Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Juz go for it, you know?

I haven't participated in an ArbCom before so I don't really know what to do, but I do certify that everything in this filing is accurate to the best of my knowledge and I would like to be enjoined with the ruling if at all possible. --Cyde Weys 22:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calling in from the RFC?

Would it make sense to send notices to the talk pages of people who had their say in the RFC, or would that be considered campaigning? I think it'd only be fair to notify everyone who was involved in that about this because they might be interested in participating in this also. --Cyde Weys 23:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it really necessary? If I understand this process correctly, we have enough evidence in the RfC and don't really need to invite people to contribute more, nor do we particularly seem to need more statements. --Malthusian (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe it's linked from the RfC anyway, but we probably don't need more people than we cuirrently have at this stage - the RfC contains more than enough supporting statements, and the fact that experienced editors like you and Cyde, who have only peripheral involvement in the original dispute but have had cause to review Gastrich's behaviour, is probably sufficient. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 15:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Go for it. This case is about putting an end to Gastrich's POV warring and sockpuppetry, but also, clarifying yet again that fundamentalists and their POV agendas are not welcome on Wikipedia. Hexagonal 01:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Might want to restate that. Christian Fundamentalists are more than welcome at Wikipedia--POV of any agenda is not welcome. Justin Eiler 01:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
WP:NOT] - Wikipedia is not a pulpet to preach ideology from. Documenting beliefs held by large numbers of people in an NPOV way is acceptable, but to come to Wikipedia and evangalize like Jason has done, is unacceptable. Notice how he won't even participate in discussions, besides accusing everyone else of suppressing his views. Such a desire to evade consensus is yet another sign he isn't here to work with us, but rather, preach to us. He is not welcome, and neither is anyone else who comes here to violate policy and push fundamentalist agendas. The community needs to be clear in its rejection of these nusiances. Hexagonal 01:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Hex. Yes, I'm aware of the policy, and agree that Jason has grossly and flagrantly violated it (among several others). But I don't want the response to Jason's actions taken as "an attack on Christians." I'm trying to find that balance between condemning wrong actions by Jason, yet avoiding becoming his mirror. After all, it's little use to fight POV monsters if we, in turn, become POV mosters ourselves. ;) Justin Eiler 01:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opening the case

Please DON'T open cases on your own. This makes arbitrators' and clerks' heads go whoozy, because we have to recheck every step of the process to make sure it was done correctly. Johnleemk | Talk 10:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hm, actually JzG accidentally made the RfAr on the Jason Gastrich subpage before submitting it to the main RfAr page. Still, it's not a good idea to open cases if you're not informed of the procedure. Johnleemk | Talk 13:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually I was trying to ensure we had all our ducks in a row before bothering arbcom. I have participated in arbitrations before, and my main concern was to ensure that the process was raised above the level of simple mud-slinging by ensuring that as much relevant information as possible was provided in the RfAr, to make it easy to work out the nature of the dispute (i.e. separate behaviour from content issues) and to ensure that those who certified the original RfC had a chance to review and influence the request, rather than start it and find that one or more counts were added or removed half way through. I was going to simply delete the subpage, but forgot. Katefan0 gave me a cluestick, but I sometimes forget to use it. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 14:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jason's response?

