Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Contents


[edit] Jason Gastrich's sock puppets: An introduction

"Don't expect to be hearing from me, but expect to be hearing from them." (Writen by Gastrich after his RfC and posted on his talk page.[2])

As Warriorscribe explained, "what this likely means is that there will be more Gastrich socks, but he's going to try to be less obvious about it." This is because "Gastrich does not have the following or the influence that he claims," but still wants to use Wikipedia to gain an audience. [3]

As for getting blocked for poor behavior, Jason Gastrich wrote, "Why would it matter to me if I were banned? My morals aren't guided by consequences." [4]

[edit] Evidence presented by Malthusian on behalf of numerous editors

[edit] Request for comment

There is plentiful prior evidence of Gastrich's multiple policy violations at his Request for comment, some of which is summarised below.

[edit] Evidence presented by User:Jim62sch

Given experience and Gastrich's past history, I would like to deflect the expected criticism of my evidence by stating the following:

What this is not about: This is not about Jason Gastrich creating articles on his favourite subjects, nor is it about his being an evangelical Christian, nor his personality, nor his assertion to being a minister or theologian, nor religious or other affiliations.

What this is about: It is solely about his behaviour as manifested on Wikipedia, including but not limited to his imposition of his POV, his use of dubious methods to skew coverage of his pet subjects, his inability to abide by WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:NPOV (tending toward m:MPOV) and WP:HAR. Note that none of us are claiming perfection, we all make mistakes, we all comment strongly at times, but if we do make mistakes and comment a bit too strongly, we tend to apologize. This is not the case with Gastrich: he seems believe that he is always correct, and that anything he writes, no matter how spiteful, accusatory, or simply incorrect, is acceptable because he is guided by a higher cause.

[edit] First assertion

Gastrich has repeatedly violated WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:HAR and WP:AGF. Below, are examples of this behaviour gathered from an analysis of his user edits.

[edit] Civility, attacks, harassment, and ascribing motives

(Through Jan 6, 2006)

  1. Accusing another editor of “trolling” him, of “over-stepping” his bounds and wherein he makes an unsubstantiated accusation based on Gastrich’s own interesting inferential abilities: [5]
  2. A continuation of the above, this time left on the talk page of User:Chuck Hastings, a possible sockpuppet of Gastrich: [6]
  3. Here he attacks most editors as being “unbelievers”, and directs readers to a sermon he wrote regarding the background for his assertion: [7]
  4. Here he accuses a fellow editor of being “an unbeliever who has rejected the lordship of Christ” and who quotes Bible “verses to try and belittle His followers”. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jason_Gastrich&diff=prev&oldid=38730173]
  5. Upon receiving a “permanent final warning”, Gastrich unleashed the following regarding his fellow editors by noting that, “A handful of unbelievers and anti-fundamentalist Christians have led a brigade of hatred”; noted of the admin posting the warning that his, “… hated [‘’sic’’]for Christian fundamentalism and your burning bias to silence me and like-minded contributors has made you a person that we cannot deal with.”; and closed with a vaguely threatening, “May God have mercy on your soul, Guy”. [8]
  6. Accuses two fellow editors of not having a clue, and ironically notes that their votes for deletion of a specific article are somehow personal attacks: [9]
  7. Accuses another editor of having an agenda (irony at its finest): [10]
  8. Accuses two editors of being, “…people who care very little about Wikipedia and an honest vote.” [11]
  9. Makes an unfounded charge of vandalism against an editor and an admin: [12]
  10. Continues the unfounded charge of vandalism on two users’ talk pages: [13][14]
  11. Accuses (ad nauseum) other editors who were maintaining Wikipedia’s integrity of having, “…done irreparable damage to their integrity and to Wikipedia.” [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]
  12. Accuses another editor of being “one of ‘’them’’” and “on their ‘’side’’” (emphasis added):[30]
  13. Accuses an editor of making personal attacks, makes erroneous assertions regarding how many times he has contacted user and then blanks user’s post that showed that Gastrich had made erroneous assertions:[31]
  14. Accuses an editor of sending spam, belonging to a hate group and engaging in heinous behaviour.[32]
  15. In his RfC reply, he shows no contrition, but points out that others “hate” and “troll” him, and spread “lies” about him:[33]
  16. Intentionally mentions editor’s real name, then calls him “detestable”:[34]
  17. Accuses an admin of being “anti-Gastrich” from the get-go, and then proceeds to apologize to Wikipedia for this imagined behaviour he attributed to the admin:[35]
  18. Calls editor’s comment “distasteful” and claims that Jesus told this person to discuss these issues privately rather than publicly:[36]
  19. Again “distasteful”, attacks editor’s integrity and knowledge of Christian faith:[37]
  20. Calls another user a “hard-core, partylining, card-carrying atheist”:[38]
  21. Threatened to report an editor on the editors user page for what were, admittedly, strong comments, but then blanked the threat:[39]
  22. Interesting:[40]
  23. In edit comments refers to admin as “monkey”:[41]
  24. Absent any provocation, refers to an editor as “single-minded” troll:[42]
  25. Accuses an editor of vandalism for 10 AfD nominations:[43]
  26. Accuse editor of literary ignorance:[44][45]
  27. Under the guise of “pruning”, Gastrich blanks some of his most inflammatory personal prose, which contains significant harrassment:[46]
  28. Questions an editor's charachter: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_K._Bilbo&diff=prev&oldid=34160392
  29. Unsupported allegations (I note, however, that there appears to be a history between Gastrich and the other editor):http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_K._Bilbo&diff=prev&oldid=34135701
  30. Harassment of fellow editor and Christian pastor:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jason_Gastrich&diff=prev&oldid=33929414
  31. Questions an editor's religious convictions:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Icj_tlc/Archive1&diff=prev&oldid=33776383
  32. Once again casts aspersions at another's belief:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Icj_tlc/Archive1&diff=prev&oldid=33662194
  33. Accusation of bullying:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daycd&diff=prev&oldid=33565553
  34. Tirade against nominator of a Gastrich-created article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Agajanian. Special:Contributions/CDThieme indicates that this is prompted by an edit war over the inclusion of Gastrich in the Typosquatting article. Gastrich has used both typosquatting (talkorigin.org for talkorigins.org) and domain squatting (antonyflew.com), this is verifiable from DNS.

