User talk:JzG/Archive 3

User:JzG/talkArchive

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. :) u p p l a n d 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. u p p l a n d 20:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neal_Weaver
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jimmy_DeYoung
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Combs
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Morey
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Dorim_Kim
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/J._Otis_Ledbetter
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Moseley
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Randall
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charles_Pack
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mal_Couch
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Ice

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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.

"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]

As you are no doubt aware, Jason Gastrich violated the terms of his RFC by editing with another sockpuppet. I posted this violation to his RFC. What happens now? Isn't there supposed to be some sort of long block imposed on his main account? --Cyde Weys 18:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say it, but it was probably the only good edit I have ever seen from him, it was even referenced, even if it was only a honorery proclimation. Mike _{(T C)} 18:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. I have an email from "Hooba" insisting it is not a sock, but with an email address at wiki4christ.com - since that domain is currently 404 and I don't recall seeing any "get an address" links, I think I might have been assuming more good faith than was deserved when I believed this! Arbcom is the next step. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 19:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If he email address is wiki4christ he is either a sockpuppet or meat puppet, too bad checkuser requests are basically a waste of time because of the backlog, but I am willing to bet it is Gastrich. Mike _{(T C)} 19:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the domain no longer returns an MX record at all, it can only really be Gastrich or one of his immediate associates. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 19:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has to be, most likely its a sockpuppet account. Maybe take this to AN and see what other admins say? Mike _{(T C)} 19:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't be bothered, he's wasted far too much of everybody's time already. I know it's bad, but Felonious and some others have agreed so in the end I think it was me who was out of line in believing the protestation of innocence. We can WP:AGF all we like, but in the end we're not required to ignore the blindingly obvious. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich now started, please pile in. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 22:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I now think of Jason as one of those rare users that can be banned simply because the Wikipedia community is fed up with them for wasting too much time that could have been spent so much better. Even if that were not the case, I have an argument I personally see as definitive: Jason continues employing tactics not allowed on Wikipedia. The Bible (his stated moral code) only justifies wholesale violation of local rules in order to thwart the enemy in a war. So to him this is a war of Christians against Wikipedia consensus (point made earlier based on "Glorify Christ"—I'm basing it on the bulk of scholarly work in this regard). Wars do not build encyclopedias. Wars are described in encyclopedias though, so maybe Jason will end up starring in a new article after all. Sorry, I'm lecturing again. See you at the RfA. AvB ÷ talk 11:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People might want to keep The Skeptic's Annotated Bible on their watchlist for puppets. The IPs User:24.205.87.206 and User:24.205.87.60 are marked as Gastrich puppets and the current trouble IP deleting and making changes is User 24.75.30.114 Arbustoo 23:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Jason Gastrich. Reading between the lines it sounds like he is sending an army of sock and meat puppets to protect his hijacked pages. As well as that melodramatic outburst he is still thinking this wikipedia affair as being about atheists and unbelievers vs little innocent old him. The poor soul, it's tough being the only sane, loving person in the world. Sigh. David D. (Talk) 07:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So no change there, then :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 10:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, you might want to check the Kent Hovind page. As soon as the protection was removed, POV edits by anonymous IP users occurred again. - WarriorScribe 16:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have it on the radar. It's sporadic at present, which we can keep a lid on. I will reapply semi-protection if it escalates again, but there is pretty strong resistance to semi-protection for occasional vandalism. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 18:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Morey was deleted a while back (in the mist of the LBU AfDs) and now someone wrote a new page. Isn't this against Wikipedia rules? Arbustoo 23:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, user blocked, notice left at WP:AN. Thanks for the heads-up. By a strange coincidence the new biog did not include any of the controversy details from the old one - who would have thoguht it? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 23:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if that was Jason though. Since you are able to speedy things, check out the nomination for Prays and Forty-nine character virtues. Arbustoo 23:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Chuck_Hastings and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent Baptist College —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbustoo (talk • contribs)

