Talk:Mark K. Bilbo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 03:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep.
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Mark K. Bilbo, has edited Wikipedia as
Markkbilbo (talk · contribs)

Contents

[edit] Okay, this is too weird

Are you folks sure I'm notable enough to have an article?

Anyway, minor quibble, I'm not "from" Louisiana. Though my branch of the Bilbos are the Louisiana Bilbos (and I believe we're closely related to the Bilbos who were one of the founding families of Lake Charles). But I'm a Texan. Born and raised. Mark K. Bilbo 02:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

Due to his ad hominem attacks, personal attacks, and name calling (primarily to Christians), Bilbo is a controversial character. These things, with citations, have been added to the entry. However, this discussion section is being created because the person who has deleted them from the entry is a known POV pusher and one of Bilbo's friends; not to mention he trolls me and that's how he found the entry in the first place.

If your name isn't Dave Horn (WarriorScribe) or Mark Bilbo, please discuss how we should add the section on controversy to this entry. Here is the paragraph as it stands, now:

Even as an avowed atheist, Bilbo frequently launches personal and ad hominem attacks against Christians and engages in name calling. He mainly does so in Wikipedia talk pages and on usenet. Since he hosts an atheist web site, some see him as a representative of the small, atheist movement in the United States. These sorts of attacks may be hurting his credibility and their movement. --Jason Gastrich 02:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You crack me up. You're trying to ram ad hom into the page while bitching about ad hom. You're a trip Gastrich. Really you are.Mark K. Bilbo 02:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Good luck finding a more flagrant hypocrite than Jason Gastrich (references available on request), but I guess the first problem that I had with the phrase was the claim that "some see him as a representative of the small, atheist movement." Okay, who are these "some?" And how is it that we determined that the "atheist movement" is "small?" What's the criteria? Gastrich's hatred of atheists? Of course, those aren't the only flaws in the statement. We won't even get into Gastrich's misunderstanding and misuse of the term ad hominem. WarriorScribe 04:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Here are 12 citations of the sort of behavior I'm talking about. It's certainly prevalent and notable, so should be represented in Bilbo's entry: 1.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. --Jason Gastrich 06:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

What the references show is that Mark has had a run in with a few religionists with whom he disagrees (and whom happen to have rather unsavory reptuations, such as that shared by Gastrich and "Uncle Davey"). It proves nothing more than that, and is not notable enough to be included in the article. WarriorScribe 07:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Having looked at them again, I wouldn't mind, at all, going through each of them, one by one, so we can look at the context of each comment and how it figures in to the larger conversations going on, at the time. WarriorScribe 07:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Restored Commentary

I never met Some and trying to be "representative" of the atheist movement (movement... are we going somewhere... I have to shave first!) would require MPD. Mark K. Bilbo 05:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm sure it would require a very great deal. Gastrich has nowhere to go and even though he's a bit slow on the uptake, he knows it, by now. He clearly reacted before thinking (a very common trait with him) and started a mediation process that will almost certainly conclude that his personal issues with you resulted in his attempt to push a POV-laden, if short, tirade in the article. Of course, he's spent the better part of the day classifying people as "atheists" and running up his "contribution" numbers--as usual, it's all about quantity and not at all about quality--and he's whimpering about me now, over on the mediation page. I'm actually quite entertained by the whole thing. I confess that I normally don't have much of an interest in getting people wound up; but this guy really deserves it. WarriorScribe 06:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I guess I'm wondering, as I watch Gastrich artificially inflate his "contribution" numbers, why he thinks it's so important that so many people (Jodie Foster, George Carlin, and Dick Cavett, et al.) are classified in Wiki as "atheists." S'pose he's trying to build an enemies list of atheists for his fellow evangelicals? We know he hates atheists, after all. WarriorScribe 05:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I've never said even once that I hate atheists. These assumptions of bad faith will catch up to you. --Jason Gastrich 20:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I've said it beforee and I'll say it again: There is what Gastrich says and there is what Gastrich does; and his mean-spirited, hateful vendettas against those whom he considers "atheists," true atheists, and others speaks for itself. In fact, when Gastrich isn't even sure about the religious beliefs of a person, the mechanism of presumed insult that he uses is to call that person an "atheist." I've been on the receiving end of this, myself, and I'm not an atheist. There is no bad faith on my part, here. I'm representing what I have observed and truly believe. Gastrich hates atheists. It's clear in his actions, his Usenet and web history, and his debate history. Whether he's actually admitted to this sort of hatred is entirely inconsequential when one considers the often-wide chasm between what he says and what he does. WarriorScribe 20:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] nPOV ?

Amazing! Gastrich wants to dispute the neutrality of this article, when it was he who tried to put in non-neutral commentary in the first place, which was intended to advance his particular point of view (a negative one, at that) about this individual. WarriorScribe 18:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag removed

I have removed the inappropriately placed {{POV}} tag [1] from this article. The content as it stands is very neutral, factual, and straight forward. If you do not agree with this, please discuss why you disagree here on the talk page. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been waiting to discuss this. I've mentioned 12 instances above where Bilbo used profanity, mockery, and other offensive methods of communication in reference to Jesus and Christians. Your article isn't bad, but this side of Bilbo needs to be represented in the entry. That's why I added the POV emblem. --Jason Gastrich 20:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Neutrality dispute is due to a personal vendetta that Gastrich has with Mark Bilbo. See this discussion. Gastrich's 12 references are discussed, and his motivation examined. WarriorScribe 20:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are not the proper place to hash out personal vendettas. Please take this elsewhere. It is already stated that Bilbo is pro-atheist, please refer to Wikipedia:Avoid self-references, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
There is no personal vendetta here, whatsoever. I posted 12 citations where Bilbo has posted offensive remarks to various Christians (and I think only one was me). I want Bilbo's article to be factual and I want it to represent the person he is. There are many pro-atheists that don't use profanity, name calling, mockery, etc. Ed Babinski quickly comes to mind. Don't say for a minute Bilbo is pro-atheist, so he is automatically a jerk (like you implied above). I don't buy it and neither will the others. --Jason Gastrich 20:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Notice Gastrich's language...this is all about what he wants and his view of what is "factual," and how Mark is represented as "the person he is." The fact remains that Mark's encounters with a microcosm of Christians is not noteworthy enough to sully an encyclopedia article simply because he and Gastrich have butted heads. Just as he has done so many times in the past, this is Gastrich's way of getting back at him, and trying to justify it, after the fact. WarriorScribe 20:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Being an atheist does not equate with being a jerk, and that was never implied on my part. If you want my opinion, it does not appear that you want this article to represent who Bilbo is, but rather how you perceive him to be, regardless of the standards, policies, and guidelines set forth by Wikipedia. If it is not too late, I would also like to refer you to WP:COOL. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think a controversy section is necessary (or notable). There are lots of atheists who have problems with Christianity in general or the actions of specific Christians. In this instance Google Groups happens to be keeping track of everything Bilbo is saying, but I'm sure most outspoken atheists have said a variety of things that could be construed as "offensive" by thin-skinned Christians. That being said, this doesn't mean there is a legitimate controversy surrounding the person and it's not necessary to include in the article. You only get a "controversy" section if you are really causing a controversy, like Bill Bennett talking about aborting black babies or Pat Robertson talking about gays causing hurricanes and assassinating Hugo Chavez. But for your everyday atheist who is just spouting off about religion, it's not notable.