[edit] Second assertion

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "Jimmy Wales makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where Jimmy Wales made personal attacks.

Work in progress

[edit] Evidence presented by user JzG

[edit] Sockpuppetry / meatpuppetry

This is discussed in some detail in the RfC, but to recap the important points in detail:

[edit] CheckUser results

Fred Bauder 02:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Usenetpostsdotcom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has used a unique isp in a different part of the world. The other suspects were not found. Fred Bauder 02:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Usenetpostsdotcom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) also uses another isp in that same country. The other suspects were not found. Fred Bauder 02:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Behaviour of various puppets

[edit] Astroturfing

  • Gastrich organized an offsite group, Wiki4Christ, where he solicits people from his ministry to influence the AFD process, as he describes it: "Voice our opinion on the inclusion of Christian entries." [50] (cached) and jcsm.org/Online/WeeklyDevotions440.htm.
  • He thanks people for attempting to swing a vote jcsm.org/Online/WeeklyDevotions437.htm here.
  • A person claims that Mr. Gastrich repeatedly lobbied him to come and swing votes [51].
  • These diffs [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58] show very clear evidence of attempted vote stacking. Note how the links are weblinks not Wikilinks, so they do not show up in "What Links Here". Note also the use of the term "Christian biographies" as if the articles have been nominated for deletion because they are Christian - the grounds given in AfDs were nothing to do with their religion.
  • A minor example: [59]. This user is upset at being roped in by Gastrich, and this [60] indicates that they (an outsider) feel Gastrich was not honest in these dealings.
  • This [61] refers to the Wiki4Christ mailing list and a mail-out. Shortly afterwardsa number 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: [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68] - 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 [69]: 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." (emphasis added)
  • The contribs list of sockpuppet Wiggins2 (talk · contribs) includes little but solicitations to vote on AfDs for Gastrich-related articles.

[edit] Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point

  • Feb 28th Juicy Juicy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) after making two content edits the user starts a rfc with his 10th edit, eleven minutes after the first supposed "attempt to resolve the dispute" [71] other suspected sock puppets are the only ones to sign the rfc. Another sock calls "admin abuse" at WP:AN/I [72] when the socks are found out.

[edit] Subsequent to opening of the RfA

This section has been expanded by other editors

[edit] Other examples

[edit] Root of the problem

The root of the problem apears to me to be Louisiana Baptist University (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (LBU) and The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (SAB). Specifically, it is stated that Gastrich's doctorate from this college was awarded on the basis of his rebuttal to the SAB. He has repeatedly claimed that this rebuttal is an authoritative source and should be included in the SAB article, citing in support Amazon reviews. As set out in the RfC, Gastrich knows that Amazon reviews can be manipulated and there is fair evidence of his having done just that, as well as some well-argued and scathing critiques among the Amazon reviews. This is in any case moot since the addition of your own work to an article is considered bad form per WP:VAIN, and to edit-war over it is worse.

