User:JzG/JG

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ~~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 16:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

(Jason Gastrich | talk | contributions)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

1 Statement of the dispute
2 Response
3 Outside view
4 Discussion

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

[edit] Description

Jason Gastrich, of Jesus Christ Saves Ministries (jcsm.org/) is disrupting Wikipedia by repeated edit warring, open use of sockpuppets and now use of meatpuppets to stack AfD debates. He is also creating a walled garden of articles whose significance is quesitonable, resting in some cases on other articles whose significance rests in turn on the original articles. These articles are uncritical in tone, and attempts to make them more neutral (e.g. by noting that doctorates are nonorary or awarded by unaccredited universities) are vigorously resisted.

Gastrich's edits repeatedly fail WP:NPOV (and suggest m:MPOV); he also violates WP:OWN and WP:NPA. He accuses those who revert his edits of being motivated by opposition to his faith: this is true up to a very limited point: his personal faith is at the extremes of fundamentalist Christianity, so many sincere Christians could easily be offended by what he says (that would be me).

What this is not about: This is not about Gastrich creating articles on his pet subject. If that was wrong, then I'd be on indef-block. It's about him imposing his POV, and using dubious methods to skew coverage of his pet subject towards a highly selective subset of it. The Christian fundamentalist viewpoint is a minority viewpoint - much of it is a minority viewpoint even within the Christian community; Gastrich's efforts strongly suggest an attempt to assert otherwise.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

[edit] Sockpuppetry

No serious attempt has been made to conceal the fact that blocked Big_Lover (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Jason Gastrich (talk • contribs) are one and the same (unless you count this[1], which is pretty weak). This [2] says it all. The blocked status of Big Lover indicates that Gastrich is well aware of the policy on sockpuppets.
Gastrich excuses his sockpuppetry here as a way of evading the instant reversion of his edits, due to his known controversial opinions. If this is the case, why did he use his sockpuppet account Big Lover (talk • contribs) to create the article which now forms his user page before he had established a reputation on Wikipedia? How does he account for the assertion of a Wikistalker from the inception of his first account, if indeed this was his first? And given that both accounts are now known to be him, why is he still using the sock account and the real account interchangeably? Given the number of edit wars in which he is involved this could easily lead to oversight of 3RR violations. There are good reasons why sock accounts are frowned on, and using two accounts interchangeably in making contentious edits to common articles (as per [3] and numerous other examples) clearly does not fit any of the accepted uses of sockpuppets.
Wiggins2 (talk • contribs) has been alleged to be another Gastrich sockpuppet, with this edit looking particularly suspicious to some [4]

[edit] Meatpuppetry

Gastrich organized an offsite group, Wiki4Christ.com, where he solicites people from his ministry to influence the AFD process, as he describes it: "Voice our opinion on the inclusion of Christian entries." [5] (cached) and jcsm.org/Online/WeeklyDevotions440.htm
These diffs [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] show very clear evidence of vote stacking. Note how the links are weblinks not Wikilinks, so they do not show up in "What Links Here".
A minor example: [13]
This diff [14] refers to the Wiki4Christ mailing list and a mail-out. Shortly afterwards, hordes of keep votes appeared on AfDs for Gastrich articles, none of whom were editors on the article, or AfD regulars. The majority of these followed correct AfD procedure (many AfD newbies do not). Here's a random sample: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] - as far as I can tell none of these were contacted on their Talk pages by gastrich, and none of them are the kind of people you'd expect to suddenly start voting on large numbers of AfDs. Note: I haven't singled these people out for any reason, they've probably been told that this is some kind of attempt to purge "Christian articles" (as above) and are acting in good faith (and indeed Faith). Several of them prominently self-identify as pro-life, Christians or protestants, again this is not a problem (so do I up to a point) but it is a possible marker for those likely to be contacted outside Wikipedia, which is the case at issue.
Per [22]: WP:SOCK says "Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, or to circumvent a block; don't ask your friends to create accounts to support you or anyone, either".
The contribs list of Wiggins2 (talk • contribs) includes, to 09:16 UTC 21 January 2006, almost nothing except solicitations to vote on AfDs for Gastrich-related articles. If this account is not a sockpuppet then it is clearly a meatpuppet.

[edit] Neutrality

This [23] shows the Gastrich version of an article on an institution run by an alumnus of Louisiana Baptist University, an unaccredited institution with which Gastrich is associated. This: [24] shows some important information which anyone familiar with the institution should have known about and included.

[edit] Civility, attacks and ascribing motives

This diff [25] accuses another Wikiepdian of "deceit" and gives a real name (which may or may not be accurate, and is in any case a violation of Wikiquette unless the user chooses to reveal it), and calls him a "known liar". In a splendid example of irony,. Gastrich states that this person is "very single-minded".
This diff [26] says of another Wikipedian voting to delete one of Gastrich's articles that the subject has "likely written more books than you have read".
This diff [27] shows him once again naming another Wikipedian, contrary to wikiquette.
This diff (statement of interest: it was me he was having a go at) describes the removal of a second linkt within a site already included in an external links section as "encouraging ignorance" [28] (the link caption was Free Prophecy Videos - Some featuring Pack (Pack is the article subject, the website was the subject's own website, already linked as a source)
Here [29] he accuses Duncharris (talk • contribs) of "invention".
[30] "rv. There ya go monkey."
[31] "He (Daycd) can be a single-minded troll and you exposed him."
Here [32] he accuses me of "anti-Christian bias", a patently absurd claim (I am a practising Christian), including a veiled threat.
Although Gastrich is not above recruiting people to vote keep, he doesn't like people to vote delete ([33])
Here [34] we see him ascribing motives contrary to WP:AGF - the assumption that everybody who does not accept his narrow version of Christianity is anti-Christian is implicit in this message.
This edit summary [35] says "there ya go, monkey" and Gastrich then left this [36] on FeloniousMonk's talk page. The source cited is http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_christian.html - I do not know if this site is considered a reliable source.

[edit] Ownership and edit warring

Gastrich's user page sets the tone: [37] (see the header).
in this page history [38] between 13:31 on Jan 20 and 09:21 on Jan 21 an edit is reverted by 207.200.116.11 (talk • contribs) twice and Wiggins2 (talk • contribs); the article is then edited by Gastrich under his own account. Given the nature of the edits (removing a critique of Gastrich's work and adding Gastrich's work) there is no other plausible explanation than that this is Gastrich. A neutral editor would more likely remove both.

[edit] Self-promotion

Jason Gastrich was created by Big Lover (talk • contribs), an openly admitted sockpuppet.
This diff [39] sees Gastrich adding a link to his own site without acknowledging that it is his site; it uses a different domain from his own site.

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.