User:Snowspinner/MNH Evidence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As Mr. Natural Health, under the username User:John Gohde has reutrned to alternative medicine articles and is beginning behavior that looks much like his old self, some centralized documentation of what he's doing seems useful. Hopefully, this will not escelate to the point where any sort of external dispute resolution is required. But, since I'm involved in the dispute now, I'd rather be able to spend five minutes a day documenting it as it happens instead of losing a whole day of work to an evidence page if it does. Thankfully, as John Gohde, he has been considerably less trouble than he was in the past, so this page may well turn out to be needless. If it does look solidly to be the case that MNH has reformed, I'll have this page speedied shortly. Snowspinner 18:30, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
So far, I have him creating "infoboxes" on various alternative medicine articles to replace the deleted CAM templates. [1] for example.
Repeated accusations of vandalism when his infoboxes are removed [2], when there are legitimate and good faith edits made to pages he wants to work on [3] [4], [5] and when evidence is gathered against him [6]. Frivolous use of ViP over this at [7]. Insistence of bizzare and non-existant policies like the idea that once a page is a redirect it must always be a redirect: [8]. [9] [10] [11] and [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] all revert the replacement of infoboxes with categories containing the exact same information as "vandalism." Notably, they de-categorize the articles in question. Particularly notable is [21], which combines removal of categories with personal attacks.
This all culminates with [22], where he declares that he will continue to revert edits to remove categories as long as his infobox is removed.
He also accuses me of vandalism at [23] and [24].
Threats to recreate articles if they are deleted at [25] [26] and [27].
3RR violations: [28] [29] [30] [31]
Declaration that his Wikipedia edits exist to drive traffic to his site: [32] [33]
Personal attacks and border personal attacks: [34] [35] [36] [37] [
Spamming: [38] [39] [40] and [41] [42]
Distortion of a talk page through refactoring - adding a section in to break up a conversation [43] and adding his signature to one of my comments [44]
Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point: [45] [46]. This was followed by the posting of [47] and [48], seeming to indicate the intention he has of adhering to that policy.
On several occasions users gave him advice as to what he might do to avoid conflict. [49] was responded to with [50] and then [51]. [52] was met with [53]. And [54] was met with [55]. [56] was met with [57]. More bluntly, but still in the realm of responding badly to having policy explained is [58].
