Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Former user 20

message: These are at :Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Jason Gastrich, btw. — Dunc|☺ 13:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't list the verified sockpuppets.   We need a new cat. Harvestdancer 18:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

message: 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#Campaigning (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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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#Inclusionists. --AySz88^-^ 05:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder what his Inclusionists thought of all his AfDs yesterday.  Ruby 01:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  E-mail to inclusionists 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Another refutation and clarification 

message: 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 AfD process has been further disrupted by a suspected sockpuppet of , .  See his contributions: they consist almost solely of soliciting others to come to these AfDs and vote keep.
----
As a result of the serial disruption of AfD and other questionable behaviour, I have raised a user RfC on Jason Gastrich, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  AfD? 12:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: I assume it would be safe to say the Gastrich is not a "reality-based thinker", yes?  Jim62sch 10:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gastrich seems to have no misgivings

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: [spiteful comment removed-see history] Uncle Davey 20:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:NPA Justin Eiler 21:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: It appears to have all the makings of a case study in megalomania.  Jim62sch 18:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One thing I will toss into the mix... 

message: 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. SYCTHOStalk 16:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Irrelevance 

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

text: 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]  AfD? 08:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Ruby, and a "Last Word"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

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

text: 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)

text: 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" <G>). Mark K. Bilbo 19:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Three more socks

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Tip of the ice berg?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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]  23:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  And now for something completely... the same. 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 <g>) 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Continued defiance