I've warned him that unless he explains how he came to know Gastrich within a day of arriving and why he decided to take his side in the reversion of his talk page, he'll probably be indef-blocked as another sockpuppet. --Malthusian (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First talk-page edit over at Arbustoo's place is classic Gastrich. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hastings' page says he's from Australia... so if his IP is similiar to what Gastrich has been known to post under... Arbustoo 20:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll lay a bet that Mr Hastings has a 207 IP and the wikipedian in Sydney is a bluff. How many new user know about categories. On the other hand gastrich had a love affair with them. Smoke and mirrors. i was just being polite when I accused the guy of being a meatpuppet. David D. (Talk) 20:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If so, isn't this an indefinite block?Arbustoo 20:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If edit history or checkuser justifies it, yes. As yet it does not (no significant Gastrich-pattern edits to article space, few Gastrich-pattern comments in User talk space). If it is Gastrich I think we can rely on conclusive evidence coming rapidly (or abandonment of the account, as with most of his socks once they are discovered). - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So why the abandonment of the original pic from the traditional Gastrich sock boilerplate? FeloniousMonk 20:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno, I think someone else didn't put it in for proven socks so I didn't either. To be honest I'm not sure it's appropriate, on reflection it's only pouring petrol on the flames; adding it during the active part of the sock war was just throwing bait for the troll so not quite the same thing, now it's time to pause and reflect I think. We're not supposed to be a lynch mob, although we're not supposed to be devoid of a sense of humour either. I'll leave it to your discretion whether it should be reinserted. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, it looks kind of creepy the way the picture stares out at you. I find it more tolerable without. David D. (Talk) 20:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, I enjoyed the irony of it, but thinking about it, I'm coming around to see JzG's point. I'll rv my addition of it to hooba. FeloniousMonk 20:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the teeth that get me. You need shades to visit his user page.

So, shall I start the RfA rolling then? Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least he still has them. In some parts of this country that would preclude his serving in his chosen role.