Hell, if for whatever reason I was notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry, you could assemble a "controversy" section 100K words long just by analyzing every single one of my newsgroup posts saved on Google Groups for "controversial" remarks. But I think it's really ridiculous to use Usenet correspondences as a means to attack a person because you disagree with their viewpoint. "Ohhh no, he's an atheist, and I have a link here to a Google Groups post where he says something disparaging about theists! Better put it in his Wikipedia article!" Please. --Cyde Weys votetalk 21:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Cyde and Can't sleep, clown will eat me. The proposed paragraph above doesn't seem to be written with complete neutrality itself. In the article's current version, the sentence "His actions have attracted criticism from a number of politically-active Christians" seems to be a succinct summary for the mentioned objectionable behavior on Bilbo's behalf. Regards, Sango123 (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Of course my comment is POV, this is the talk page, after all. I have every right to be POV on the talk page. By the way I just got rid of some nonsense about "The way Bilbo speaks about Christians and Jesus has been criticized by politically-active Christians". I don't think it matters. While the subject of the article is notable, these criticisms by random editors on Wikipedia are not. You might as well go add a sentence about being "criticized by Christians" on every biography article about an atheist, and every article on other religions like Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. I just don't think random criticisms by Christians is relevant (or NPOV). If that belongs, why limit the statement to Christians? I'm sure Mark K. Bilbo has said things that Jews or Muslims might find offensive too. Might as well amend the silly statement to, "criticized by Christians, Muslims, Jews, and pretty much everyone else who is religious, or, indeed, disagrees with him." This doesn't belong on an encyclopedia! --Cyde Weys votetalk 22:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
If you modify that second to last sentence, you will have a great description of Gastrich..."Criticized by non-Christians, Muslims, Jews, and pretty much everyone else who isn't religious, or, indeed, disagrees with him and his small, petty point of view." Gastrich likes to believe that he's being persecuted for his beliefs, and that he is a modern day martyr. I personally (which doesn't count because that's not POV) think he should be permanantly banned from Wikipedia. Oops, that will probably be considered a personal attack and he'll probably have me banned for 24 hours...again! Icj tlc 19:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey, you guys look familiar.
If this is the consensus, then I can agree to omit a section on controversy. However, the sentence that was proposed is a little vague. I propose this one: "The way he speaks to Christians and about Jesus has been criticized by believers." --Jason Gastrich 22:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm going to go put a sentence on lots of Christian biography articles that says, "The way this person speaks about atheism and atheists has been criticized by non-believers." Don't you see how ridiculous this is getting? Unless you have a specific and notable criticism it doesn't belong on the page. Like if Mark K. Bilbo was criticized by The Pope, then it would be encyclopedic. But just because some of his views may disagree with what random Christians might believe is not encyclopedic. --Cyde Weys votetalk 22:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Two things. First, we already reached a partial compromise earlier. See the sentence that was added by user MPD. Next, you speak in vague generalities, so it looks like you haven't seen the 12 cited, offensive actions by Bilbo. Take a look at them, then you'll see why I suggest: "The way he speaks to Christians and about Jesus has been criticized by believers."

--Jason Gastrich 23:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I have removed the "compromise" statement as irrelevant and expect it to remain off until an admin makes a determination. I have likewise requested that the protection be removed from Gastrich's user page so that--fair is fair--we can cite and record, here on Wikipedia, all of the "offensive statements" that Gastrich has made with respect to other persons, atheists, Catholics, and other groups and individuals with whom he has disagreed. WarriorScribe 00:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I have seen the twelve "offensive statements" and frankly I think they're rather tame. You're not understanding my point. This "controversy" is non-notable! It doesn't deserve to be in the main article as nobody notable is saying anything about him. It's just you, cherry-picking a few posts from him rather extensive newsgroup history. Of course you can find something in to choose to be offended by. Most people of any affiliation could do that. But it doesn't belong in the article. --Cyde Weys votetalk 23:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Cyde is right, and we also cannot go into Gastrich's page and put in a statement pointing out how his behavior has been likewise challenged by "politically active atheists" or Jews or Christians whom don't happen to adhere to his point of view, which is, finally, what he is trying to push here WarriorScribe 23:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you want a sentence included about some alleged controversy or criticism of Mark K. Bilbo, you're going to have to use a verifiable source that shows this controversy, not just a link to something Bilbo said that you choose to find offensive. As Demi says, "Usenet isn't to be used as a source for anything real. It has no nonrepudiation. On the outside, it could be used a source for itself only." --Cyde Weys votetalk 23:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

In particular, reliable sources guide us as follows: Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. This is because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them. Without involving myself too much in these particulars, I think common sense allows for a few exceptions, but the point remains that "quotations" of what someone says on Usenet are not verifiable in the sense that published quotations are. Demi T/C 00:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. I don't want to assume, but I can conclude that common sense tells us that a usenet poster named Mark K. Bilbo, whose email address is webmaster@alt-atheism.org, is the same person as Mark K. Bilbo (also noted as the alt-atheism.org webmaster). Therefore, what he has written is verifiable and should be admissible. --Jason Gastrich 00:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Usenet posts are not a source for including a "controversy" in a WP article per WP:RS as stated by Demi, above. Please locate a reliable source which documents a controversy, such as the New York Times, Reuters, etc. Editorials and letters to the editor would not qualify, as they are by definition POV. Until you locate such sources, please drop this. See WP:CITE and WP:V. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy ruling from Cabal mediation

See here for the ruling. The paragraph just added was ruled appropriate/necessary for the entry by the Cabal. Please do not delete or change. --Jason Gastrich 07:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall a ruling that made it "necessary," and I think that it's also subject to editing to insure a more nPOV--one that is less self-serving. Allowing a comment or paragraph does not make it immune to further review and editing. WarriorScribe 07:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
By the way, did anyone else see this and wonder:
What is the "controversy?" That Mark Bilbo is an atheist? That he verbally skewers Christians whom anger him in newsgroups and other venues? Wow...I guess he's the only one who does that, huh?
I'm still waiting to hear what's "contoversial" about those things, especially with respect to an encyclopedia article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WarriorScribe (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Things are not exactly as Gastrich represents

Well, after a couple of hours of sleep and a rereading of the rules here, as well as some input from a couple of more practiced Wikipedians, I have a clearer view of what's going on here. For one thing, since the mediation "cabal" (as opposed to a mediation committee), according to the Wiki article, "provides unofficial, informal mediation for disputes on Wikipedia, and is composed of volunteers who wish to assist people in resolving conflicts," there was no "ruling," at least in a formal, policy-enforcing sense, and the decision is not binding. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal

That means that the inclusion of the offending paragraph is not "necessary," nor is its presumed status as "sacrosanct" (at least, in Gastrich's mind) enforceable. It may be edited or removed. Implications or outright claims by Gastrich that it must remain and not be edited are false.