Jason Gastrich has been informed of his RfArb, but may refuse to participate according to the comment on his talk page. One of the ArbCom handling this discussion may want to WikiMail him and clarify if he chooses to participate. Justin Eiler 12:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently his primary response is serial sock puppetry. How many does he have now? A couple dozen or more? Mark K. Bilbo 01:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
He was using usernames of "JGastrich" followed by THREE DIGITS, which is actually quite frightening. --Cyde Weys 01:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Someone needs to block off his range now as to stop the continual spawning of puppets. Hexagonal 03:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
He doesn't really have a defined range. He uses AOL, which gives him access to a huge range of IPs. It would be impractical to ban those ranges, and also, it would cut off lots of legitimate users. Also, Gastrich has a lot of computers/ISPs available to him and a lot of meatpuppets available. --Cyde Weys 03:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually no, he doesn't have a large number of computers, ISPs, nor meatpuppets available. There really isn't that much to all this. His "ministry" is a one man show that often seems to be short on cash. "Uncle Davey" plays along sometimes so you may see things come out of Poland (or maybe the UK). His mailing list that he's used to Gastroturf the Wiki before isn't actually all that big and the Wiki4Christ thing doesn't ever seem to have gone anywhere (a lot of his projects don't). He is not, however, above using proxies. He did it to me when was swiping things off the alt-atheism.org site. I have seen him use AOL. Which I understand proxies every individual http request and load balances so a single IP is shared by who knows how many people. On the other hand, he does tend to get bored after a while and toddle off to disrupt another online forum. Mark K. Bilbo 04:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Is this by his admission, or by CheckUser? It would be unfortunate if his home ISP was AOL, since we'd never be able to keep the socks out in that case. Until AOL changes their proxy caching mechanism, Wikipedia will always be vulnerable to drive-by policy violations from AOL addresses.
Can we take out some of his auxilliary ranges, to limit his choice of places to violate policy from? Hexagonal 03:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The CheckUser results for the first group of socks is up: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jason_Gastrich/Evidence#Sockpuppetry_.2F_meatpuppetry. However, it very much looks like the puppetry is continuing, so this list should not be treated as "exaustive." Justin Eiler 04:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Gastrich harrassment

I stumbled on this mess as I have happened to be first on the scene for the debuts of two of Gastrich's most recent sockpuppets User:JasonGastrich3 and User:BigBear.

JasonGastrich3 vandalized the Atheism article last night (version id 40272780). When I looked at the change, I noticed that it was more or less identical to changes by User:JGChristian and User:JesusChristSaves from a few nights before. I also noticed that the Atheism edit was the first contribution by JasonGastrich3. In the course of looking around for a way to report accounts that appeared to have been created for the purpose of vandalism, I came across the pages on Gastrich's sockpuppets. I assumed the right thing to do was to add the 'suspected sockpuppet' template to JasonGastrich3's User page. JasonGastrich3 repeated the vandalism last night (and called me a 'godless warrior' too, heh...)

Today Bigbear was committing the same vandalism (first version id 40357488), and I again happened to be around to revert it – twice. I put the 'suspected sockpuppet' template up on BigBear's user page.

Possibly due to my somewhat snarky edit summaries on the reversions ('rv - godless warrior strikes again' and 'rv - continuing sockpuppetry'), which may not have been the wisest of ideas, Jason Gastrich showed up at my talk page to offer 'A friendly but stern warning':

Your behavior is completely out of line, and needs to stop immediately. Wikipedia is for furthering human knowledge, not promoting a hard-line atheist agenda that is out of touch with the spiritual truths held by the vast majority of humanity. Card carrying atheists do not have any authority to direct the overall flow of information on the encyclopedia. Your actions in this matter are incredibly single-minded.
You cannot continue to look around yourself and accuse everyone else of being crazy; there has to come a point at which you realize that if you are taking issue with everyone, then possibly, the issue lies within yourself. Your atheist agenda is just that; a personal flaw that you need to come to terms with, and Wikipedia is not the place to express your teenage angst.
I don't know why you feel it is your right to come here and taint articles with your radical POV agenda, but it needs to stop. Maybe you need to give the Internet a rest a bit, and get a grip on your own life. Sit down with your parents, and work out whatever issues are causing these feelings of denial. Whatever you need to do to be good again is between you, your parents, your psychologist, and God. I regret to inform you that Wikipedia is not the place for this anti-Christian bias.
Peace in Christ,
Jason Gastrich

My 'completely out of line' 'anti-Christian bias' is to restore the definition of Atheism to:

Atheism, in its broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of gods.

from

Atheism, in its broadest sense, is a rejection of God's love and forgiveness.

Considering the number of other Wikipedians making the same revert, I somehow doubt anyone but Gastrich thinks I'm violating NPOV...

