Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde 2/Proposed decision

message: Regarding this proposed decision, I am wondering if a one year ban is enough, considering John Gohde's history. If there were evidence of a positive learning curve it would be another matter. The proposed decision regarding recidivism is very closely related to this proposition.  Everything else has been tried, including one year bans, without any discernible effect. -- Fyslee / talk 22:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Committee does not traditionally issue bans longer than one year.  You're welcome to get a community ban for him, though. Kirill 22:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about making it mandatory for John to get mentoring upon his return? thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 12:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: This editor contributed fine for quite a long time after his last ArbCom case. I'm disturbed by the way these new lapses have been characterized as occurring "in the wake" as that wave crashed to shore a long time ago. -- Kendrick7talk 22:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Editors with a disciplinary history like John Gohde's need to be on better behavior, period. It's a matter of learning from past mistakes, or failing to do so. Here, he basically went on a tear of many and varied forms of disruption, got blocked twice, compared his second block to being raped and flogged, went on about Iranian mob justice (sic), winked at anti-Semitic abuse against a Jewish editor on his talk page, and then turned over a new leaf, claiming he'd put in a few weeks of good behavior. That might fly, just barely, for a brand-new editor with a clean slate, but certainly not for someone with John's history. MastCell Talk 23:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Editors frequently get mad and say stupid things on their talk page after a block. If we gave them all a one year ban, the project would be a lot more lonely. And attempting to blame John Gohde because an anti-Semite left a message on his user talk page just makes you sound desperate. It's not just the weeks of good behavior after the lapses but the years of good editing before that which should make the 2004 case moot in this context. -- Kendrick7talk 23:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The comments on his talk page after the block are hardly the only issue here, as you well know, though they are symptomatic of the larger problem. I also don't see the years of good editing you describe - it appears that John Gohde was sporadically active in 2007 until November. Even thereafter, most of his edits were in WikiProject space; those in article and article-talk space were consistently problematic, as detailed in the evidence. Evidence of constructive editing might have gone a long way, but it appears there just wasn't much to point to. MastCell Talk 00:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you point me to whose evidence contains the diff showing this "consistently problematic" editing? I never noticed such an allegation. -- Kendrick7talk 00:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See pretty much everyone's evidence except for yours and John's. MastCell Talk 00:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, well then just pick anyone where I'll find those diffs and point me to it. I'm eager to learn. -- Kendrick7talk 00:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think you are. I think you have your mind made up, which is fine, but I'm not particularly interested in playing games with something that's been obvious to everyone else who's looked at this case. Let's agree to disagree, as things are winding down here in any case. MastCell Talk 05:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ban length 

message: I basically agree with Newyorkbrad's sentiments (as to whether it is "necessary to rely on") when he mentions Gohde's off-wiki writings:
* "I do not think it is necessary to rely on the user's negative remarks about Wikipedia and its administrators on an external site or to decide whether his conduct on that site rises to the level of extreme off-wiki attacks warranting this committee's attention." 
but I believe such matters should still be factored into this and future RFArb cases.
Written declarations of attitudes (no matter where they are written) towards Wikipedia, its admins, and its policies can be so indicative of an inability to edit in a collaborative and NPOV manner that they should not be ignored. When they rise to a level so grotesque as this example, then I believe it would be counterproductive, "suicidal", and against the Darwinian laws of self-preservation to allow such an editor to continue to edit here. AGF is not a suicide pagt, and we should not be naive. Off-wiki realities are already a factor that are mentioned in some ArbCom decisions, and this type of thing should also become a factor.
No military organization would allow such a person to enroll as a soldier since treason, insubordination, encouragement to uprisings, sabotage, and terrorism would be inevitable. I think the parallels are too close for comfort.
This amounts to taking people at their word. We are not excluding them, they are excluding themselves and we are taking them at their word. When they then attempt to edit here, we can - based on their own statements - assume they are acting in bad faith. We can see from John Gohde's bragging about his previous bans, how he has succeeded in editing while being banned, and has used socks and IPs, that he is proud of making fools of Wikipedia, an organization that allowed someone with his known tendencies to edit here. Allowing such persons within our doors causes them to lose respect for Wikipedia and consider us foolish. Only a very clear repudiation of such viewpoints, and actions that show that the repudiation is sincere, can change the situation.
I propose that this be formalized into a well-worded principle that can be used now and in the future. -- Fyslee / talk 23:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attitudes 

message: In light of the past and present history (both as User:Mr-Natural-Health and as User:John Gohde) of this user's  ownership and domination issues related to the main articles and projects he has edited, as well as likely retaliatory disruption of certain other strongly-related articles, I suggest an addition to the Proposed remedies:
* John Gohde is indefinitely banned from the following articles, projects, and portals: 
** Alternative medicine
** Complementary medicine
** Complementary and alternative medicine
** Wikiproject on Alternative Medicine
** Portal:Complementary and Alternative Medicine
** Quackwatch
** Stephen Barrett
** National Council Against Health Fraud
If, after returning from his one year ban (assuming it passes), he can contribute to other articles, but must stay away from controversial articles on alternative medicine subjects. -- Fyslee / talk 04:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If he returns, I rather expect that any further disruption will result in a quick extension of the ban by motion. Kirill 04:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are probably right. I was just thinking of "an ounce of prevention...." ;-) Rather prevent disruption than go through DR again. -- Fyslee / talk 05:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed remedy