; he had removed all the cruft that got the original article AfD'd, etc.[59] When asked for advice by the User, Gohde suggested what he would do under such circumstances. I'm not sure what alternative advice he could have even given here, if one WP:AGF that the editor actual would complete work on the article; renaming the page would have fixed the page-rank complaint that was part of the rationale MastCell gave for the MfD. If that's a violation of WP:GAME, it seems a minor infraction. Instead, if I'm reading all this right, now we don't have an article on the guy who invented Flash (photography). Go team! -- Kendrick7^talk 21:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, MastCell is correct that available sources are sketchy. The only secondary source I found to support the low-power flash assertion is from a vanity press: Bollin, Bill (2003). Downwinders: Your Personal Survival Guide to an Uncertain Future. New Century Press. p. 11. ISBN 1890035289. There's a primary source, the patent itself, here, though it's hard to know if this is the same Robert C. Beck, or if this patent was actually implemented in modern cameras. But, really, my point isn't to rehash the MfD; my point is User:John Gohde's advice wasn't completely unreasonable if he took MastCell's complaint about PageRank to be the most pressing reason to delete this User's sandbox. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comparing Wikipedia's justice system to Iran's is insulting... to Iran

I agree that Gohde's comments -- immediately after getting blocked, and on his own user talk page -- in comparing our justice system to Iran[60] is shortsighted and demonstrates an unfortunate xenophobia and cultural bias. I'm sure if his belief became widely known beyond his own talk page, Iranians everywhere would be deeply hurt by the comparison. Here too though, I'm not sure what an appropriate remedy would be; perhaps he should send his local Iranian embassy a formal letter of apology?

WP:SOCK allegations are incorrect

As for User:Igorberger's allegation, see Special:Contributions/Mr-Natural-Health and [61]. I don't believe there was a WP:SOCK violation, as there was no overlap -- and a six month gap -- between the two accounts.

User:John Gohde, "As far as my user account Mr-Natural-Health goes, when I was using that account everybody made it into a big deal that they had discovered my real name. So, I started to use my real name informally." This has been establish just fine, and I do not wish to go into semantics what came first the chicken or the egg! The man clearly and unreputably admited to having mltiple accounts. Why he did it that, is another story. So please stop dissecting policy and let's deal with the issue at hand. I can get you proof of this pathological behavior not just here but from other places, and I am really not interested dragging John through the mud! Call me when you decide. Igor Berger (talk) 08:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Igorberger

What is WikiPedia afraid of?

I am a new editor here, and I do not know much authority my voice caries but few people who know me here probably respect me for my sincerity, openness, and others before myself attitude. This is the second time I am trying to defend John, and the first time cost me dearly, being banned from Google Webmaster Help Group.

I do not regret that and will tell you more about that and its relevency to John if the need arises.

John has a voice and he expresses himself, at times he does it in abusive matter, which I do not approve of, but is that a result of something that is our fault? Should we gag a man becaise of his opinion?

Hey the guy even told me to go F... myself on my own forum, and I did ban him, but not for that but for deleting his old comments and trying to social engineer the post message!

Who will win?

I was recently attacked by an anon sockpuppet with a alias resembling John's, three days I battled him, and until I made reference to one of the adimns of his affiliation to John my voice was not even being heard. But as the editor who banned the abuser pointed out, "It is clear for the whole world, that the disposible account was set up to abuse a couple of editors!"

As much as John looks guilty and destructive for WikiPedia he is not, actually he is the defender of WikiPedia. Just look at his alternative medicene project. If someone did not care about WikiPedia, would they spend so much of their life here?

Banning John Gohde will only hurt WikiPedia and will show the world how weak we are as a community. It will undermine our ability as defenders of truth and knowledge and will give reign to social engineering malware abuse that we are all falling victim to!

As a WikiPedia Spam patrolman I stand up for WikiPedia on WikiPedia and off. John is not my friend and I do not think we will ever become such, but I will not stand quietly and let a man be condemend for speaking his opinion.

John, why do you delete negative comments from your talk page?

