Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all proposed

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

  • Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
  • Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, 2 Arbitrators are recused and 2 are inactive, so 5 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on.

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on the discussion page.

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:


[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Manner in dealing with other editors

1) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave in a calm and mutally respective manner in their dealings with other users. When disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of merely attacking each other.

Support:
  1. Neutralitytalk 00:55, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  01:56, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 03:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 03:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 01:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Fred Bauder 15:54, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 20:09, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 00:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Personal attacks

2) Personal attacks are expressly prohibited because they make Wikipedia a hostile enviroment for editors, and thereby damage Wikipedia both as an encylopedia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion and encouraging a bunker mentality).

Support:
  1. Neutralitytalk 00:55, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  01:56, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 03:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 03:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 01:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Fred Bauder 15:55, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 20:09, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 00:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

3) Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. State your point, but don't attempt to illustrate it experimentally.

Support:
  1. Neutralitytalk 00:55, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  01:56, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 03:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 03:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 01:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Fred Bauder 15:56, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 20:09, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 00:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Assume good faith in the absence of any evidence to the contrary

4) Wikipedia editors are strongly encouraged to assume good faith in the absence of any evidence to the contrary in keeping with our long-standing tradition of being open and welcoming.

Support:
  1. Neutralitytalk 00:55, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  01:56, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 03:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 03:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 01:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Fred Bauder 15:56, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 20:09, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 00:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Ownership of articles

5) Wikipedia pages do not have owners or custodians who control edits to them. Instead, they are "owned" by the community-at-large, and come to a consensus version by means of discussion, negotiation, and/or voting. This is a crucial part of Wikipedia as an open-content encylopedia.

Support:
  1. Neutralitytalk 00:55, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  01:56, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 03:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 03:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 01:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Fred Bauder 15:57, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 20:09, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 00:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Removal of infoboxes I

1) A central issue of this case is whether or not the removal of the so-called "CAM infobox" (e.g. [1]) from CAM articles should be considered valid.

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  01:40, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 03:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 03:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 04:02, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 01:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Fred Bauder 15:58, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 20:09, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 00:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Removal of infoboxes II

2) Template:CAMInfobox was deleted via the TFD process on 22 March 2005; this demonstrates community opposition to the concept of maintaining such an infobox on these articles. [2]

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  01:43, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 03:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 03:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 04:03, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 01:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 20:09, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 00:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) yes, it's a content dispute, but we are commenting only on the apparent consensus of the community in this dispute (which may, of course, change over time - but should be recognised at this moment)
Oppose:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:01, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC) Seems to be a content dispute.
Abstain:

[edit] Removal of infoboxes III

3) Several infoboxes removed from CAM articles [3] were verbatim duplicates of Template:CAMInfobox.

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  01:47, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 03:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 03:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 04:02, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 01:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Fred Bauder 16:01, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 20:09, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 00:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Revert warring of infobox

4) Despite community consensus to remove the CAM infobox from CAM-related articles, John Gohde has revert warred with Snowspinner et al. over the inclusion of the infoboxes. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  01:55, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 03:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 03:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 04:02, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 01:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Fred Bauder 16:12, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC) Yes, but takes two to make a war. Additionally, not sure there is any consensus among those who actually edit the articles in question.
  7. →Raul654 20:09, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 00:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Personal attacks

5) John Gohde has engaged in personal attacks during the course of this dispute. [30] [31] [32] [33] and [34]

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  02:03, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 03:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 03:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 04:02, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 01:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Fred Bauder 23:38, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC) based on [35]
  7. →Raul654 20:09, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 00:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:17, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC) His "attacks" are just mirror images of negative statements made about him. (The cited examples are not much but if you look further there are attacks)
Abstain:

[edit] Has added very little new content

6) User:John Gohde, since returning from his previous ban, has made very few edits that have added new content to the encyclopedia. These edits have mostly been concentrated on only one article, Wellness (alternative medicine).