It's interesting that Gastrich did not seek the services of a more formal mediation committee or some other form of official arbitration. It's also interesting that at least one admin has also "ruled," but that got ignored as a matter of convenience. That's right..."Demi" stated that Usenet is not permissible. So while Gastrich gloats about a ruling that isn't a ruling, he ignores a ruling that was already made.

It's may be that I should look into an RfC, on the grounds that Gastrich is trying to push a POV and that he has engaged in "malicious editing:"

"Editors should be on the lookout for the malicious creation or editing of biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing a point of view, ask for credible third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability."

Also note:

"Opinions of critics, opponents, and detractors"
"Many persons that are notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia about them are likely to have detractors, opponents and/or critics. Their views can be presented in a biography providing that these are based on credible sources and in a manner that do not overwhelm the article. Note that for each detractor a public figure has, this person may have thousands that do not share these detractors views and by default their views will not be represented in the article. Be careful not to give a disporpotionate voice to detractors, opponents or critics as you could be breaking one of Wikipedia's tenets of representing a minority view as it was the majority view.
"In principle, criticism sections should be reserved for ideologies, policies, politicial views, and philosophies rather than people. Articles about ideologies, or policies by their nature, warrant criticism and can have a 'criticism section', whereas a section of criticisms of people tends to just be selective agenda-driven, dislike for the person or their views by their critics, political opponents or detractors."

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_on_living_persons_deserve_a_special_sensitivity

There's lots more, so I'll be looking into this in much greater detail.

Ah, I love vacations! Don't you...? WarriorScribe 17:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Bilbo in Usenet

In an edit on jan 2nd at 14:01 . . User:WarriorScribe commented on the following sentence:

Some people, usually Christians, find his contributions in Usenet to be condescending and offensive.

Saying "That's a pretty small group - why is it so noteworthy as to be included in an encyclopedia article?"

I can think two reasons why such a comment might be justified.

  1. A mediator seems to think it was OK to include.
  2. Marks notability seem to come from EAC and the fact he host the alt.atheisim usenet group. Although he has obviously published the apple books too.

With regard to the paragraph that Jason Gastrich was trying to insert it was way too much information for such trivial episodes. I tried to make it more concise and would not be upset if it was removed altogether. David D. (Talk) 19:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

One addition that may make the whole sentece more balanced would be to change it to:
"Some people, usually Christians, find his contributions in Usenet to be condescending and offensive, while others find his articles entertaining and informative." David D. (Talk) 19:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Cool. Point of order, though...Mark's notability stems from his professional publication record. His alleged notoriety (i.e., the alleged "controversy") is due to his professed atheism, how that has influenced some of his participation in certain Usenet newsgroups, and how some within those groups have viewed it and reacted to it.
  • Having said that, I find the compromise statement acceptable. We cannot just talk about the opinions of one disgruntled group without considering perspective or the potential opposing opinions of some other group. A neutral POV requires balance. WarriorScribe 19:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It occurs to me that we could add to the sentence to make it even more nPOV: "Given the amount of traffic in Usenet, the number of participants, and any hypothetical number of non-participating readers, or lurkers, it is very likely that the overwhelming majority have never heard of Mark Bilbo." Yeah...that would clinch it! WarriorScribe 00:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy ruling from Cabal mediation

See here for the ruling. The paragraph just added was ruled appropriate/necessary for the entry by the Cabal. Please do not delete or change. --Jason Gastrich 07:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

If anyone doesn't like admin User:Bonaparte's decision, they can talk to him. However, you'll see from the Cabal mediation link (which should not be removed from this page) that he said that exact paragraph can be added. --Jason Gastrich 23:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Why would anyone remove the link from the page? I even cited it above "A mediator seems to think it was OK to include. ". Is User:Bonaparte's decision final or merely a reccomendation? The jist of your intent is still present in the article so you have not lost the point you were trying to make. Prior to User:Bonaparte's decision other editors were trying to remove that point out right. David D. (Talk) 23:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect and a tip of the Fedora to Bonaparte, the name does not appear on the list of Wikipedia admins. As usual, Gastrich gets an important fact wrong.
There's no point in arguing with childish Gastrich. The sort of commentary that he wants should not be in the article, particularly with reference to profane commentary. The replacement sentence is a good compromise. It addresses the "controversy" with respect to Mark's comments to Christians without using profanity or other comments that other users may find offensive, and it also balances the POV by pointing out that not everyone shares Gastrich's view that the comments are controversial or even that noteworthy. WarriorScribe 23:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Meanwhile, it's worth it to point out that hypocritical Gastrich insists that we abide by the "ruling" of "admin" Bonaparte, yet he had completely disregarded the an actual ruling with respect to sources by Demi, who is an admin. WarriorScribe 23:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
This is what Mark has to say about it, in a note to admin Demi.
And, as I suspected, it doesn't appear that I deleted anything, even by accident. Gastrich made it up. WarriorScribe 00:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion from Bonapartes talk page

I have copy and pasted the discussion below since it is relevent to this page:

  • Bonaparte, please see the talk page for Mark K. Bilbo. WarriorScribe has disregarded your input and has deleted nearly all of the paragraph that we worked hard to form. He has even deleted my contribution, in the talk page, about your help and decision. I just put it back, but he may delete it again. Please help. --Jason Gastrich 23:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe while Gastrich is busy whining that he's not getting his way, he can explain exactly what commentary of his was deleted by me...I sure don't recall doing that.
What Gastrich neglects to mention is that there has been additional discussion of the issue (that did not include him) and a reasonable, compromise sentence was included that supports more fully the concept of nPOV.
It's time for an RfC on Jason Gastrich. WarriorScribe 23:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is turning into quite a revert war with Jason Gastrich referencing your mediation as a mandate to include the following sentence in the article Mark_K._Bilbo
In Bilbo's public conversations (usually with Christians), he can become condescending and offensive. For instance, Bilbo calls Jesus "Jeebus" and God "your perfect god widget." Bilbo has been known to make fun of people's names, calling Uncle Davey "Unca Dorky" and Pastor Frank "Plastic Fake." His condescending remarks also include "dense one, twit boy, disphit, hypocritical asshole, bite me, and fuck you."
I find this sentence to be overly long, border line POV as well as a bit petty for an encylopedia. It reads like gossip. A compromise sentence was inserted to replace the above. It reads:
Some people, usually Christians, find many of his contributions in Usenet to be condescending and offensive, while others find his articles entertaining and informative.
Did you really mean that Jason Gastrich could insert that sentence without comment and editing from other users? David D. (Talk) 23:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • That sentence is a pathetic attempt to replicate the controversial nature of Bilbo's statements. There are no citations. There are no examples. It reads like, "Some people don't like what he says and some do." La, la, la. That's simply not going to cut it because it's too vague and incomplete.
Bonaparte, I suggest you recommend this go to formal mediation, now. WarriorScribe is intent on reverting everything until he gets his way. You probably know this but WarriorScribe (Dave Horn) and Mark Bilbo have been friends for some time. You can draw your own conclusions from there. Plus, David isn't much help. According to his contributions, he could care less about your input or the original paragraph. --Jason Gastrich 00:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Jason, the use of the word pathetic is describing who? Since I wrote the short version i would ask you to calm down. My preference is to cut the sentence completely. But, as a compromise to your insistence to incorporate the sentence, i wrote the tamer version. Usenet is a known den of iniquity and trollism; it is not relevent to how a people or a specific person behaves in real life. This wikipedia article should be responsible and not be colored by personal bias. Given you are sore at being the recipient of Bilbo's tongue you should not be the one calling the shots. Wikipedia is not a place for you to write about people you dislike. It looks like retribution and it looks petty.
I do care less about the arbitration decision other wise I would have deleted the point you are trying to make outright. Nevertheless, I do happen to think that the original sentence is inappropriate and I am sure Bonaparte agrees that such a decision by himself is still open to discussion. David D. (Talk) 00:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The sentence is a more accurate, less POV-driven statement about what actually occurs in Usenet and similar venues, and it's hysterical to watch Gastrich whimper about how I have such fire to get my way.
Gastrich probably could not tell you how long Mark Bilbo and I have been "friends," though he says that it has been "for some time." I don't know how true that is. I've never met Mark, personally, though we have corresponded a few times, most frequently in the last few weeks. Mark and I are acquaintences on friendly terms. Whether we are "friends" or not depends on your point of view.
Regardless, whatever "conclusions" that Gastrich claims can be drawn are not explained. Perhaps the fact that Gastrich and Usenet's "Uncle Davey" (the "Unca Dorkey" in Mark's comments) are much closer friends has no bearing on Gastrich's desire to see Mark's comments entered in an encyclopedia article. Perhaps...but not likely...
The fact is that Gastrich keeps screwing these things up, gets detail after detail wrong, and it's clearly his own agenda that's on the table, here, and under scrutiny. Gastrich, alone, is the one insisting on the specific wording that he wants, while at least two of us (with another couple of people inputting) have suggested and gone with less provocative wording in the sentence--a sentence that appears, mind you, in an "encyclopedia" used by children.
Meanwhile, another Christian has pointedly challenged Gastrich on this and asked him what Jesus would do. It's noteworthy that Gastrich will not answer that question.
Gastrich has a personal vendetta against Mark Bilbo, and is galled by the presence of a biographical article about him in the collection, here. It is his desire to insure that all "atheists" that he can label as such are labelled as such (check his listing of "contributions"), and to discredit those with whom he has issues. Gastrich is using Wikipedia to advance his own, personal, self-promoting agenda, and should be sanctioned. I am preparing a case for exactly that. WarriorScribe 00:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bonaparte talk page

Above as cut and pasted from Bonaparte talk page.

It seems that Bonaparte is ignoring this issue. If this revert war continues I suggest it goes to an RfC so the community can comment on the contribution. One mediator does not make a consensus. I feel there will be a strong consensus against including references and quotes from Usenet. David D. (Talk) 18:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not ignoring you but I give you time to find a compromise solution. I can't give you exact words that you should use in the article. I just help you to find a way to communicate to each other so you can find an optimal compromise. I am wathching every step of you. Don't worry. Bonaparte talk 18:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks for the support in helping us reach a compromise. I think we are close. My apologies for misinterpreting your participation. David D. (Talk) 18:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
You know David, I am an optimistic person. You will find the compromise sooner then you think. Just trust, assume good faith and the solution will come soon. I am here to help you to find a good, neutral version. Bonaparte talk 18:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I think we have one. The statement covers the issue, without being overly provocative. Your only problem is Jason Gastrich. He wanted his, exact phrase in there, complete with profanity, which, frankly doesn't belong here. This isn't Usenet and, as David pointed out, it's not a playground, either. WarriorScribe 19:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
It seems like Mediator Bonaparte is too busy with editing Romanian related Wikipages. Perhaps this should go to another mediator or escalate to the next step. As is the discussion page is over size preferences, and is about 10 times longer than the article itself. Icj tlc 19:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I can't tell you how to phrase the sentences. You have to understand this. I give you instead also enough time for you to find a good solution. This takes time I know. Bonaparte talk 19:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that was not a legitimate criticism. We all have other things going on in life, I'm sure, and Bonaparte's other participation in Wikipedia is every bit as important (probably more so) than this silly issue.WarriorScribe 19:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Come on. I am not important. You are. You have to try to find a good version. Like I said it's up to you. Now let us concentrate on the remaining issues. Bonaparte talk 19:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't commenting on personal importance so much as indicating that you have other, more important things to deal with. Regardless, we have a good version. WarriorScribe 20:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Which I'm sure Gastrich will revert the next time he logs in. Icj tlc 20:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
So you have to reformulate and propose another. You are free to edit to find a better but still to express the controversial statements of Mark. Bonaparte talk 20:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
But the problem Bonaparte, is that Gastrich does not want a resolution. He already thinks he's won. As far as he's concerned any changes made after you agreed with him are in violation of your "ruling" he will change it back. Watch and see if he doesn't. Icj tlc 20:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
He will, but start using ":" so I could see better. :) Thank you. Bonaparte talk 20:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I see that Duncharris has come in, taken a look, and made the most obvious, rational, and dispassionate edit possible, i.e., remove the whole silly thing and declare, in a single sentence, why it makes sense to make that change. One more time: Usenet constitutes what, in the end, are a minority of Internet users, and the Christians with whom Mark Bilbo has encountered in the groups in which Gastrich also participated are an exceptionally small number. We all say and write things that someone else can decide are "contoversial," but in any real sense with respect to the word and its use on a sociological basis, that doesn't make the person "controversial."