The page history indicates the message on my talk page was left by BigBear. I assume that means that BigBear can be moved to the list of 'confirmed' sockpuppets. However, I am new to Wikipedia and am not sure whether 'Be bold' should be applied to administrative matters to the same degree as to editing articles, so I thought I would just post the details here for the people most fully acquainted with the situation. I would be surprised if anything I'm reporting is either different in kind or more egregious than Gastrich's past actions, but I will put this account on the Evidence page if that would be useful. However, I expect that it might be tidier for these data points to just be added to the catalog of Gastrich's sockpuppetry that seems to be maintained by JzG, if he wishes to do so.

(Hmm, Curps seems to have removed Gastrich's message from my talk page while I was taking a break from writing this up. Well, that would seem to indicate the level of repect that is deemed necessary to accord to Gastrich's contributions to civil debate around here.)

--Plover 06:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My opinion

I don't have any useful evidence to submit (JzG has done it all) but for what it's worth, Jason's contributions to Wikipedia have caused numerous users, including myself, severe annoyance. He refuses to understand that he is in a minority, that people do not like his POV pushing, and that sockpuppetry is not accepted by the community. I would hope that the ArbCom considers this very severely. Stifle 14:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, it seems I lied. I found some evidence, there may be some more. Stifle 20:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] $0.02

I have never engaged in a direct conflict with Jason Gastrich. During the RfC I urged him to recognize that his actions were counterproductive and suggested he find a Christian mentor in the mentorship program. It was my hope that he would grasp one of the many olive branches extended in his direction. He rejected every overture, called us all atheists, and redoubled his energies in his most objectionable pursuits. As one of the last editors who held out hope for his reform, I now urge the arbitration committee to take the strongest possible action. Jason Gastrich is full of hot air and wastes too many good editors' time. Durova 11:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive AfD nominations

Regarding the above, I feel that Jason Gastrich's use of sockpuppet accounts and multiple bad faith AfD nominations are becoming disruptive to the point at which the current proposed ArbCom remedies will have little or no effect, and a lengthy block is increasingly looking to me like the only way of stopping him disrupting Wikipedia. David | Talk 14:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I guess the people following this closely are more knowledgable, but I am puzzled how for example Ronald_J._Hunter (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) can appear, be identified as a Gastrich sock and be indefinitely banned 12 minutes after making one slightly disruptive edit (to Dallas Theological Seminary [1].) Is it possible other people have picked up on the Gastrich pattern and are copycats trying to further discredit him? Thatcher131 21:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
That's one of the issues being looked at, both on and off Wikipedia, and specifically on the RfA (JzG posted about that in his contribution to the evidence page). At this point, however, consensus has been to revert such edits on sight. Justin Eiler 22:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
They're identified as suspected socks, a very different thing. Also, identical edit, identical edit summary, and not one has ever emailed me, or posted on their talk page to say No, I'm not, please unblock me! and finally most of them have been added to RFCU, although the last half dozen or so I haven't bothered. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added evidence

