Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Former user 20

Sockpuppets
These are at Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Jason Gastrich, btw. &mdash; Dunc|☺ 13:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That doesn't list the verified sockpuppets.  We need a new cat. Harvestdancer 18:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Here it is Category:Wikipedia:Sock puppets of Jason Gastrich --Harvestdancer 19:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

E-mail to inclusionists
I'm not sure where to put this, as the RfC is well underway:
 * I recieved an e-mail from Mr. Gastrich, where he noted that I was an inclusionist, that the AfDs "seem like bad faith and an affront to my hard work, I'd like you to come and vote on the entries", and where he listed links to the 10 AfDs. It seems to imply strongly that he'd like me to vote keep, which is supported by David D's comment to Mr. Gastrich that people who vote keep on all articles "are known as inclusionists".  I warned him at User talk:Jason Gastrich (two posts), and he seemed to understand, although I stopped following for a while until I had discovered this RfC.  He might need to be educated on the basic principles of Wikipedia rules and understand them on a deeper level, such that he follows their spirit and not their letter. --AySz88 ^  -  ^  22:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I might add that when i made that comment to Gastrich i was thinking of a project along the lines of schoolwatch, not spamming all inclusionist and Chrsitians which is what he actually did. David D. (Talk) 22:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't quite realize what I had implied until now; sorry. To clarify, I agree that that Gastrich interpreted Daycd's message differently from what Daycd probably meant, as Daycd noted at User talk:Daycd. --AySz88 ^  -  ^  05:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I wonder what his Inclusionists thought of all his AfDs yesterday. Ruby 01:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Any proof that he emailed ALL the inclusionsts, as you claim. Or is it yet another "suspicion" that you state as facts? Itake 01:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think I claimed that he e-mailed all inclusionists - only that he e-mailed inclusionists (as opposed to what was already on the RfC page, something about e-mailing friends from Christian websites, outside Wikipedia). --AySz88 ^ -  ^  02:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record
Gastrich, in his RfC response, wrote: "WarriorScribe came to Wikipedia with the admitted, expressed intent to follow me around and revert my contributions."

This is false. I did no such thing. This is probably the commentary to which Gastrich refers, and he demonstrates, yet again, that he either cannot be trusted to accurately represent what another has said or written or he is willing to be dishonest about it and misrepresent it. Yes, I am here to keep an eye on Gastrich (and whomever else I notice and for whom I have time) to insure that his POV-pushing agenda -- overt in all but name -- does not succeed. I have no interest in reverting his (implied) every contribution. However, contributions that appear to be POV-driven will certainly be edited, and not just by me. The fact is that the majority of Gastrich's "contributions" appear to be effectively meaningless categorizations of persons and institutions as "Christian" or "atheist." By and large, there isn't much to revert. But as the evidence on the RfC page shows, what little there has been, relatively speaking, is significantly POV-driven. - WarriorScribe 23:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This in and of itself is a bad sign, the dichotomy Gastrich has established of "Christian" or "atheist." There are more religions in the world than we have time to discuss.  Yes, Christianity is the most popular (although it is declining), but this popularity is largely due to colonialism.  Nonetheless, the opposite of Christian (as if there were one) is NOT atheist.  Period. Jim62sch 01:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That's an excellent point. I think he has the world narrowed down to those who accept Christ and those who don't and will go to Hell. I'm not sure things like Judaism, Islam, let alone sub-sects and other things I don't even know about are even on his radar screen.  I respect his belief,  but I have a big problem when he imposes that all over Wikipedia which is, above all else, a neutral point of view encyclopedia and not a personal soapbox and secondly, a community built on respect.  Crunch 02:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I don't think even that is right: he seems ot me to narrow it down to thos who accept Christ as interpreted by Gastrich and those who don't and will go to Hell. Some fundamentalists seem to have stopped reading at the end of the old testament, either that or they are sufficiently blinkered that they haven't seen what Christ meant when he spoke about the Pharisees and the Samaritans. Thise verses challenge me every tiome because I know that He is talking about me.  One of the problems with believing in an omniscient God: he ain't fooled ;-)  - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] AfD? 13:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well yes, he certainly defines Christianity very narrowly and I'm sure not entirely accurately, though he certainly believes it to be true, that was my point. I'm not an expert and, as I said below, I come to the dispute because the steamrolling through Wikipedia ignoring all decorum and plowing one point of view was offensive to me. I do think we can view Gastrich's case without viewing it as a religion case. That's just the tool he uses. I think if we turn this whole thing into a theological debate, no one is going to win. We're better off looking at it from the point of view of Wikipedia policy.   Crunch 13:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * For me, as an atheist inclusionist, it is doubly humorous right now. First Jason e-mailed me (as mentioned by others above) soliciting my support as an inclusionist.  Next he goes and AfD's the bio of any atheist he can find.  He seems to be pretty good at insulting every group out there without regard to religion or wikiorientation. --StuffOfInterest 01:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is with wikipedia though, anyone who tries to put in a religious view is immediately attacked by atheists. I'm a non-practicing jew myself, but were I to post something involving creation, or the 10 commandments I'd be deafened by OMG NPOV CREATIONISM LIES BUSH SUCKS ATHEISM IS THE OONLY ANSWER!!! Swatjester 01:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems you misunderstand atheism. Many Christian contributors have no problem with evolution but do have problems with creationism. There were atheists would voted to keep Gastrich's articles.  There were professed inclusionists who voted to delete. Strange world, I know, but true. Stereotyping is exactly how the mud slinging begins with respect to Gastrich. Everyone who disagrees with him is immediately labelled as an atheist or an unbeliever.  This is unacceptable in wikipedia and he has to learn to use the talk page and understand what consensus actually means. David D. (Talk) 04:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Non-practicing Jew? Better watch out who you jump into bed with then. In Gastrich's world, you're just another atheist damned to hell. You'll see. Mark K. Bilbo 02:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've spoken with him about it already. See his talk page. Swatjester 02:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes and he takes it as "encouraging" him to continue his fight against anyone he labels "atheist." That will include you the first time you cross him. Just so you know okay? Mark K. Bilbo 02:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * True. Didn't Gastrich label me a "non-practicing Jew" at least once, as if that was a bad thing?  Well, regardless, Swatjester, you're right...there are those that go off on theists and treat them poorly just because they're theists.  That isn't what's happening here.  Consider doing a bit of research on the matter, and understand that, no matter what, an encyclopedia, in any form, doesn't exist to forward the agenda of a given religious belief.  We can talk about them, but we have to be careful just how we do that if we are to maintain a nPOV.  I don't doubt that you've experienced what you claim to have experienced, but I think you're probably exaggerating just a bit, too. - WarriorScribe 02:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that's what's happening here, nor am I saying I agree with him. He's obviously screwed up. I'm just saying I think he wouldn't have received NEARLY as much criticism were this the other way around, were he an evangelical atheist AFD nominating christian threads. Swatjester 02:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I think he might. Let's face it...there aren't as many ranting atheists around as there are ranting fundamentalists, but I can name a couple...and if they showed up here, they'd get the same responses, I think.  - WarriorScribe 02:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * (Reduce Indent) regarding JzG's comments on not bothering to read beyond Malachi: the very real problem with Christianity as practised by the very early Christians (including those who had beliefs later declared to be "heresies"*) was that as a peaceful, love thy brother, turn-the-other-cheek religion it had no real controlling power (it was essentially socialist in nature). Thus the Old Testament doom-and-gloom wrath-of-God stuff was needed for its enforcement power.