Also, the LBU article says that LBU meets several of the criteria for diploma mills, including offering credits based on "life experience", lacking accreditation from any nationally recognised accreditation body, and failure to register doctoral theses with the usual repositories. Big Lover, i.e. Gastrich, stated that LBU is "obviously not a diploma mill" and any insinuation to the contrary is clearly offensive to him, as a graduate of the college. Gastrich clearly holds his alma mater in high esteem, for example raising the parallel with Harvard when discussing the proposed deletion of a list of alumni.

Other articles attracting specific attention have been Kent Hovind (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), a prominent young-earth creationist, and Mark K. Bilbo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) whose subject, an atheist, has an ongoing external dispute with Gastrich.

The problem has been brought to a head by the creation of a significant number of articles on people and institutions significant in the Southern Baptist community, but often not provably significant outside that particular walled garden. There is an intersection with young-earth creationists, and another intersection with the list of unaccredited institutions of higher learning. There exists a group of editors who have devoted significant research to the identification and collation of these institutions, and that group of editors ensures that when new articles are created on them, data on accreditation is included. For: Pacific International University (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) was originally a redirect to Carl Baugh (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs); here [96] TonyT5 changes it to a small article. Here [97] Turkmen reverts it back from a redirect, again adding detail. And here [98] a user adds what might be thought reasonably relavant information, that PIU has been called a diplome mill and will sell you a degree for a one-off payment for $2,500-$3,000, which TonyT5 and Turkmen omitted to mention.

It is really these whitewashing and vainglorious edits, of varying degrees of subtlety, more than the means used to achieve them, which I see as the problem to the project.

[edit] Evidence presented by Stifle

Jason Gastrich, posting as BigBear (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), posted a particularly rude and incivil warning on Plover's talk page [99]. Stifle 15:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser requested. This may be a sock or it may be a deliberate attempt to smear. Guy 16:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Note: This is the same incident I reported for 2006-2-19 above. Ruby 16:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if a WP:RFCU is needed, the comment is signed by Jason and appears to be just the same tone, content, etc. as everything else he posts. Stifle 20:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, in the matter of the case, I feel I must point out that JzG created a page describing Jason's activity at Wikipedia:Gastroturfing, which the arbitrators may form an opinion on. I nominated it for MFD, and JzG speedied it while on MFD. Stifle 20:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I did indeed, and acknowledged my bad. One thing to coin a phrase, another to hang up a banner about it. Just zis Guy you know? 20:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Jason Gastrich emailed a number of users with a Christian userbox on their userpage (although not myself), and nominated a random selection of atheists for deletion, apparently violating WP:POINT. Stifle 20:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Jason added a message to his user page [100] demanding that nobody edits the page. Stifle 20:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

He is alleged to have phoned Icj tlc's father, a church pastor, complaining about Icj tlc's behaviour in reverting and/or apologising on various pages. [101] [102]

[edit] Evidence presented by Hexagonal

I have to agree with Stifle's assessment of the situation. While it could be remotely likely that some third-party vandal is impersonating Jason Gastrich and making this even more of a mess than it already is, I'd sooner believe that it is merely Gastrich and those under his direction. First, unlike other cases in which impostors have appeared, Jason Gastrich does not have a good name to be disparaged. It is not as if we are seeing Jimbo impostors here - think more along the lines of Willy imposters. Even then, I can't see it as being likely that some third-party troll would be impersonating Gastrich, since whoever is controlling all of the socks is being both viscious and coherent with earlier attacks.

Running a CheckUser on each of the socks is just going to add to the already overflowing backlog. While being mindful of process is important, slowing down other investigations of vandalism with excessive Gastrich sock checks is not good for the encyclopedia.

Besides, I don't know exactly what would be achieved by checking each suspected Gastrich sock. If a sock comes from one of his IPs, then it will just be added with the others to the already existing mountain of evidence. If it is coming from an unknown IP, then all we can do is suspect that Gastrich or someone who is acting like him is using proxies. Given that Gastrich has an above-average level of understanding of the Internet, I am sure he is familiar with what proxies are, and how to use them. Hell, Gastrich is sneaky, and I wouldn't put it past him to use proxies, and then blame the vandalism on a third party, so he can present a denial of all the sockpuppets, except those created from his IP. (I can change, I can change </Saddam>)