I know it's in the voting stage, but I added some interesting things I found to the evidence page anyway. Just thought I'd post here for a heads up in case anyone wants to check it out. --Ben 01:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It would help if you said what point you were trying to make and were more specific about what the objectional conduct was. The only point I can glean from what you presented was that some people who know and dislike Jason Gastrich outside of Wikipedia are on Wikipedia as well (but off-site activities aren't usually considered by the ArbCom), and have made dubious edits to Typosquatting (but nothing that looks severe enough to justify ArbCom sanctions).
Would you mind clarifying for the rest of us (not just the ArbCom) what that evidence means to you? --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) ( T | C | A ) 01:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd guess it amounts to a character testimony of some sort. When this RfAr went forward I thought of contributing my own thoughts on Gastrich (especially that he's a determined zealot and decidedly corrupt to boot), but there didn't seem to be an appropriate forum for bringing his outside activities into the matter. I do think it's somehow relevant, but looking at the votes page it isn't strictly necessary -- Gastrich has hung himself on Wikipedia. Haikupoet 04:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, to me it looks like two constantly fighting Usenet groups (or group and one person) decided to make Wikipedia their battleground. Gastrich starts editing and then a large number of the members of the Usenet group maleboge.org start to chase him around Wikipedia. They seem to obsess over this Gastrich guy (one of the links I provided is a member saying maleboge.org's "agenda" is to "expose" Gastrich). Many of maleboge.org's members are the Wikipedians who engage him here on Wikipedia, and seem to have it in for him, whether he deserves it or not. What I think is important is that, while Gastrich rightly needs to be banned for many of his actions, these editors also need to at the very least be censured. Some of their edits, such as some of their AfD's (the Thomas Ice one is a good example), are clearly intended to agitate this Gastrich and show quite a bit of undeserved malice towards him based on his edits. Given that they (a large number, no less than 4 or 5) are also part of an activist group intent on "exposing" him, I think there is a need for this side of the story to be examined by ArbCom. I'm guessing there would have been far less trouble if these editors had not been involved in the first place.
Basically, to determine whether these editors were violating "Wikipedia is not battleground" and also to examine the issue of activist groups co-ordinating editing and playing politics on Wikipedia. Not one of the members of the group disclosed their relationship to maleboge.org (that I can find, nor have they done so since), and some even happily signed statements censuring Gastrich saying (on Gastrich's RFC, and I'm sure it's been mentioned other places too) that if he makes "one more baseless accusation of atheist cabbalism," amongst other things, he should be permanently banned. Clearly there is, in fact, a "cabal" following Gastrich around. --Ben 13:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The difference is that the supposed 'atheist cabal' makes edits in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Gastrich does not. As far as I'm concerned, there is no atheist cabal, there is a group of Wikipedia editors trying to get him to acknowledge Wikipedia policy, and cleaning up after those edits which violated it. Some of them happenened to come into Wikipedia from an outside group, but in my opinion, since they followed Wikipedia policy, when they're on Wikipedia they're part of Wikipedia, not Maleboge (and btw, if they haven't actually announced their membership, it's not like they've hid it - many of them have linked to discussions on Usenet involving them).
In trying to clear up Gastrich's messes, some mistakes have been made, such as the nomination of a few articles he created that actually were notable, such as Thomas Ice - but it's not as if nominating something for deletion does any real harm. If you want the ArbCom to consider censure or sanctions or whatever against these editors, then you should go on the /Evidence page and say exactly who they are and what edits they've made to disrupt Wikipedia, just as we've done with Gastrich. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) ( T | C | A ) 13:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Nope. I'm not going to let you goad me into being the prosecution anymore so you can act as a defence lawyer. I'm just providing evidence. ArbCom can do whatever they want with it. --Ben 14:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not trying to goad you into anything and I'm not a lawyer. All I'm saying is that if editors other than Gastrich have been disruptive, you're going to have to say who and how. So far you've only given one edit to Typosquatting and an AfD, speculated on motives, and you haven't even said who actually deserves censure yet. If I was actually trying to act like a defence lawyer, then I wouldn't be a very good one considering I'm trying to show you the best way to get your wishes heard by the ArbCom. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) ( T | C | A ) 15:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I look at it this way: If it suggests the same things to the members of the ArbCom as it does to me, then they have a duty, with respect to this arbitration, to investigate it as a possible violation of policy, right? If, on the other hand, the evidence I provided doesn't suggest the same things to ArbCom as it does to me, then there's no reason for me to spend my time trying to convince them. --Ben 16:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Ben, the ArbCom will be much more willing to look at what you have if you a) give all the difs that you think support your view and b) explain in detail why they do. JoshuaZ 16:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
If ArbCom is not looking at the evidence on evidence page they are not doing their job. I am presenting facts. I am not presenting my opinion on those facts. My opinion on those facts is irrelevant to the Arbitration. Only the ArbCom's opinion on those facts is what is relevant. I believe the evidence speaks for itself and needs no additional context or explanation, let alone my opinion on it.--Ben 18:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
And c) whom you actually want censured. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
That is not for me to decide. If the ArbCom decide any users need censure, that is their decision and my opinion regarding whom I believe have violated policy does not have, nor should it have, any bearing on their decision.
While I thank you both for your helpfulness, I am not going to change my mind unless an arbitrator requests differently. If I am doing something woefully wrong by not providing my opinion and my own thoughts on the evidence I provided, please direct your concerns to one of the arbitrators. I will be happy to comply with any requests they might have. --Ben 18:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, actually I am going to ask one of the arbitrators about this. Then I can be sure. I do not want to get involved in this arbitration at all. The less the better. --Ben 18:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to "Added evidence"