 * "*" Note, heresy does not inherently imply "bad", it merely comes from the Greek "hairesis" ('αιρεςις) meaning "school of thought".


 * It's unlikely that this original form of Christianity would work in today's society (well, except among the "Jesus Freaks" of the 60's) -- it's just too forgiving, and offers no real enforcement policy other than a carrot and stick approach. In a way, some of the earlier editors knew that and added as number of passages ascribed to Jesus that are straight out of the OT (Biblical scholars not aligned with any fundamentalist church have noted that only 25% of the sayings ascribed to Jesus were ever likely said by him, most of the remaining sayings were later additions).  Additionally, Revelation, which harkens back to OT Daniel and Ezekiel and the need for doom-and-gloom, was added only after a long bitter dispute and is, to this day, rejected by many Christian Churches as not belonging in the NT.


 * Re Swatjester: sorry, there is no atheist conspiracy, what there is is a desire by good editors to present all articles in an NPOV manner. Additionally, the knee jerk reaction of so many who proclaim themselves to be Christians to accuse all editors trying to stick to NPOV as being atheists is utterly absurd, and quite troubling.  The world is not a Manichean battle betwen Christianity and everything else.  In fact, this type of religious intolerance and stupidity is what led 19 Fundamentalisat Muslims to hijack 4 planes on September 11, 2001. Jim62sch 13:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * True, but at least they didn't try to WP:OWN their Wikipedia articles afterwards. Ok, that was sick even for me, but can't we leave the ridiculous comparisons to Gastrich and friends? --Malthusian (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, they're kinda busy. these days... - WarriorScribe 17:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I love the Onion. Anyway, Malthusian, I hope you didn't miss my point.  I was not comparing Jason himself to the 19, I was comparing the thought process, a comparison that is not ridiculous, but quite apt. Jim62sch 21:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * True, but every time someone excuses Jason's behaviour with "well the atheists are being uncivil too" I wince. --Malthusian (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not excusing his behavior. But I firmly believe that in some cases a religious viewpoint needs to be presented, and dismissing the concept that there ARE atheists on this wikipedia that push THEIR views as NPOV doesn't help. Reading comprehension guys, re-read what I wrote. I didn't claim there is an atheist conspiracy, I didn't claim that editors sticking to NPOV are all atheists, and I didn't ever justify Jason's behavior. What I did was mention how sick of it I am when I constantly see viewpoints on intelligent design, creationism, president bush's religious views, etc. dismissed by SOME atheists because ANY religion to them is NPOV. Very carefully read what I just wrote so you make sure you got my message properly. Swatjester 22:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "there ARE atheists on this wikipedia that push THEIR views as NPOV doesn't help". This is quite a strong assertion. My bet is that for every case you have seen there are religious wikipedians who would agree with the so-callled atheists position. Do you have examples of this where atheists and ONLY atheists are reverting in ID or creationism? If not then the argument is a red herring. David D. (Talk) 23:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, NPOV or neutral point of view is good. POV is what we're watching for.  Ruby 23:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well spotted Ruby, I was reading it as POV since thats what it seemed to mean in the context of the paragraph. David D. (Talk) 23:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I have a question. What somebody said is an emperical question, yes? I mean, only an idiot would sit down and try to excogitate what you said over breakfast this morning. So why does it make sense to excogitate which sayings in the Gospels are real? If you've already rejected the reliability of their accounts, what evidential basis do you have for saying anything about what Jesus said? (Dropping balls into a bin doesn't count.)


 * (There are very few sayings directly taken from the OT. "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" comes from a Psalm. Also, I'm not aware of any churches that reject Revelation from the Canon.) A.J.A. 19:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, Martin Luther seems to have seriously considered removing Revelation from the Canon--some of his translations of the Bible treated Revelation the same way the OT Apocrypha were treated, separating it from the books he considered canonical. Justin Eiler 20:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC) (This moment of trivia brought to you by the number π and the punctuation.)


 * Given the number of contradictory passages -- do you really think that the person who said, "And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other..." also said "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword"? -- it is important. Bottom line is this: if we treat the bible as just a religious book, then there is no need for this analysis, but, as many Christians maintain that the bible is history, it needs to be treated forensically. Jim62sch 00:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

JIM and JUSTIN: as fascinating as this is, perhaps you two could go to email or a forum? This is the talk page for an Rfc on Wikipedia... remember? KillerChihuahua?!? 00:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * (blush) Sorry, KC. ;-) Justin Eiler 00:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The efforts at retaliation begin
See here. - WarriorScribe 02:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Gastrich has also posted a paranoid rant on at least a couple of the discussion pages for the articles that were nominated for deletion. If the history list is any indication, he's posted it to all of them.

You know, if it were me, and I had all these people pointing out all of these things that are being pointed out to Gastrich, I'd at least step back, take a look, and evaluate the situation. Maybe those folks just might be on to something. But not Gastrich. He's definitely in his own little world. - WarriorScribe 02:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[Insert Gastrich rant (and probable link to his stolen-name-domain group) below:]

Another refutation and clarification
Gastrich, in his response, wrote, "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 not really clear what this is supposed to mean or to whom Gastrich refers. If the "lists" are those names that appear on the project page and have contributed to the RfC, and even if the "lists" refers to those whom I know whom have also refuted, rebutted, reverted, or edited Gastrich's comments at Wikipedia, the fact is neither they nor I initiated the RfC. As far as I can tell, it was initiated -- rightfully, to be sure -- by a few of the administrators, as well as several other long-time contributors at Wikipedia. Checking the history of the contributors to the RfC, I have been in regular communication with two of them and I know one other from Usenet. That's it. The subsequent responses have included lots of people I've never heard of (and vice versa, of course) before now.

In fact, of the two with whom I am in regular communication, both were openly contributing to Wikipedia before I happened along as anything other than anonymous and both had had run-ins with Gastrich.

We're all (allegedly) adults, here. We're all responsible for our own behaviors. I don't try to force anyone to do anything and the same is true in reverse. The common thread here is Gastrich's misadventures and bad behavior, that has triggered a fairly large and decidely negative reaction.

If we read the response on the RfC page, we see that Gastrich is doing what he usually does -- avoiding responsibility and blaming everyone else. It's not that he has misbehaved, it's that we (and especially I) have forced him to misbehave, which is, of course, a lot of nonsense. Nobody is doing any of these things in a vacuum, and nobody seeks or sought out Gastrich for attention. While we're each responsible for our own actions, we are, in the end reacting to him, and generally quite reasonably so, I might add. - WarriorScribe 03:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Gastrich seems to have no misgivings
Below are two warning posted as headers on some (all?) of the AfD's of the articles that Jason Gastrich wrote followed by a rebuttal from Jason:

This rebuttal from Gastrich was posted after he had responded to this RfC. It is clear he is not accepting his role in the disruption and is blaming the disturbance on those that are trying to clean up the mess. With his "make people turn against me" comment he obviously sees himself in a martyrs role. Worse he is blaming others for "damaging the integrity of wikipedia". This is a real problem with respect to what is actually occurring in this RfC. David D. (Talk) 04:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC) Edited to comply with WP:AGF or WP:CIVIL. David D. (Talk) 04:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Although it indeed seems that he is not accepting that many people feel he has been disruptive....Please don't get angry and call him "almost delusional" or "trying to rewrite history". Making others aware of his actions is pretty much enough; interpretation isn't necessary, and interpretation while emotionally heated might get you into hot water with WP:AGF or WP:CIVIL. --AySz88 ^  -  ^  04:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, according to him, questioning his motives for his AfDs only shows you have "low character." Remember, people only dislike him because of Jesus. If they say they're upset about anything else, they are lying. Mark K. Bilbo 05:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

According to the WP:AGF article, "''yelling 'Assume Good Faith' at people does not excuse you from explaining your actions, and making a habit of it will convince people that you're acting in bad faith."