RFA or RFAr? RFA... just go ahead and add me as an oppose when you file it. RFAr... might as well start it, as the recent sockpuppets prove he's benefitted not one whit from the RFC. FeloniousMonk 20:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA might become a bit of a pile on, possibly wait a few months so he can get more experience ;-) David D. (Talk) 20:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lets nom him for RFA anyways, it'd be interesting to see how many support votes he gets, then we can block them all as sockpuppets! Mike _{(T C)} 03:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's time for RFAr. It should go by relatively quickly, seeing as how everyone pretty much already reached consensus on RFC. At least this is what I'm hoping. Gastrich is so damn ... predictable. Every time he does something stupid and gets called on it he waits a week and then tries again. I actually only checked Louisiana Baptist University earlier today because it was Friday again ... and what did I see? Another Gastrich sock editing. Color me unsurprised and unimpressed. --Cyde Weys 20:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the stupidity that made this a bearable exercise I think. I mean the sock sending an email from Gastrich's ministry's domain asking to be unblocked was too much. I think it's the genuinely wiley ones that become tedious. FeloniousMonk 20:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone see a Clue lying around? I seem to have mislaid one... Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone tag User:Chuck Hastings as a suspected sockpuppet? His only edits were to defend Gastrich and when some questions appeared on the Hastings talk he disappeared. He had plently of time (a few days)to respond. The edit and run after a a series of questions, is classic Jason Gastrich. Arbustoo 21:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go right ahead. I need some Sage Advice re RFAr and when to move to the main RFAr page. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 22:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Hastings is back making edits, but won't answer any questions about his identity. Imagine that. Arbustoo 07:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you created the RFAr as a subpage. As far as I know, subpages are not created until such time as the case is accepted, and such pages are created by arbitrators (or now, by clerks). In addition, the material is not visiabel on the main RFAr page, so I don't think that the arbcomm has any way of being aware of the application. Am I missing something here? Guettarda 00:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was down to (a) cluelessness and (b) trying to get things together before jumping in. I have been reluctant to start this process for several reasons, but feel it has become inevitable. I think one or two of the Clerks might have the Power to make the teporary page go away :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 18:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC) Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 18:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you need any help with the case, let me know. I don't think you've done an arbcom have you? I've done 4 and I'm a mentor on Neuro-linguistic programming. So. If you need advice or evidence gathering help, don't hesitate to ask. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anything specific that you need? If you can give me a list of a few articles, I can find some diffs for you. Or whatever. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 13:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any collections of diffs to specifically support the sock/meatpuppetry, expanding on what's in the RfC, and adding to the Evidence would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 14:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From today: [12]. Arbustoo 08:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 10:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please don't open cases on your own; it really throws the clerks and arbitrators off, who have to then check every step of the process to make sure it's been completed. Johnleemk | Talk 10:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was trying to work it up before going to arb, but I was told that was wrong. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 10:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, do you want to handle the sock and meat-puppetry stuff? You're probably better at figuring that out and making a case than I am. I can handle the SP:CIVIL, NPA, NPOV etc., stuff. Let me know on this very same section on my talkpage. Let's stay in touch on this one. If you want, you can e-mail me too so we don't overload our user pages. Jim62sch 11:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 12:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, I saw a comment of yours on the check user page thingie about suspicions "Uncle Davey" may be behind some of the socks. You're right to be suspicious. He's known for sock puppetry on Usenet. I've caught him at least once myself when he forgot to switch his quote back heading from Polish to English. He's British but lives and works in Poland (for a UK firm). I've noticed his socks tend to come out of UK IPs. Davey also has the curious habit of going on tears about sock puppets, accusing posters with abandon of being socks of somebody he's having a spat with. Makes you wonder about projection. Finally, the kicker is he subscribes to a curious, non-mainstream theological idea that *anything is justified in the "cause of the gospels." Torquemada would be proud. Fortunately, Davey is just an accountant. I lost all possible respect for the man when we had a squabble over the issue of morality. He crapped on the whole idea of morals with "they won't get you to heaven." Apparently, morals are for the little people. Mark K. Bilbo 15:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transparency? The guy at the top of your discussion page was my hero. NOT! I think e-mail is good for if we have long questions, or for where we're confused. We can always annotate (briefly) what the question was on our talk pages. Sound OK? Jim62sch 12:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The recent revert war at SAB included this [13]. Arbustoo 08:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged User:Wiki4Christ with a suspected sockpuppet notice which I believe to be pretty justified. He took it down, quelle surprise, without edit summary or attempt to defend the accusation (so far). Will leave it to you or other admins to decide whether it should be re-added. --Malthusian (talk) 10:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said that the root of the problem is LBU. I'd include the SAB in the "root of the problem" since that is a place he constantly desires to Gastroturf. His crowning achievement, and the "dissertation" that "earned" him a degree from LBU was his "rebuttal" to the SAB. Harvestdancer 16:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the day started there are four new Gastrich puppets. An IP [14] the new Wiki4christ[15], User:JGChristian and Wiki4Christ [16]. Is this going to finally be enough to say good bye? Arbustoo 03:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An another User:JesusChristSaves and another User:FredTaylor... hit the Louisisna Baptist University article. Arbustoo 04:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged all these Gastrich socks or meats within a few minutes. JesusChristSaves (talk · contribs), JGChristian (talk · contribs), FredTaylor (talk · contribs), Blair Richardson (talk · contribs), Wiki4christ (talk · contribs) and Wiki4Christ (talk · contribs). They were all active and defending each other at the same time. David D. (Talk) 04:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added to RFArb. Those are either unusually unsubtle or deliberately designed to be spotted and blocked. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 10:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gastrich isn't stubtle. Didn't he email you with a Wiki4Christ domain while using a sockpuppet? While making edits he adds his own websites to Wikipedia. Arbustoo 21:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's so subtle he made people (except those who knew the Usenet story) think that User:Usenetpostsdotcom was a sockpuppet when that one was only a meatpuppet. --Malthusian (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that, once again, Gastrich and his sock and meat puppets are engaging in edit wars with other participants at Wikipedia. This is a fairly obvious means that he can and will use to "get back" at the site, the admins, and the editors, whom he thinks have wronged him (see the AfC and the arbitration pages). As a response, I added the nPOV tag last night, and given the events since, I recommend that the page be locked. While I have little doubt that Gastrich enjoys these rather juvenile games that tie up editor time, I also think that most of the others involved would rather be doing other things. - WarriorScribe 14:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since User:Wiki4Christ is now blocked for 24h, and will be blocked again if he resurfaces, the article is probably safe enough for now. We'll see. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 15:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until the next sock shows up... [grin] - WarriorScribe 15:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

