Archive of discussions

This is an archive of discussions from user talk:JzG and user talk:Just zis Guy, you know? pertaining to Jason Gastrich.

Please do not add new discussion here, click this link to leave a message at my active Talk page. Thanks.

Jason Gastrich, his articles/AfDs and his RfC

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Mr. Gastrich

You're absolutely right. He's made it clear in the past that he view the project as a means to promote his particular pov rather than being here to contribute to the project in a meaningful way. I've found that he bears constant watching for POV, NPA, and most recently, skewing votes. What to do? Generally, keep an eye on the situation, work together, and insist he follows all policies, all the time. Specifically, discussion of votes from any coordinated voting by a cadre he assembles should be moved to the particular AFD's talk page for discussion by others outside that cadre as to the appropriateness of organizing a voting block specifically to skew AFDs. Remember, AFD is supposed to represent the community's viewpoint, not any particular subset of it. FeloniousMonk 18:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, it will be just like the school debate but a magnitude worse. The deluge of minor preachers and self professed ministers has begun. David D. (Talk) 22:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to nip it in the bud. I propose raising an RfC; this [1] tips the balance for me. Gastrich has been disruptive ever since he first used the alleged sock account big lover (talk · contribs) to create the article which now forms his user page. WP:ISNOT a soapbox but the existence of [2] suggests that he disagrees. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 22:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, JzG, you're fighting the good fight here, but these articles just seem to keep coming. I'm concerned that there's a fundamental, irreconcilable difference of what counts as notable, and I note that a lot of the keep votes are from people that identify as evangelicals and Catholic Alliance types on their user pages here. In other words, one sides sees the dispute as about encyclopedicity, but the other sees it as about an attack on their faith. I just can't see a happy resolution here, at least not by talking about this piecemeal, article by article. I support the RfC option but I'm pessimistic. rodii 00:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it's beyonfd a joke. I'm AfDing things because I was looking for an objective review per my thoughts at user:JzG/AfD; that is not what is happening. I do not usually vote on articles I nominate, I feel myself being sucked in to advocating an outcome which is not what I want. What I want is for barrow-pushers like Gastrich to pay their own hosting charges and hot use the 'pedia to push their neo-pharisee POV. As you say, it ain't going to happen. So yes an RFC is probably the best solution. There's plenty of evidence of others trying to tackle Gastrich on his m:MPOV issues. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 00:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Gastrich disrupts every forum he shows up in. Every single one. It's what he does. Well, that and spamming. Mark K. Bilbo 00:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something needs to be done. He's disrupting Wikipedia for his own agenda. I had the misfortune to run into him on talk.origins. Ugh. And now he's here. His outright use of meatpuppets to swing the vote was disgusting and I can't believe he's getting away with it. It's so obvious he's abusing process. I pointed this out to an admin but he wanted to see evidence on the exterior site (JCSM) that shows he was soliciting votes. Well guess what, Gastrich already scrubbed that from his webpage. He probably realized how bad it made him look. But he already had the desired effect ... he got a bunch of people to come into the AfDs and vote delete. I definitely suggest an RfC and I will be more than happy to comment in it. You guys start preparing the diff lists of all of the various times he's found like-minded users through userboxes or whatever and "politely suggested" that they vote keep in this AfD.

There's also a section about this on my talk page. --Cyde Weys 04:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

I think this should be raised on RFC. It's too late for me to write the citation now but I will let you know shortly that I have done so in order that you can certify the basis for the dispute if desired. Stifle 00:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you decide to write a RFC, count me in on it. His behavior was outrageous, and what's worse, he showed no remorse or inclination to change when I asked him about it on his talk page. If it's not addressed, I'm 100% convinced that it'll keep happening. -Colin Kimbrell 04:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I added my ineraction to the RFC. Hopefully, this will get some positive results. -Colin Kimbrell 15:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

