Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.


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

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

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

[edit] Description

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

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

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

Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

[edit] Sockpuppetry

See Category:Wikipedia:Sock puppets of Jason Gastrich

  1. No serious attempt has been made to conceal the fact that blocked Big_Lover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs) are one and the same (unless you count this[1], which is pretty weak). This [2] says it all. The blocked status of Big Lover indicates that Gastrich is well aware of the policy on sockpuppets.
  2. Gastrich excuses his sockpuppetry here as a way of evading the instant reversion of his edits, due to his known controversial opinions. If this is the case, why did he use his sockpuppet account Big Lover (talk · contribs) to create the article which now forms his user page before he had established a reputation on Wikipedia? How does he account for the assertion of a Wikistalker from the inception of his first account, if indeed this was his first? And given that both accounts are now known to be him, why is he still using sock accounts and his main account interchangeably? Given the number of edit wars in which he is involved this could easily lead to oversight of 3RR violations. There are good reasons why sock accounts are frowned on, and using two accounts interchangeably in making contentious edits to common articles (as per [3] and numerous other examples) clearly does not fit any of the accepted uses of sockpuppets.
  3. Wiggins2 (talk · contribs) has been alleged to be another Gastrich sockpuppet, with this edit looking particularly suspicious to some [4]; here [5] Gastrich says that Wiggins2 is not a sockpuppet but "just happens to be of the same mind". Whether Wiggins2 is a sock or a meatpuppet is indeed unproven at present, but the chances of a like-minded but independent person making those contributions as their first actions in Wikipedia is, I suggest, low.
  4. Here [6]Gastrich acknowledges that he will now use a single account for the "vast majority" of posts (implying that he will continue to use sockpuppets some of the time)
  5. Other suspected socks are at Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Jason Gastrich
  6. Usenetpostsdotcom (talk · contribs), who refers to himself as 'Uncle Davey', appears to be another Gastrich sockpuppet. His user page was created by User:Jason Gastrich, under that login, with the text "You can call me Uncle Davey" (my emphasis). Apart from this damning use of the first person pronoun, this is the exact same wording used on Wiggins2's user page (see point 3 above). At time of writing his contributions consist of supporting one of Gastrich's WP:POINT AfD nominations, one apparently constructive edit, defending making a physical threat to someone on Usenet below on this RfC (where he claims not to be Gastrich), and two comments on Talk:Louisiana Baptist University, in which he supports Gastrich's efforts to whitewash LBU's diploma mill status. I am withdrawing this particular accusation, as several of Gastrich's Usenet opponents say they are certain Davey is a different person. It has since been reworded and moved to 'Meatpuppetry'.
    well it's early days yet. I did edit the "commercial at" article which had nothing to do with the Wiki4Christ project. I fully intend to do more in due course, but as I keep saying, I do have more pressing plans. Personally, I wish we had never come here, but since we are here, we may as well make the best of it. Incidentally, please sign your work. Uncle Davey 20:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    Ummm, UD, he doesn't need to, it's part of the RfC he composed. (I must admit that your reply to John was interesting, what with you calling him a Judas. So, uh, absent Judas, what religion do you think you'd belong to now?) Jim62sch 22:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Recently Gastrich was blocked by an admin. Then someone with an anon. IP posted that Gastrich (referring to him in the third person) was blocked "and could not even save" an article because of the block. That person continues to make a threat that "What FeloniousMonk did was unethical and User:Itake has every right to seek the removal of his adminship for this and his other behavior." That poster referred to this page, "don't forget that there was a consensus in Nazi Germany, too." [7]. This anon 207.200.116.137 (talk · contribs) shows edit history on Gastrich's articles but refers to Gastrich in the third person. This is an AOL address, there is some history of AOL anonymous edits interleaved with Gastrich socks in identical edits.
  8. On Jan. 31 continued attacks by Gastrich on the Louisiana Baptist University article a week after this began prove he doesn't care and will continue in this manner. He began posting as User:TonyT5 adding his (Gatrich's webpage) to the Kent Hovind article [8]. Then an adminstrator asked him questions on his talk page User_talk:TonyT5 he stopped and disappeared. The LBU page was reverted and TonyT5 reappeared and reverted. The page was changed to its original format and a new registered user User:LinkChecker went and reverted all the pages which were cleaned up. This consequently left the pages in the format TonyT5/Gastrich desired.
    Three new socks, LinkChecker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), TonyT5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and HRoss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) were involved. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 11:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. "Turkmen" just added the webpage http://michaelnewdow.com to Michael Newdow (an atheist)[9]. Who owns http://michaelnewdow.com? Well a quick search at http://www.checkdomain.com/ shows it's registered through www.godaddy.com, which "Domain servers in listed order: NS1.JCSM.ORG, NS2.JCSM.ORG" Yes, Jesus Christ Saves Minsitries (i.e. Jason Gastrich). It's cybersquatting. Same at Anthony Flew[10]. Jason Gastrich owns anthonyflew.com ; also documented re the skeptics annotated bible. It seems reaosnable to conclude that Turkmen is a sock (in fact probably excessively naive to conclude anything else). See also this diff [11]. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 10:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meatpuppetry

  1. 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." [12] (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 here.
  2. These diffs [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] show very clear evidence of vote stacking. Note how the links are weblinks not Wikilinks, so they do not show up in "What Links Here".
  3. A minor example: [20]
  4. This diff [21] refers to the Wiki4Christ mailing list and a mail-out. Shortly afterwards, hordes of keep votes appeared on AfDs for Gastrich articles, none of whom were editors on the article, or AfD regulars. The majority of these followed correct AfD procedure (many AfD newbies do not). Here's a random sample: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28] - 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.
  5. Per [29]: 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)
  6. The contribs list of Wiggins2 (talk · contribs) includes, to 09:16 UTC 21 January 2006, almost nothing except solicitations to vote on AfDs for Gastrich-related articles. If this account is not a sockpuppet then it is clearly a meatpuppet.
  7. Usenetpostsdotcom (talk · contribs), who refers to himself as 'Uncle Davey', is a meatpuppet recruited off-site by Gastrich. His user page was created by User:Jason Gastrich. Initial evidence (still visible under 'Response by "Uncle Davey"') suggested he was a sockpuppet, but his opponents on Usenet have convincingly claimed that he is nonetheless a different person. At time of writing his contributions consist of supporting one of Gastrich's WP:POINT AfD nominations, one apparently constructive edit, several comments on this RfC, and two comments on Talk:Louisiana Baptist University, in which he supports Gastrich's efforts to whitewash LBU's diploma mill status.

[edit] Neutrality

  1. This [30] shows the Gastrich version of an article on an institution run by an alumnus of Louisiana Baptist University, an unaccredited institution with which Gastrich is associated. This: [31] shows some important information which anyone familiar with the institution should have known about and included.
  2. Farrell Till is nominated for deletion by Gastrich, who admits elsewhere to have forged an email in an attempt to defame the subject [32]. Gastrich socks Big Lover (talk · contribs) and Bobby Lou (talk · contribs) also have an edit history on this article
  3. See also Benjamin Franklin and deism (under vanity below), where Gastrich asserts his own agenda against authoritative sources.
  4. Gastrich adds a minor rant to Mark K. Bilbo - Markkbilbo (talk · contribs) - with whom he has an off-Wikipedia history; this [33] POV para is removed by other editors so Gastrich adds a POV tag [34] to a patently NPOV version, apparently because it does not include something to say that Bilbo argues with fundamentalists (The owner of alt-atheism arguing with fundamentalists? Go on! Really?). He also takes part in a brief edit war about adding Bilbo's home town, here [35].

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

  1. This diff [36] accuses another Wikiepdian of "deceit" and gives a real name (which may or may not be accurate, and is in any case a violation of Wikiquette and an action of harassment unless the user chooses to reveal it), and calls him a "known liar". In a splendid example of irony,. Gastrich states that this person is "very single-minded".
  2. This diff [37] says of another Wikipedian voting to delete one of Gastrich's articles that the subject has "likely written more books than you have read".
  3. This diff [38] shows him once again naming another Wikipedian, contrary to Wikiquette, and an action of harassment.
  4. This diff (statement of interest: it was me he was having a go at) describes the removal of a second linkt within a site already included in an external links section as "encouraging ignorance" [39] (the link caption was Free Prophecy Videos - Some featuring Pack (Pack is the article subject, the website was the subject's own website, already linked as a source)
  5. Here [40] he accuses Duncharris (talk · contribs) of "invention".
  6. [41] "He (Daycd) can be a single-minded troll and you exposed him."
  7. Here [42] he accuses me of "anti-Christian bias", a patently absurd claim (I am a practising Christian), including a veiled threat.
  8. Although Gastrich is not above recruiting people to vote keep, he doesn't like people to vote delete ([43])
  9. Here [44] we see him ascribing motives contrary to WP:AGF - the assumption that everybody who does not accept his narrow version of Christianity is anti-Christian is implicit in this message.
  10. This edit summary [45] says "there ya go, monkey" and Gastrich then left this [46] on FeloniousMonk's talk page. The source cited is http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_christian.html - I do not know if this site is considered a reliable source.
  11. Left on Jim62sch's user page User_talk:Jim62sch#Your_comments to which Jim responded with [47]. This item was deleted by Jason, contrary to advice given at User_talk:Jason_Gastrich#Vote_stacking, at 03:13, 22 January 2006.
  12. Here [48] he taunts AJA for failing to nominate some articles
  13. In this diff [49] Gastrich leaves a message on Itake's talk page which can only be interpreted as stating that WarriorScribe will go to Hell for his contributions to Wikipedia and actions on Usenet. He also once again violates Wikiquette by naming someone's real name.
  14. Gastrich sock Bobby Lou (talk · contribs) attacks another person for the removal of a Gastrich site added to an article [50]
  15. A user with a LGBT-supportive userbox gets this [51] tirade; the word "queer" appears only in the userbox.
  16. Gastrich literally telephones the father of User:Icj tlc to complain! [52]
  17. Gastrich accuses me (JzG) of "vandalism" for bringing this AfD to the notice of the participants in the contentious AfD debates [53] - this was done precisely because Gastrich had called so many to those debates. By linking the RfC there rather than leaving it to the cabal who know where RfC is, I was actually trying to ensure (a) a fair hearing and (b) a reduction in the increasingly ad-hominem tone of the AfDs, since this is more properly the forum for such concerns.