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daycd#The Bilbo "Controversy" for more insight into the "controversy." WarriorScribe 16:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I want to draw your attention to what i wrote above:
"Jason, the use of the word pathetic is describing who? Since I wrote the short version i would ask you to calm down. My preference is to cut the sentence completely. But, as a compromise to your insistence to incorporate the sentence, i wrote the tamer version. Usenet is a known den of iniquity and trollism; it is not relevent to how a people or a specific person behaves in real life."
Since Duncharris has come in and effectively said the same, I now withdraw my compromise sentence and will push to have the sentence removed completely. I'm fed up with the brick wall of no compromise from Gastrich and if he want to play hard nose we can too. Jason, you just lost your chance to be reasonable, if you inist on being childish in the negotiations people get fed up. This is NOT usenet or your playground so live with it. I apologise to Bonaprate for this attitude and withdrawing my compromise sentence from the table. This has to be a give and take otherwise it does not work. David D. (Talk) 17:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] last issue to be solved

Again. Jason or you can add a paragraph about the "controversial statements of Bilbo". Again the phrase that Jason G. can add, or you is about "controversial statements of Bilbo". I don't agree to state something like "controversial person". I think this is a good compromise for both of parts. Bonaparte talk 17:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you've been overruled by an admin. WarriorScribe 17:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
However, I'm all about hearing from someone other that Gastrich (I know his argument, after all, and the basis for it), why Mark's statements are necessarily controversial, make him controversial, or are even noteworthy on any level.
As an aside, take a look at "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home," and the conversation between Kirk and Spock about the use of profanity. Okay...I'm kidding, but just a little. Maybe one of the reasons that that bit of dialogue is in there is because maybe, just maybe, Kirk is right...? WarriorScribe 17:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Isn't it Funny (The Gastrich "Debate")

When Bonaparte, a mediator, made a statement that Gastrich could include his paragraph, Gastrich touted it as a "ruling" from an "admin." He reposted his sentence, complete with commentary that it was not to be changed or removed, per this "ruling." He got pretty bent out of shape, trying to use that as leverage, when it was challenged, as such. How dare we challenge an "admin?"

Well, as it turned out, Bonaparte is not an admin. There was no "ruling," certainly nothing that would prevent the comment from being further edited.

Now we have an admin--the real thing--whom has entered the discussion, examined the facts, and made a change in the article. This is certainly, at least, an implied ruling by an admin, isn't it?

So why is it that Gastrich, when he thought he had won the issue with the backing of an "admin," was all about everyone else abiding by the "ruling" of this "admin," but when a real admin makes what can be viewed as, at least, an implied ruling, and it's not what Gastrich wants, he wants to argue about it?

I'll tell you why: It's because the only thing Gastrich cares about is getting his way. I couldn't have made up a more clear example of that than what Gastrich is giving us over this issue. WarriorScribe 17:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well WarriorScribe I hope you understand the situation in which you are found in this moment. Now, you all know that this is a article that can be edit in a free, democratic way by all the users. I don't see the fact that an Admin has more authority to edit then you for example. What is important is the quality of course. I am glad that more users will come to this page for discussions so you can have more opinions, more chances to find a better solution. You know that I am here to help you. To mediate, to make you both parts start here negotiations. Now, as far as I can see you all have to make a compromise now. It depends on you. Bonaparte talk 19:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the situation is that you have a small concensus of users whom had agreed to a less POV-driven edit that would allow that for a claim of "controversy" (even though no one has explained what the controversy really is supposed to be with respect to what most of us understand as "controversy"), and you have one person who keeps whining about it.
No one claimed that an admin had more "authority to edit," but that's not what happened here. An admin obviously took a look at the issue, evaluated the arguments, and made an edit based on that. It was not a mere edit as most of us do from time to time (or even day to day).
We don't "have to make a compromise now." A reasonable compromise statement was made and accepted by all but one. If one holds up the process, particularly in a case like this, that's where the problem lies; and sooner or later, we must move on. A small group came to a concensus that was reasonable, less POV-driven, and appropriate for an encyclopedia reference work, even if we can still argue whether or not it belongs there in the first place. Gastrich never made a case for the "controversy." He never supported that the comments were any more "controversial" than those made by anyone else or why they mattered (other than that they "mock God," which is clearly POV pushing). He never supported just why those comments make Mark a controversial figure any more than they would any other participant in Usenet, while we were able to demonstrate quite clearly that this is all a personal issue with Gastrich. Still, a compromise comment was accepted by the rest of us. He rejected it outright (while confusing or lying about several things, the roles of various parties, claiming that your statement was an enforceable "ruling" that meant that the statement, as replaced, could not be changed or removed, claiming that things were deleted that were not, and so on). We don't have to compromise with unreasonable people.
Mediation does not require that one cave in to the one whom whines the loudest (even if it's just to get him to shut up). The best case has been clearly been presented by the side opposed to Gastrich's obvious attempt at POV pushing. You have a concensus from reasonable people, and now you have the opinion of an admin, which can even be considered an implied ruling, if you like, and then you have Gastrich. It's actually very easy to step outside of this thing, look at it, realize what's happened, and declare it over.
So it's over. You tried. You did your best. That's commendable; but it's over. We need to move on and that means that we need to take this to a higher level. Having tolerated Gastrich's presence and attempts at POV pushing while being condescending, insulting, mean-spirited, unChristian, hypocritical, and dishonest, Wikipedia needs to consider what action needs to be taken to insure that the infection is contained, removed, and the results of it repaired. WarriorScribe 19:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Your opinions are pertinent but you also have to take into consideration what Jason proposed as well. You can make your own formulation of what Jason has proposed and I am actually quite interested to see it. Bonaparte talk 20:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
When we agreed to the addition of the comment, we did take it into consideration. Allowing that there was even controversy took his perspective into consideration and even allowed for it. Where the "compromise" failed was that Gastrich wants it specific that Mark has disagreements and conflicts with Christians on Usenet. No one cares about that. It's not controversial or even all that unusual, but we took it into consideration and allowed a more reasonable comment about it, given the audience that Wikipedia intends to reach. As I said, you had reasonable people on one side, and Gastrich on the other. You also have the implied (and, even, at some level, explicit) ruling of an admin--a real ruling, this time. Your job is done, and I'm not going to keep wasting my time responding to you repeating the same thing, over and over. I've answered your point. Unless you have something new to add or some new perspective to input (other than "you need to compromise"), we're done. Good job...thank you. Have a nice day. WarriorScribe 20:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
In case you hadn't noticed, issuing ill-thought out judgements and orders is Bonaparte's idea of mediation, which I've told him about before, but aparently he hasn't learned.
Now WP:NOT a democracy, or "compromise" or anything. If consensus excludes one religious extremist, Usenet kook and pretend doctor, fine.
In this case, big deal. His involvement with Usernet and alt.atheism is noted. He's disagreed with internet trolls? Invoked the Invisible Pink Unicorn in mocking those who believe in other irrational nonsense? <end sarcasm>. Many of those on the religious right are downright offensive to anyone who doesn't share their perverse view of the world, but do their biographies need to include that they offend people? No because it is implied that if you have views on controversial issues, you're going to be controversial. Jason just wants to assasinate the character of those who disagree with him. Which is pretty much every one who's ever come across him. — Dunc|☺ 20:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I think you should all Assume Good Faith. If you really think that this is not the case you may try another approches. Still I believe you should wait Jason's newest proposal and try to make together with him a version that will reflect both sides. I've told this will take time but you are near to find a good solution. I will push you to find one but I can't tell you exactly what words you should add there. Is free to edit for you and you should make like this. However I don't agree that this is case as closed until it reflects also some words about so-called "controversial declarations of Bilbo. Bonaparte talk 21:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course, I agree that if the extreme view is preempted by more reasonable concensus, that's fine. I pointed out the hypocrisy of the whole thing, too, and it was ignored, along with all of the other valid points that were made. In going through this process, Gastrich revealed quite a bit about himself and his motives, as well as the things he will do (including misrepresent, inflate, and conflate) to get his way. Yeah, we're done with "mediation." It's not working. It's time to implement some of the other options. WarriorScribe 21:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assume good faith?