Support:
  1. Feel free to reword if necessary. Ambi 05:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  15:06, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 19:54, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  4. mav 01:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 20:09, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 00:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 14:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:27, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC) While true enough due to the amount of conflict he has encountered, this finding of fact is inappropriate as he has not been free to edit without being the focus of attention with respect to a number of trivial content issues such as his infobox.
    This is a finding, not a remedy. It doesn't delve into why - just notes that it is. Seeing as you acknowledge the latter, I don't quite see the point of opposing it. Ambi 02:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Overall opinion by sannse

The following is an overall opinion of this case, which explains my decision to support a year ban. This is a complex case, and one that doesn't easily fall into the usual pattern of principle, findings, and remedies. I feel that the listing of findings here does not effectively show the reasons for my vote below, which may seem over-harsh when looking only at the individual edits cited. Links given here are examples, and not intended to represent the whole complex picture.

I think it's fair to say that Snowspinner has, at times, been somewhat over zealous with monitoring John Gohde's return to Wikipedia [36]. But this doesn't negate the real problems caused by John's difficult and idiosyncratic style of interaction. John does not, in my opinion, show a clear understanding of how to work with others on this project [37]. His interpretation of other's actions and intent is often faulty and is clearly at odds with that of other contributors [38]. He has a tendency towards article ownership and appears to feel that his (undoubted) expertise should allow him to ignore community opinion [39][40] - a position that the Wikipedia community has clearly rejected [41][42][43][44][45]. MykReeve's evidence, and that of John himself have been important in clarifying this case, and showing that this is certainly not a case of exaggeration on Snowspinner's part as John has suggested. John's continued attacks on Snowspinner and others[FoF5], his distorted understanding of other's comments and actions, and his lack of consideration and respect for other contributors seem clear [46] [47]. John's mischaracterization [48] of Snowspinners heavily sarcastic remarks [49], is a prime example of the key problem. This may have been the result of cultural or language difficulties, a genuine lack of insight into the motivation and intent of others, or a deliberate attempt to "spin" the evidence. Whatever the cause, the result is an inability to work effectively with others. In my opinion, John Gohde's attitude and lack of ability to work with others continues to be the problem it was in the previous two cases.

[edit] Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

[edit] Snowspinner: Admonishment for edit warring

1) Snowspinner is admonished not to engage in revert warring as such behaviour is against Wikipedia's spirit.

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  02:15, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 03:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 16:24, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. No relevant finding of fact, and no evidence otherwise provided. The only finding which even mentions his name even acquits him, as it notes that he was enforcing the consensus, and had a heck of a lot of other editors behind him. Ambi 03:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 04:04, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Agree with Ambi. Although seeking another admin to block Mr Gohde for 24 hours would have been a better way to deal with this situation. --mav 12:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. →Raul654 20:09, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC) - absolutely no evidence of this whatsoever.
Abstain:
  1. sannse (talk) 00:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) I won't opose fully, as it takes two to war, and there has certainly been too much reverting in this case

[edit] John Gohde: Revert limitation

2) John Gohde is prohibited from reverting the removal of CAM infoboxes, with violations treated as violations of the three-revert rule.

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  02:15, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 03:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Too lenient. Ambi 03:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Concur with Ambi. Neutralitytalk 04:04, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  3. I see this as a content issue although there is an element of original research in the way he organizes the content of material concerning alternative medicine. Fred Bauder 16:30, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  4. →Raul654 20:09, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 00:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) not the right solution
Abstain:

2.1) John Gohde is prohibited for one year from reverting any article on Wikipedia, apart from clear and distinct vandalism as defined by Wikipedia:Vandalism, with violations treated as violations of the three-revert rule.

Support:
  1. This isn't a first offence, and I can't see the behaviour going away any time soon. Ambi 03:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 04:04, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Enough is enough. A much more severe sanction would have been levied in his first case if that same case was before us today. --mav 12:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  1. ➥the Epopt 14:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:30, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC) The infobox dispute is trivial, does little harm, does little good.
  2. sannse (talk) 00:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Now that the year total ban is passable, this item is redundant. --mav 03:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. I'd like to see more examples of reverting material other than infoboxes before I consider this further. -- Grunt   ҈  15:08, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
  2. Concur with Grunt. →Raul654 03:02, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Gohde: Attack parole

3) John Gohde is placed on personal attack parole for a period of one year. If he engages in edits which an administrator believes comprises a personal attack, he may be temporarily banned for a short period of time of up to one week.