[edit] Ownership and edit warring

  1. Gastrich's user page sets the tone: [54] (See the header, Please do not edit my user page for any reason.). The comment has been removed by a third party, but the emphasis still remains.
  2. in this page history [55] between 13:31 on Jan 20 and 09:21 on Jan 21 an edit is reverted by 207.200.116.11 (talk · contribs) twice and Wiggins2 (talk · contribs); the article is then edited by Gastrich under his own account. Given the nature of the edits (removing a critique of Gastrich's work and adding Gastrich's work) there is no other plausible explanation than that this is Gastrich. A neutral editor would more likely remove both. This is a WP:3RR and WP:SOCK violation (checkuser requested, data not in yet).

[edit] Self-promotion

  1. Jason Gastrich was created by Big Lover (talk · contribs), an openly admitted sockpuppet.
  2. Jesus Christ Saves Ministries (which basically is Gastrich) was similarly created by sockpuppet Chochi (talk · contribs)
  3. This diff [56] sees Gastrich adding a link to his own site without acknowledging that it is his site; it uses a different domain from his own site.
  4. This jcsm.org/Online/WeeklyDevotions437.htm appears to show evidence of Gastrich having previously tried to astroturf his own vanity article during its AfD debate.
  5. Here [57] Gastrich points to Amazon reviews of his own work as demonstrating its authority, but this [58] suggests that, despite his specific assertion otherwise here [59] he is aware that these can be manipulated.
  6. Here [60] he ascribes motives for behaviour.
  7. Here, a Gastrich sock adds a link to Gastrich's user page from the main article space [61], note that the subject is Farrell Till, against whom Gastrich admits using forged emails as an attempt to defame.
  8. Here Gastrich represents as authoritative his own analysis of the deism or otherwise of eight historical figures, at least one of whom is unambiguously a deist per authoritative sources [62].
  9. Dallas Theological Seminary has continued to add spam links to alumni section. Almost exactly what happened with Louisiana Baptist University alumni. He promotes personal websites and when the links are deleted Gastrich reverts back. Promotion of personal webpages not relevant to Wikipedia articles.

[edit] Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point

  1. Prominent atheists and liberals nominated for deletion as apparent revenge:

[edit] Applicable policies

  1. WP:CIVIL
  2. WP:HAR
  3. WP:NPA
  4. WP:NOT
  5. WP:NPOV
  6. WP:OWN
  7. WP:SOCK

[edit] Applicable guidelines

  1. WP:AGF
  2. WP:AUTO
  3. WP:CON
  4. WP:POINT

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

  1. I left a polite but firm note here: [63]
  2. I attempted to speak to Mr. Gastrich about the problem with soliciting votes: [64] [65]. He indicated his belief that he had done nothing wrong[66], and said that he would take my remarks "under advisement".[67]-Colin Kimbrell 14:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC) I see now that the vote-soliciting by the accused sockpuppet Wiggin2 began a little over an hour after I brought the matter up with Mr. Gastrich.[68] This reinforces my belief that he will not willingly renounce these practices, but rather seek newer and more obscure ways to try to "game the system". -Colin Kimbrell 15:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Last Malthusian posted this [69] to request Gastrich to stop. Gastrich subsequently removed this, as he removes many unsupportive comments [70] (bad practice); archives are not created. This is not unacceptable, but it is questionable when actively debating contentious topics.
  4. Warning against personal attacks from FeloniousMonk [71]
  5. Warning against vote stacking, recruiting by FeloniousMonk [72]
  6. A Request for Mediation was filed by Justin Eiler here: [73]. However, the mediation attempts ([74] and [75]) failed to achieve the intended response and were later deleted by Gastrich.
  7. Comments left by Sycthos [76] and [77]
  8. Here David D. was trying to give positive reinforcement to Gastrich's decision to not use sock puppets. Here he tried to bring his attention to the fact that Gastrich was exaggerating his case misusing google to support his articles during AfD. He tried to offer a compromise to the disputed alumni list at Louisiana Baptist University since some were clearly notable. Gastrich rejected this compromise with the circular argument that "Alumni with Wiki pages are notable" despite the fact that he had created these articles himself. This led to more edit wars until Gastrich claimed "Alumni with Wiki pages are notable until deleted." He refused to debate notability on the LBU talk page and this may have led to the deletion nominations by User:A.J.A. David D. tried to offer a compromise to the disputed reference to Mark Bilbo in usenet. Other users accepted this compromise although many thought that a reference to Bilbo in usenet was not relevent. Gastrich refused the compromise and insisted on retaining the inflammatory language. On Gastrich's talk page he tried to explain about inclusionism since Gastrich seemed under the impression that those that voted keep for his articles in AfD must be Christians. David D. also made a reference to the fact inclusionists could be helpful for Gastrich's cause although this was interpreted as a suggestion to start an e-mail campaign rather than a schoolwatch-like project. Finally, David D. tried to alert him to the potential problems of using meatpuppets.

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute)

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Jim62sch 13:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Justin Eiler 13:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Colin Kimbrell 13:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Malthusian (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Stifle 22:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Cyde Weys 23:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. David D. (Talk) 23:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. SYCTHOStalk 06:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Icj tlc 19:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. RoyBoy 800 20:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Pierremenard 13:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. CalJW 14:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 15:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. FloNight 15:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Censorwolf 15:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  6.  AvB ÷ talk 16:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Guettarda 17:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. FeloniousMonk 17:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Durova 17:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Dragonfiend 18:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. rodii 19:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Rob 19:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reinserted by JzG, accidentally reverted per this diff [78]
  15. Crunch 21:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. StuffOfInterest 21:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Grandmasterka 22:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Eusebeus 23:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Could he be a possible sock of GRider? --Jaranda wat's sup 23:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    There is zero chance this is GRider. David D. (Talk) 23:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. squibix 23:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. RasputinAXP talk contribs 23:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Blnguyen 00:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Mark K. Bilbo 02:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Harvestdancer 02:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. WarriorScribe 03:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. A.J.A. 04:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. FCYTravis 04:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC) Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?
    Argh, don't even think it! No martyrs!-Colin Kimbrell 18:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Wynler 19:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. Mike (T C) 21:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. ++Lar: t/c 04:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. Terence Ong 12:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. MCB 20:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. Ifnord 00:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. — Dunc|☺ 22:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. TestPilot 04:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. Bishonen | talk 02:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC).
  40. Arbustoo 09:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. u p p l a n d 11:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Sarah Ewart 16:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  43. E. Sn0 =31337= 04:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

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

I could writes books in my defense. I could also notify numerous Wikipedia users about this RfC and have them post their thoughts and feelings. For now, I'm simply going to write a brief response to these accusations; which will likely bring more accusations, but I think the proper protocol is to at least reply once, so I will.

In my first days at Wikipedia, I began using sockpuppets because I was concerned that Dave Horn (WarriorScribe)[79][80] and some others would troll me and purposely revert my contributions because they were bringing a dislike for me from Usenet to this venue. My suspicions have been confirmed and he and some others (like Mark K. Bilbo) have trolled me and reverted even the smallest things in favor of their own, biased contributions. In fact, WarriorScribe came to Wikipedia with the admitted, expressed intent to follow me around and revert my contributions. Consequently, many of the names on these lists are people who have a history of hating me (and/or following Horn) before and/or after coming to Wikipedia and trolling me.

I'm an honest and valuable contributor to Wikipedia. You can see my contribution history here.[81] I'm not a troll and I'm not simply POV pushing. I've made over 2000 contributions, uploaded over 20 images, etc.

Some people don't know that I have started an organization to get people to come to Wikipedia and make contributions [82]. As you can plainly see on the site, it hasn't been designed to further my agenda or POV. It has been designed to improve Wikipedia; specifically the Christian parts of it. Therefore, some of the hoopla about my "vote stacking" and "meatpuppetry" is false. As the site clearly reveals, I want people to come and be legitimate, continual contributors to Wikipedia; not just to come, vote, and leave. I can give some the benefit of the doubt (even though they have not given it to me) because I understand that there may be a fine line and that one thing may look like the other.

I have contacted people to have them come and vote on the numerous Christian biography entries that were nominated for deletion in a 24 hour period. I felt it was their right to know about the nomination and speak their mind. I have not told them how to vote, but I've simply notified them that there is a vote in progress. I see nothing wrong with this as other people have notified their friends and cohorts; particularly ones that despise me.

User:A.J.A. nominated about 12 Christian biography entries for deletion in a 24 hour period. Did anyone accuse him of bad faith? No. In fact, some of the people on these lists praised him. However, since these people already do not like me and have not liked me since my time on Usenet, they have slandered me, falsely accused me, and violated Wikipedia's rules requiring the assumption of good faith. It's simply not fair. In fact, it's more than unfair, it's hypocritical.

Finally, my nominations for deletion can stand or fall on the entries' own merits. I went through a very large amount of entries, trying to clean up Wikipedia by removing non-notables, and nominated only a handful of what I found. Except for the former president of Angola, which I just went to cancel my nomination, I still assert that they were all non-notable and not worthy of Wikipedia entries.

I'll continue to do my best to be a valuable editor to Wikipedia. I'll also continue to listen to those that have constructive criticism; even though many post personal attacks, engage in scripture hurling, and insult me before even introducing themselves. However, I'm not a wallflower. Many people do not like me because I love Jesus Christ and I do a lot to further the cause of Christ. Those same people will say they despise me for different reasons, but they're lying. This is a spiritual battle and they're only out to belittle and silence someone who is preaching a gospel that condemns them to Hell if they don't repent and trust Christ for salvation. Don't be fooled. They aren't objective and they aren't even-handed. Furthermore, many of them don't even have Wikipedia's interests in mind.