I just wanted you to know that your anti-Christian bias has been noted and you are being watched. --Jason Gastrich 08:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! You simply have no idea. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 09:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another empty threat from Gastrich...whom, it should be pointed out, is also being watched...and exposed. - WarriorScribe 10:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Threat? I suppose so; I have no problem being watched (unlike Gastrich I don't use sockpuppets). But the claim is absurd - I am a Christian, a member of the church council (actually the inner circle, the Standing Committee), I am a foundation governor at the church school, crucifer, chalice administrator, chorister and so on. The claim that I am anti-Christian is uttely ludicrous! Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 10:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you're an atheist pretending to be a Christian because you hate Jesus and are trying to destroy Christianity! You Are Being Watched!!!! And being watched by Gastrich can mean... being... erm... you know... watched. I mean, he'll look at you. Scary huh? Mark K. Bilbo 14:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Jason, anyone that disagrees with his narrow interpretation of Chritianity is an unbeliever. Strangely he is willing to use Christians, whom he would normally disagree with theologically, in a forced coallition if it suits his needs (AfD). But the're still going to hell. I suspect that many in his own Church congregation would go against him if they saw his actions. Also remember that 'once saved always saved' is Jason's motto. Thus, he is ALLOWED to be unchristian to get his own way. It is for this reason that he seems so hypocritical and twists every letter of law to suit his own agaenda rather than interpreting the spirit of the law. You will find he commonly says i have done nothing wrong. He really believes it too. The most recent case of this is the meatmeat puppets and vote rigging. David D. (Talk) 16:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Dorim Kim

You should check some of Mr. Gastrich's AFD nominations, if you haven't looked in on them lately. It appears that when confronted about soliciting votes by spamming talk pages, he started soliciting votes instead by sending mass e-mails to users with "Christian" and "Inclusionist" userboxes. What do you think is the right approach to take on this? I'm not as familiar with policy guidelines as I probably should be, but I'm sure what he did isn't kosher. -Colin Kimbrell 05:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs

Is there anything I should know about that led up to these borderline notable Christian AfDs? It seemed to me that Robert Morey was pretty notable from what I could ascertain. My point of reference is Ali Sina whose article has been kept multiple times and has probably made me more of an inclusionist. The others I have read I'm not sure about but Morey seemed pretty notable with references to him by Jack Chick and such. They all seem like they might be more notable than Ali Sina. Hmm. gren グレン ^? 02:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Pack entry

Why did you delete the external link to free prophecy videos featuring Charles Pack? Please mark your edits in the box that says "Edit summary." --Jason Gastrich 10:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The admin rollback button does not include an edit summary option. See article's Talk page. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 10:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to you there. --Jason Gastrich 10:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diploma mills

The more I have seen of these diploma mills on Wikipedia (and read up on them when rewriting articles), the more convinced I have become that we should cover them. We should perhaps not have an individual article on each one, as many of the "virtual mills" are just online fronts for the same businesses, but we should try to cover the main players in the business (there is an international operation called University Degree Programs, or something like that, that stands behind a couple of dozen of them alone), their phony accreditation agencies and all that. They generate a lot of spam both through e-mail and on the web and Wikipedia can do some public good by providing NPOV information. In some form, diploma mills have been around for a long time. Somebody with access to the OED could check when the word "diploma mill" is first used, but I think it is quite old (about 1900 or even earlier) - a History of diploma mills could probably be rather entertaining. :) Tupsharru 12:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting and valid subject, for sure. I wonder how the Gastriches of this world would react to such an article? There is one way to find out, of course... - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 12:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the two earliest usages from OED. David D. (Talk) 16:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1923 Congress. Rec. 12 Dec. 241/2 If the United States mails have been used by self-styled medical institutions and organizations known popularly as ‘diploma mills’ for purposes of fraud in connection with the sale of degrees or diplomas. 1936 Jrnl. Higher Educ. 7 157 A ‘diploma mill’ in Ohio was deprived of its charter in 1900, when investigation..disclosed that the president had sold M.A. degrees for $25 each.