I consider this an act of social engineering, and it can also be construed as building a page to be referenced from outside of WikiPedia. Igor Berger (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Being that I am trying to maintain a life, I have no idea whatsoever about social engineering. I have better things to do with my time than to dream up plots. -- John Gohde (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You just contradicted yourself in this sentence. You said, "I have no idea what is social engineering," "I have better things...with my time." I think you do know what I am talking about, and many Internet users do it conciously or subconciously. Hey we just want the story to look good for everyone to see! Which in itself it is not a crime, but how determined one is to make it look good, setting oneself with multi user accounts with different accounts acting as sockpuppets for the primary account. John have you ever had more than one account at the same time on WikiPedia? Igor Berger (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as my user account Mr-Natural-Health goes, when I was using that account everybody made it into a big deal that they had discovered my real name. So, I started to use my real name informally. Then I threw away my password for Mr-Natural-Health. So, when I decided to come back for the 2nd time I had to set up a new account.

Then there appeared what I call the Hate Blogger. So, I added a third account which is the other variation of my name just to prevent the hate blogger from claiming it. I have never used it. But in my opinion, the hate blogger has registered at Wikipedia with at least 2 different account names.

1. User:Gohde Alone Knows
2. User:Gohdeilocks

My personal websites which so many editors have been complaining about were created because of the hate blogger. Had it not been for the hate blogger my page on Wikipedia would not have been there at all. I needed to add pages for SEO reasons. So, a page on Wikipedia was a natural. I suspect that the hate blogger will eventually try to impersonate me on Wikipedia. And, will be trying to add more account names that are a variation of my last name.

As far as you go, I understand that you operate a travel agency in Thailand. So, your ISP should document an user residing in Thailand or perhaps somewhere in Asia. We parted company about 6 months ago with bad blood between us. So, I would not exactly call us the best of buddies. We both share an interest in Search engine optimization(SEO) rather than CAM. -- John Gohde (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

1. User John H. Gohde, you identified usrself as a Sockpuppeteer using alternative Sockpuppet user accounts violating the WikiPeida policy which prohibits a user to engage in sock puppetry. While having an alternative user account on wikiPedia may be acceptable under WikiPedia policy, your behavior does not constitute WP:AGF.
2. To the people who have created the Website to redicule John and his family, I would advise you to stop and desist. If any of you are WikiPedians you are hurting WikiPedia by what you are doing.
3. What John does outside of WikiPedia is his personal business and non of WikiPedia. If he is This Master Puppeteer and trying to social engineer the society through his bent attributes and you are under his Magic spell, I would say wake up!
4. John, I did not come to these venerable halls to defend you but to defend WikiPedia! Everytime you come into my life I feel like I am being struck by a meteorite.
5. To the Arbcom I would recommend not to ban or block John, because I doubt he will abide by the enforcements, he will surface somewhere somehow as Mr. Z X Y or whatever other alias he wishes to claim for the Carpe Diem!
6. My recommendation is that John, goes into a self impossed exile and temporary hybernation. I know he will not be able to abstane himself from tempering with Knowledge ™, but at least we will know who and what he is and why is he here.
7. John, the world is big, take a vacation, travel within yourself and out. There are so many undescover places on the Internet and as well as some still well preserved gems in physical society.
8. Hey, as an senior and respected editor, come say hello and apply your great wisdom to WikiPedia from time to time, I am sure we all can learn a lot from you, especially in these turbelant times. But please put down your puppet for a while, because the puppet has become your Master today!
9. I hope this will close these precedures in the amiable matter, but I will leave this decission to the appointed steward of this arbitration committee.
10. Please excuse me, but this whole affair has been very taxing on me. And I thank you all for allowing me the chair to voice my concern. Igor Berger (talk) 04:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I am getting a major headache, trying to figure out what exactly your point is. As far as I am concerned, I have exactly one account which is: John Gohde (talk).

If no longer using the User:Mr-Natural-Health account was actually an issue than that issue should have been brought up when I first started using John Gohde (talk) some 3 or 4 years ago. And like I already stated before, the preference at Wikipedia was for me to use my real name, plus I no longer have access to User:Mr-Natural-Health due to not having the password.

My current account is John Gohde (talk). And, that is the only account that I am using.

In my opinion, any other account that is a play upon my last name that is currently being used is probably being used by the hate blogger. Which of course can be easily be verified by checking out the geographical location of the ISP. -- John Gohde (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

John moving discussion is not a problem but if you do not advise the participents and get an agreement you are showing the committee that you are social engnineering and manipulating the case. Igor Berger (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

John please be advised, "Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move." Igor Berger (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence for the committee

• I have evidence that is very pertinent to this case but will be problamatic for some Netizens. If the committee requires to see it, we can do it in private. The evidence that I am refering to will be very damaging for important individuals in the Internet community. But at the same time I will not stand still and watch John, be crucified! So if you want the bare Truth ™ it is your judgment! Igor Berger (talk) 09:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• I also have a motion for the committie that all participents refrain from unnecessary refactoring, and only do it for grammer and spelling. More than that a motion for the action should be submited to the committee. I find it against WP:NPOV and as WP:COI to social engineer committee minutes. Igor Berger (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ignore all rules

• John you always point us to WikiPedia rules and WP:Policy but you always WP:IGNORE why is that?