If anyone wants to discover the history of this situation regarding those that oppose, hate, and troll me, they can look on Usenet.[83] Uncle Davey, a good Christian brother, continually fights them for their lies and sums up the situation nicely. [84] --Jason Gastrich 21:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

  1. Itake 01:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deconstructing the Reply

The comment by Mr. Gastrich that he “could also notify numerous Wikipedia users about this RfC and have them post their thoughts and feelings” is quite troubling and at odds with his claims that “some of the hoopla about my "vote stacking" and "meatpuppetry" is false” (this, I assume means that more than some of it is true;) and that he has not told them how to vote, but”… “simply notified them that there is a vote in progress”. In fact, his statement does appear to be a veiled threat to unleash a flood of like-minded people upon this page.

His comments regarding sockpuppetry may strike some as a “mea culpa” of contrition, but the more troubling implication is that a man who in essence states that he represents Jesus, is dishonest in his methods, and sees no problem with this dishonesty.

His comments regarding WarriorScribe whom he accuses of having come “to Wikipedia with the admitted, expressed intent to follow me around and revert my contributions” and his statement that “many of the names on these lists are people who have a history of hating me (and/or following Horn) before and/or after coming to Wikipedia and trolling me” are unsourced, and therefore of little real value in determining a cause for Mr. Gastrich’s behaviour (other than, perhaps, paranoia).

Mr. Gastrich then states that he is “an honest and valuable contributor to Wikipedia”. Value is not an issue here, but honesty most certainly is. The admission and justification of sockpuppetry casts a dim light on his claim of honesty.

Number five on the list of goals of Wiki4Christ, to “Glorify Jesus Christ”, belies his comments regarding wiki4christ’s aim as being benign. As many are aware, that statement is a Fundamentalist Christian code phrase that carries the meaning of enforcing a Fundamentalist Christian viewpoint. To say that he did not “tell” them how to vote is therefore inaccurate by implication.

Comments regarding the 12 biographies nominated for deletion are on each article’s AfD page.

The comment that Wikipedia’s editors are trying to “silence someone who is preaching a gospel that condemns them to Hell if they don't repent and trust Christ for salvation” is ridiculous. Wikipedia is here to neither praise nor disparage Christian theology – it is here to present a neutral viewpoint on all subjects. That is the interest that those Wikipedia editors maligned by Mr. Gastrich have at heart. (Additionally, the condemnation to Hell is a very clear indication of Mr. Gastrich’s uncontrollable bias.) --Jim62sch 23:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

  1. Guettarda 13:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Censorwolf 16:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Ashibaka tock 18:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. StuffOfInterest 18:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. FeloniousMonk 18:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Grandmasterka 18:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Harvestdancer 21:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. SYCTHOStalk 21:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Robert McClenon 22:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Will Beback 23:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Stifle 23:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Blnguyen 00:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. ++Lar: t/c 04:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. WarriorScribe 06:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Malthusian (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Terence Ong 12:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. user:Paula Clare18:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Strongly dislike it when users threaten to "bring others in" to comment, especially from someone who has used multiple sockpuppets.
  20. Mark K. Bilbo 16:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. AvB ÷ talk 17:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC) (except for "other than, perhaps, paranoia")
  22. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 19:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC); I've thought quite hard about this and the defiant refusal to admit any fault, combined with the very evident conception that it is appropriate to use WP as a vehicle for ministry, do indeed prompt serious concerns over whether Gastrich can or will ever contribute within policy.
  23. Arbustoo 09:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Sarah Ewart 16:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  25. dharmabum (talk) 07:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  26. RoyBoy 800 20:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Jason Gastrich very very quickly becomes petty and argumentative when he doesn't get his way. Edit warring between him and WarriorScribe forced me to implement a long protection on the LBU article. This might be okay on NewsGroups it is not on Wikipedia. Mr. Gastrich repeatedly brings up invalid arguments to oppose diploma mill allegations, even after being specifically told why they carry no weight.
  27. Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 12:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  28. Elizabeth 06:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Uncle Davey"

I found this usenet post by Mr. Gastrich's "good Christian brother" Uncle Davey, where he issues physical threats against another poster for disclosing Mr. Gastrich's attempts at vote-stacking and meatpuppetry on Wikipedia. This behavior is completely unacceptable, and raises additional concerns about the behavior of Mr. Gastrich. --Colin Kimbrell 14:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

  1. FeloniousMonk 18:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC) Amazing.
  2. SYCTHOStalk 18:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Malthusian (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC). Repeating what I said on the talk page, comments and threats made outside Wikipedia, whether by email, Usenet or phone (all three of which Gastrich has used), should still be considered if they relate to Wikipedia, as this clearly does.
  4. Guettarda 20:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Harvestdancer 21:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Jim62sch 21:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Robert McClenon 22:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Will Beback 23:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Stifle 23:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Blnguyen 00:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Very troubling. Durova 01:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. WarriorScribe 16:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. AvB ÷ talk 17:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Sarah Ewart 16:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  16. RoyBoy 800 21:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Antagonizing to say the least.

[edit] Response by 'Uncle Davey' (User:Usenetpostsdotcom)

I dare say I have a right of reply, so here goes. I have no problem with atheists and New Age persons attacking believers. They should, it flows naturally from what they believe and I respect that. I do not get upset, in point of fact, with those who attack us from the other side. I expect it of them, and I do respect anyone who has the cojones to act on their beliefs. I made this point a day or two ago in [this Usenet post], where you can also see what has annoyed me about John Wolf. It has nothing to do with whatever is going on in Wikipedia. As you can see I have barely been involved in Jason's project to augment the Christian content on Wikipedia. I have other Christian projects which are taking a lot more of my time. The point at issue is that he has been a Judas, pretending to be Jason's friend, and receiving from what I know genuine trust and friendship from Jason, who has prayed for him and shown him a lot of brotherly concern, and then taking his private e-mails and chats and sharing them with the enemies of Jason.

I call that despicable. It made me very angry. Nevertheless, there is no concrete threat of action, just a "don't cross my path if you know what's good for you". I'm not about to travel the Atlantic Ocean to give him the pasting he so richly deserves. I have been the object of much more concrete threats from the other side, with a user called Ultra Maroon, claiming to be a military person and black belt in several martial arts [you can read that thread here] and I accepted that I might have to take getting my teeth kicked in for my beliefs, although naturally I would have made sure of inflicting what damage I could in the process. I understand the weapons of our warfare are spiritual, and not carnal, and I understand about turning the other cheek, but failing to obey those commands would, like, not be the worst sin I am guilty of. But of course this threat did not materialise. More than likely it was another sockpuppet by Warrior Scribe, aka David Horn. I'm not whinging, as far as I am concerned, it was fair play, and if the welching sock puppet still wants to play, I understand flights are still operating at Warsaw airport and Americans still don't need visas, and I'm still working out. This is just to point out that I received from the atheist side much more concrete threats of violence than I ever gave out. I don't have any plan formed in my mind for an attack on Wolf, and I have no plans to make one. I just wanted to let him know how much his actions annoyed me.

The issue is of course that Wolf made me angry because of Judas behaviour, of wheedling his way into the confidences of a better man, and then betraying him to his enemies. Private e-mail is supposed to be private, that was always a no-no on Usenet to disclose private e-mail. I have noted that the New Age occult practitioner Jason Harvestdancer, who is very active in this Wikipedia christian/non-Christian dialectic, recently posted up, and I will not link up to it as it is shameful, his private correspondence with Jason. I know that Jason was upset after this unethical backstab occured, but I said to him and will say to you all, that I really expect no better from them,and that it should not be in the power of them to annoy us, no matter what they do.

Wolf, on the other hand, was supposed to be a Brother, but he turned out a Wolf in sheeps' clothing. Even people like Bible Bob, who has had his run-ins with the square mob on free.christians for being Unitarian, had to admit that Wolf's behaviour was below the pale.