kdbuffalo is inlikely to be a Gastrich meatpuppet. i hae come across him before and he is just another apologist pushing the same, tired old arguments. It's possible that Gastrich has recruited him based on his editing but more likely that Gastrich is just jumping into the fray. Unfortunately, now they have met, i would not be surprised to see some sort of alliance. David D. (Talk) 17:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, the SAB page is locked. Can you update the examples section as the consensus on the talk page reads? Arbustoo 08:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get it unlocked? Arbusto 05:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original article, written by Jason Gastrich, was deleted according to consensus. Now it's back. The editor who created it only has two edits, including the creation. The other edit included a citation of Jason Gastrich's webpage. [17] Arbusto 03:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk page User: Jack White1 wrote [18] "here is the information I added" then quoted something added to the Cornuke article, which included the conference article-link that was a deleted and a Gastrich link. The problem, though, is "Jack White1" is the sock puppet stalking the Hovind article and the addition Jack was referring to was at the Cornuke article. Then Jack denied he's Gastrich's puppet. Two confirmed puppets while Gastrich refuses to address the AfD isn't going to look good. Arbusto 08:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similiar to what happened at the LBU page, watch Hyles-Anderson College. There are some POV forks, ect. Arbustoo 03:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the forks, please? Guy 14:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The change of [19] puts everything on Jack Hyles Controversy separate from the content. So basically, criticism is removed and facts about an pizza parlour on campus is put in its place. Same goes for the bio article that you voted on earlier. Arbustoo 02:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer spoons over forks. The vandal just admitted on the talk page that he is a "board member of this college" and was blocked for making threats (among other things). The article was locked so could you add the normal "controversy and criticism" heading where needed? Thanks. Arbustoo 04:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that worked well for the anon-a one-month block! Guy 09:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And two sock puppets. Now the the Hyles page has been hit with uncomment deletes. Sheesh, does JG have a cousin that goes to this unaccredited school? Arbustoo 20:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't anyone go to accredited schools anymore? Check out the page history at Breyer State University. Sheesh. Arbustoo 04:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now the anon. user over at the Jack Hyles person is claiming crazy stuff like he knows me, I'm part of a conspiracy, adminstrators are working against him, I'll wipe his comments clean, ect. Surely his indefinite ban is still in affect? Arbustoo 03:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The Jack Hyles Controversy AfD closed. It's safe to delete that page because the material has been merged. While not all the information has been merged, as far as undisputable sources go, its merged. Also would it be appropriate to add in Hyles quotes from the "Preying..." documentary. I just listened to it and there are some very disturbing things he said in regards to AV Ballenger. Arbusto 02:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now some funny stuff. [20] So a school accredits itself.Arbusto 02:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Numerous clean wipes on the Jack Shaap and Hammond church page. This user proves he is paranoid[21]. He keeps switching IPs too. Arbusto 05:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• A new spin on the accreditation game.[22] Arbusto 20:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just tagged User:Gastrich81965 after a repeat of Wiki4Christ's Abortion edit. 81965 is probably JG's birth month. AvB ÷ talk 10:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might also be an impersonator seeking to further discredit Gastrich. Either way I've given the account the bum's rush. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 11:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Jason Gastrich's site to any article is going to get you in trouble. Just a friendly warning. Just zis Guy you know? 11:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be a jackass. I worked hard on my contribution and you reverted the entire thing for no good reason; much of which wasn't links to "Jason Gastrich's site". So, as I said, don't be a jackass. If you think something doesn't belong, take it to the talk page. You aren't above the law. --Jack White1 07:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And reacting lkike Gastrich does is also going to get you in trouble. That's two friendly warnings. If you haven't seen the edit history and talk page for Hovind it's about time you looked. Just zis Guy you know? 09:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that the vandalism will stop after a few weeks. "Bsuinfosys" reads to me as "BSU Info(rmation) Sys(tems). These guys are going to keep attacking the primary article that exposes them. --Red King 23:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see. POV pushers are generally not that tenacious, as a rule they realise it's a battle they can't win. The link to St. Regis could do with some work, at present it's insinuation and unless some more specifics can be given, scepticism might be justified. Just zis Guy you know? 00:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned it up. Arbusto 09:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that looks better