Applying Occam's Razor here, it is far more probable that Gastrich is using proxies to create socks, than is some external vandal impersonating Gastrich to blow this saga out of proportion. All I know is that vandals like Gastrich are the worst kind, since their subtle POV is much more damaging to truth than the graffiti-style vandalism of other well-known vandals. Hexagonal 21:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by David

On February 28, Jimmy_Lee_Wallace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was created, and his first act was to nominate Michael Newdow (well known atheist plaintiff in the school pledge case) for deletion [103]. He cited as his reasons for nomination: "Non-notable; just another baseless litigant in this lawsuit-crazed culture" [104]. No votes other than his were to delete and I closed the nomination as having been made in bad faith [105]. David | Talk 00:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

On March 2, Renegade_Master (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was created and nominated four perfectly good pages for deletion citing bogus reasons:

  1. Obesity nomination reason "Unverifiable, hoax".
  2. Eternal (band) [106] nomination reason "Spam, blatant promotion".
  3. Tony Blair [107] [108] nomination [109] reason "Non-notable biography".
  4. User:CambridgeBayWeather nomination reason "Vanity page, spam".

Each case was closed as a speedy keep by me. David | Talk 14:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

David, these do not look like Gastrich to me. Just zis Guy you know? 14:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe they were, maybe they were not. The ArbCom members have CheckUser abilities and can verify, but it's best to draw it to their attention just in case. On the Obesity AfD, User:Renegade Master purported to vote "Speedy delete This article is an utter joke!!! And I'm Jason Gastrich!" [110]. David | Talk 15:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Renegade Master created his user page at 14:10 and labeled himself a Mindspillage sock. [111] At 14:20 he called himself Gastrich on the Obesity AfD. It's certainly very odd behavior. Could it be a Gastrich impersonator (someone trying to discredit him?) Thatcher131 21:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
There is a history of people spoofing Gastrich. This user profile shows the history of such a person in usenet. As such, it will be hard to distinguish between real sock puppets, meatpuppets and impersonators. I am sure we are seeing all three in action at once. David D. (Talk) 22:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
It's a fracking spillover from the very worst of Usenet right onto Wikipedia. It's what we've all feared. --Cyde Weys 07:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by JoshuaZ

My involvement with the Gastrich affair was minor, merely another person cleaning up the myriad socks. I have one data point to add. This comment was made by Gastrich on March 7. The comment feigns lack of knowledge that the checkuser request here [112] was made by User:Juicy_Juicy which is one of the socks involved in this whole mess. This means that by March 7, very late in this matter, Gastrich was still using socks. Furthermore, see other users new evidence indicating that he still is using socks. JoshuaZ 02:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence provided by Ben

rewritten

I believe various users involved in this case may have violated the policy Wikipedia is not a battleground. I also think this is an opportunity for arbitrators to determine principle with respect to off-site co-ordination of editing and politicking on Wikipedia, especially with respect to activist groups.

Various users involved participate in the Usenet group "maleboge.org." This newsgroup, according to one of its members, "exists to expose religious frauds or those that use religion to defraud others." Jason Gastrich "is a focus of this activity" whose "antics served as the impetus for the start of the group." [113]. (Previous evidence regarding the activities of maleboge.org was this diff)

The maleboge newsgroup often discusses Wikipedia with respect to Jason Gastrich's participation here, and the main participants in these discussions are Wikipedians who have been in active contact with Gastrich on Wikipedia [114]. Those users are (but not limited to):

Still more Wikipedians, such as administrators User:Cyde and User:Duncharris whom are involved or have commented on this case, are identifiable members of/contributors to the group. Some co-ordinated actions and references on talk pages strongly suggest the involvement of still more Wikipedians under different usernames.

Discussion regarding Gastrich and Wikipedia also occurs outside the maleboge newsgroup: [115]. (In this case, user SonOfFred is User:WarriorScribe.)

Votes to delete articles deemed acceptable by the Wikipedia community, and derisive comments on AfDs, demonstrate that Wikipedia is being used as a battleground by members of this group.

Additionally, information concerning Gastrich which I believe would generally be regarded as a trivially poor example was added to the Typosquatting article [118] by WarriorScribe. Members then engaged in an edit war with Gastrich on the Typosquatting article regarding this example [119].

This is not meant to excuse Gastrich's conduct, which has been abhorrent. Though this is a case where Gastrich has been named the defendant, in my opinion, arbitrators have a duty to also investigate these quite unusual circumstances surrounding his conduct.