That gives you a fuller background behind the above. Those who endorsed before they knew the full story may wish to withdraw their endorsement, or not as the case may be. Neverthless, I hope you agree to my having a right to reply to something like that. Uncle Davey 11:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Interestingly, Uncle Davey's user page uses exactly the same wording as Wiggins2's user page, the latter of which is a strongly suspected sockpuppet of Gastrich. One says "You can call me Uncle Davey", the other "You can call me Wiggie". Usercheck anyone? If it does turn out that both are Gastrich, I'm going to have to withdraw the bit where I said "[Gastrich] isn't stupid". How long does it take to write different userpages? --Malthusian (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The only editor of that userpage, as of right now, is Jason Gastrich... Fishy. Grandmasterka 12:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Oh, for Christ's sake. Ok, I guess nothing's proven, but if you write "You can call me" when you're logged in as Jason Gastrich, I for one am convinced. --Malthusian (talk) 12:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC) (If anyone's wondering why I said 'for Christ's sake', it's in frustration that I squealed with glee over a pearl and missed the whopping great diamond.
    • Comment. I beleve it's entirely likely that "Uncle Davey" is another one of Jason Gastrich's sock puppets or imaginary friends. I'm not sure how much of the activity on usenet is relevant to this dispute, but it is indeed disturbing. Crunch 13:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Man, it just gets worse and worse, doesn't it? Who uses socks in their own RFC? -Colin Kimbrell 14:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. This time Gastrich is innocent. Davey isn't Gastrich, Davey works to ensure that Gastrich is never exposed to the consequences of his actions by telling Gastrich that it's all a plot against Gastrich. Davey's not a puppet - quite the opposite in fact. Harvestdancer 15:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Indeed, Davey is not Gastrich. Davey has his own psychological issues as well as issues with integrity and honesty, believing, as he does that acts of deception and taking advantage of others through means that are viewed by many as dishonest is okay as long as it leads to a gospel component. The consequence of that is that nothing that he claims can be trusted, as he has often engaged in deception or, as the least, a calculated misreading of what others have written. His claims about UM being a sockpuppet of mine are false--made completely without evidence. He has attributed any or all of quite a few Usenet personalities as being sockpuppets of mine, and he generally does it as a means of diverting attention from the subjects, at hand. His accusations have been established as false. With respect to his attacks on John Wolf, whom does have some serious psychological issues, the fact is that Gastrich tried to play him when he thought he was an ally; but Wolf's issues, jealousies, and need for attention quickly wore on Gastrich, and Gastrich abandoned him. Wolf responded by exposing what we already knew were lies and fraud being perpetuated by Gastrich, and Davey turned on him, in public, as a result of that exposure. Notice that Davey did not take Gastrich to task for his deceptions. He chastized (and even threatened) Wolf for exposing those deceptions. It's always amazed me, a bit, to see people complain when someone is called a "liar," and yet, they seem completely unconcerned that lies have been told, in the first place. Davey has become known as something of a sycophant for Gastrich, generally turning up when Gastrich has made some comment or engaged in some activity that has drawn criticism. With respect to one of those discussions, we heard about Christian love and forgiveness, and it seems that, while Davey seems to acknowledge that Matthew 5:39 applies to him, it would appear that Matthew 18:21-35 do not. - WarriorScribe 16:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment, per deletion of commentary on this subject above, Davey posted a message indicating that Gastrich had asked him to come and enter the fray, as it were, in his support. At the time, Davey indicated that he was too busy for that sort of thing, but did admit that he was being effectively recruited for the purpose. I suppose that makes Davey a meatpuppet, by Wikipedia standards. That Gastrich created Davey's user page is simply more evidence of this kind of intent. - WarriorScribe 17:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. I agree. Crunch 17:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. There are a lot of things in what you wrote above, David, which we have gone over and over and over. They are very well documented on Usenet. I have no particular desire to justify myself here with regards to your charges of moral relativism, as I have said enough on that matter. Of course giving someone a Gospel message is the most important thing you can do for them if you believe, as you know we do believe, that they are hellbound (yes I acknowledge that you think we only believe in a religion that sends people to hell because there is something wrong with us, but that is a separate discussion)and these givings of the Gospel are never going to be perfect. The older I get the more convinced I get that focusing on the faults of the evangelist is one of the most potent ways a servant of the devil can stymie the evangelist. On many occasions you have been able to pick fault with what I do - in a way utterly blind to the fact that people on your own side are likely to be no better, and a good example of this is the way you call me a "meatpuppet" for agreeing to the requested support. I see nothing amiss in Brother Jason having asked for support, and that's why I had no qualms about mentioning it. You seem to think it is wrong, but you only condemn yourself out of your own mouth, as there is evidence enough on your Google 2 Beta group "Maleboge.org" that you were recruited in to support other atheists yourself, and the whole of maleboge.org has numerous threads touting for support in the fight against Brother Jason's initiative here. So what is that, pray, if not rank hypocrisy? Now the reason you pick fault with Christians who are sharing the message is to leverage Christian humility. You say "Your bad witness has recently caused a friend of mine, who was teetering on the brink, to reject Christ". Many will say "ah yes, because of my faults, I damaged the Gospel more than I helped it. I'd better shut up." Unfortunately, you have chanced upon someone who whether for reasons of nature or nurture has not a shred of humility about him. Yes, I know I should have it, but somehow I could sooner fly to the moon than stop being arrogant for the space of a minute. And armed with this unfortunate sin, I was at least thick skinned enough against the attacks on my faults to be able to grasp a very important truth - namely, there is no perfect witness. There s always going to be something wrong with us every time we give the Gospel. But we are called upon to give it anyway. You know the Gospel, and once you even believed it, but for the benefit of anyone who may have read this far without knowing it, the Gospel we preach is that belief in Jesus Christ and trust in His name, not trusting in your own goodness, but repenting of your sins and realising that you deserve judgment, Jesus will accept every such person, and include them in the list of names He is deemed to have died for. You have until you die to make that decision, and to hand over to Christ your hopes of eternity. Works religion will not help you, but only confirm you in the hypocrisy and pharaseism that is common to human nature. However Christ being God as well as Man is able to save to the uttermost all those who call on Him and put their trust in Him. Now that message will find whoever GOd has destined to be found by it. He is central in saving people, and not the quality of what I wrote, whether it was in the choicest English or not, or whether I deserved to write it, which of course by nature I don't - these are things which the very angels desired to look into, as Peter wrote. Anyway, Happy New Year by the way, as I believe this is the first time we have crossed swords so far this year. Uncle Davey 19:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. Irrelevant speech-making and attempts at evangelism noted and ignored. Tick, tock, tick, tock. - WarriorScribe 21:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Good god, it's like a fractal RfC. A couple points:
  1. Who is Uncle Davey referring to as "we"? The royal we, or Davey + Gastrich?
  2. WarriorScribe, I fear that your relentlessly combative tone is doing your side here more harm than good. There's something to be said for being gracious in victory, if this is a "victory."
  3. Is "below the pale" like "beyond the belt"?
  4. Shouldn't this discussion be on the talk page?
—rodii 22:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
What's up with this? "I'm not about to travel the Atlantic Ocean to give him the pasting he so richly deserves". Righteous indignation, or just the typical spleen vented by fundamentalists of all religions? Really, Davey, WWJD? Jim62sch 22:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Jim, if I object to other people making personal attacks, yet I make them in turn, where is my moral "high ground?" Justin Eiler 22:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Justin, you completely missed the point. In addition, you do not have any right to strike-through my comments, only I can do that. There is a large gulf between personal attacks (of which what I wrote would not be an example as it consisted of a rhetorical question) and threats of assault and battery (the first is uncivil, the second is a crime). Additionally, that a man who puports to serve his religion -- one that in its earliest incarnation was dedicated to peace -- gleefully discusses causing physical harm to someone the terrain of the moral highground changes. That was my point. Jim62sch 23:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I have to admit that I really don't see a difference between the two except in scale, but I also know I tend to react pretty strongly to what seems to be personal attacks, and may have reacted too strongly. As for striking through your text, my apologies ... I'm pretty new to doing anything besides vandalism fixes and typos, and I didn't know what the proper way to handle it was. Justin Eiler 23:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Justin, don't sweat the strike through, we all make a faux pas or ninety. As for the difference between a PA and a Threat, just reflect a bit -- you still may disagree with my point, but that's OK. Take care, Jim62sch 00:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to Uncle Davey

I know people are tired of the "back and forth" but I have to say this. I'm still upset about it.

The person Uncle Davey is on about as a "Judas" is a mentally ill individual that is known to be unstable by the regulars of every newsgroup he frequents. He's constantly on about people "stalking" him and every time his computer has a glitch somebody "hacked" him and actually believes there are people out to "kill" him. Simply put, he's ill. And I would think someone who professes Christianity would have more compassion for the sick.

The "Judas" in question is simply not responsible for his actions. There were plenty of indications of the don't go there kind but somebody ignored those because the person in question fixated on Gastrich as his "hero" and flattered him to no end. And I mean "fixated" in quite the, ahem, unsettling manner. To the point of imitating pretty much everything Gastrich did. They had some kind of falling out (for what I suspect are reasons which emerged from the, ahem, "fixation") even before he was, well, "encouraged" to come here to support Gastrich.

Did he turn on Gastrich? Yeah. Could that be predicted? Like the sun rising in the East. I told Davey point blank when he spouted his "Judas" line off the first time (on Usenet) that Gastrich brought it on himself. Gastrich would brook no criticisms of any kind. And anybody pointing out the previous, well, behaviors of the "Judas" in question was dismissed as just another poopyheaded atheist (you know how those people are).

Make of this what you will. Call it a "personal attack" if you want. I don't care. For myself, it comes down to this:

Taking advantage of a mentally ill individual is morally wrong.

If anybody was hurt in this, it was the "little Judas." And Davey hasn't a shred of moral high ground on which to stand.

Mark K. Bilbo 04:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you are right. Maybe I should have had more compassion. I got angry, and then I didn't take account his possible mental condition, and this is the result. --Uncle Davey (Talk) 13:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside views

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

[edit] Outside view by Endomion

It is true that Jason nominated a number of biographical articles recently, on charges of non-notability, in a manner that appeared he was attacking their atheism or association with Ayn Rand. Sometime he did this without bothering to carefully read the articles, such as when he nominated a former president of Angola. However, a number of people contacted him on his user page, including one person who shares his religious world-view, and there was a positive response on his part. He continued to nominate atheist biographies, but at least the new nominations were justified on the grounds of non-notability. This indicates that Jason is amenable to expressions of concern by other people. Jason was mistaken in his actions to avenge the series of nominations of religious figures the other day, but he did recognize his mistake and I do not believe he will continue this behavior. --Ruby 15:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

  1. Swatjester 01:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC) (And I further state that I feel much of his criticism, though not all, is anti-christian flaming.)
  2. King of All the Franks 21:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC) (I'm assuming good faith here. Jason may have crossed the line when it comes to puppetry and WP:POINT, but he seems open to compromises.)

[edit] Response to Endomion

I agree that Gastrich probably won't continue nominating articles for deletion as a WP:POINT. He isn't stupid.

However, to me Gastrich appears to follow a pattern of abusing policies until it's clear that he can't abuse them any more, then finding a new one.

  • He used sockpuppets, then when he couldn't use sockpuppets anymore he used meatpuppets (see 'Meatpuppetry' and 'Sockpuppetry' above).
  • He couldn't create a self-promotional article about himself, so he started trying to whitewash the article on his alma mater (see 'Neutrality'). addendum: not to mention inserting links to his book in various articles via sockpuppets; see Durova's outside opinion --LM19:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • And most of all, he used talk pages to recruit voters (see 'Meatpuppetry' again), then when he started taking flak for that he started emailing people instead. At least one person (Cyde Weys) reprinted his email [85], otherwise we would have thought that Jason had, to paraphrase Endomion, recognized his mistake and was not going to continue his behaviour.