 * It seems pretty clear that Gastrich is interpreting WP:AGF as "never question me." The problem is that that's not part of the assumption of good faith.  My own respect-meter, when it comes to people, starts at 100, as I've said, elsewhere.  If we've never met, you can't earn my respect, because you already have it, as a living, breathing human being.  You can lose it; and once it gets to 0, that's it.  We're done.  WP:AGF is somewhat similar.  We can assume good faith in an editor and writer until such time as he or she demonstrates that he or she doesn't act in good faith.  That's the case with Gastrich.  He wants to complain that his AfDs were viewed as not being initiated in good faith, but he has only himself to blame for that.  For Gastrich, the good ship AGF sailed a long time ago.  Fool me once... - WarriorScribe 05:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Last fall Gastrich's bio came up on AfD. He claimed to have gotten the most votes of any write-in candidate for governor of California.  That might be a reason to keep, I thought.  If a person had gotten several thousand write-in votes then they probably hold real significance in some community or with some particular issue.  I looked up the election results and found that he had gotten exactly nine votes. Durova 10:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * He seems to have an addiction to fuzzy math. He noted that he left MANY comments on my user page: he left two.  Jim62sch 14:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There have been several occasions during which Gastrich's recollection of something was not quite what actually happened. We've seen it a few times, here, and it was a fairly regular thing in Usenet. - WarriorScribe 17:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I assume it would be safe to say the Gastrich is not a "reality-based thinker", yes? Jim62sch 10:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

One thing I will toss into the mix...
It occurs to me that people may not realize that of the rash of atheist articles Gastrich AfDed, three are about people he has had personal conflicts with. Those are Reggie_Finley, Farrell_Till, and myself. Make of that what you will but it's the truth. If I were going around trying to delete articles that are about people I'd had online fights with, I'd expect my motives to be questioned. Mark K. Bilbo 05:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The worst part is that he's doing this petty crap in the name of our Lord Jesus. Ruby 12:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * [spiteful comment removed-see history] Uncle Davey 20:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:NPA Justin Eiler 21:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Justin and will go one step further and remove it. Ruby is a valued contributor and Uncle Davey has thirteen edits too date. I don't care if this breaks wiki policy, it is unacceptable. David D. (Talk) 00:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I see, so because someone is around longer and in the "in crowd" they can say "he's doing this petty crap in the name of our Lord Jesus", which is also against NPA and uncivil, and when I ask the questionas to whether the semi-naked photos of herself she publicises are also "in the Name of our Lord Jesus, which seemed a perfectly valid question to ask under the circumstances, then that's somehow different? I don't get it. There's one set of rules for you guys, you can flaunt all the rules you like. You guys can call me a meatpuppet even though the WP:SOCK says don't call these posters meatpuppets, but be civil, you can get on my case for making only 13 edits, like that was the way to make me stick around and do 13 hundred, but the minute I ask someone else a simple question, it's not OK. Double standards. Why don't you just let the woman answer the question I asked with a simple yes or no answer? Are you afraid of the answer, or something? Quite frankly I had enough of this style of censorship when I lived in the Soviet Union, and if more people in the free world had experienced what I experienced, they would think a lot longer before blotting out someone's words, which I do on my sites and groups as little as I possibly can. Uncle Davey 09:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you miss the fact that she is describing his editing. You were attacking her personally. And your escalation was out of proportion to what she said which, nevertheless, was also wrong. Given what you said to her, however, there is no need to push it further. Davey, if you want to contribute constructively, stop being Gastrich's foil and become an independent editor. Anyway, as a new user you are no help to Gastrich in the RfC. You'll just piss people off more. David D. (Talk) 09:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not "attack her personally", I merely ASKED THE QUESTION, since she had said what she said which you admit, being a fair-minded person, was wrong. Now please note I am not making any value judgements about the rights and wrongs of alluring shots of sisters appearing on their websites, for all I know maybe somebody will be converted by it. I simply asked whether it was done in the name of our Lord. I think a yes or no answer to that question is something she doesn't really need to be protected from answering, although I do respect your gentlemanly instincts in wanting to do that. Please note that the image I reminded her of appears as a thumbnail on a page DIRECTLY LINKED TO by her own userpage here in Wikipedia, whereas the dredging up of my temper display to John Wolf has in fact nothing whatsoever to do with Wikipedia, and only to do with the activity of publishing private confidences and private e-mails, whatever they might be about. Anyway, this is my final word on the subject. She can answer the question or refuse to answer as she sees fit. I've really got nothing against her all I wanted to do is remind a little about glass houses and stones. We all live in glass houses, there is something wrong with all of us. It's not really my purpose to single out Ms Ratzinger for comment, although I think you know by now I get most annoyed when other Christians start siding with the non-believers against Christians whose style is too much for them. I had the same point exactly with the Youth Pastor on this page, who wants to tell me that I should pray and read the Bible and seek the advice of my Spiritual Leaders about Brother Jason, making the big assumption that I had not done so, when in fact I sought God's guidance on that issue two and a half years ago. He seems to think that there is one way of being a Christian and that is his way, and if anyone disagrees, they cannot have prayed and read the Bible enough. That's the typical approach of the immature believer. I would not send my kids to his youth group as I would not like for them to become clones. Anyway, I will take your kindly advice and become an independent editor, although I thought I was one already. Uncle Davey (Talk) 11:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you'll branch out. Until today, when you started editing your user page (that was set up for your by Gastrich), your only non gastrich related edit was at At Sign'''. i look forward to seeing more of your contributions and will be glad to help if you need help getting used to the terrain. David D. (Talk) 12:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I will start to make edits on articles as I see the need for them, but until I got started here I had no idea how to do it. The format is extremely rich and there is a lot to learn. I would also like to submit images, but I cannot work out how to do that. I was going to add something to David Horn's edit on Esociformes, but I thought it might be too provocative and take it to a new level, that perhaps we ought not to go to. Nevertheless, according to fishbase, there are many more species of Esociformes than he thinks. He has also spoken more about pikes and mudminnows and left pickerels out almost entirely. I simply do not know whether there is any point in importing the info that is in Fishbase, though, when that article already links to fishbase. I also note that the image given for the Esociformes article is under copyright, which you can see if you use google images on "Pike" or "Esox lucius" - you will see it is a slight edit of a print by a modern painter which is for sale on other sites. The authorship is not even accredited. I don't say DWH did it, but I was surprised he didn't pick up on it. --Uncle Davey (Talk) 12:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I just want to add, and I was hoping I could leave this out, but at least speaking for myself, some of us who have gotten involved in this issue are neither Christians (fundamentalists or otherwise), nor Atheists, but just want to keep Wikipedia true to its mission as an encyclopedia written from a neutral point of view, where people kind of respect each other and articles can be evaluated on merit. Yes, it bothers me that he does this in the name of Christ, whose teachings surely are not being reflected in this type of behavior.  But it would bother me as much if he did this in the name of Judaism or Atheism or Libertarianism  or the need to recycle aluminum cans.  It's the oppressive steamrolling of his views and the willingness to ignore all decorum and break all rules (not those kind of rules) as a way toward using Wikipedia as his personal soapbox that bothers me the most. Crunch 13:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed completely. Jim62sch 14:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * None of this actually has anything to do with religion or the lack of same. If it actually were about religion, why is it that quoting the Bible makes Gastrich so angry? And how it is that some of the nastiest things done have been done to other Christians such as User:Icj_tlc? The "Christian vs. atheist" thing is nothing but a smoke screen. Always has been. Mark K. Bilbo 16:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It appears to have all the makings of a case study in megalomania. Jim62sch 18:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevance
Remember that you should only file relevant arguments in this RfC. This means that you should only include situations within Wikipedia. Situations outside Wikipedia, like the "Uncle Davey" comment, are irrelevant. SYCTHOS talk 16:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it is irrelevant. It related to something that happened on Wikipedia, after all. Gastrich has shown that he is more than willing to communicate outside Wikipedia on Wikipedia-related matters in order to avoid the community's scrutiny when it is unfavourable to him; hence emailing people to recruit votes when using their talk pages got him in hot water, attempting to establish a Christian lobby outside Wikipedia, and nominating articles for deletion that concerned people he has personal disputes with on Usenet. He has engaged in enough behaviour outside Wikipedia that is nonetheless detrimental to us to take it into consideration. --Malthusian (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't forget phoning the father of one wikipedian with whom he disagreed. This type of intimidation is very disturbing. David D. (Talk) 17:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And Davey has posted here at least once, after all, to tell us that LBU isn't a diploma mill, protest that we aren't being as critical of other religious schools (didn't he take another swipe at Islam in that comment?) and complain that the real problem is that we just don't like fundamentalists. Elsewhere, Davey admitted that Gastrich tried to recruit him to come to Wikipedia, but he's been too busy. - WarriorScribe 17:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