I don't think we should assume good faith. Jason Gastrich has consistently tried to add controversial statements to articles that suit his agenda (to smear people that disagree with him). Yet he is less accepting of similar additions to articles he wishes to defend (hovind). His POV seems to be quite predictable.

Second, since when has swearing in Usenet been controversial? It seems to be the norm. Jason often claims not to swear but he is passive aggressive in other ways not to mention purposefully calling people atheists (whom are actually religious but disagree with Jason) and implying that Catholics are not Christian. While these types of example are not swearing it is equally, if not more, offensive. The hypocrisy is blatant.

Thirdly, there is plenty of precedent not to stoop to the level of quoting controversial vulgarity. Wikipedia should not and does not stoop to such a level. For example, look at the Dick_Cheney article. There is no mention of him telling Leahy, in the senate, to "fuck yourself", despite it being a verifiable quote.

The fact is that Jason Gastrich IS editing in bad faith and his edits should not be tolerated. He is effectively trolling and mediation just wastes everyones time. I am no longer willing to play that game. I have not sourced the above assertions but I will if I am called on it. Jason knows all the above is verifiable in usenet archives and in the wikipedia archives. David D. (Talk) 21:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

If you really think and I will repeat one more time really think it won't work you may go further and start another approach. However I still think that is better to make a compromise. Bonaparte talk 21:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I really think that we should not pander to people with a vindictive streak. Is this an encylopedia or a gossip colomn? David D. (Talk) 21:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
To answer you: it is an encyclopedia. Now I want all to behave nice. I let a message to Jason also so I am expecting you all to behave nicely and to try to reach an agreement. Bonaparte talk 21:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Since Bonarpate is encouraging a compromise, I'll wait for someone to suggest one. I've offered numerous suggestions and they have all been deleted. --Jason Gastrich 22:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • There have not been "numerous suggestions." As usual, Gastrich tries to pretend he's being reasonable, but the record shows otherwise. It's too little and it's too late. WarriorScribe 22:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • By the way, here's Gastrich's response to Bonaparte on his talk page, with respect to the presentation of a "compromise," for those who missed it:
As of now, there is no compromise. There is only deletion. If you are truly a Cabal mediator interested in helping, then I suggest you do something to help. Several people have ignored your ruling/suggestion in the matter. You seemingly don't care. Now, I'd appreciate it if you either recommended the matter go to formal mediation or you step in and let your voice be heard regarding the compromise. The people involved, I know them too well, are not interested in compromise. They are only interested in pardoning one of their own because they have the same vice as he.
Seems pretty clear, doesn't it? If Bonaparte is "truly" a Cabal mediator, "I suggest you do something." In other words, he's to make sure that Gastrich gets his way. And then there's the talk of the "ruling/suggestion" on the matter, and the claim that the rest of us "have the same vice as" Mark Bilbo. What vice is that? Atheism? At least two of us speaking up are not atheists, and one is even a born-again Christian. And the talk of "pardoning?" No, that's false, too. No one is interested in "pardoning" anyone because there's nothing that needs to be pardoned.
The claim that we are not interested in compromise is a lie, or we would never have agreed to the statement that we did propose and to which we did agree. Gastrich is lying and is acting on bad faith. By misrepresenting the lot of his opposition as having "the same vice," and claiming that there has been no compromise on our parts is a lie--pure and simple. Even Gastrich, who gets so much wrong, can't have missed that.
Gastrich's game has been exposed yet again. WarriorScribe 22:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Jason, why do you always rewrite history to suit your own agenda? A compromise sentence was suggested that incorporated points that you wished to be addressed as well as points that warriorscribe wished to be addressed. Your response to the compromise sentence was the following:
"That sentence is a pathetic attempt to replicate the controversial nature of Bilbo's statements. There are no citations. There are no examples. It reads like, "Some people don't like what he says and some do." La, la, la. That's simply not going to cut it because it's too vague and incomplete."
In other words you have shown no willingness to compromise on this talk page, you were uncivil and now deny that any compromise was ever offered? This is just bizarre. David D. (Talk) 22:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Let's compromise, and call it what it is: A lie. WarriorScribe 22:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
What is most amusing about this is that, with respect to what had been written and proposed, some people don't like what he said and some people do. "Duh," as they say! And other people, still, don't care, while the overwhelming majority of the six billion or so on the planet don't even know about it, and that includes the few million whom read Wikipedia. Of those, how many among them, should they happen to read that information in the entry, are going to care? Isn't that part of the point? The information needs to be notable in some way, and it simply isn't. And why would Gastrich want it there, even then? Perhaps to influence some future, presently-unknown Christian whom might happen to read the entry and conclude, "oh, this is a bad guy." With that and all the rest that we know, Gastrich wants to try to tell us that this is all just about "presenting fact?" I don't think so. WarriorScribe 22:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] one week edit pause

You see that you are reaching very fast the compromise. One week edit pause. Any other future edit will be here posted and I will watch it first. See you in one week. Bonaparte talk 06:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Given the circumstances, is anyone else as amused by this as I am? WarriorScribe 18:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I add a tag. ONE WEEK no edit on the page. Now let's you how you will reach the solution. I am here. Bonaparte talk 19:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise

I've created a section where we can suggest compromises for the entry. Perhaps everyone interested should have a crack at one. --Jason Gastrich 00:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Don't be shy. I suppose I'll propose the first compromise:
"While interacting with others (usually Christians), Biblo tends to use profanity, name calling, and mockery; even in reference to God and Jesus. However, his friends don't seem to mind. In fact, they find it rather charming." --Jason Gastrich 18:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Sarcasm is not going to help you reach a compromise. Why is Dick Cheney swearing on the senate floor not in his wikipedia article? That seems to be the precident. David D. (Talk) 18:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Also you need to prove that Usenet is relevent for an encylopedia. It is full of fantasy and trollism and does not represent real life. Certainly not ones true character or even gender. It is just not a reliable source for an encylopedic article. If you continue pursuing this it demonstrates that you have a POV bias. David D. (Talk) 18:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "Don't be shy." That's hysterical! It's Gastrich who's failed to answer the points and make a case for the inclusion of any commentary that covers this subject. Still, a good, reasonably neutral statement was proposed, and there was no attempt by Gastrich to even discuss it. Profanity and mockery are POV-driven. I worked with Marines for almost three years. In their environment, the use of the "F" word is not considered profane...it's common. They also engage in quite a bit of conversation that some of us would consider "mockery," but that they consider routine and that doesn't cause them to bat an eye. By the way, that includes "name calling." This occurs within the microcosm of the Marine Corps environment, and I can just see an argument coming that says, "well, yeah, that's that environment...but we're talking about something else." Yes, we are...we're talking about the Usenet environment, which is as loose about those things, if not more so.
We're not getting any good argument for why a statement needs to be included in the first place, while there are several arguments for why it should not. Instead, those are being ignored, and the "compromise," above, takes it for granted that the comment should be there. That has not been established. That Bilbo's comments have insulted or annoyed a few Christians (whom, themselves, are provocative, as I addressed elsewhere) is not a noteworthy event. Those of us with a less POV-driven viewpoint (even those of us whom don't suffer from the same "vice," as Gastrich put it, as Bilbo--and if that doesn't give away his POV, I'm not sure what will) will need to see rational, reasonable, unbiased justification for the declaration of this person as "controversial" and why isolated comments within a small microcosm of Internet users must be included in an encyclopedia article. So far, that argument hasn't been made. WarriorScribe 18:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • He's just trying to drag the Usenet conflict between he and I onto the Wikipedia. And this has gotten completely out of hand as he's even stooped to trying to intimidate User:Icj_tlc by calling his pastor (and father) on the phone. That's the point I decided to get involved. I do not react well to bullies. I'd rather see this article deleted than be the center piece of some childish online tirade by Gastrich. Mark K. Bilbo 18:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • On the issue of reaction to bullies, that's why I'm involved, too. Gastrich does attempt to bully people into accepting his viewpoint. I think that he actually refused to provide an argument, but he figures that if he rants and raves about a subject long enough, others will capitulate, if only to shut him up. Reason doesn't enter into any of it. That's why he hasn't even tried to make a reasonable argument for why the issue needs to be addressed in an encyclopedia in the first place. WarriorScribe 18:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's very sad to see (and admirable) that Bilbo would rather have an article about himself deleted than allow this debate to continue. I would vote to keep it however. Bilbo has obviously "made it" in the real world and in WikiPedia as well and has earned this article. Simple fact is, Jason's article was deleted and now he's jealous. The funny thing here is that 3 people who in normal conversation would tend to disagree with each other based on religious persuasion, or lack thereof, (No offense intended Bilbo) and other things, have come together to ensure that WikiPedia is not used by Gastrich to spread his POV. PS I would like to thank all of you for your assistance regarding my own personal issues with Gastrich. Thank you very much. Icj tlc 19:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Admirable? Well, I guess they have you fooled. His motivation is obvious. He rather have no entry on Wikipedia than one that tells the truth about his character. --Jason Gastrich 21:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, interesting, isn't it, that an atheist, a Christian, and a Jew are pretty much in agreement on this issue, and we're not alone. I'm not sure about David D's religious persuasion, but he's in agreement. Jason Harvestdancer is a pagan and I seem to recall him pretty much being in agreement. Of course, your "Christianity" is in question because Gastrich doesn't see it in you, but I tend to think of Gastrich as the Eddie Guerrero of Christian apologetics (lie, cheat, steal, y'know) and he's not really qualified to make the judgment. Mark and I were both Christians and are both very familiar with it and I must say that your attitude has been more Christian than anything demonstrated by Gastrich, even if only that Jesus hung out with, eh, "undesirables" in his day. [grin] WarriorScribe 19:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • For the record I'm an atheist but sympathetic to all religions. I had never heard of Eddie and followed your link. In the introduction i found the following:
"Guerrero's in-ring character was that of a crafty, resourceful wrestler who would do anything to win a match. His famous mantra became "Cheat to Win."
"Guerrero became a born again Christian in 2002."
  • Noticed that, did you? [grin] -- WarriorScribe 21:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
The difference is he probaly does not cheat to win anymore, unless he too goes by the "once saved always saved" theology. David D. (Talk) 20:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Guerrero doesn't cheat anymore, he's dead. Just an "FYI" Icj tlc 20:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the update, so young too. Someone needs to get through to all these athletes that steroid abuse is not worth the gain. Unfortunately their short term goals always make the long term dangers seem trivial, but they are not. David D. (Talk) 20:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As I understand it, steroid and substance abuse were factors (not to downplay the dangers of steroids). I have two friends in San Diego whom were close to Eddie, and I met him a couple of times. Nice fellow...conflicted, like the stories say, but the comparison was to the in-ring character. WarriorScribe 21:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I did notice it was the in the in-ring character to whom you were refering, but when i went to the bottom of the page to see why he died so young i noticed the steroid abuse. Do they even drug test in wrestling? I assume not, so it can't be cheating in that arena. David D. (Talk) 21:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • They do now...allegedly. But no, that's not the cheating to which it refers. WarriorScribe 21:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No longer any need

Mediation was a failure. A reasonable compromise statement was provided, even though there has never been any explanation as to why anything needs to be in the article that covers it in the first place. There has never been any reasonable grounds for declaring Mark Bilbo "controversial" because, as explained, it's simply an attempt to push the POV of a single person or, at best, a few people--insignificant when compared to the hundreds of millions of web surfers, millions (or, at least, hundreds of thousands) of Usenet participants, and, compared to that, the very few readers of free.christians and alt.atheism. Consequently, allowing even the compromise statement compromised even further by allowing that there is any controversy, at all, when, clearly, there is none. The use of profanity and name-calling (including the episodes Gastrich would prefer not be exposed, that is, the times that those on his side of the argument referred to Mark as "Mark Dildo") are common among Usenet participants. There's nothing controversial about that. The use of, for lack of a better phrase, "special names" for other participants is common, as well, so there's nothing controversial about that.
Again and again, it was pointed out, and arguments were proposed to support the contention that all of this is part of Gastrich's personal vendetta against Mark Bilbo, a vendetta prompted and perpetuated by his disdain for atheists in general and for Bilbo, in particular. That Gastrich was further exposed for the now infamous theft of an atheist "list" from a server Bilbo managed--and it was theft...what else would you call it when something has been denied to someone and measures were taken to keep the item from that person, yet the person circumvented the measures and took the item, anyway?--by Bilbo, himself, at a time when Gastrich's rather unsavory character and practices were being investigated and exposed, simply fueled his ire. Does anyone truly believe that it is coincidence that Gastrich wants to place as unflattering a comment as possible in this article, and would not compromise, even to the point of repeatedly demonstrating what can only be called "temper tantrums" online?
And we can't help but marvel at the hypocrisy of it all! Even someone as unobservant and undiscerning as Jason Gastrich must see that he, too, is a "controversial figure," and for far more reasons than we can ever lay at the feet of Mark Bilbo. Gastrich has a reputation, far and wide, in Usenet and on the Internet. But let's recall that, not too long ago, Gastrich posted a biographical article about himself here at Wikipedia. Even if we forget, for the moment, that the purpose of this article was not an act of altruism, designed to provide Wikipedia with an article about a "noteworthy" online minister, but was, instead, a cynical exploitation of Wikipedia as a free advertising medium, we must recall that there were several attempts to post information about Gastrich's various controversies--from the underhanded use of an "honorary 'doctorate'" awarded by a diploma mill, through the use of typosquatting and cybersquatting domains, the multiple falsehoods told in discussion groups, the behaviors occurring during debates, the use of advertising that many find distasteful, and the attempts to shut down web sites critical of him and his "apologetics." Gastrich would have none of it. These pieces of information were swiftly deleted from the page, even as its presence was being debated. And when that page was ultimately removed, Gastrich posted a "user page" that is loaded with advertising for his various "Christian" endeavors. In response, critics posted the same information, which was swiftly deleted, and ultimately, Gastrich had his user page "locked" to counter this "vandalism." Gastrich even haughtily stated that his "talk" page is not to be a "soapbox" for his "critics," and quickly deletes commentary that he finds unflattering. In fact, Gastrich has gone so far as to delete commentary from the talk pages of other users if he finds it unflattering or embarrassing to him, personally. Gastrich will tolerate no criticism of him, but he reserves the right to post any criticism of those with whom he has issues, and with impunity! Not only must Gastrich be allowed to declare Mark Bilbo to be "a controversial figure" because Mark Bilbo has insulted a relatively few Christians (including Gastrich), but until the pathetic attempt to rehabilitate his image, as seen above, it also had to be exactly the comments that he wanted. The compromise that was offered was "weak" and "pathetic," and Gastrich even turned on the mediator when it was clear that he wasn't getting his way.
Gastrich's personal issue with this affair, having been demonstrated and proven, if only by the vitriol with which he has pursued it, would be enough for most honorable people to recognize, and recuse themselves, that is, anyone with any sense of integrity would recognize that this is something about which he should not comment in a venue that requires a neutral point of view. Gastrich doesn't have that kind of self-awareness, due to his issues with what appears to be a pretty clear case of developmental disability.
This whole affair can't have been anything but an embarrassment to Wikipedia (Gastrich doesn't have the sort of shame needed to be embarrassed by this episode). The attempt at mediation failed because one side was willing to compromise (even if only by allowing the commentary in the first place--again, there is no reasonable evidence that Mark Bilbo, author of several technical books, is a "controversial figure.") and the other was not.
For my part, this issue is closed. I have put together a package with respect to pertinent events having to do with Gastrich's participation in Wikipedia, and I will be sending it to the highest echelons of Wikipedia administration. WarriorScribe 00:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Okay, this is enough