Now, we can keep whittling Gastrich down until he's violated every single policy, been warned for it and stopped, but I think his disruption of Wikipedia should end here and now. Assuming good faith does not mean we have to let ourselves be played for chumps. --Malthusian (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

  1. Durova 08:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Censorwolf 16:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Grandmasterka 18:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Harvestdancer 21:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Cyde Weys 21:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Stifle 23:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. SYCTHOStalk 00:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Blnguyen 04:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. TestPilot 04:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Elizabeth 06:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Crunch

Apparently in response to a number of deletion nominations of articles related to Christian broadcasters and other Christian-related articles, Jason nominated a lengthy string of biographical articles of people who were either listed as atheists or had affiliation with Ayn Rand, stating in each case that there was no basis for encyclopedic content and that the person did not appear notable. This culminiated in the seeming absurd nomination of the first president of Angola. While some of these nomations naturally did reveal biographies that some people found worthy of deletion on the grounds of questionable encyclopedic value, it was obvious that the primary reason the articles were nominated was in retaliation for the earlier nomination of biographic articles of Christians. In short, Jason perpetuated a Christian vs. Atheist AfD war. Further, the justifications for the deletions were generally not related to the content of the article, which seemed to fuel the fire. While some of the votes in response to the nominations may have been reactionary and made solely because Jason was the nominator, I think this was understandable given Jason's track record and his rapid rate of nominating what appeared to be every identified atheist biogrpahy in Wikipedia. Also adding fuel to the fire was Jason's "do not edit" statement on his User page. While I understand that it is generally understood that User pages are the domain of each User, this statement seemed unecessary. I am not at all confident that Jason will not continue this behavior. I believe he views Wikipedia as a venue on which to spread his Christian evangelism and he will use confrontational tactics if necessary. --Crunch 16:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

  1. Censorwolf 16:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. WarriorScribe 16:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Mark K. Bilbo 16:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. FeloniousMonk 17:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jim62sch 17:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Malthusian (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Guettarda 17:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 17:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Durova 17:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. kingboyk 17:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 18:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC) see endorsement below
  11. Dragonfiend 18:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. rodii 19:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Colin Kimbrell 19:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. SYCTHOStalk 19:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. StuffOfInterest 21:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Stifle 22:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Grandmasterka 22:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Cyde Weys 23:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Pierremenard 23:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. RasputinAXP talk contribs 00:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Blnguyen 00:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Harvestdancer 02:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Deadsalmon 09:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC) - he didn't so much perpetuate a Christian v. atheist war as create one, since both A.J.A and I are Christians.
    • The "Christian vs. Atheist" statement in my view here refers to the subject of the articles nominated for deletion, not to the religion, faith, philosophy or ideology of Wikipedia editors and/or admnistrators. Sorry for the confusion.-Crunch 11:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    This is Just zis Guy, you know?'s second endorsement of this summary. Stifle 23:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    Then it must think it's a very good summary. It isn't like this is a voting page - this is a "c'mon Jason, start behaving like a member of the community". The only person who has any cause to count the number of endorsements is Jason, and quite frankly I doubt that Jason is going to say "24 endorsement I can ignore, but 24 makes all the difference in the world. Guettarda 21:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    I think zis  Guy is trying to stifle debate. I know poeple look cydeways at multiple endorsements, but sometimes there's no Disputin' StuffOfInterest like this. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
     :) Stifle 16:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    *golf clap* Malthusian (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    Applause from me as well. Nicely done, and immortalized on my user page :) RasputinAXP talk contribs 18:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    You know, it took me two days to figure out what was going on here. Must be getting slow. Even an RfC needs a good laugh once in a while. --StuffOfInterest 18:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-24 06:00Z
  27. Terence Ong 12:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. MCB 20:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. goatasaur 06:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. AvB ÷ talk 22:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. --Bishonen | talk 02:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC).
  32. Arbustoo 09:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. Sarah Ewart 16:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Durova

Last month's edit war at Talk:List of deists and the recurrent edit war at Talk:The Skeptic's Annotated Bible may be relevant to this discussion. In the first example he removed several names of United States patriots and proposed questionable methods for qualifying entries to that list. The second example is more complex. Mr. Gastrich has published a criticism of The Skeptic's Annotated Bible called The Skeptic's Annotated Bible Corrected and Revised. AfD removed an article about Mr. Gastrich's book last fall. To my outsider's perspective, Mr. Gastrich appears to be attempting to use the remaining article for self-promotion. I view the recent AfD incidents within the framework of a sincere yet deeply problematic editor. What I hope Mr. Gastrich comes to realize is that his tactics do a disservice to his beliefs. --Durova 18:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

  1. Malthusian (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. SYCTHOStalk 19:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Ruby 21:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jim62sch 22:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Cyde Weys 23:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. RasputinAXP talk contribs 00:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Guettarda 00:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Wynler 13:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Harvestdancer 21:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Robert McClenon 22:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. AvB ÷ talk 16:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by KrazyCaley

User Jason Gastrich has shown himself more than capable of being a productive Wikipedia editor. However, his personal beliefs have consistently led him to engage in edit warring and POV editing, as well as repeated creation of articles of at least questionable notability (See January 20th's AfD page). A few of the articles Jason Gastrich has created in this vein have been worthy of inclusion, but he has included, and is very protective of, POV editing on such topics.

Jason Gastrich has been, and can very well still be a beneficial contributor to Wikipedia, even in articles related to his beliefs on and work with Christianity. However, he must immediately desist from POV editing, halt his wholesale recruitment of "votes" on AfD pages via talk pages and e-mail (or other sockpuppetry), and stop his violations of WP:POINT over this issue or risk limitation of his ability to edit Wikipedia. --KrazyCaley 20:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

  1. Justin Eiler 00:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Ruby 00:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Harvestdancer 02:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Deadsalmon 09:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Idont Havaname (Talk) 03:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to KrazyCaley

I too hoped that Jason Gastrich could be helped to become a productive editor. However, I gave up when he removed my comment from his talk page without archiving (see above). The editors above are clearly willing to give Jason even more benefit of the doubt, despite the fact that he's been given enough benefit to open a Social Security office. Myself, I'm not running for sainthood, particularly patron saint of beating my head against the wall. Jason has never shown any interest in leaving his POV behind when he edits Wikipedia, and his rants against the atheist cabal have grown steadily in shrillness, culminating in his open admission that he is here to save people from going to Hell, and therefore clearly has no intention whatsoever of sticking to NPOV: "This is a spiritual battle and they're only out to belittle and silence someone who is preaching a gospel that condemns them to Hell if they don't repent and trust Christ for salvation". He has pulled himself up to such a height that the only way to help him down is to push him off. --Malthusian (talk) 09:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

  1. Censorwolf 19:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Harvestdancer 21:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Stifle 23:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Blnguyen 00:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Grandmasterka 00:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. SYCTHOStalk 00:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Jim62sch 10:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside View by Logophile

I'm not sure if I am inside or outside. My only involvement with the matter is that I voted on the articles listed at AfD. I believe that there is some fault on both sides. Since this page is specifically about charges leveled against Jason Gastrich, I will say that I believe that he is guilty of most of them. He has been uncivil. He has pushed his POV. He has apparently stacked the votes at AfD. On the other hand, I do sense that there is some overt hostility toward people in the Christian fundamentalist realm. Some of the articles nominated for deletion are about people with many publications, a large following, broadcast exposure, and a huge impact in certain circles. One reason given for votes to delete have been that they are only important to certain people. (Aren't all Wikipedia articles?) Another reason has been that their educational credentials are not impressive. Pretty biased, I'd say. --Logophile 07:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

  1. Wynler 13:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Logophile

The nomination of the Christian biographies was done by a single editor. Those articles which were clearly notable, such as Grant Jeffrey, are being kept by an overwhelming margin. This is not evidence of a cabal - in fact it is evidence to the contrary, that what we have is a single, good-faith but overzealous editor, and a number of atheists who have remained objective when it comes to the people they're supposedly persecuting.

Articles are nominated for deletion every day that are not, in fact, suitable for deletion. This is why we have the AfD process. If users become afraid to nominate an article because they might be accused of being in a cabal, then our ability to keep Wikipedia free of POV and self-promotion will be severely hampered.

The single part of Logophile's view that I agree with is that people do have overt hostility to Christian fundamentalists. This is mainly because Christian fundamentalists have overt hostility to everyone else. Someone who believes in the inerrancy of the Bible cannot fail to have overt hostility towards non-Christians, gays, witches, feminists, the list goes on. Some of them may be able to check their POV at the door, and they are as welcome here as anyone else. Jason Gastrich is not one of them. --Malthusian (talk) 09:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Minor note: Some articles were nominated by others (e.g. me), but most were indeed nominated by a single editor. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

  1. Censorwolf 19:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Harvestdancer 15:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. howcheng {chat} (as someone who closed a few of those AfD discussions that resulted in keeps) 17:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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

  1. Logophile 09:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC) (I never assumed that there is a cabal against Christian content; I'm pretty sure that their isn't. That doesn't prevent individuals from voting to delete for POV reasons, as I believe happened in some individual cases.)
[edit] Response to Malthusian's response to Logophile

I think your statement would receive more endorsements without the claim that "Christian fundamentalists have overt hostility to everyone else. Someone who believes in the inerrancy of the Bible cannot fail to have overt hostility towards non-Christians, gays, witches, feminists, the list goes on." Conversely, I think one can safely say that people who hate everyone outside their peer group, and especially fundamentalist Christians, would do well to look in the mirror provided by the following Bible verse: Mt 22:36 “[Jesus], which is the great commandment in the law?” And he said to him, ’You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.” AvB ÷ talk 17:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

  1. -Colin Kimbrell 19:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Robert McClenon 19:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Logophile 09:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by McClenon

I have not researched the allegations of sockpuppetry. However, the pattern of incivility and personal attacks in the name of Christ is appalling. It is also scandalous. The original meaning of scandal was a stumbling-block to belief, such as conduct by a member of the clergy or other leader of the church that cast religion into disrepute, such as sexual abuse by priests or embezzlement by televangelists.