A few words
Wanted to say a few things about this situation in general. Jason's actions have been deplorable. Starting from what could have been innocent misunderstandings to deliberate disruptions of wikipedia. And for this he needs AT-LEAST a slap on the hand, and/or a temporary ban to cool down. But, in my opinion some of the users that have been in this situation, have not handled it in the most mature fashion. User:JzG just posted a note on Jason's talk page that closely follows my feelings on the matter (an appeal for calm). Quite a few of you have been "baiting" Jason (probably unintentionally). He's a realatively new user, who been used to "fighting atheists on usenet". Quoting scripture, accusing him, and playing the debate are not going to help diffuse the situation, and will actually escalate the problem with him. Assuming good faith, when somebody(especially a new user) has 10 articles of theirs nominated for deletion in one day, they're going to be a little peeved; and probably lash out. "Stay calm, don't worry this stuff happens. And they're probably not all going to be deleted. (explain the AfD procedures)" is a much better response than using words that the user would find inflamatory. The "older" users (especially admins) should know this. The goal should be to diffuse the situation not escalate it. This being said, not everyone will listen to reasonable discourse (even after cooling down), and Jason may be one of those. Wynler 18:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, as to my previous sentence, I would say more, but I want to avoid any possible personal attack against any user. Including Jason. I will discuss this with an admin if asked.  Wynler 19:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you Wynler. I completely agree. Crunch 19:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Very nice. I think this is a good perspective on this. There has definitely been some baiting going on. Everyone thinks they have God on their side, even if they don't believe in him. rodii 21:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Jason Gastrich is a very active editor. If he were a more careful contributor he might be a real asset to Wikipedia and a better representative of his faith. Words of wisdom applies here. I'd rather spend my time reading his contributions on "...did you know?" than voting on them at AfD. I doubt he can gain much for Christianity by locking horns with people. Abraham Lincoln had the right idea, "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?" Durova 21:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "Very active?" Hmmm...well, I suppose.  One should qualify that, though, and remember that, of the 2000 or so plus "edits," a good majority of them are simple categorizations of persons and institutions as "christian" or "atheist," and a great deal of time is spent on doing that rather than other, claimed, certainly more wothwhile and useful pursuits.  Frankly, there just isn't much substance to the contributions that were not catergorizations (including several on his own page), and we even know of one that could be considered plagiarized, at least for a time.  I have to wonder how many of the others are also plagiarized.


 * I'm not saying that you believe that we should be impressed by mere numbers. However, your comment allowed me to respond and make that point.  Numbers don't matter.  Quality is what matters, I think.   - WarriorScribe 22:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * He reached 2000 edits in his first two months. That's enough to make me wish he were contributing more to the community instead of disrupting it.  The point where we agree is the quality of these contributions.  If Mr. Gastrich's goal is to raise awareness about Christians and Christianity, then he could make more progress with a quarter of that edit count by - let's say - helping peer review articles advance to featured status. Durova 23:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly! And who cares if actor such-and-such or sports figure so-and-so is a Christian?  Perhaps some meaningful commentary about, oh, Francis Schaeffer or C.S. Lewis would be much more useful to the community as well as those using Wikipedia as a resource.  Simply parroting the claims of a few, select conservative Christians doesn't do much good, even if the creation of articles for a few of them can certainly be considered helpful.    At any rate, it looks like we agree that the numbers of edits are less important than the quality of those edits.  If you write ten very meaningful and useful articles and I go through 100 articles and change a word here and there or put in a period where one might be forgetten, while that's useful to a degree, I'd say that you make the better contribution. - WarriorScribe 00:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This RfC has more storylines than "Desperate Housewives" Ruby 17:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I started out thinking Gastrich was sincere but ill-judged, but the more I read about him the more I question whether he pursues any glory but his own. And that's the worst thing, because he's made me cynical about him, and I am not naturally cynical. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] AfD? 23:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The people Jason considers to be enemies of the cross can talk until they're blue in the face and he will never listen, because to him entertaining their thoughts on this matter is the same as listening to the devil. The only people Jason will listen to are those who can successfully point out to him that his disruption of WP is working against the Great Commission.  Unfortunately, the temptation of fighting the drama is currently too great for him to resist, and I don't think he can reel himself back in and do the right thing because, sadly, his heart does not seem to be fertile ground for Christ to abide within, and his salvation apparently never "took". Ruby 02:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What??? If I get to the end of this sentence without saying something retaliatory, it means I really can resist temptation. --Uncle Davey (Talk) 20:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, I don't know if Ruby was being serious or ironical, but what she wrote certainly sounds like many popular evangelists -- Pat Robertson comes to mind. If she was serious, Justin is correct (see below); if she was being ironical, she has a good point.  Jim62sch 00:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Response to Ruby, and a "Last Word"
Ruby, I'm not sure if such an evaluation is going to be terribly useful: as Christians, such a judgement is "above our pay-grade," if you will, and it's really not an operative issue within Wikipedia.

The point of the discussion is to see if we can gain some form of community consensus: as it stands, Jason is still a member of this community, even though he's not contributed (under his user name) since his ban expired. The RfC is an important part of that process of gaining consensus: if Jason does not chose to consider abiding by the community consensus, then the next step will be an Arbitration request.

