User talk:WarriorScribe/Archive1

Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs) is behaving himself at the moment. You are allowed sympathetic biography on your user page, see Wikipedia:User page, and believe it or not he has made some useful contributions, enough to merit. User talk pages are for talking to Jason, not discussing him. You can always file an RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich, if you have specific complaints. — Dunc|☺ 14:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Whether or not Gastrich is "behaving himself at the moment" is entirely beside the point; and if you had bothered to read what I suggested, you'd have seen that, in principle, at least, I agree that a user is "allowed [a] sympathetic biography" user page. In fact, I went further and suggested that user pages not be subject to editing by just anyone that comes along and has a "beef" with the user, in question.
• As I mentioned in the article portion you removed, this is exactly the sort of thing that is causing problems with Wiki credibility as an objective resource. My comments were not so much about Gastrich, but about the policies and the incidents that led to the events as they occurred, and they included a suggestion as to what could be done about it. Yet, all by yourself, and by your own arbitrary and subjective criteria, you decided that it was trolling, and removed it. Now, it would have been one thing if you had responded and suggested that the subject (Wiki policies with respect to the incidents, as they occurred, and the use of Gastrich only as an example of when bad policies can lead to events that get out of hand), and suggested that I move the discussion to a "more appropriate forum" or if you had told me that you had even responded in some other area. I would have gone along with that. But you didn't do that. You removed what I had to say and declared it "trolling," without explaining why it was trolling.
• I'm attributing a great deal of what I'm seeing with a lack of experience, insight, and even maturity when it comes to administering a page like Wikipedia, and, again, that can't help but damage Wiki as an objective resource.

I am an admin here and have been for a year. That said, I am open to reasonable comments. Perhaps you should direct your questions more generally to the administrator's noticeboard. We have discussed Jason there and you are free to add your 2d. The key policy here is good faith. In this case, Jason is not being disruptive. He has been contained. You however are being disruptive. — Dunc|☺ 15:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I still don't see why I was trolling, but I do see that we seem to be thinking--still--that Gastrich is the point (when he's not), and now I'm also being "disruptive," even though I am confining my rebuttals to my user "talk" page, as I was told to do. All this does is illustrate the arbitrary nature of the administration standards, but I'll bite: How am I being "disruptive?" I had some observations and I made a suggestion about a possible solution. How is that "disruptive?" WarriorScribe 16:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Meanwhile...

Welcome

Hello, WarriorScribe/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -Willmcw 23:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

---

PS: Is this user Jason Gastrich? -Willmcw 23:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Not quite. This user is Dave Horn.--Jason Gastrich 00:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. An edit to Pasadena, California had me wondering. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Just fixed a stray punctuation error that I happened to notice. Please do not confuse me with the likes of Jason Gastrich. Thanks moocho. - WarriorScribe 02:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, Gastrich, I gotta say that's impressive. Changing WarriorScribe's words on his own talk page. You're a trip. Mark K. Bilbo 21:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Gastrich is a liar...you can expect these sorts of antics. WarriorScribe 00:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 3RR on Wife Swap

You have been blocked for 24 hours for continually violating the three revert rule. Edit wars are counter-productive; please seek out a compromise on the Wife Swap page. Stay cool and consider using the dispute resolution process if you're unable to work out the content dispute. Thanks .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 18:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• I am always cool. The decision is accepted and respected. The rationalé has already been provided on the requisite talk pages. Have a nice day. - WarriorScribe 19:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Compromise on typosquatting

See the talk page, some squats are more notable than others. Harvestdancer 03:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Your trolling

Ah, yet another Gastrich whine/boast -fest. How typically substanceless.

It's too bad that you have taken your trolling to Wikipedia. Rest assured, I have far more passion and energy than you'll ever have when it comes to my desire to spread Christianity into all corners of the world. Why? Because Christ is real and He has made a difference in my life.

This is great stuff. I can't imagine getting this level of entertainment anywhere else without having to pay for it.

Gastrich has made these kinds of boasts before, and they mean as little now as they did, then. It's just his way of trying, once again, to make it appear that he is not some sort of small-time operation, especially after getting caught and exposed at his games.

Troll me if you will, but your misdirected attempts to follow me around and try and squash my efforts has been a failure and will continue to be a failure. There is absolutely no doubt about it. Yes, you may get a paragraph or a link removed at the rate of 1 per 250 edits, but that certainly isn't much.

If we're talking about getting Gastrich's "edits" removed at 1 per 250 or so, well, I can't argue with that, especially since so much of Gastrich's "edits" are completely lacking in substance. If he wants to inflate his posting numbers and qualify 250 people as atheists, and one is not and that "edit" gets removed, oh, well...

But, again, this is just Gastrich boasting about how important he is. It's not about spreading "Christianity" with him. In the end, he has no concern for that, whatsoever. He's proved that pretty much without equivocation. No, this is about Gastrich promoting himself, and doing so using Christianity as his means and his forum. The only thing that there is "no doubt" about is that he certainly will be successful in fooling the undiscerning, the naive, the otherwise lonely and starved for attention...that's what he's looking for...people of whom to take advantage.

My suggestion to you: get a life and do something productive.

I would suggest that someone whom spends pretty much all day (and several days before) labeling people as atheists, "editing" hundreds and hundreds of times, and arguing with others on in online forums and "encyclopedias" has more a need of a "life" than most others--certainly more than I do. I would also suggest that exposing a fraud, liar, and phony like Jason Gastrich is certainly productive. In the end, Gastrich is not qualified to give me advice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/WarriorScribe and http://groups.google.com/group/maleboge hasn't amounted to a hill of beans.