And we have another college president or student on wikipedia promoting him/herself Pensacola Bible Institute. Arbusto 04:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

with regard to the Kent Hovind article, i'm afraid both you and arbustoo are both ignorant, and are both fools, for one simple reason. i made a perfectly valid edit, which, if either of you actually had the presence of mind to bother viewing, you would have realised i was simply altering a punctuation mark in accordance with wikipedia's own manual of style, and wikifying ONE word, 'dissertation'. now, provided you are not ignorant, or a fool (i'm going out on a limb here), there was absolutely no reason whatsoever to revert my edit, for a reason as ridiculous as "no edit summary" - i can only assume therefore, that because i hadn't added one, and arbustoo couldn't be bothered to view my edit, he assumed it was defamatory. i thus reverted his edit, calling him ignorant and a fool. now, i'll admit that those were slightly heated remarks. but now i am having to defend myself against a SECOND busybody user (you), because it would seem YOU didn't bother checking my edits, or if you did, you're acting on a matter of principle, namely one that goes "if someone adds a nasty edit summary, then their edit must also be nasty". which quite frankly is absurd. like i said, if you actually bother to view my edit it was utterly trivial and not in any way 'damaging'. so, in conclusion, how dare you revert a constructive edit when this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia that relies on constructive edits to better itself. how is that going to happen when impatient, ignorant folks like you go around destroying useful contributions from people like me? i have no doubt that by the time you have read this you will be even more sure of yourself that you acted correctly, and that i am a 'troll' or suchlike, but if you view the evidence, you'll see that you 2 are the trolls, and i am merely a helpful contributor with a short fuse who gets provoked too easily. and choosing to protect the page against "recent vandalism" just takes the biscuit. you can't protect an article just because you find the edit SUMMARY offensive. that's just not logical, is it? or maybe it is, in your head. good for you. have fun zealously shielding your article from the interests of outside parties. i'll have no more part in it, because now i know just what kinds of people i am dealing with.

thank you and god bless. 80.177.20.202 00:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Gastroturfing, I think. Also you appear to be the ignorant one since it was User:Pierremenard who performed the last revert to your edit. Just zis Guy you know? 10:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this user is genuine - perhaps you could take a look at this diff? AvB ÷ talk 23:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Up to a point, Lord Copper. See the next edit: [23]. Just zis Guy you know? 23:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely [grin]. It may well be me but all I see is "altering a punctuation mark (...) and wikifying ONE word, 'dissertation'". And of course a proposal to merge Cock ring into the Prince Albert piercing [ouch]. AvB ÷ talk 00:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained my point on the Hovind talk page. Incidentally, after reverting some anon edits in Royal Rife I came across a Hovind edit in the anon's edit history. Perhaps someone to keep an eye on if s/he returns and starts editing again: user:66.203.231.75 non-portable IP number Location: United States, City: Dothan, Alabama. AvB ÷ talk 10:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they are voting on the Gastrich case already. This newest group of arbcom members vote very fast so this might be closed soon. Pretty powerful remedies. Looks like they are as sick and tired of Jason as you are. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick resolution would undoubtedly be best. The longer these things remain in process, the more poisonous things can become (although to be fair this one has not been subject to the same kinds of acrimony seen elsewhere). Just zis Guy you know? 13:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Juicy Juicy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created an RfC against me. Arbusto 10:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with your outside view Guy, except for one thing: I would prefer to see "the likelihood of a genuinely new user raising a user RfC in their first ten edits is small" qualified. It's perfectly possible (if one extends the assumption of good faith about as far as it can go ;)) that a regular anonymous contributor would register an account before taking part in something as formal as an RFC. Of course, if that's what had happened they should supply the IP address they have been editing under. Otherwise, I not only agree with what you say, I'd go further and say it all seems mighty fishy to me. --kingboyk 12:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was this point that WarriorScribe was bringing up when he said that Juicy should identify himself. i.e. what ID were you editing under before stating this RfC. David D. (Talk) 18:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, duly amended. Just zis Guy you know? 12:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