Jason, as it stands, the ball is in your court. The Wikipedia community has had it's say--now it's your turn. You can abide by the standards of the community, or you can violate those standards: but realize, if you choose to violate those standards, you will reap the penalty for such actions.

It's as simple as that, Jason. All choices have consequences, whether those consequences are for good or for ill. Make your choice, and accept the consequences of that choice. Justin Eiler 03:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Unless those choices are made by people with admin friends of course. Hypocrits. Itake 04:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Romans 13:4 "For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." (belatedly signed by Ruby 01:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC) )


 * Itake, there is a very broad range of people endorsing this RfC. That group includes Christians, agnostics, atheists, new admins, old admins and non-admins.  Numerous specific examples are provided and, while one might dispute some of them them one by one, overall that's a pretty damning list.  As far as I can tell there is no significant dissent from the view that Gastrich has done wrong, the disagreement seems to centre on how wrong, what the consequences should be, and whether he is likely to abide by any resolution.  He is not unique in doing these things, but that is no excuse. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] AfD? 08:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed closure
While I realize the situation with Jason is not, yet, actually resolved, he has been temporarily blocked from editing pending a checkuser investigation (See note on his talk page), and therefore is not able to respond to comments. I'm not quite sure if this is the correct procedure here at WP, but could I recommend that we close this particular RfC and consider the situation "escalated" to the Admin?

If Jason is allowed back and behaves in a productive manner, or is permanently banned, then the issue is resolved and the RfC becomes unnecessary. And if he comes back and continues disruptive behavior, then this RfC can be reopened or a new RfC started.

Second? (Yeah, I know, Wikipedia is Not a Democracy) ;)

Justin Eiler 18:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You may have the hierarchy down incorrectly. RfC is already higher than normal admins. And given Jason Gastrich's history it would not make sense to give him a twenty-seventh chance to "behave in a productive manner". A lot of what he's done is inexcusable. -- Cyde Weys 20:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I probably do have the hierarchy messed up--this is my first (and, hopefully, my last) time in dispute resolution. But for the most part we do have consensus that Jason has done some inappropriate things in his recent history here, and at least while the checkuser is going on, I'm honestly not sure if there can be any more progress towards consensus.


 * As for me, from now on I think I'll just stick with nuking vandalism and correcting typos. It's so much easier that way. Justin Eiler 21:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to say that if I thought the situation was unfixable I'd have blocked him myself earlier, but I understand why it was done. The real problem is that checkuser takes a long time because it relies on the goodwill of a very small number of people (roughly one) so results take time to gather.  Hopefully it can be expedited since this process is somewhat stalled in the mean time. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] AfD? 22:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I only blocked him for 24 hr to get the message across that his continued disruption of AFD and badgering of others was not acceptable, since this RFC wasn't making much of an impression on him. The block expires in a few hours and he'll be free to edit. Or if he continues to be disruptive the block can be reinstated until we get the results from checkuser. What happens next is up to Gastrich. FeloniousMonk 00:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly which rules did Gastrich violate now again? Itake 01:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * They're detailed in the RFC: Requests_for_comment/Jason_Gastrich. FeloniousMonk 02:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

O.K. I'll bite. Evidence_of_disputed_behavior discusses problems with: For more information read: WP:CIVIL |  WP:HAR  |  WP:NPA  |  WP:NOT  |  WP:NPOV  |  WP:OWN  |  WP:SOCK  |  WP:AGF  |  WP:AUTO  |  WP:CON  |  WP:POINT David D. (Talk) 01:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppetry
 * Meatpuppetry
 * Neutrality
 * Civility, attacks, harassment, and ascribing motives
 * Ownership and edit warring
 * Self-promotion
 * Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point


 * Sounds good and all, but which of these did we find him "guilty" of? Was there any concensus, any decision reached? Or was he banned because some of you felt he had violated the above rules... Itake 01:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * He was RfCed for starting the behavior listed above, and temporarily blocked for continuing the behavior after he responded to the RfC. If you want the official reason for the block, go read the note on his talk page. Justin Eiler 01:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I know his block was not a conclusion of the RfC. It was due to his "continued participation on AFD and pov editing of contested articles despite the overwhelming community consensus seen at your RFC". Since it was a temporary block it looks more like a warning shot. David D. (Talk) 01:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia due to your continued participation on AFD and pov editing of contested articles despite the overwhelming community consensus seen at your RFC, admitted sockpuppetry and pending the outcome of the checkuser investigation regarding your other suspected sockpuppets."

I find that completely unacceptable. There is no real evidence or facts that can backup his ban. Once again one of the Gastrich-hating admins have abused their powers to further their own case. I'l be discussing this with other admins, and I hope to have your admin powers revoked. You are clearly not fit to have them. Why shouldn't Gastrich be allowed to participate in AfD? Since when did you become the almighty god admin that decided what was and what was not POV? Where is the overwhelming concensus, because I can't see it. No concensus that affirms that all the things you are accusing Gastrich of are true. This is definently the last straw, FeloniousMonk should loose his admin powers if it the last thing I ever do. Itake 01:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether you find it "completely unacceptable" or not is irrelevant. When one plays in somebody else's yard, one plays by the rules. If you don't like it, you're more than welcome to go play on Usenet. Justin Eiler 01:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know what "Usenet" is, and I don't care what "Usenet" is. I don't care wheter you belive this encyclopedia is the backyard of you and your admin abusing friends either. Itake 02:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As you choose, Itake. Have a nice day. God bless you! Justin Eiler 02:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Itake, what Justin said is completely correct: if you don't like the rules here you can either work toward changing them (while still abiding by them, of course), or you can go elsewhere. As for what FM has done, he has acted properly and within his scope.  If the same could be said of your beloved Jason, we'd not be going through all of this.  Perhaps rather than writing rants meant to defend the indefensible, you might want to take the time to read up on the various Wiki rules and codes of conduct Jason has violated. Jim62sch 18:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If you think Felonious has done wrong you can raise an RfC against him, you would I think find a small number of supporters, but far more opposed. In my view Felonious made a completely defensible decision to limit disruption to the project by one who has caused quite enough disruption already.  Do you honestly believe that Gastrich has done nothing for which he should reproach himself? - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] AfD? 09:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Just statements like "he has acted properly and within his scope" doesn't make what he did anymore right. Are you saying he did not NOT violate the Wikipedia civility guidelines? And once again, read before you post. I did not say Gastrich has done nothing for which he should reproach himself, I'm saying similar violations have been made by nearly ever user who was related to the AfD debate, yet only me and gastrich got banned. And we where the ones most strongly against a delete, while FeloniousMonk and his gang were the ones mostly strongly for a delete. I don't trust RfC, as seen here all you do it talk. You are unable to meet criticism or even respond in a debate, you just state suspicions like they are facts and then move on. Itake 13:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Tu quoque does not defend Jason's wrongdoing, nor your own. Justin Eiler 13:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Funny, acting properly and within one's scope sounds to me like the very definition of 'right'. Itake, how many people will need to endorse this RFC before you realise that Gastrich is only a victim of himself? 30? No, we're already past that point. 50? 100? As for tu quoque arguments, you've already been told what to do if you genuinely believe that other users are as guilty is Gastrich and are being coddled by a cabal of admins, and aren't just trying to deflect criticism - open RfCs on them and see if they get the same support Gastrich's did. --Malthusian (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * We are all human. We have spats with people from time to time (look at the exchanges between me and CyclePat for example).  But we are not all relentlessly pushing a barrow, ascribing motives to others when their opinions conflict with ours, using attack as the first and pretty much sole form of defence or indeed engaging in wholesale sockpuppetry.  All of us are open to scrutiny.  Any action by any editor, and especially any admin, is open to criticism, challenge and even censure.  Tony Sidaway has been roundly condemned for acting unilaterally, out of good and well-reasoned motives.  Nobod is above criticism.  Few of us, however, have caused quite as much disruption and wasted quite so much of the community's time as has Jason Gastrich.  Every attempt to extend the benefit of the doubt has ended up simply handing him more rope with which to hang himself, an endeavour in which he has co-operated to the fullest extent.  Me, I am a Christian.  I am chronically naive.  I let CyclePat and Bonaparte get away with murder, because they have redeeming qualities. Let's see Jason reveal his. My proposed resolution allows him to continue to contribute to the project in a positive way, as long as he puts ego to one side and recognises that this is a community, not a soapbox. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 00:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Itake posted the following beneath a summary I had endorsed: "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." I responded on Itake's user talk page with the following, "Itake, if you can show me where I've violated any Wikipedia policy against you or Jason Gastrich then I'll apologize. I really don't think I have. I don't think I've attacked your religion either. Durova 04:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)" So far I've received no response. In this context it is odd to read Itake's accusation to another editor above, "You are unable to meet criticism or even respond in a debate, you just state suspicions like they are facts and then move on." Durova 20:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Very odd. I guess he is composing a VERY long list of your transgressions. Itake, one example will be fine. Don't waste time on a full rebuttal. David D. (Talk) 20:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This could prove interesting should David's theory regarding Itakes' current whereabouts and deeds be correct. The Inquisition all over again, too cool. Jim62sch 22:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