Jason Gastrich is far from the first self-proclaimed Christian in electronic media whose conduct is scandalous. Usenet has a long history of such posters. However, another such poster is another scandal.

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

  1. Robert McClenon 13:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Malthusian (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Harvestdancer 15:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. David D. (Talk) 16:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. AvB ÷ talk 17:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. --Bishonen | talk 02:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC).
  7. Sarah Ewart 16:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Outside view by Sunfazer

Jason Gastrich and his Gastroturfing appears to be a form of evangelism, similar to User:Danielle Cunio. This user seems to have caused edit wars frequently. He appears to breach WP:SOCK and WP:NPA frequently. Maybe a 48-hour block is suitable?? --Sunfazer (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inside Views

[edit] Inside view by Cyde Weys

I became involved in this matter when I stumbled across some of the AfDs of Jason Gastrich's biographies. I voted keep on some and delete on others, depending on whether or not I thought they met WP:BIO. I proposed a resolution to the AfD on List of LBU people such that the notable ones be merged into the main LBU article, as is standard for these situations. Gastrich refused to accept it, saying Harvard had a "List of Harvard people", so why not LBU? (The analogy in this case is absurd, by the way, comparing an unacreditted school to Harvard?! C'mon!) Then I became aware that Gastrich was attempting to astroturf the various AfDs by sending users messages on their talk pages. This really did not sit well with me and I told Gastrich that he should stop this at it clearly goes against Wikipedia policy. My opinion of Gastrich's intentions only turned more negative once I saw that he had a sockpuppet sending out the notices as well as setting up a website with the sole intention of disrupting Wikipedia. The low point was when I received a Wikipedia email from Gastrich because apparently I had a link to the Christian infobox on my userpage. It had links to all of his articles up for deletion and encouraged voting to keep. I reproduced this email on one of the AfD pages and someone else copied it to the rest of them to be used as evidence. This whole experience has really soured me with Jason Gastrich to the point that I no longer believe keeping him around would be in the best interests of Wikipedia. He has demonstrated that he is willing to ignore all rules and all due process in order to further his agenda. He repeatedly violates WP:CIVIL and seems to be trying to frame any Christian-personality-related AfDs as a war between Christians and non-Christians, which is extremely damaging and unproductive to Wikipedia as a whole. --Cyde Weys 23:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

  1. Crunch 23:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. SYCTHOStalk 23:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Malthusian (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Blnguyen 00:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Guettarda 00:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jim62sch 01:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Harvestdancer 02:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. WarriorScribe 05:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Grandmasterka 07:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Stifle 16:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. FeloniousMonk 18:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Censorwolf 19:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Grimm 06:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Terence Ong 12:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Robert McClenon 20:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Bishonen | talk 02:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC).
  18. Arbustoo 10:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Sarah Ewart 16:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inside view by Itake

This is nothing but another measure certain users are using to push for their own POV in the related AfD. The proof? Just take a look at the talk pages and see the enourmous amounts of violations of wikipedia policies that have been conducted. Yet not a single ban, except the one that was issued against me.

    • Gastrich had me banned for 24 hours for "Vandalizing" his talk page and user attacks. You might want to double check your info. Icj tlc 14:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

For some examples:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Louisiana Baptist University people (second nomination)

  • List of mostly non-notable people connected (sometimes loosely) with a diploma mill attended by the originator of the article. A.J.A. 02:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Gastrich has done a pretty good job of stretching out his throat and handing out knives in the last 24 hours or so. You'd think he'd want to keep me out of it; but perhaps he's a glutton for punishment. - WarriorScribe 07:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • RoyBoy already pointed out the idiocy of Gastrich's claims about LBU and his "score" with respect to a list that he picked (out of many that could have been picked). RoyBoy was quite right to point out that the it was not an all-or-nothing proposition with respect to the list, but Gastrich just can't seem to get it. Draw your own conclusions. LBU does not teach research skills, investigatory skills, nor critical thinking skills. It has exceptionally lax standards, in practice and is sub-standard as an educational institution. Gastrich's own alleged "rebuttal" to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible is actually a good example, since it served as the basis for his "Master of Arts" from the school and, according to Gastrich, also served as the basis for his "doctorate." I'll be looking over the alleged "thesis" and "dissertation" when I'm in that part of the country, come April, but if what I have seen thus far is any indication, given Gastrich's rather superficial thinking skills and almost non-existent research skills, demonstrated thus far, I don't expect to be surprised. - WarriorScribe 07:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

And that is just a taste. It goes on, page after page. These violations were conducted by the group of user grouped against Gastrich, some of them were even admins. I looked through the criteria of civility on Wikipedia, and its pretty clear that these users violated them over and over again. Even the admin that banned me, "FeloniousMonk", violates them. It is unfair beyond reason, and it is clear certain admins are using their powers to influence this dispute.

Further, these users have now used the talk pages intro to further their own POV. Unproved accusations are being thrown against Gastrich at the very intro of the talk pages, and the users in question are unable to justify those intros. The intro's make it look like those viewpoints are officiall, when infact they are just one among MANY other arguments currently being debate. These people are lying all the time. Just above here, the user "Cyde" claims he got an email from Gastrich encouring him to vote keep. Thats a lie, the email did not encourage him to vote keep. It encouraged him to VOTE.

And its also clear this AfD disputes is about religion. Just look at this page for proof, even here people insult each others religion with claims like "fundamentalism". I'm getting really tired of these religious insults, there is no doubt that a large part of the no-voters voted "delete" because they hate christianity. There is simply no other way to interpret their behavior, their snide remarks and their shallow hatred that they express even here on this talk page.

Itake, the insinuation that certain voters "hate Christianity" is also a "religious insult." Justin Eiler 23:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with one thing. This is hurting Wikipedia's already grossly tarnished reputation. This debate and the related debates are getting out of hand. From the very start, this became a POV conflict and the "fact" part of the AfD has dissappaeared a long time ago. Someone that knows how (I don't really get the instructions) should request help from the arbitary commitee or something. Itake 01:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Response to Itake

Itake, the entire point of this RfC is to avoid the necessity of going to the Arbitration Committee. That was my hope in posting my original request with the Mediation Committee, and that is my hope in participating in this RfC. Itake, Jason, both of you need to realize that I, for one, do not want to see either of you banned or restricted. My preferred outcome for this RfC is to reach an amicable resolution that all parties can agree with and follow in good faith. As for this RfC being "about religion," I am a Christian, yet my conscience propelled me to support the RfC.

If everyone is willing, I'd like to try to work towards a resolution that we can all live with. And I'm willing to do whatever I can to achieve that resolution, including volunteer myself as an informal mediator, or offering my services to try to find a mediator that all parties can agree with--heck, at this point, if it would help to resolve the situation, I'll withdraw from the conversation completely.

We're all adults. It is my hope that we can work through this issue towards an amicable and equally satisfactory solution.

Justin Eiler 03:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

  1. KrazyCaley 06:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC) There can be an outcome to this dispute which will be productive to the involved users and to Wikipedia as a whole.
  2.  AvB ÷ talk 08:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Response to Justin Eiler

You're not the first well intentioned person to try to deal honestly with Jason Gastrich and help him get along with others, nor will you be the last. Because there is an mPOV problem here, there is only one version of working with him that he understands, and that is to be completely and utterly supportive. Others who have tried to help him in the past have either gotten frustrated that nothing could be done, gotten burned, or declared to be his atheist enemy.

I don't seek a banishment either, but I do hope that this might result in a serving of humility.

Harvestdancer 15:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

  1. Durova 15:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. David D. (Talk) 16:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Stifle 17:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Itake

I find it ironic that Itake is accusing others of violating civility when it is he himself that violated it repeatedly, so much so that he ended up getting blocked for it. See any of his comments in the related AfDs for more information. Here are a few that he was warned about on his talkpage: [86] and [87]. I especially like where he says, The time of self-rigtheous wikipedia "admins" with no life outside the comp like yourself as come to a stop. --Cyde Weys 06:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

  1. SYCTHOStalk 06:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Malthusian (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Jim62sch 21:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Blnguyen 00:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Idont Havaname (Talk) 03:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Harvestdancer 15:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
There's no irony in that. I did violate it, and recevied my punishment. You violated it and did not recevie your punishment, because you have admin friends with bias who can keep you in the clear. That is the difference. I see that you can't even prove me wrong, all you amount to is a rebutall that I'm just as bad as them. Itake 14:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Itake

The people who are most vocal about their beliefs are not necessarily the most sincere (Matthew 6:1-6). Wikipedia's policies are not at odds with Christianity or with any other belief system. These rules exist to foster positive collaboration and to create a useful encyclopedia. Editors have a great deal of freedom within these policies to raise awareness about subjects that matter to them. Editors who hold strong religious views have particular reason to abide by these policies. Their behavior reflects on their faith. Durova 10:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

  1. Colin Kimbrell 14:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Wynler 18:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Robert McClenon 22:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. A.J.A. 22:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Idont Havaname (Talk) 03:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. --Malthusian (talk) 10:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. StuffOfInterest 15:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Harvestdancer 15:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Grandmasterka 15:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Like he said, but without the American spelling ;) Guettarda 16:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. AvB ÷ talk 17:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. WarriorScribe 06:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  13. Wonderfully written (American spelling and all! ;)) Elizabeth 06:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inside view by Azathar

On January 19, 2006, I received an unsolicited email from Jason regarding multiple AfDs. He sent me this email because I am partial to the Inclusionism wiki-philosphy, I think he felt that I would vote to "keep" the articles he requested I review, though he did not tell me to vote either way.

The entries were as follows:


I went and checked out the top four entries, and left votes on three of the ones I checked out. Though I voted to "keep" each article, I did so based on the article, after reviewing the comments on the AfDs.