Impressive! I suggest that redlink goes blue :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 19:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look around for some references and begin a stub in a few days. Tupsharru 20:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you support this?

In reference to my full rebuttal to "The Skeptic's Annotated Bible," you said, "It seems to me that there is sufficient dispute about the authority of the Gastrich text that including it is unacceptable at this stage absent consensus on how to handle it." Can you support this? As far as I've seen, one man and a couple of his friends have attacked me and my book (yes, both, which makes their input highly suspect). There are far more positive responses (indicated by 4 out of 5 stars)[3][4][5] than negative ones. So, you've got some "splainin" to do. --Jason Gastrich 20:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, very Christian of you, Jason: "For all that is in the world ... the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." In any case, 2 of the reviews need to be tossed as they are by the same two people (thus we have 26 reviewers). If we ditch the anonymous (a statistically valid practice) we have 21 reviews. Total points awarded by those 21 reviewers equal 71, or 3.4 out of 5. In addition, it's rather hard to take as an unbiased review someone who is clearly a devotee of Gastrich. if we ditch those people as biased the book gets a 1.5 out of 5. A true review might be one found in the NYT (not that they bothered, it didn't meet their standards). Jim62sch 00:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I support "It seems to me that there is sufficient dispute about the authority of the Gastrich text that including it is unacceptable at this stage absent consensus on how to handle it"? Absolutely. Especially in the context of ending an edit war.

Well, I'll be waiting for it. You didn't mention your proof in this post, though. --Jason Gastrich 05:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are adding links to your own work. That is usually considered vanity or spam - actually, not just adding, edit warring to add a link to a site you own. I have some experience of these disputes; the only examples I can call to mind of site owners edit warring to reinsert their own sites have been linkspam.

The link was originally added by another editor. See the history if you don't think so. There are plenty of people who would like to see the link there. --Jason Gastrich 05:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who? You and Uncle Davey? Mark K. Bilbo 06:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As stated on the Talk page, neither of the sources you are edit warring about appear to be reliable sources per usual guidelines, and Amazon reviews are absolutely not reliable - not only are they subject to inclusion bias (few people buy religious books unless they already agree with their conclusions), reviews are not rtraceable back to an identifiable source - authors and PRs have been known to use sockpuppets to puff their own books. I see no pressure from other established editors on that article for inclusion, and the usual approach in these cases is for the established editors on an article to agree what goes in and what goes out.