have doubts about this guy?
http://www.durangobill.com/JasonGastrich.html This page really enlightened me. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brokenfrog (talk • contribs).
 * I've seen it as well. It could easily make it onto scandal-current affairs shows like A Current Affair and Today Tonight in Australia.Blnguyen 07:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I saw it too. I take it with a pinch of salt, but there is enough real hard data in there and the other linked pages to overcome whatever doubts I may have had about including citations to Gastrich's work in other articles.  - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] AfD? 13:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think Jason Gastrich is important enough for television coverage. I do think Wikipedia must limit the involvement of editors who insist their own POV creates a personal exemption from site rules.  Or else, collectively, they would create a scandal of that magnitude. Durova 19:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's just say that Gastrich is trying to make himself that important. Jim62sch 00:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC) 00:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I see this (marginally) as a possible way that WP could get a bad name more than as anything relevant to JG. He's pretty small beer on the notability scale as a person though. ++Lar: t/c 01:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Every comment here or in his talk page that can be construed by Jason as an attack will be seen by him as fulfillment of Christ's words in Matthew 5:11-12 "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you." Therefore it is important to bring these proceedings rapidly to a close and put your John Hancock on a purely business-like ultimatum. Ruby 02:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ruby. This is just adding fuel to the fire/kicking Jason while he's down. He won't learn the lesson you want him to learn. Just let it go. rodii 02:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm less interested in "teaching Jason a lesson" than in protecting Wikipedia. He's had plenty of time to learn lessons, and if he wants to hide behind religiously-inspired self-delusion, that's a personal problem beyond the scope of the RfC. I agree these proceedings should be drawn toward a close, but I'm not sure that an "ultimatum" should still be on the table: is there any reason at all to believe that he will change his behaviour? MCB 01:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * is there any reason at all to believe that he will change his behaviour? 
 * He's not posted (under his own username) since his block expired. Unfortunately, with no input from him, there's no evidence to make such a judgement on--and the last evidence available indicates that he will not. Justin Eiler 02:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to agree with Justin. In order for Jason to change his behaviour, he needs to admit that his behaviour was not acceptable.  He has declined to do so.  In fact, while he admitted to sockpuppetry he provided what amounted to an argument of why his use of a sockpuppet was acceptable.  I would not call that a promising sign. Jim62sch 17:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

What next?
There seems to be a strong consensus that there is a problem, that Gastrich does not recognise that there is a problem even though it has been pointed out many times, and that there is some desire to "do something". Tony Sidaway suggested that he should be "given the bum's rush" as a POV-pusher with an agenda overriding all potential contribution value. We're still waiting for WP:RFCU, of course. So what next? - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You have to translate this bit "given the bum's rush" ? If that means a reprimand along with comments such as 1) try and work to a consensus, 2) Assume good faith, 3) keep religion out of it. Then I'm all aboard. If he continues to ignore such a request then i would recommend this RfC goes straight to Arb com (if that can be done).  David D. (Talk) 21:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OK i just figured out what it means. Possibly a bit harsh for a first RfC? I would favor a warning on a VERY short leash. David D. (Talk) 21:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

As long as he sticks to writing about his favourite Christian rock stars and baseball players, then he's okay. But he's otherwise exhibiting MPOV extremely strongly, and given the lengths he's gone to with Usenet and his websites and so on, I think good faith is thin on the gorund because Jason is so blinded by his own to his own behaviour. &mdash; Dunc|☺ 21:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dunc and Daycd, that Mr Gastrich should be given a reprimand and a second chance, albeit with a "very short leash". Seems fair and reasonable given the circumstances. --kingboyk 22:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Gastrich is a man on a mission, a mission that is antithetical to that of Wikipedia.  His creation of Wilki4Christ as a crusader group aiming to stamp out the "atheist POV " of Wikipedia indicates that he is not here to bring balance, but to overwhelm.  If he is allowed to continue we may very well see real edit wars, with counter-crusader groups like Wiki4Allah, Wiki4Brahman, Wiki4Yahweh being created.  This would be quite counterproductive, and possibly the death of Wikipedia as a reliable resource.  You may think this is a bit hyperbolic, I think not -- it is consistent with the lessons we see everyday from the real world.  There can be no tolerance for the religious intolerance of certain groups.  Jason needs to go -- it is the logical thing to do if we are concerned with the future of Wikipedia. Jim62sch 23:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Jim62sch: Jason's stated mission is not "antithetical" to Wikipedia's, although his execution (so far as I've seen) is. There is no compelling reason to prevent members of any such groups as you list from editing wikipedia. Wikipedia editors' actions are contstrained by wiki-policy/guidelines, but their motivation is not. If the stated mission of Gastrich is to "stamp out the 'atheist POV'" on wikipedia, you should be with him. You agree that NPOV ought to be upheld, n'est-ce pas? Now, if he is, in fact, engaging in POV-pushing (which he certainly has on numerous occassions in the past), that is an issue totally independent of his declared or undeclared motivations in editing wikipedia. Your fallacious (slippery slope) argument about doom and gloom for wikipedia if such groups' members are not banned seems a bit hysterical. Now, I think you and I agree that Jason Gastrich has been acting inappropriately, and I for one support his being banned. The justification for such a ban ought to be clear-cut, though, and not some forecast about impending barbarian hordes. Dick Clark 23:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Dick, there is no atheist POV on Wikipedia. The quotation marks were there for a reason.  If you were to agree with Gastrich that there is an atheist POV this would be more an indication of your POV than of mine.  Your argument as to why I should be "with" him is certainly fallacious -- "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is an illogical concept.
 * As for my argument, it is hardly fallacious, it represents a very real possibility. One need only to look at the world around us to see that religious fundamentalism and fanaticism are growing.  Religions are squaring off against each other over what are no more than superficial differences, and I do not want to see Wiki become a forum for such hatred and stupidity.  If you wish to call my argument speculative or hypothetical, I have no problem with that.
 * Having said all that, I'm glad we agree on what should happen with Jason, however, we need to apply some projection-based judgment: what is the possibility that the person has or will be "reformed"? Jim62sch 23:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, to the best of my knowledge an RfC cannot impose any penalties: we can either drop the matter, or we can wait for Jason to answer, or we can request arbitration. I guess that depends on the community here, and how the following question would be answered:


 * Do we feel that good faith should be extended again to Jason?