: Can the RFC talk page get deleted too? Arbusto 20:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And endorsed. --kingboyk 13:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User: Juicy Juicy also seems know all about check user [24], seems to know all about AfD's at the Louisiana Baptist University article, and seems highly enlightened about Warriorscribe's posting history. Arbusto 20:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems an anon. user doesn't like it to be known that Peter Ruckman has an unaccredited degree. Arbusto 19:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not so very anonymous according to this edit: [25]. Just zis Guy you know? 19:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like an edit war is going to happen over that title. Arbusto 01:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the Peter Ruckman article needs to say that Bob Jones University is unaccredited, then surely it should be prominent in the Bob Jones University article too? I've just added it. --kingboyk 01:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proven puppets over at the article.[26] Arbusto 11:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guy,

I hope you're well.

I'm writing a couple of Wiki users because I feel that I may have offended some people. I apologize if my past contributions made you upset. I see that you value making contributions to Wikipedia (although I don't agree with them) and that you have a passion for this place and getting your input into various entries.

The recent explosion in revert wars by "apparent Jason Gastrich sock puppets or impersonators" has not been my doing. Although I disagree with your viewpoint that a link to one of my web pages or a link that I agree with should be discussed on the talk page first, in fact I find this downright unfair and wrong, I haven't been contributing under the huge number of impersonators we have seen, lately.

Please consider reconciling with me. It could do us some good. I wish had something tangible to offer you, but I don't. All I can do is apologize for the past edits that were deemed inappropriate by you, although I still strongly disagree, and forgive you for the misdeeds I feel you have done. For what it's worth, I see this place as hostile to what I believe in, and even the truth in general, causing me to have serious reservations about even inviting others here and certainly about promoting this place in any way.

My most important goal is to glorify God and to lead others into a relationship with Him. I've been working hard and doing this online, although some may not see these efforts reflected on Wikipedia. Therefore, I need to go where I'm needed the most, because that is where the fruit is at.

Thanks for your consideration and God bless you.

Sincerely, Jason Gastrich 01:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please don't be offended that I'm sending a similar message to a handful of others. I feel the same way and wanted to say the same thing to them, too.

After the "apology" he had enough time to fix the promotion links on his page[27]. Arbusto 02:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only the one I think. Just zis Guy you know? 09:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is fascinating. I can't help but notice that Gastrich's reply came only after a fair number of arbitrators already voted against him in the proposed decision. Unfortunately, I don't think it works the way he thinks it does ... once people have made up their mind, they've made up their mind, and late apologies really aren't going to help anything. --Cyde Weys 02:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think it was in the middle of the apology pasting.

BTW, Guy, here is a request that you archive your talk page, you're over 100 messages. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold :-) Cyde Weys 02:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

roflmao, Cyde, you are a bad, bad boy! KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm a lone voice, but I don't see anything wrong with his user page*, and I'm happy to see him editing under his accepted user name. *It might be better if the bio with links were moved to a subpage as is the norm for userfied articles, however. --kingboyk 02:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to see him edit? You mean till ArbComm finalises things? Color me jealous I didn't get one of these (collectible, trade and save!). ++Lar: t/c 03:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...as opposed to the latest sockpuppet. It's good to know he hasn't forgotten his password! --kingboyk 03:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to take this page off my watch list, if I keep laughing like this I'll hurt myself. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I use the SAME password for ALL my sockpuppets. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 03:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the several above:

1. I am actually very pleased that Jason has chosen to acknowledge fault, that is a positive development. My view is that the original ArbCom remedy of editing restrictions and rapid escaaltion in case of future repetition was adequate and proportionate; I am convinced that a lot of the disruption was not Jason himself; even if it was meatpuppets, that may be a case of having let the genie out of the bottle - hard to get it back in.
2. KingboyK, go back in the history and loko at prior versions. They had way too many external links. They have been pruned, and Jason has apparently decided to leave that be, which is good.
3. I think we should stop poking fun.