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  02:15, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 03:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 03:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 04:04, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 12:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Fred Bauder 23:40, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 00:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:31, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC) No evidence of personal attacks.
Abstain:

[edit] John Gohde: Understanding policies

4) User:John Gohde must read and acknowledge he has read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and write 200 words each on why articles and topics having custodians on Wikipedia is a bad idea and why personal attacks on Wikipedia are a bad idea, before being allowed to edit Wikipedia again.

Support:
Ambi 05:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Neutralitytalk 15:31, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  1. mav 12:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. forcing users to make statements they believe to be false is repugnant to me — see 4.1 below ➥the Epopt 22:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Good point. I changed my vote. Neutralitytalk 05:47, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  2. A more appropriate remedy would be for the arbitrators who proposed this and support it to read it themselves. Fred Bauder 16:33, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 00:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. We don't (yet) have an FoF relating to violations of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. -- Grunt   ҈  15:09, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

4.1) User:John Gohde must read and acknowledge he has read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and Wikipedia:No personal attacks and write 200 words each on the implications of having custodians on Wikipedia and on the implications of allowing personal attacks on Wikipedia before being allowed to edit Wikipedia again.

Support:
  1. ➥the Epopt 22:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 05:47, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Much better. Ambi 05:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. On top of other remedies, yes. →Raul654 20:11, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  5. This should be a condition to rejoin us once his other bans have been served. --mav 03:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:35, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC) demeaning, although there is a problem with the way he edits in the alternative medicine area.
  2. sannse (talk) 00:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. We still don't (yet) have an FoF relating to violations of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. -- Grunt   ҈  15:49, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

[edit] John Gohde: Three-month ban

5) For making personal attacks and editing disruptively, John Gohde (and any other accounts or anonymous IPs controlled by him) are hereby banned for the period of three months. Administrators may enforce this provision with appropriate blocks.

Support:
  1. Neutralitytalk 21:17, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Such an action could conceivably harm our alternative medicine articles should John Gohde demonstrate he can edit productively side-by-side with other editors on the material. -- Grunt   ҈  21:37, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
  2. Too leniet. →Raul654 20:11, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 00:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) as Raul
  4. ➥the Epopt 14:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 15:00, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] John Gohde: One-year ban on editing articles in the alternative medicine area

6) For a demonstrated lack of ability to edit within acceptable guidelines in the area of alternative medicine, John Gohde is hereby banned from editing any article relating to alternative medicine, or making any edit relating to alternative medicine, for the period of one year. Should he do so, he may be blocked as per the three-revert rule (for the first violation) and up to a week for every violation thereafter. This includes talk pages. Administrators are given the discresion to determine what constitutes an "alternative-medicine related" article or edit.

Support:
  1. Neutralitytalk 21:17, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Such an action could conceivably harm our alternative medicine articles should John Gohde demonstrate he can edit productively side-by-side with other editors on the material. -- Grunt   ҈  21:37, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
  2. Too leniet. →Raul654 20:11, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 00:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 14:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 14:59, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] John Gohde: One-year ban

7) John Gohde is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year (to run consecutively with any other remedies passed).

Support:
  1. →Raul654 20:09, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  2. sannse (talk) 00:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) see opinion above
  3. Ambi 02:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 14:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 18:32, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC) Based on [50]
  6. Enough is enough (as I said above) mav 03:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:51, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. I do not yet know whether I think this is a good idea. I will return to consider it later. -- Grunt   ҈  00:16, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

I am concerned that John Gohde has been put under a lot of pressure. For example I am not at all sure that there is any policy concerning infoboxes which he has violated. I don't see infoboxes and categories as either or; nor do I think we have a firm enforceable policy on the matter. Regarding edits by Snowspinner in the alternative medicine area: Is he there to edit or to attempt to "police" John Gohde? Fred Bauder 19:41, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to close

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

  1. Move to close. All is clear here - sannse (talk) 09:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) (vote not valid for 24 hours from timestamp)
  2. Agree --mav 03:32, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Agree. Ambi 12:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Let's do this. -- Grunt   ҈  15:08, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
  5. I concur. →Raul654 15:10, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - What about 2.1 and 4.1, which still have the potential to pass with an additional vote? -- Grunt   ҈  14:24, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
Both seem obsolete with the passing of 7 - but OK -- sannse (talk) 22:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
All taken care of now. Everything that was one vote away from a pass or fail now has either passed, or is at least two votes from passing. Time to close. --mav 03:32, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  1. Neutralitytalk 04:50, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)