I have noticed though that these AfDs have become more personal attacks from all sides, and have gotten away from what they are suppose to be, a discussion about the merits of the article, and whether or not they should be kept or deleted, not about "sockpuppetry" and "meatpuppetry" and diploma mills.

Perhaps the AfDs should be cancelled and re-nominated if necessary, and the principles should only discuss whether or not the articles deserve to exist, with out the personal attacks.

I'm not a major contributor to the AfD area, but, if this is how most of them seem to go, I don't know if I'd come back much, too much in-fighting and personal attacks. I hope that all the players in this drama are able to grow from this RfC and learn something positive from this experience. --Azathar 05:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

  1. AvB ÷ talk 08:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Wynler 13:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. I especially agree that this is a two-sided problem. Logophile 13:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. StuffOfInterest 15:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inside View by A.J.A.

I first noticed this whole affair through the RfC Religion and Philosophy listing for Louisiana Baptist University. I noticed he tried to sidestep the discussion on that article's talk page and the lock by forking the disputed content into an even cruftier version. I also noticed that there was an aborted AfD in the page history. So I renominated it. Later on I looked at the AfD listing and noticed an incongruity: if most people on the list were non-notable, shouldn't they be nominated too? So I went ahead and nominated a bunch of them, which a lot of people have taken as their signal to make a big to-do. Gastrich posted a message on all or most of them asserting my "good faith is in question" and lodged a Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress report in which he says:

Bad-faith placing of {{afd}} tags on articles that do not meet such criteria. Vandalism is in progress as he keeps nominating only Christian biography entries for deletion; most of which are authors of numerous books and presidents of universities. He is up to 10 and counting.

So his claim above that nobody accused me of bad faith is either a lie or a sign premature memory loss.

His subsequent (and previous) bad behavior is documented above. Particularly notable is his attempt to make it Christians vs. atheists, which it never was. He said "unbelievers" were nominating "Christian articles" for deletion, by which he meant me. When I challenged him on it he called me "small potatoes" and said I was simply misdirected, because why else would I nominate Christian articles and denigrate a Christian institution (that being LBU)? No consideration that there might be good reasons; it's just scoring points us-vs.-them. No realization that if it really is us-vs-them he's scoring own goals.

A note about glorifying Jesus Christ, one of the stated goals of Wiki4Christ someone quoted above. All Christians are to seek the glory of Christ in everything we do. The question is how. Can anyone imagine the cathedral builders just haphazardly stacking some rubble up, and when someone criticized it demanding how dare they criticize a Christian building? No, you can't, because the cathedral builders understood what working to the glory of Christ meant. Compare Orthodox icons to Thomas Kinkade, if you can stand it. There's something wrong with contemporary Christian culture, and Gastrich is a local example. I feel I owe unbelievers a twofold apology. First, for the poor cultural output itself, and second, that the Gospel -- which you desperately need -- comes with such unattractive cultural baggage attached. A.J.A. 06:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

  1. Malthusian (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC) but I wish you hadn't mentioned Kincaid, I looked at his website and am probably mentally scarred for life. On the same subject, I am currently rehearsing Beethoven's Missa Solemnis, a titanic work to the glory of God. By comparison with that, inflating the importance of what looks suspiciously like a school for modern-day Pharisees seems kind of tawdry. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Stifle 16:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Dick Clark 16:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. FeloniousMonk 18:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Guettarda 20:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Idont Havaname (Talk) 03:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Blnguyen 06:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. WarriorScribe 06:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Terence Ong 12:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. StuffOfInterest 15:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. -Colin Kimbrell 15:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Harvestdancer 15:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. AvB ÷ talk 17:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. squibix 18:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inside view by Icj tlc

I don't know if this belongs here or on the discussion page, if it belongs there feel free to move it. I am a Christian and a Minister. I am the Youth Pastor at a church in Sacramento. I have had issues with Jason Gastrich in the past. It started by reading his comments on several talk pages, I added an apology to all those he had offended in the "Name of Christ." I posted it on his talk page and on other talk pages where he had made offensive remarks. Jason deleted my comments from his talk page and after I reposted them several times he whined to an admin and successfully had me blocked for 24 hours for "vandalism." I attempted to settle our dispute by adding comments on his talk page. He prompty speedy deleted all of my comments as vandalism. When he finally did contact me it was to occuse me of being in league with the atheists that were conspiring against him. (He actually does talk like that.) He never answered a single question that I asked him. His only motive was to attack anyone that does not agree with his POV. I further attempted to settle our dispute by following the links to his website to send him an email. My email was never replied to. I posted my contact information on my user page including the website of the church that I work for. My father is the senior pastor, and next thing I know Jason is calling and leaving messages on our church answering machine about my "harassment" of a "man of God." I have since removed any page that he edits from my watch pages. I use Wikipedia primarily for lesson preperation. As a result of Jason's POV spreading I now have to check the history of any page I use to see if it's been editted by him as I do not consider his edits to be trustworthy. As I've said numerous times before, Jason likes to think that he is a martyr for his cause and that he is being persecuted for his faith. Truth be told, no one is persecuting him, and he is no martyr. The complete history of our issue can be found in the archives of my talk page. I apologize again for Jason's actions. Christians should not act the way he does. --Icj tlc 20:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

  1. Cyde Weys 20:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. SYCTHOStalk 21:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Jim62sch 21:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. WarriorScribe 21:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Malthusian (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. A.J.A. 22:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Blnguyen 00:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Grandmasterka 00:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. -Colin Kimbrell 04:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Mark K. Bilbo 05:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Durova 05:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Robert McClenon 13:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Harvestdancer 15:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. David D. (Talk) 16:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Brokenfrog 03:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Dick Clark 04:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. AvB ÷ talk 22:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Murray Langton 15:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Icj tlc

"Judge not, that ye be not judged" He is responsible for God for his actions, and you are responsible to God for yours. You are not a better Christian because you take a less confrontational style, it's my duty to tell you, youare just a Christian with a less confrontational style. Which of course is great if that works for you and God leads you in that way and you don't try and impose it on others and dampen their zeal. You have your guidance from the Holy Spirit, other Christians have their guidance from the Holy Spirit, and has it occurred to you that that might be different than yours and their gifts and role in the Body might be different to yours? I think it's good when Christians take to heart the lesson, that the guidanc ethey receive from the Holy Spirit as to how they should be is sometimes their own personal instruction from God, and that they are not the blueprint for the entire Christian experience. If Brother Jason is attacked by the people who attack him, then you can be pretty sure if you're not naive in the ways of the devil that it's not because he is an ineffective witness, not getting the message out and not glorifying God enough, and not bearing fruit. Like these things would upset the type of people who are fighting him all over the internet - they exist to attack any Christian who has a strong Gospel message. They are of the same character as the people who openly persecuted believers in the Soviet Union, and there is no reason for us to appease them. Uncle Davey 19:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

  • Comment The assumption here is that Jasons critics "attack" "any Christian who has a strong Gospel message". This would appear to be a fallacy, thus, there could be other reasons why he is criticised. Read this RfC, especially the bit at the beginning. David D. (Talk) 20:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There's another assumption that Mr. Gastrich's variety of Christianity grants an exemption from site policy. This won't work because if Jason Gastrich becomes an exception then we can expect the same demand from Muslim, Catholic, Jewish, Buddhist, and Wiccan editors. I doubt Uncle Davey or Jason Gastrich would want that. Durova 22:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Uncle Davey, did you read my entry? Jason Gastrich has a bad habit of not reading other people’s comments either, he either deletes them or ignores them completely. I think that’s what you may have done. I’m not judging Jason Gastrich. Nor am I saying that I am a better Christian than he is. What I said was that Jason’s behavior is not a good example of the way a Christian should act. What I also condemned was the fact that although he refused to acknowledge my MANY attempts to contact him regarding our issue, he had absolutely no problem contacting my Sr. Pastor, who happens to be my father. He had no problem sending letters to another WikiPedian’s family describing “Harrassement.” And I am just as confrontational as Jason, just I prefer to show love, to those that aren’t of the Body. And confront people that call themselves “Christians” and than proceed to act in a very un-Christian manner in a public forum like WikiPedia. No one has attacked Jason. He perceives any criticism as an attack. And considering all of the self-promotion he has attempted in the past here on WikiPedia, I have a very hard time believing that he is receiving his guidance from the Holy Spirit. He accuses anyone that does not agree with his POV of attacking him. He’s made accusations of “Conspiracies” and accused me of trying to have him permanently banned from WikiPedia, which never happened. Jason is delusional. Actions and words of Christians like Jason that talk about a God of love and than preach a doctrine of hate and intolerance for anyone’s differing opinion is not the kind of behavior people need to associate with Christianity. Christians like him do more work for the enemy than Christ. We lose more and more newcomers and people that haven’t yet made up their minds to Christians like him than we do to the appeal of the world. I completely disagree with you. If you honestly believe that Jason Gastrich is a good example of Christianity, you need to do a lot of praying and Bible reading and seek the guidance of your Spiritual Leaders. I will continue to pray for Jason and I will pray for you as well. In Christ. Icj tlc 23:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The whole argument over who's a "better" Christian led to the 1054 CE schism between Eastern and Western Rite churches that has lasted nigh on 1,000 years, and to the Reformation, and to the Inquisition. Additionally the argument over who is a better theist led to the Muslim conquests, the Crusades, the ongoing violence between Muslims and Hindus, the ongoing violence between Sikhs and Hindus, the genocide in Darfur, etc. The bottom line is this: no matter what religion one belongs to, one does not have the right to condemn others because of their beliefs. If you believe that your religion is the "True Way", hey, fine, I'm happy that you have found peace. But to rip each other apart because of ridiculous superficial differences is just asinine, counterproductive and hardly in the best interests of mankind. Jim62sch 00:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment THUNDEROUS applause! --StuffOfInterest 00:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Even more THUNDEROUS applause! Icj tlc 14:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • More applause. Robert McClenon 20:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inside view by Malthusian

As I've already made a lot of piecemeal summaries of what I think, and someone on the talk page has mentioned closure, I think I should give my 2d on how this should end.