In any case, who originally added the link is immaterial: it is being repeatedly reinserted by Gastrich and a suspected sockpuppet; also there is sufficient evidence of meatpuppetry (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich) to make the true independence of other editors without a long edit history on the article open to question. The fact of the matter is that the edit war has Gastrich or a suspected sock reinserting links to a book by Gastrich for which no verifiable evidence of authority has been provided. Absent consensus on the Talk page, normal practice is not to include links in these circumstances. Not in any way controversial. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 11:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, I disagree with you that Amazon.com book reviews are meaningless and often inflated. Furthermore, this still doesn't further your claim. When are you going to support what you said? You made a positive claim about a "sufficient dispute about the authority" of my work. Well, where is it? --Jason Gastrich 05:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree all you like, it is a widely accepted fact that Amazon reviews are not authoritative. And what I said was It seems to me that there is sufficient dispute about the authority of the Gastrich text that including it is unacceptable at this stage absent consensus on how to handle it. I don't think this is in any way controversial. I note that you forgot to mention that the Amazon reviews include several one-star reviews with well-reasoned and hard to ignore comments such as I enjoy reading christian apologetics and works of comparative religion and I was loaned a copy of this electronic, CD-based book to see what I thought of it. I am afraid that my critical views align with some of the others on the Amazon site. This is a poor effort at apologetics, the intellectual value is on a par with an albeit lengthy pre-secondary school report. There is always some risk when presuming to take a list of errors while presuming to correct them. One of those risks is that errors are not always errors. Another risk is that the errors are legitimate but those things presumed to be "answers," "corrections" or "explanations" fall well short of the mark by either failing to provide a reasonable, intelligent explanation or by misdirecting from the subject of the supposed error. These things occur frequently in this volume.; this suggests that a degree of scepticism regarding the authority of the source is not unreasonable. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 11:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nor can I see the hurry. It is not as if readers can't be trusted to make up their own minds about something, after all. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 21:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Well, all of this post, JzG, is fluff talk to masquerade your opinion that the link shouldn't be on there. This is simply my judgment based on your running from the question I asked. --Jason Gastrich 05:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: is your opinion as author more opr less likely to be neutral than my opinion as an admin trying to stop an edit war? Past experience suggests less neutral. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 11:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given Gastrich's history of vote manipulation here, I wouldn't put too much stock in his touting his book getting 4 out of 5 stars at Amazon. Amazon reviews are notoriously easy to skew with shills, that needs to weighed against his behavior here. FeloniousMonk 23:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may think that, I couldn't possibly comment ;-) - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 23:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's just simple math. :) Jim62sch 00:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading above it seems that jason is trying to convince everyone that he has great reviews at Amazon. The truth is that jason got Amazon to remove many of the negative reviews. Of those that remain, the most objective reviews are apparently the most scathing. If you are interested in more background on the reviews at amazon read the following usenet thread. David D. (Talk) 06:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention, the facts are that Amazon reviews simply aren't reliable, verifiable sources for anything at all. Anybody can write a Amazon "review." They are nothing but reader opinion. Which can be helpful in finding a book you may like but what authority could they possibly have? "I like this book" is hardly a scholarly opinion.

Also, I have to say that seeing the author of a work allege that others are not being objective is rather amusing. If anybody has a bias about a work, it's the author. You just can't help that. The author is always bias about his work. Mark K. Bilbo 18:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfD Gastrich

I endorsed the main dispute as someone who has tried to resoilve the dispute. Jim62sch 13:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought your summary was bullet-proof. I'm unfamiliar with the RFC process - should I stick my name under "Other users who endorse this summary"? I probably don't count as having tried and failed to resolve the dispute - I did hope this comment might have given him pause for thought, but he deleted it soon after [6], so probably not. --Malthusian (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is evidence of trying to resolve the dispute, which I will add as such. You can sign in the section as such. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 14:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, done. --Malthusian (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion

Hi Jzg. I am about to close some of the "Gastrich" Afds and I want to hear your opinion on how I could close them since all the Afds have been disrupted somehow. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you've got a thick skin mate, I wouldn't fancy that job! --kingboyk 16:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC) (Sorry for butting in, I've got Guy's page on my watchlist)[reply]

lol :) Jzg? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Close them by noting that a "get out the vote campaign" using spam disrupted the voting process. It's not goibg to sit well with Gastrich (he seems to not like the truth), but too bad. Jim62sch 16:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it should probably wait until his RFC is over. The Afds are getting real crazy though. I am following the Rfc to see which ones are sockpuppets. And spamming users is horrible and it really messed up the process, but still legal for some reason. :p --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather you than me, mate! I don't know, I really don't. I might be tempted to strike any vote from a user who has no previous AfD votes and no history on the articles themselves, whether they are keep or delete, but even that is going to be contentious. My betting is that whatever the results they will largely end up at DRV anyway. I suggest we look at them together, using thr Talk pages, and ask User:FeloniousMonk along too; if we make a list of the various users using the {{user}} template, review other contribs and so on, include the actual substantive arguments for and against, and see if anything comes out in the wash. In the mean time I would close them "pending review" or some such, so as not to have any more added wile we work it out. I'm not especially neutral so I'll leave the call to you but I don't mind helping in the grunt work. You might want to make a temporary user page to list them on? - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 17:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Do you think I should wait for them until end of Rfc? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say close them at the five days, the RfC could go on a while. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 22:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Popped by to commend you on your handling of the Gastrich affair and saw this so I thought I would comment: Most of the articles in question would have been deleted under normal circumstances, and vote soliciting is a major sin on WP. I think the closing admin could delete most of them and trust in the good faith of the community to stand by his/her actions. The same cannot be said of the invading puppets. ps. per below, House of Cards was shown years ago on PBS; and no, one couldn't possibly comment ;) Anyway, congrats on your adminship and keep up the good work. Eusebeus 23:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. I have already closed a few as delete and a couple as keep. And about keeping up with contribs, see the keep Afd's and if any of the votes there are by sockpuppets or editors I can discount. Just check the list below for the ones that I kept. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"You Might Say That, I Couldn't Possibly Comment"