There have been one or two Gastrich advocates, over time, whom try to shift the responsibility for his behavior away from him and toward those of us whom monitor and expose his activities. The most amusing event that seems to occur is that we are then blamed for "goading" him into behaving as he does. It never seems to be Gastrich's fault. It amuses me just as it amuses me when people complain about someone being called a "liar," seemingly oblivious to the fact that the problem is not "name-calling," but that lies are being told in the first place.
As one whom has conducted many an investigation in my day, I can tell you that the "evidence" that has been rather slyly presented is certainly open to all and has not been hidden. Gastrich has made it a point, in fact, to point out this alleged anti-Gastrich "cabal" and the maleboge group many times in Wikipedia discussions and debates. Consequently, I doubt if any of the ArbCom moderators are unaware of it. With respect to what has been cited, I'll respond quickly, as my own recent decrease in both Usenet, maleboge, and Wiki activity should indicate that I have some rather important things to which to attend and need to budget my time.
  • The first link provided, that is, this one, points to a list of messages in which we have discussed Gastrich's activities at Wikipedia. It seems relevant only in that it is intended to imply that there is a "cabal" that is "out to get" Gastrich. The fact is that the maleboge.org group is a composed of a rather diverse group of individuals whom want to expose religious frauds, of which we view Gastrich as one. This group is composed of professing Christians, Jews, atheists, and even a pagan. The group started long before Gastrich's antics on Wikipedia began. It was spawned, in fact, as a result of the observation that Gastrich attempts to use Internet mechanisms (now to include Wikipedia) as a means to promote himself and his "ministry," but it's really, in our view, just him. Given that and more detail of which I will spare the reader for now, it was only natural that Gastrich would find his way to Wikipedia, and it was also only natural that some of us (though, by no means, all of us) would find our way to Wikipedia to attempt to mitigate his efforts at the promotion of his own particular "Christian" POV.
  • The maleboge.org group exists to expose religious frauds or those that use religion to defraud others. That Gastrich is a focus of this activity is due to a number of reasons. It occurs because his antics served as the impetus for the start of the group, he has generated the most attention by his antics, most of us know about him, and other alleged frauds are getting full attention elsewhere. It's also true that none of us participate in maleboge full-time. We all have jobs, families, school, and military commitments, among other things, that demand priority. Consequently, we don't seek out others, but this does not mean that the group does not expose frauds, in general. That is its intent. That Gastrich is a focus is due to the combination of factors that I have just listed. One should keep in mind that Gastrich has engaged in a number of questionable activities since I last had any time to post about them, but I simply haven't had the time to deal with them at maleboge. That's just speaking for myself, of course, but I'm sure the same is true of most of the others, as well. The point is that the focus of the group is not just to "expose Gastrich," but to expose those whom use religion to defraud others, which includes exposing Gastrich.
  • The second link points to a part of a discussion at Infidel Guy in which there was some mostly tongue-in-cheek discussion of the irony with respect to Gastrich's antics providing a source of revenue for an atheist site. (By the way, SonOfFred is my sign-on name at Infidel Guy..."Ben" doesn't mention that, either because he didn't know or because he wants the "cabal" to seem as if it's bigger than it is...I, frankly, suspect the latter.) Gastrich appeared on IG to poke at the atheists and skeptics whom, he knows, post there, and he did so after the appearance of the IG on a nationally televised "reality" show. The discussion went 23 pages at the IG site and it's probably a fair bet that very few of us will go through all of them. However, before judgment can be rendered with respect to that discussion (of which nobody will be ashamed, I assure you...we're not Gastrich...we don't hide from what we've said or done), the whole thread will need to be considered. In the end, Gastrich was viewed as a disruption and his participation proved to be hostile, just as it was, here. Frankly, it strikes me as irrelevant, anyway.