Evidence presented by Ronz

When I presented him with evidence of problematic edits, he ignored my concerns and instead made accusations against me. The discussion resulted in John getting an AGF warning by Bradeos Graphon:

• 16:44, 13 December 2007 Notify him of 3 problematic edits
• 18:17, 16 December 2007 Notify him of 2 more
• 20:10, 16 December 2007 Resultant discussion in response to the above, resulting in an AGF warning by Bradeos Graphon

Later, Bradeos Graphon gave him another AGF warning:

• 15:22, 20 December 2007 Second warning by Bradeos Graphon

Instead of following dispute resolution approaches, he started a list of grievances against others, resulting in a civility warning by FeloniousMonk:

• 17:42, 18 December 2007 John starts listing grievances against Fyslee
• 18:46, 18 December 2007 John adds more grievances against other editors, including myself
• 19:49, 23 December 2007 Notified him that he's been creating his list of grievances rather than trying proper dispute resolution.
• 19:49, 23 December 2007 Civility warning by FeloniousMonk

Instead of following dispute resolution, he removes the discussions from his talk page:

• 05:05, 22 December 2007 Notify him that he's removing his comments that others have already replied to
• 18:30, 22 December 2007 He responds by removing the discussion

--Ronz (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Jim Butler

John Gohde violated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA

• 15:21, 14 December 2007 removes discussion; edit summary on talk page: "if you don't want my advice then don't ask for it and stop wasting my time on your nonsense"

John Gohde repeatedly violated WP:DR and WP:V

John misrepresented my comments when, commenting on the above edit summary, I asked him not to flame:

• 17:59, 15 December 2007 - "Kindly STOP making personal attacks"

John edit-warred to 5RR and violated WP:V by repeatedly inserting unverified information. (See link to old version of AN/3RR, showing 5RR and 24h block; the diffs below were presented there.)

• 1st revert: 17:38, 16 December 2007 - says "rv Medical acupuncture is NOT Acupuncture!" - restores infobox saying NCCAM categorizes medical acupuncture as "manipulative therapy", without evidence. NCCAM is a V RS, and they do categorize acupuncture as "energy medicine";[62] WP should not misrepresent them
• 2nd revert: 19:25, 16 December 2007 - engages in OR: "The insertion of a needle is an obvious manipulation of soft tissue, which has nothing to do with energy fields in Medical Acupuncture"
• 3rd revert: 19:51, 16 December 2007 - improperly says "rv vandalism" about good-faith edit
• 4th revert: 20:14, 16 December 2007 - repeats ES from 2nd rv
• 5th revert: 12:02, 17 December 2007 - repeats ES from 2nd rv

John Gohde violated WP:POINT

John disrupted medical acupuncture by adding redundant maintenance tags (resulting in this unwieldy version):

• 18:53, 21 December 2007 - with {{POV}} already present, adds {{Unbalanced}} and {{Totally-disputed}}
• 19:10, 21 December 2007 - adds {{expert}}, which while defensible, is followed by:
• 19:19, 21 December 2007 - adds {{expert-subject|Medicine}}

John Gohde violated WP:DR as recently as 1 January 2008

John misrepresented my comments in the RfArb for this case:

• 12:05, 1 January 2008 - in response to my comments that are visible in the diff, John tries to deflect the evidence by saying that I am "trying to claim that scientific medical acupuncture works because of invisible energy fields", when I am obviously making no such claim.

IMO, "trolling" is a fair representation of John Gohde's modus operandi, and his block log suggests he has been at it for quite awhile on WP. I strongly support a block, and when he returns, mandatory mentoring. Thank you for considering this case. regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 12:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Phil Sandifer

Not that it particularly matters, but to my knowledge John never completed the essay requirement of his previous sanction, meaning he ought to still be banned under that sanction.

Of course, the essay requirement was a stupid idea, and probably not worth enforcing, but hey, if you want to send him away for longer, you still can.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.