Being the subject of the article, I was trying to keep some distance but when Gastrich resorted to calling someone's father (and pastor) offline to intimidate them so he could get his way on the Wiki, that was the straw that broke the camel's back.

The facts are that Jason Gastrich and I have a history from Usenet that began with two forays he made into alt.atheism as a self appointed "minister to atheists." To say the least, the newsgroup was less than receptive and Gastrich antagonized the regulars quite a bit. The squabble between he and I reached a bit of a climax when he swiped and used on his site a list from the website I host for the ng (alt-atheism.org) without the permission of the list's owner and maintainer (another long time a.a. regular) and by use of an anonymous proxy to get around the IP block I'd put in to lock him off my server (keep in mind, I mean my server, it's in my house and not four feet away from me as I type this).

Tempest in teapot, Usenet is what is, yadda, yadda. But the reality is, this is personal in that Gastrich simply doesn't like me. The edits aren't about "contributing," they're about getting in petty digs at somebody he doesn't like. There isn't anything to "mediate," it's just a personal thing spilling over from Usenet. Personally, I'd rather see the article deleted than let Gastrich use it in some ax grinding campaign to scrawl "Mark is a poopy head" in the Wiki.

If you people want the article here, lock it so Gastrich has to find something else to occupy his time. If it's all just getting to be too much of a headache, delete the silly thing and be done with it. One or the other.

If Gastrich is going to try bullying people offline to get his way on the Wikipedia, I don't want my name associated with it in any way at all.

Mark K. Bilbo 02:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Hmmm...seems to me that this is an affirmation of something I mentioned off-hand somewhere else with respect to Mark's comments in Usenet and why they're neither noteworthy nor controversial.
  • I happen to know that Mark is a pretty easy-going guy, normally, but like many people, if you provoke him, he'll react. Sometimes he'll react with anger. Sometimes he'll call you names. We all do that to some degree. Gastrich does that. There's nothing special about it, but because *Mark* has done it, it's "controversial?"
  • Isn't it interesting that Gastrich is one of those whom provokes those kinds of reactions out of people (and so do many of the other parties he named, as if they were, somehow, innocent, wronged parties in all of this), and yet, when these kinds of provoked reactions do occur, Gastrich wants to make much of it and call it "controversy," while the person engaging in the behavior is "controversial."
  • Provocative Christians provoke a response, and the response that they provoke should be in an encyclopedia, in order to label the party provoked as "controversial." Funny stuff. WarriorScribe 04:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

WarriorScribe 04:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Craig, I put this back, because I don't think that Bonaparte posted it and then forgot to post his input (he's a mediator, so it doesn't really carry much weight, even if he wants to call it a "decision," as there's no power to enforce it). What I think this is is a place where he can post it when he's come to whatever conclusion he's to come to when the week for "compromise" has ended. WarriorScribe 20:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] final decision

My decision will take into in consideration the following aspect that must be respected:

  • NPOV of the article
  • no sarcastic sentences

You may do anything you want in your real life. But don't bring any more conflicts from your real life here. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA and I don't accept to be a battlefield of yours. Solve your problem outside.

So as far as I noticed today it was proposed a version which is not appropiate. It was too POV and does not belong to an encyclopedia. I am a contributor that would like to raise the quality of the articles. I read a lot of your discussions these days so I know everybody's opinion, including the one from the person in cause: Mark K. Bilbo. So, it's no need to tell me again and again the same story. Once was enough.

First of all let me tell you something about me and my edits. In this way you'll understand better the situation in which you are found now. We had a similar or far more worst let's say then this one. It is not even now solved. Take a look on the Moldovan language and Talk:Moldovan language. The page is still blocked and there are more then 10 archives made in 1 month. I hope you don't want to be in this situation don't you?

So, basically I decided taken "all" your suggestion that we should have the best nonPOV and neutral version of the page. Until now I see the best nonPOV and neutral version was the one that did not included references to "controversial declarations on usenet by Mark". So, again I will repeat, taken all your suggestions I decided to remove all the so-called edits on this. This is a final solution. I asked also an admin to watch the page in case you don't obey and break this agreement. I suggest you to accept it and refrain from editing any more on this topic that was under mediation.

Now, I removed the Tag and the phrases that don't belong to an encyclopedia. I take it as agreed by you taking into account your previous remarks made here on the talk page.

This is a short article and there is no need for you to fill 10 archives of talking.

I know and I hope that here the problems will be solved now. You have to accept my mediation response and act accordingly. Bonaparte talk 20:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh so you finally agree with the rest of us then (save Jason of course)? We reached consensus without your ill thought out judgements you pretend are "mediation". — Dunc|☺ 20:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)