  • The third piece of alleged evidence pointed to an edit at the Wikipedia Typosquatting page, and the point of its inclusion, as other than part of the alleged evidence of a "cabal," escapes me. That Gastrich, as a known personality on the Internet (as opposed to many typosquatters whom are unknown or can't be named...nor are they "Christian 'ministers'") is quite notorious for these kinds of activities (and it's what brought him to the attention of many in the first place) was enough to include him in the article in my view. I was, overruled by concensus, as was apparent, and, unlike Gastrich, I accepted concensus and let it go. We are then directed to the article's talk page for more of this alleged "evidence." Forgetting for the moment that we weren't really told why this should serve as evidence of anything with respect to Gastrich's actions, I think it's important that I hadn't seen this page in a while, and so I needed to correct some reverse commentary attributions that had been made after-the-fact for us. With the corrections, I doubt if it's particularly enlightening.
  • The complaint seems to be that there's some sort of "cabal" that is following Gastrich around to deliberately antagonize him, and that, somehow, it is at fault for his behavior. In the end, only Gastrich is responsible for his behavior, and if this "cabal" did exist in the truly "evil" form in which it is painted, the correct solution should have been to generate an RfC or an ArbCom for the parties suspected. This wasn't done, almost certainly because there's no good grounds. An RfC and an ArbCom was generated about Gastrich because of his actions at Wikipedia. That some of us know about him and corrected or exposed his antics as he tries to pass them off, here, is not particularly compelling mitigation for his own behavior. We didn't push the many, many POV editings and then throw tantrums when they didn't hold up. Gastrich did that. We didn't create what, in the end, will be a large but unknown number of sock puppets to disrupt Wikipedia. Gastrich did that, too. We didn't generate a retaliatory list of AfDs (including one directed at an article about the president of a country) in response to favored articles being likewise nominated for deletion (by a Christian, by the way). That was Gastrich.
  • In the end, the "cabal" is just a loose affiliation of individuals opposed to the efforts of Gastrich and people like him. If we ever run across another like him, we'll deal with it in pretty much the same way, i.e., honest, open discussion of the activities and, as much as we are able, exposure of those activities. The fact is that the overwhelming number of those opposed to Gastrich's activities at Wikipedia are not contributors to maleboge, but if we helped expose his activities in any way so that those in authority could take appropriate action, so much the better. If someone is put off by this, it seems to me that the appropriate response would be to suggest to an administrator or moderator that some action be taken, or that an RfC for each of us (or any of us) should be generated. If that were to occur, I will happily respond and cooperate with the site administration with respect to any investigation that they may wish to conduct. - WarriorScribe 18:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewritten my evidence section

I have rewritten the evidence section to make it clearer. The old version (for reference to previous responses) can be found here [2]--Ben 20:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

See my response. Just zis Guy you know? 21:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New evidence-struck out section.

Given that new evidence is being presented by Ben, are there any objections if I unstrikeout the section I struck out? JoshuaZ 21:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] confused by remedies

There appear to be several remedies (probation, attack parole, etc) that run concurrently for a year. So far so good, but they also run concurrently ("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." and there was no statement to change that on any of them) with "banned for one year". Is that deliberate? or should the other ones be for a year after his ban? I admit some confusion on the intent here. Am I the only one confused by it? ++Lar: t/c 22:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, rememdies run concurrently in cases like this. Indeed, then other the ban, the only other remedies that effectively passed were the bans from Louisiana Baptist University and The Skeptic's Annotated Bible, and the limit to one account, which are permanent. The Probation, personal attack parole, and 1-revert-per-week-with-discussion orders were all trumped by the ban.
James F. (talk) 13:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Jason_Gastrich_3fc3.html"