Unfortunately, House of Cards has yet to make it across the pond, at least I've not seen it listed on BBCAmerica or PBS. Jim62sch 16:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a shame - Iain Richardson's Urquhart is the nastiest piece of work on TV since Alan Rickman played Mr Slope in the Barchester series :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 17:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim you have to try and get the DVD. It is excellent drama. David D. (Talk) 23:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Up to a point, Lord Copper

Hmmm, never read that one...in fact the only Waugh I have is "A Handful of Dust". But, one point (the humour of the quote aside), you kind of ended up agreeing with me, thus confusing the hell out of me at 5:30AM. :) Jim62sch 10:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your vandalism

Hello, JzG. You need to revert your vandalism on the following pages. Posting a link to an RfC that you created, on the very top of every nomination for deletion page, was grossly inappropriate. The notice about the alleged sockpuppet was also very inappropriate.

The things that you have done indicate that you care little about Wikipedia and the nomination for deletion process. If you did care about these things, you wouldn't have tried to skew the voting like you did.

Now, as an admin, I fully believe that there may have been a day when you cared about Wikipedia. If you cannot understand my exhortation, it is my prayer that someone else can help you understand the error of your ways.

In the meantime, I'll be pursuing several avenues of Wikipedian recourse through its processes to repair the great damage you have done. It would be very wise to revert your vandalism on the following pages:

Regards, --Jason Gastrich 01:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, JzG, you're just the man keepin' him down, man. Yeah. :P RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 03:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not vandalism. It's a good-faith attempt to solicit input from the Wikipedia community and discuss the issues raised in these AfDs in one central place. "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." (WP:VAND) All of these AfDs should have been about straightforward questions of notability, per the nominations and WP:BIO, but they were allowed to spiral out into some crazy "war on Christianity" discussion, principally through the efforts of Mr. Gastrich and his sockpuppets on one hand, and some needlessly provocative comments by a few of the people voting to delete. This has now become an issue for the community, as opposed to a factual discussion about a few debatable articles. If anything constructive is going to come out of this it has to start with RfC, and notifying all the participants in the discussion that an RfC is taking place is the only fair thing to do. I note that, of the many commenters that Mr. Gastrich solicited to the AfD discussions, most of them came, put down their pro-keep comments and disappeared again. They're completely welcome to comment on the RfC pages; where are they? rodii 04:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. WP:AGF - the reason for posting it on those AfDs was precisely because Gastrich has asked all his friends to come along, so that is the place where it is most likely that all those involved will see it. The alternative is either chasing round dozens of user Talk pages or (as some do) simply not saying anything and allowing those who are familiar with RfC to find it if they can. But an allegation of vandalism from a man who nominated for deletion a whole batch of articles, including the first President of Angola, apparently on the sole grounds that they are known atheists is, in any case, a bit rich. Still, that's the first tiome Gastrich has given me a good laugh, so it's not all bad. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 09:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 endorsement/votes

I noticed you have two comments/endorsement/votes at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jason_Gastrich can you explain? --CyclePat 19:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do too. Is that a problem? This isn't a vote. rodii 21:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Pat is not completely familiar with the RfC process. You can endorse the main summary, you can also endorse the outside views and other suggestions. As Rodii says, it's not a vote, it's a process for gauging the community consensus as to what has been done, how bad it is, and what remedies might be appropriate. More like a Friends meeting than a courtroom. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 22:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but... as Stifle points out, you have endorsed one summary (Crunch's) twice. Scoundrel! →rodii 17:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's due to brain fade. I am nearly 42 you know... - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 23:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Closure