As you know, I never did want Jason blocked, only brought into line. Just zis Guy you know? 09:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with all points, and I was serious in saying that I considered it a welcome development. --kingboyk 10:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Gastrich has a way with words. While I don't necessarily think that his apology is insincere, neither does it particularly interest me. An actual change of behaviour is the only thing that will be of any importance; doing a few spelling corrections on articles unrelated to Christianity would have said far more than the appeal above. I'm still not convinced by either the impersonator or the meatpuppet defence - the socks are too knowledgable about Wikipedia to be new users, his ministry is almost certainly not that large, and there is no conceivable reason for anyone to impersonate him to this extent - maybe one or two people playing silly buggers, like Mrs Gastrich, but the majority of the spree makes no sense in that context. I can't remember offhand who it was that suggested applying Occam's Razor, but I think they were right. To refer to Arbustoo's post, the fact that his first real step on the road to reconciliation is to insert another spam link on his user page is not encouraging. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 10:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Malthusian. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion on Arbustoo's talk page which was started by Gastrich after his supposed 'apology' makes me even less inclined to consider this a genuine attempt at reconciliation, hence the strikeout in the paragraph above. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh FFS. I try so hard to WP:AGF, but this guy really works at it, doesn't he? Just zis Guy you know? 15:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Jason's apology does not appear to be sincere. If you look for the subtext, he is basically saying: "I'm apologizing because it's the only thing I can do in the face of your injustices towards me." Although I am entirely surprised that Wikipedia has held his attention for this long, I do not doubt that he will continue to push his point of view into the knowledge base. Even though this is my first posting here, I have been a "fan" of Jason's for a couple of years, and have been closely watching this latest round of antics. Generally I find his silliness to be harmless fun, but it's an entirely different matter when his righteous arrogance steamrollers other people's sincere efforts. Grinder2112 18:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background, I have seen some of the discussions that Grinder has had with Jason. He has a high degree of patience and is one of the few who has managed to engage Jason in a productive discourse. Grinder is no troll, in case people are wondering due to his limitied activity in wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 19:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I have a Bible verse for those gathered here today. It's Matthew 7:6. Regardless of who your swine are. AvB ÷ talk 21:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have a sneaking suspicion the pearls here are fake, but the authenticity of the swine is in little doubt at this moment. Just zis Guy you know? 22:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My page has been vandalized, [28], comments deleted, and JG sock tags removed. Arbusto 08:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert but for a while I have suspected that Gastrich is using some kind of software or IP provider that hides his IP address. My main reason for suspecting this was that so many of the sockpuppets had no known IP"s rather than being a different IP. The following edits by Fred Bauder makes me believe that Gastrich knows full well that any check user against his socks will be inconclusive. It may also explain why he thinks he can use them with impunity despite the fact he does not hide his editing interests or cloak his syntax. Sorry to dump this on to you but you were the one that instigated the RfA so it seems appropriate to voice these concerns to you. David D. (Talk) 17:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Above makes little sense since I was confusing Fred Bauder as being a Gastrich sock (confusion with User:FredTaylor?). Nevertheless, it is surprising that so many of his socks come up with status unknown with regard to check user. David D. (Talk) 17:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown means not proven, that's all. A lot of them are meatpuppets. Just zis Guy you know? 18:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So there is an IP, but not one associated with Gastrich? I wonder if they all come from a similar IP range (i.e. a known anonymiser service)? I lean towards Gastrich rather than meatpuppets since I would expect meatpuppets to make; 1) more edits, 2) have some region of interest out side Gastrichs sphere (as is the case for usenetpostsdotcom (talk · contribs)). I will also point out that Uncley Davey is probably not a meatpuppet in the true sense since he has only commented in favour of Gastrich and has not actually been involved in the revert wars, unless he is also using sock puppets (he says he is not and this is my response to that claim). David D. (Talk) 19:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I bet they do come from one anonymiser. Arbusto 19:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely - proxies get blocked, and Fred Bauder is not one to leave an open proxy alive. No, this is garden-variety meatpupptery. Just zis Guy you know? 22:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above arbitration case has been closed and the finall decision published.