Gastrich knows our policies back to front by now, and how he's violated them. Now that we've had this RfC, he also knows that the vast majority of editors condemn his behaviour. Throughout the whole RfC only one editor (excluding Uncle Davey as a meatpuppet) has unambiguously supported Gastrich, and he has his own problems. Some editors have said that Gastrich's critics are not wholly blameless (and they are right), but all seem to agree that Gastrich's behaviour needs to stop.

And, though not that it matters one iota in Wikipedia terms, enough Christians have disagreed with Gastrich both on grounds of Wikipedia policy and Christian teachings that he should also have realised that he is not fighting the good fight against an atheist cabal.

Given all this, Gastrich has no excuse for continuing his behaviour. None. If he doesn't realise his mistakes now, he never will. If, after his block expires, he makes one more obviously POV edit, one more baseless accusation of atheist cabbalism, one more attempt at meatpuppetry, he should be blocked, if not forever, then certainly for a very long time. --Malthusian (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

  1. StuffOfInterest 20:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. David D. (Talk) 21:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Harvestdancer 21:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Durova 21:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Ruby 22:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. AvB ÷ talk 02:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC) (Comment: Jason, if I were you, I'd take Justin up on his offer. I'm adding my own: if I can be of assistance, please contact me on my talk page.)
  7. -Colin Kimbrell 04:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. -Icj tlc 14:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Guettarda 14:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Grandmasterka 17:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Jim62sch 17:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. SYCTHOStalk 22:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Arbustoo 09:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
You all have your own problems, yet that is not mentioned. Atleast half of you have violated the same Wikipedia civility guidelines I violated, yet I see no ban. This is so obviously biased and wrong that its almost disgusting. But of course, using terms like "obvious POV" allows you to shape this encyclopedia to fit your own POV's and ban everyone who disagrees. Itake 02:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
If you would like to discuss the actions of others, you're perfectly free to start a RFC on anyone you so choose. Remarks here are focused on Mr. Gastrich because this particular RFC is about his actions. -Colin Kimbrell 04:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. Stifle 17:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inside view by Perfecto

I created The Skeptic's Annotated Bible and feel disappointed someone made it a edit war battleground. I thought it was a simple topic and the article could exist happily without any opinion about the annotator's ideas. Its luck didn't last. In the onset I thought I was working with several Wikipedians in good faith. It was one guy! Who can I trust now? Gastrich first abused the article to mention his book. Much subsequent warring produced an indecisive, roundabout and poorly-written criticism section. Imagine my disappointment when the article went to AfD. I'm sad, but I've let the article go.

Let me know when he's gone, so I can return and grow the article again (I hate noncommittal language.) You know where to find me. --Perfecto 07:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


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

  1. SYCTHOStalk 22:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Jim62sch 23:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Arbustoo 09:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move to close

It seems to me we have a strong consensus here that Gastrich has done wrong, with 51 certifying or endorsing the complaint. It is also apparent that this has not modified Gastrich's behaviour in any meaningful way (the exclusive use of socks rather than interleaving them with his main account is not exactly what we might call progress here).

I would like to propose the following community action to close off this issue:

  1. The community admonishes User:Jason Gastrich for disruptive behaviour, and requires that in future:
    1. he not use internal or external means to astroturf efforts at consensus building, specifically AfD discussions
    2. he not engage in edit wars over content on any article
    3. he remain civil and refrain from attributing motives or making aggressive statements
    4. he not create any new sockpuppet accounts nor use any existing ones
    5. he edit Wikipedia solely using user:Jason Gastrich
    6. he refrain from adding links to sites he owns or controls to any article
    7. when editing any article in which he has any vested interest, he declare that interest on the Talk page when making any edits
  2. The community resolves that any violation of the above should result in an immediate block without further warning
  3. The community resolves that all current known and suspected sockpuppets, and any newly created or discovered sockpuppets, be indefinitely blocked
  4. The community resolves that any articles subject to suspected Gastrich sockpuppetry be semi-protected by reference to this RFC

It seems to me that this describes how he should be behaving anyway, and acts as a permanent "final warning", removing the need for any further warnings before he can be blocked. Note that I have already semi-protected two articles on which there was a sockfest in the last 24 hours. I see no reason why we should not conclude the above, there being no significant dissent in the RFC. The alternative is to go to arbcom, which seems like a waste of everybody's time since Gastrich is openly defiant and very obviously refuses to acknowledge that he has done anything wrong at all. Unless I've badly misread the RFC, we as a community disagree with his view. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 19:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Users who endorse this proposal

  1. Ruby 19:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Durova 20:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Dick Clark 20:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. David D. (Talk) 20:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. FeloniousMonk 20:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Malthusian (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. StuffOfInterest 21:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. kingboyk 21:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. howcheng {chat} 23:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Jim62sch 23:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Grandmasterka 23:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Blnguyen 23:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC).
  13. Mark K. Bilbo 00:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  14. Justin Eiler 00:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  15. rodii 02:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  16. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  17. Harvestdancer 17:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  18. Wynler 17:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  19. Arbustoo 19:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  20. MCB 23:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  21. Azathar 04:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  22. Cyde Weys 05:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  23. Dragonfiend 15:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  24. Sarah Ewart 16:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  25. AvB ÷ talk 21:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  26. -Colin Kimbrell 22:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  27. Stifle 12:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  28. Brokenfrog 01:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  29. WarriorScribe 06:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  30. Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 12:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  31. u p p l a n d 12:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Users who oppose this proposal

1. --Uncle Davey (Talk) 19:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

  • I suggest this RfC closes as soon as possible without waiting for all 40+ endorsers of the RfC to agree. Gastrich hasn't waited, so I don't see why we should. I'm referring to the recent sockpuppetry, in particular this incredibly subtle message to Itake [88]. --Malthusian (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but I do not know the process for formally closing and moving the above. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 23:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I added a setion for "Users who oppose." While I quite agree that Wikipedia:Voting_is_evil, I think it's more important to see if we have any substantive dissent, rather than just counting noses of those who agree. If there is substantive dissent, I would actually recommend either continuing the discussion or closing the RfC as "No consensus." Justin Eiler 01:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Seems fair. Should I move this section to the main page? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 15:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. :D Justin Eiler 16:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I do not endorse closure. I don't think Jason will see the error of his ways or change his behaviour. I'm not advocating a ban, yet (give a fool enough rope and he'll hang himself). But I think closure is premature because, well, this is Jason, and he thinks he is on a mission from God to do this. — Dunc|☺ 18:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Dunc, closing the RfC doesn't end the whole matter. If Jason refuses to take the guidance of the RfC into account and modify his actions it will be grounds for starting arbitration proceedings against him which could result in more significant sanctions. --StuffOfInterest 18:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, this closes this phase of the community discussion, not the issue and absolutely not the monitoring of Gastrich's actions. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]

18:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see User Talk:Jason Gastrich. Will that do? I have also indef-blocked the entire sock farm. And now I think that Mr Gastrich has wasted more than enough of our time, so perhaps we can go back to that encyclopaedia we were supposed to be working on...- Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 13:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move to close and escalate to RfArb

Continued use of new sockpuppets by Gastrich (including User:TonyT5, User:LinkChecker, User:HRoss, and User:Turkmen indicates that Gastrich refuses to abide by the community consensus. I therefore move that this RfC be immediately closed and the issue be referred to the Arbitration Comittee. Justin Eiler 13:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I have now indef-blocked all socks and issued a permanent final warning per consensus above to Gastrich. If he violates that I see no reason not to escalate further, but actually there is such strong consensus here that I don't believe reference to ArbCom would be necessary unless he decided to appeal such a block (I am a relative newcomer, but I can't recall seeing 50:1 support for a user RfC before; maybe I'm wrong there). Let's wait and see. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 13:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Good work JzG. You're making all 50 of us proud. And frankly I don't see the need for RFAr at all. It's very simple. Jason Gastrich has his final warning, and if he messes up again, he gets blocked. No reason to bug the people over at RFAr. --Cyde Weys 21:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Cyde on all points. Unless Jason leaves or asks for a mentor, I predict a block within 24 hours. How long a block? I favor the bum's rush, 6 months minimum plus apology required to be allowed back in. AvB ÷ talk 21:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed! Thumbs up to you, JzG. Now let's get back to work. Justin Eiler 22:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
You forgot one thing, the six-month clock starts ticking after his last sockpuppet edits. Ruby 22:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I know I originally posted this comment under anonymous, I'd like to confirm that this was actually me. --Cyde Weys 00:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I have Wikimailed Gastrich to let him know that his main account is unblocked, something of which he may not be aware. We shall see what happens. I'd like to think he will contribute properly, but part of me is still sceptical. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]

It appears that Gastrich has no intent of obeying the outcome of this RFC. He recently edited Louisiana Baptist University with yet another sockpuppet. What is to be done now? --Cyde Weys 18:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Guy is giving him the benefit of the doubt for now, so until he's confirmed and indefinitely blocked I don't think we can count it. Nonetheless, I think he's another sockpuppet (though not enough to indef-block him if I was an admin). Edits two fundamentalist articles, is blocked, then immediately protests on his talk page in a manner that suggests familiarity with Jason Gastrich, Wikipedia's sockpuppet and blocking policy way beyond what you'd expect from a one-day-old account with two edits. I'm of the opinion that a genuine case of mistaken identity would respond with something more like "Why was I blocked? What's a sockpuppet? Who's Jason Gastrich?" --Malthusian (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I second the arbcom motion. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 18:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

In addition to the one above, see User:Chuck Hastings... Gastrich style. When questions were asked the user stopped editting. Arbustoo 00:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Escalated to RFAr

This dispute has been escalated to ArbCom, see here.

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

[edit] Concluding summary

This case went to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich where a one year community ban was endorsed. Subsequent violations resulted in this being extended to an indefinite ban.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.