Enough already! Can this process be brought to a close? I think the main protagonists have had their say now and the debate will just degenerate from hereon in. --kingboyk 19:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, well, um... how? - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 20:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. How do these things usually work? Or don't they? :) --kingboyk 20:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen from lurking about, unless things escalate, RfCs just sort of trail off and everybody wanders away to do other things. Mark K. Bilbo 20:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Righto. Thanks for the info, much appreciated. --kingboyk 20:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbustoo seems to have found a new incidence of sockpuppetry, so no trailing off as yet, it seems. --Malthusian (talk) 09:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems. How do we move to some kind of community-based sanction? Seems to me as if we should at the very least block-on-sight for socks, and require that Gastrich cease and desist from meatpuppetry, incivility and involvement in articles on LBU and related topics. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

10:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the RfC a community-based sanction? At least, the community have sanctioned him. I would have thought block-on-sight for socks would be a no-brainer, and at least some period of block on his main account (even if he isn't using it currently) to show that we know what he's doing. --Malthusian (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before it closes, you forgot to mention the sock User:Dr._Turtleton. Harvestdancer 17:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Turkmen is a puppet of his as well. Arbustoo 20:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as such, but I'm not absolutely sure here. I think it might be UncleDavey. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

21:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about now? Arbustoo 01:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No way is turkman Davey. he argues with the same style as Gastrich. I love the "with all due respect, I have much better things to do than find this answer for you." comment. Classic Gastrich. David D. (Talk) 02:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh this will thrill you

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)[reply]

I have a feeling that may be an impersonator. None of Gastrich's numerous other socks have copied his biography, so far as I know, nor just openly said 'join JCSM'. --Malthusian (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Jason Gastrich

Seriously, can something be done about him?! He seems to be creating new sockpuppets to avoid WP:3RR. This is clearly against policy and qualifies him for a block. --Cyde Weys 10:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason_Gastrich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not blocked, as far as I know. I am semi-protectign Kent Hovind. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

10:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These recently created sock puppets, between the three of them, have violated WP:3RR. That's a good enough reason for a block. --Cyde Weys 10:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Hovind page

Do you have a reason for removing the link on the Kent Hovind page? Aren't detailed transcripts of Hovind's videos a good thing to have in an encyclopedia entry? I know you said you were an admin and could do whatever you want, but come on. At least show you care a little about Wikipedia. --HRoss 10:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standing on policy, when you are using sockpuppets to avoid 3RR? How uncharacteristic. I was neither the first nor the last to revert it. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

10:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S - It seems like we've been dealing with the Kent Hovind page a bit. I was wondering how much you know about the guy. I actually met the guy when I attended one of his "lectures". You may be interested in reading about it. Warning: it's kind of long. I had a lot to say about him. --Cyde Weys 10:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading now. I sprotected the page, blocked the socks and listed it at WP:AN/I. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

10:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good write up. The word "dangerous" does not describe what can happen if the public begins to listen to those on the fringes of academic and turn away from actual scientists. I'm sure that when the claims are exposed to the light of science they wither away... read "Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle" by Carl Sagan... it discusses this point. Arbustoo 03:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LBU entry

You have reverted, without any reason whatsoever, the following sections from the LBU entry. Do you have any reason? These things make the entry better, so they should be added.