For the arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 19:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doe, John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) this user' first and only edit was to revert a list of Christian links. Then an anon. IP in the range of 24.* which Gastrich has uses added to the list.

Just looked at the block on User talk:Jason Gastrich and noticed something... see how it says "The block is for a period of one year from 21 March, 2007." The wording's off; it should read that it's from 21 March, 2006. Otherwise, the implication is that the block starts about a year from now. I'm guessing that's a template thing, but in any case, thought you might want to fix the typo. ...since it's of such immense importance, and all. Man, my hard work here just knows no bounds. Tijuana Brass 05:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

s/from/to, obv. :-) Thanks Just zis Guy you know? 07:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we're the uninformed et al. here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Markkbilbo.2C_Harvestdancer.2C_Daycd.2C_Dbiv.2C_WarriorScribe AvB ÷ talk 08:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wanted to say thanks for the messages you left on my talk page. The amount of reaction my little post created astounded me. I actually think it's poorly written (it was two am and I had taken NyQuil for a cold earlier that evening), but thanks again for what you sent. I'm putting the tutorial info to good use, and I'm gonna start out as a real live contributor as soon as I figure out the ropes.

I also think its funny that, just because I mentioned I'm Christian, and that I wrote a mild rebuke to Jason Gastrich that was actually polite, people think I'm one of his sock puppets. Right now, I find it funny, but I hope it stops soon. It seems like the kind of thing that could get real annoying REAL fast.

Anyway, I'll stop my ranting now; thanks again!

Commander Cool, part deux 04:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Weasel_Finder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - A new user who finds a problem with calling Louisiana Baptist University unaccredited.
2. Doe,_John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - A new user quoting wikipedia policy. His only two edits are to revert the removal of a list of links to Christian schools. Arbusto 04:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides Uncle Davy, over at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_TRACS_members there are two new keep votes from unknown users. If you look at contributions he last editted a month ago. Those edits were his user page. Then the next edits after that were a month earlier, which were solely keep votes for LBU alumni (one example [29]). Upon further review this could be a sock.

The other keep vote Scifiintel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) his last edit was Jan 1, 2006. Kind of strange since this involves a suspected Jason sock? Arbusto 21:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also the continued removal of Levicoff's quote from Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools. Arbusto 02:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if the talk page on the failed RfC that a Gastrich sock started should be deleted? Arbusto 05:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it appears Gastrich has a hand in the recent AfD circus. A user admits wiki4christ sent him to the AfD[30] after being tagged as a puppet. So maybe it was probably Gastrich to begin with. Arbusto 23:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further proof (from a hostile user) of Gastrich using his wiki4christ to sway votes[31]. Arbusto 20:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this civil? Is this proper in an AfD? [32] Arbusto 22:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the deceitful edits... JzG, if you want me to "lay off" this man then please get him to stop with his POV edits? Itake 22:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check his Talk, you'll see I have said the same to both of you. We do not need a fight here. User:Doe, John is a problem user, a likely sock of User:Benapgar, currently indef-bloacked. Pick your causes with care. Just zis Guy you know? 22:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last three edits that I have included links were Itake's edits after you warned him, which includes the personal attack revert he made on the AfD. Arbusto 23:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So is it okay for me to make a post calling someone a liar and a hypocrite directly after a AfD nomination?[33] (Note: this was made after you warned Itake and was only one of four other personal attacks he made after your warning.)Arbusto 23:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you have continued to post comments on Ben's talk page, after his blocking. I am curious as to what you think you will accomplish by this. JoshuaZ 00:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A blocked user can still read, still comment on his Talk page and still appeal the block. I haven't see the ArbCom ruling which makes the block yet, it may not have been ArbCom (I don't know) and if it wasn't it may be reduced. Even Gastrich only got blocked for a year. Just zis Guy you know? 09:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might be useful/interesting/amusing to ask him if he would mind if the Levicoff quote was removed and all the properly sourced negative material stayed. See how he responds. JoshuaZ 02:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]