If we, as a community, answer the second question with "No," then I would suppose the only alternative is to request a temporary or permanent ban. We certainly have consensus that Jason did some wrong things, and I'm guessing that community consensus would weigh heavily in the Administrator's deliberations.

But do we have consensus that Jason should not receive an assumption of good faith?


 * As far as I'm concerned, given his history, good faith used in concert with Jason's name is an oxymoron. Besides, Jason has a number of other outlets from/on which to spread his views (OK, usenet might be out).  Sorry, but sometimes the needs of the many really do outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.  Jim62sch


 * nods* The majority seems to agree with you--I regret to say that I must also agree. However, this question might be easier to ask: is there anyone here who will speak up in his defense, that they see some possibility of his changing his ways and becoming a productive member of Wikipedia?


 * I see Jason continuing to be a productive editor of the Christian side of Wikipedia without repeating his mistake of disrupting the non-Christian side. This RfC clarifies the consensus for a posture of zero-tolerance for any future disruption, should he succumb to that temptation.  Ruby 02:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Jason hasn't edited - at least under his name - for 3-4 days. Currently 13 people (including me) seem to think that Jason should be given at least a long block if he attempts to come back and re-introduce his POV into Wikipedia (see my Inside View). Apparently only one person apart from Gastrich disagrees (Itake - if someone else disagrees, please go ahead and endorse Itake's response).
 * I'm aware that Wikipedia is not a democracy and that will of the majority is not sufficient reason to administer a long-term block, but nonetheless I'd be very surprised if he made another POV edit or categorisation and was only given a token block (24 hours) or none at all, and would not be afraid to ask the admin who gave him that block why he gave Gastrich even more benefit of the doubt.
 * In summary - if he stays away from Wikipedia, a block is just a vindictive kick in the rear, of which I disapprove. But if he comes back, well, a kick in the front is different. --Malthusian (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I do have to mention that I'm very uneasy about dividing Wikipedia into "sides," no matter where the line of demarcation lies. Beyond that, I'm in complete agreement with Ruby and LM. The only option that I would add is that if he comes back to Wikipedia and abides by WP policies, I'll be glad to welcome him back. Justin Eiler 02:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, so please don't think I'm disagreeing with your view personally, but... the line of demarcation in the case of Jason Gastrich is in this very RfC, sub-section 1.3, "Applicable policies". --Malthusian (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point. Perhaps instead of "demarcation," I should have said "warring camps." Justin Eiler 04:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * For avoidance of doubt I should add that I'd be overjoyed if Gastrich came back and started contributing to Wikipedia positively, but I honestly don't think he's capable of that for any extended period of time. He thinks we're going to Hell - he's said so on this very RfC. I can't imagine anyone thinking "Well, they are going to Hell, but NPOV is more important than eternal salvation". --Malthusian (talk) 02:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've always been under the impression that people don't go to hell on someone's say-so until after God weighs in on the matter. Also, in replay to Justin Eiler, when I wrote about "sides" that was just a way to express my point in a brief manner.  I don't expect Jason to be able to contribute productively to articles about same-sex marriage or evolution.  Ruby 02:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Malthusian's take on this, and the zero-tolerance position, though I wish I could be more optimistic. I'm undecided about whether Jason is a good-faith, but inextricably POV, editor or whether he's consciously scamming Wikipedia. Either way, I have a hard time imagining him as a productive contributor. And as long as Wiki4Christ exists, it's going to be hard to trust him. I think getting rid of that site and that effort should be a prerequisite for his being accepted here.—rodii 04:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You can make him remove the site, but you can't change his view of Wikipedia editors, which he states thus jcsm.org/Online/WeeklyDevotions440.htm: "There are only two teams: God's team and the Devil's team. You are either for Him or against Him.  There is no middle ground."  Ruby 04:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm not sure if it would be appropriate to "make him remove the site." But like many here, I fear that if and when he comes back (under his own name or another), he will continue to be a problematic editor--and I'm persuaded that he will remain completely convinced that he's in the right, and anyone who disagrees is in the wrong.
 * However, I also agree with Malthusian that if he does not return, (or does not continue the behaviors that got him in trouble before), then the issue is moot. Justin Eiler 04:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting he be "made to" do anything. What I'm saying is that as long as he's running a site or mailing list whose purpose is to bring a Christian POV to Wikipedia, he really can't be trusted to be a neutral editor. It's hard to assume good faith when someone is publically undermining the principles of Wikipedia on another site. —rodii 05:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I can see the wisdom in that. I'm not sure if it would be enforceable, but it would be just. Justin Eiler 05:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's my $0.02: I'm pessimistic about Jason Gastrich's chances of adhering to Wikipedia policies in the future. His response to RfC was unrepentant. Several dozen editors have agreed that he is disruptive, with only one (or perhaps two) coming to his defense. Jason and his supporter(s) contend that this is a religious struggle. The articulate statements of several Christian laypeople and a clergy member have not facilitated compromise. The collective hours that have been spent on this RfC could have made real improvements to the encyclopedia itself. Certainly articles have gone from peer review to featured status with less attention. This is the very definition of a disruptive editor.