1. A section called "Contrary to diploma mills"

2. Elaboration on the alumni (as other university sites always do)

3. Elaboration on what is involved in earning credit by using Chuck Missler's book

4. Academic reviews

Your edit history on the entry makes you like quite biased. What gives? --Turkmen 22:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What indeed. Somethign to do with sock-puppetry, Jason. Why don't you try using your main account sometimes? It's not blocked any more. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

22:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Turkemen and I didn't think you had an answer or a reason. --Turkmen 22:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it so hard to tell you all apart, you have such very similar views. And writing styles. And interests. And article selection. And agenda. And POV. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

22:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Guy, just block him. If we haven't got consensus to shoot on sight now we never will have. --Malthusian (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC) (Don't forget the similar user pages, by the way.)[reply]

No, I haven't forgotten. I think I'll head over to WP:AN. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

22:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* While you're at it... [7] --Malthusian (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This transparent abuse of socks is wearing thin. Now Turkman is off to Gastrich's lone supporter Itake (talk · contribs). How would a new user like turkman, who seems obsessed with LBU, run into someone like Itake. Oh wait, maybe they have already met before? David D. (Talk) 23:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's like deja-vu all over again :-/ - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

23:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty picture

I'm removing the alleged sockpuppet picture you put on my user page. Please don't put it back unless:

1) You have some proof for this wild assertion

2) You have a precedent for being allowed to do such a thing to another's user page (and can cite it, of course).

--Turkmen 06:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the precedent: Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Jason Gastrich. "By their fruits shall ye know them" as the good book has it. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

09:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for proof, I hope my version satisfies you as to the fact that you are you. --Malthusian (talk) 09:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that a comparison of [8] and [9] probably tells us everything we need to know. That, plus use of language, makes the sockpuppet diagnosis pretty compelling in my view. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

09:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put back the sockpuppet notice after Turkmen removed it again. If he keeps being lairy can someone get blocked for 3RRing their own userpage? --Malthusian (talk) 09:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And he's removed it again (and added himself to the vandalised user pages category, lol). I don't particularly want to get into a revert war over someone else's user page, even without breaking 3RR, so I'll leave any further reverts to you or someone else. He hasn't attempted to refute the allegations so far as I can see. --Malthusian (talk) 09:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yoohoo

You're holding the LBU entry hostage, so consensus can be reached on the discussion page. However, I wrote you a message on the discussion page, replying to something you wrote, and you have not responded. Since you will revert changes made to the entry, you need to prioritize the discussion you claimed to be necessary for adding things to the entry. --Turkmen 08:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific International University

Do you have a reason for supporting the removal of the history of PIU, their general course offerings, and their response to being unaccredited? It seems that you severely dumbed down the entry by removing those things or supporting their removal by allowing Asbustoos to remove them. Please try and improve Wikipedia entries; even if you don't like certain users, certain beliefs, and certain organizations. --Turkmen 08:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's selling degrees. It's pleading does not change this. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

09:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PROOF TURKMEN IS JASON GASTRICH

"Turkmen" just added the webpage http://michaelnewdow.com to Michael Newdow (an atheist)[10]. Who owns http://michaelnewdow.com? Well a quick search at http://www.checkdomain.com/ shows it's registered through www.godaddy.com, which "Domain servers in listed order: NS1.JCSM.ORG, NS2.JCSM.ORG" Yes, Jesus Christ Saves Minsitries ran by Jason Gastrich. Its cyberquatting. On a side note Jason owns the domain until August. Keep in mind this is after the community sanction.

This isn't the first time Jason Gastrich has cyberquatted. Here's is evidence from April 2005 at the Wikipedia article Anthony Flew [11]. Jason Gastrich owns anthonyflew.com

The adminstrators need to take control on this issue. Arbustoo 10:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Presenting Ye Evangeliste and Ye Encyclopædia, an Experimentale Comedie in two actes.

With train number 453456 as Jason Gastrich and the streets of Montparnesse as Wikipedia.

File:Train wreck at Montparnasse 1865.jpg

"Funne for all the familie" - Lord Rogère of Eberte

--Malthusian (talk) 10:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quality detective work, my friend. I can see how this might inform the length of Turkmen's block... - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

10:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes..."Turkmen" is Gastrich. This sort of thing is quite par for the course for him. - WarriorScribe 14:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]