Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Former user 20

Sockpuppets

These are at Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Jason Gastrich, btw. — Dunc|☺ 13:06, 22 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#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)

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#Inclusionists. --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 accurate 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 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." The fact is that, 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)

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)

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 AfD process has been further disrupted by a suspected sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs), Wiggins2 (talk · contribs). 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) Rebuttal: Everything above was posted to skew the voting and make people turn against me and bias their viewpoint of the nomination and the entry. It's a pretty sick tactic. It shows they care little about the actual strength of the entry; which should be the only thing considered. Since the "warnings" have been posted, some people have even said that they've voted only because of the alleged misconduct. Consequently, they and the people who are engaging in this witchhunt should be ashamed of themselves. They've done irreparable damage to their integrity and to Wikipedia. --Jason Gastrich 00:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)