Other editors know ArbCom better than I. In light of Mr. Gastrich's apparent decision not to return, at least temporarily, I suspect it would be difficult to get a block at this point. I suggest this RfC conclude with a strong reprimand. Jason Gastrich is an acceptable editor on the subjects of Christian rock music and Christian athletes. The reprimand may encourage him to continue in this vein if he returns. Perhaps the mentorship program would help him: he could get a Christian mentor to coach the difference between productive awareness raising and counterproductive policy violations. Any future violations should proceed to ArbCom very quickly. The reprimand would explain this. Jason Gastrich has expended our assumption of good faith. The community cannot continue to fritter away its time on this matter. Durova 22:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I second that proposal (and, in regards to the issue of timewasting, hereby remove the page from my watchlist :) ). --kingboyk 22:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I withdraw this proposal now that admins have confirmed several new sockpuppets. Durova 20:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Three more socks
For some values of "not return" - three new socks were blocked this morning. I think it is time to consider what, if any, sanctions should be applied. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 11:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The first sanction is that I'm permanently withdrawing my assumption of good faith in regards to Mr. Gastrich. I was one of the two or three people who thought he could change. Ruby 12:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * His excuse right from the beginning for using socks was so his "enemies" would not revert his edits. It is becoming clearer that his "enemies" respresent most of the community.  His actions and words lead to the conclusion that he is trying to game the system rather than seek compromise. His actions also suggest he is unwilling to change since through this RfC he knew what was at stake. Assuming the socks are his (hard to know since he is using AOL, although the IP number of those three users should be similar) I suggest moving this to Arb com for them to consider a ban.  David D. (Talk) 14:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Seconded. This should easily make it to RFAr.  You might want to talk to Mark K. Bilbo as well ... he knows a whole helluva lot about Gastrich and Gastrich's history.  -- Cyde Weys  14:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Endorsed. A new section probably needs to be added the actual RfC documenting these sockpuppets, and the contris and history. Justin Eiler 14:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Likewise. I agree, he is gaming the system rather than trying to work within it. —rodii 15:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Endorse moving to ArbCom proceedings. Gastrich seems dead-set against accepted community standards. Dick Clark 16:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Endorse. Is anyone filing the case? If it's just a matter of someone actually doing the paperwork, informing Gastrich etc. I'd be happy to. --Malthusian (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to say the community here made a valiant try to get through to him but I've never seen anyone succeed. He was openly contemptuous of the RfC and felt it was beneath him to bother replying. He'll just regard any policy that doesn't let him have what he wants as a barrier put in his way by the atheist cabal. I mean, you are all just minions of WS and I. Just in case you didn't know (I have the weirdest urge to say "Dance my puppets! Dance! MUWAHAHAHAHAHA" ). Mark K. Bilbo 19:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Tip of the ice berg?
Looking at contributions at the LBU page and the Hovind page there is reason to suspect that any of the following users could be associated with Jason Gastrich: User:LinkChecker, User:Turkmen, User:Dug123, User:HRoss and User:TonyT5 How many more are out there? User:207.200.116.10, an AOL IP, made many edits on LBU that were favored by Gastrich. I think some of the edits were even making comments in the first person with regard to Gastrich, although I would have to check that. At the time this user was making edits to LBU they also made edits to the article The Suite Life of Zack and Cody. Looking at that edit history of that article there is a new user User:Jesussaves, could this be Gastrich sleeper?

Wouldn't it be great if AOL used static IP's sigh. David D. (Talk) 18:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've suggested at MetaWiki that AOL users be required to register before they edit. That would eliminate a lot of headaches. Durova 20:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * However, if someone like Gastrich is using many socks its is still hard to prove they are one in the same. Unless they slip up and switch socks with out logging out of AOL.David D. (Talk) 20:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

And now for something completely... the same.
Gastrich is not only unrepentent but openly defiant, creating at least three new sockpuppets today alone (, and ) for the specific purpose of evading WP:3RR.

It strikes me that there is no significant dissent from the view that, for now at least, he does more harm than good. I'm not sure that we can follow through on Tony Sidaway's view that he should be given the bum's rush, but there is no doubt in my mind that all suspected socks should be indef-blocked on sight, that we should go back and indef-block all the current suspected socks (there being no denial of such, and certainly no evidence of good-faith edits from any of them). As to what to do with Gastrich's main account, I have no idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs)


 * Blank it, freeze it for all eternity, and delete the history. Ruby 19:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh, that's a little extreme... keep the history. For the rest, though, Endo is right - nuke it. He does nothing but cause strife and waste people's time. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If you'd care to endorse below vvv I think we can all think about moving on. I am certainly of a mind to take this as consensus to block all the suspected socks indefinitely. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 23:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Move to close
(Moved "Move to close" section to the RfC page.) Justin Eiler 18:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

And we have a new sock of Jason
User:Jaulern just posted this on my talk page. Yet another sock. At least he's admitting this one. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm beginning to wonder of Jason is destined to be a new Wiki-Legend ... like the Communist vandal, or Willie on Wheels. Justin Eiler 13:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wiki-Legend? As far as this Bible student is concerned, he is Wiki-Legion Ruby 14:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone established this new guy as an imposter. Harvestdancer 16:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought it might be a bit more Gastroturfing to start with, but no, it's just somoene having a laugh. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 16:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ruby, that was good, and from the perspective in which you framed it, accurate. JzG, Gastroturfing - good!  Jim62sch 13:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Golly, thanks Jim62sch (as I sit here wondering if there's been a sudden attack of happy gas on the entire Intelligent design editor farm) :-) Ruby 14:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes (-> love it. A very apt term indeed. Lightening up won't solve the problem I know, but I can't help feeling it would mitigate the damage a lot. We must of course beware that we don't turn ridicule into a personal attack, but I think this is a step in the right direction. I hope (and pray) that Jason takes it in the right way. IMO God has a great sense of humour, which Christians often ignore, at considerable cost to both our reputation and our mission (and ourselves). Andrewa 09:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ruby, I wasn't attacking you personally on the ID page (at least I hope I wasn't and if I did, I apologize), I was going after the points themselves. Let's be honest, we were all pretty worked up during that period; ID is a contentious subject and the time of year that all that stuff occurred probably added stress on everyone.  Oh, no happy gas though.  :)
 * Also, at KC's urging, I looked over your edit history and saw that you've made some pretty good edits and suggestions on a number of other pages, so I realized it was probably just the ID topic rather than anything else that created much of the angst. Jim62sch 12:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Continued defiance
This shows that Gastrich is still openly defiant. That, I think, is the core problem: until he recognises that he has acted outside the norms expected in the community, he's not going to change his behaviour to remain within those norms. Although I doubted for a long time whether indeb-blocks for suspected socks were justified, I am more and more convinced that this is right. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 10:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyone who would write a diatribe that begins with "A handful of unbelievers and anti-fundamentalist Christians have led a brigade of hatred" and ends with "May God have mercy on your soul, Guy," is not likely to change. No, "is not likely" is too kind: he will NEVER change.  In addition, in his response he seems to be encouraging sockpuppetry, "It's completely up to them, but I imagine they will use other accounts to post because they don't want to talk to you.".  Jim62sch 12:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Given the blatant violation of WP:CIVIL and the consensus to block him if he violated Wikipedia policy again, I think someone with powers greater than I should do what we said we would do, if only to stop him reverting his user page to a Google linkspam. --Malthusian (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I imagine "they" are little more than third person references to himself. Far as how many "them" there are, Uncle Davey is about it. There aren't even that many "they" on the mailing list he's tried using to Gastroturf (what a great term ) the Wiki. He does this kind of "they" game all the time. It's not so much encouraging sockpuppetry as announcing he intends to continue using socks. Mark K. Bilbo 15:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Mark is exactly right. Gastrich always talks in the third person, except when he talks about God.  Then, occasionally, he slips into first person. That tells you where he is coming from right there. David D. (Talk) 17:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If anyone thinks that the passage of a few days has meant that Gastrich has been reflective, contemplating of the issues, or even remorseful, check out his talk page today; and this after the exposure of more socks. - WarriorScribe 15:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This really needs to go to ArbCom. Jason is now trying to paint this whole affair as a bad-faith attempt on the part of a cabal of evildoers to suppress his Christian message, and the more the same people are involved, the more it looks (to an outsider) as though he may be right. I think getting the "official" judgment of Wikipedia here is probably necessary (not that it will end the accusations). —rodii 17:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Gastrich continues to leave uncivil messages on his talk page, still in the belief that he is persecuted and trying to convince others of that fact. He has also attempted to blank his archives. --Malthusian (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)