--Ben 00:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly this user has his own ongoing RfA. See the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Benapgar link. Arbusto 03:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response by JzG

I would point out that I started the RfC and this RfAr, I did much of the vandal-fighting, placed at least one of the CheckUser requests and took quite a bit of Gastrich's flak, including fielding email from a blocked sock on Gastrich's own domain. I can't recall ever having heard of maleboge.org, and am certainly not active there. Nor have I visited the infidelguy website. The typosquatting example is irrelevant: first, it is a valid example, whatever its significance, since Gastrich was indeed typosquatting (and has also cybersquatted); second, the way to fix issues is not to edit war but to discuss them on Talk, and Gastrich has been around long enough to know this. Editing content relating to yourself is questionable at best, edit-warring over it is a definite no-no. I don't think there is any doubt that WarriorScribe has brought an agenda with him, as many editors do, but he is open about it and acts within policy. His technique appears at worst to be to pay out sufficient rope, and then call the sheriff to cut the victim down once they have hanged themselves. I don't particularly admire WarriorScribe, but I have not seen him creating great chunks of POV content or organising astroturfing either. For the avoidance of doubt, I have never visited or posted to talk.origins either. Just zis Guy you know? 23:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response by Cyde Weys

None of this excuses what Jason Gastrich has done, however. And the various "anti-Gastrich" groups or what not wouldn't exist had he not started with his shenanigans in the first place. You claim I am a member of Malebolge.org but all I ever did was post a "welcome" message. I didn't find it my liking. I still prefer talk.origins much more, which is a newsgroup for the discussion of evolution and is not really related to Jason Gastrich because Gastrich hasn't posted there in a long time. So while all of these extra-Wikipedia affairs you brought up are interesting, I don't think they have much of an effect on this case. --Cyde Weys 21:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response by David D.

I had been involved in wikipedia for a long time before Gastrich showed up on the scene. I was also one of the first to be involved in the maleboge group on usenet although I did not found the group. From my perspective the group is designed to expose religious frauds with a focus on Gastrich. Just to clarify the comments above made by Dbiv (talk · contribs), aka David, is not myself. Also the comments in maleboge made by David are a distinct user to my posts as David D. I invite anyone to find dig through the archives, I have nothing to hide.

When Gastrich appeared as an editor at wikipedia i was well placed to advise Gastrich on the policies here. I have never tried to discourage him from editing although I have tried to explain to him why POV editing and sockpuppets are not advisable on wikipedia. In some cases i have even defended Gastrich's edits. In general, I think the majority of opposition to Gastrich has come from Wikipedians who did not know of the usenet Gastrich. Certainly the RfC and RfA that highlight Gastrich's behaviour on Wikipedia are independent on the maleboge group. His actions speak for themselves. David D. (Talk) 17:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response by Mark K. Bilbo

No, I am not the founder of "maleboge.org" (which, by the way, is not a Usenet newsgroup, it's a Google group... there's a difference). And if there's some kind of "coordination" going on over at maleboge.org, that's news to me. But it's not much of a conspiracy to leave a list hanging out in public where it can be found and read via Google is it?

Sorry but there is no cabal. Gastrich has made it his mission to seek out atheists (and sometimes skeptics as well as people who defend evolutionary theory). He often claims he's being "stalked" but the reverse is actually closer to the truth. A few may have come to the Wiki on hearing Gastrich was up to his usual tricks. Should this surprise? Particularly given the way Gastrich has gone out of his way to wave red flags in peoples' faces?

I wandered over here during the Antony Flew flap. Gastrich was all over online atheist forums (including alt.atheism), making a big deal of Flew's tenative consideration of some kind of organizing force in the universe. As if this was some big conversion coup for Gastrich himself. We were being told one of our "leaders" had left atheism. Funny thing was, most of us didn't even know who Flew was. So what's one place you go to look something up? Gee, could it be something called "the Wikipedia?" And, lo and behold, who was already there, grinding his POV ax on the Antony Flew page but Jason Gastrich hisownself.

From where I sit, it's that I can't go anywhere in the online atheist community without running into Gastrich or the smoking remains a thread he's just left or hearing him at the door not far behind. He is the one doing the "stalking."

Fact of the matter is, for every one name of someone who had previous contact with Gastrich that you'll find on the RfC concerning Gastrich's behavior, there are ten others from the Wiki community at large. It played out exactly as I expected. Gastrich breezed in to yet another community, started insisting on having his (and only his) way, telling long time regulars what their rules really meant, until the community bit back and tossed him out the door.

This was going to happen whether anybody who knew Gastrich from the outside bothered to show up at all. It's just what Gastrich does everywhere he goes and it's the same outcome every time.

Mark K. Bilbo 18:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)