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

message: 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)
thread_title: Requested Decision

message: 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)
thread_title: Temporary Injuction request

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Thoughtcrime 

message: 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)
replies: text: Then there is this edit , 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)
thread_title: Ban