The results beg to differ, and we've seen this kind of boasting before, too.

Not one person could point to any fruit, whatsoever, that has come from any of your "efforts" or any of your online trolling. If you think otherwise, then go ahead and list the tangible "strides" you've made for your (misdirected) cause. --Jason Gastrich 10:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

So Gastrich gets to boast, but I have to point to my "fruit." The fact is that anyone with a clue bought at Wal-Mart can tell that there has been "fruit" of the efforts. Gastrich doesn't post in Usenet, anymore, for one thing, now. And there are a few other things I could list. But I don't have to prove a thing. Gastrich's juvenile, emotional reaction are all that are necessary. He's been exposed, over and over again, as a liar and a fraud. And every time he lies or perpetuates a fraud--especially when he does so on the name of Christianity or to promote his "ministry"--it's going to be exposed. It's always amazed me that there are some who get worked up over the calling of someone "liar" or "fraud" and don't seem concerned that lies are being told and fraud is being commited in the first place; but the moral responsibility for those who observe these transgressions is to expose them, because there are always those whom, without that, will be taken in.

Gastrich is free to rant on, whimper, whine, boast, brag, and tell us all how important he is. Every time he does that, we know--all of us, deep down--that we are accomplishing something good. WarriorScribe 16:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

If this is your conclusion, then I suppose you need medical help for mental issues. You're not a crusader. You're an aged man throwing his life away, with zero to show for any time his fingers have ever touched the keyboard. And I won't tell you how important I am; never have. This isn't what this is about. Once again, your false accusations fall flat and if they ever start to dupe or bilk the unknowing, then there is a newsgroup that exposes you for the liar and fraud that you are. So, by all means, continue to waste your time and don't take my advice, but in the end, your fruitless endeavors will be screaming to you that you should have invested in something lasting. --Jason Gastrich 17:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, well, look who's still here, and giving advice that he's not qualified to give, to boot (while, as I pointed out elsewhere, turning his back on someone who really does need that kind of help...rather convenient, I should say).

Ah yes, another barb, trying to get me to boast, eh? Well, let's put it this way, the hard work that I've been doing since 1997 [snip attempt to advertise site] and the hard work that I'm still doing [snip attempt to advertise sites] is ministering to others while I type, eat, sleep, spend time with my family, etc. Glory to God. --Jason Gastrich 18:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course, all one has to do is peruse the sites at JCSM.org and read Gastrich's comments in full context to understand that the glory is not given to God, at all, and that Gastrich is all about marketing his "ministry," using underhanded means to hawk his "wares," as Mark puts it, and infect other sites, including Wikipedia, with his "Christian" message. Aside from the fact that the sites to which Gastrich points are rather crude and amateurish (especially given how long he's been at it), not that I was "trying to get me to boast" and, sure enough, he launched into boasting. He probably doesn't even realize it. I'm sure he'd like people to believe that he "ministers" to thers, and no doubt there are a few taken in by his tactics, but we do know that there have been a few who wanted "ministry" and he turned his back on them, most notably and recently, "Bible John." There's what Gastrich says, and there's what Gastrich does. Those are often things that are very far apart. Even his boasting about how much he does while still spending time with his family is an empty boast. I suppose, if I was really cruel, I'd ask if that "family" includes...but, no, I'll wait and see if Gastrich wishes to escalate this further. I'm sure that even he can guess where this will go if he pushes.

I removed the links to Gastrich's sites because I feel that if he can dictate what happens to some degree on his talk pages, I can do the same, and my talk pages will not serve as a platform for advertising his site(s). WarriorScribe 18:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The group that Gastrich created, using a stolen name, no less, does not demonstate any lies or fraud on my part. If that were so, Gastrich would have posted those things in the newsgroups or in the maleboge.org group, to which he is quite free to post, but to which anyone can rebut and refute. He didn't do that. Instead, he created a group that allows no rebuttal and no input from anyone but him, and he pretended to be someone else while doing it! In other words, he perpetuated another fraud while pretending to expose "fraud," and, in so doing, basically justified why some of us are in opposition to him and his tactics. Gastrich cannot list a single "lie" or episode of "fraud" on my part that stands up to scrutiny. Instead, he complains that I consider certain behaviors to indicate cult-like behavior, that I live in an apartment (which he cynically represented as "inner city" when he knows better, in other words, he lied), that I misrepresented the work of Walter ReMine (though he obviously lifted commentary out of context and cannot explain the misrepresentation), and that I misunderstood "the cichlid," even though he's clueless about that subject, too. The fact is that if I were as ineffectual as Gastrich claims, his stolen name group wouldn't exist, and he wouldn't be expending any energy, at all, in trying to counter the efforts of the maleboge.org group, in general, or me, in particular. Meanwhile, I have refuted each and every claim made by Gastrich with respect to my alleged "fraud" and "lies" and Gastrich is left boasting, floundering in the wind, and demonstrating, in front of all of us, just why he is not a Christian, and should not be heading up a ministry that depends on contributions from gullible web surfers.

So once again, we're left with Gastrich's empty boasts about how the lack of effectiveness to the effort to expose him, and he underscores that exposure. His attention to it, and his efforts to shut it down, conceal it behind his cybersquatting, or belittle it, show that even he knows that this, too, is a lie.

As for me being "aged" and throwing my life away, well, I might suggest that Gastrich is just a loud-mouthed, arrogant punk who never grew up, but we all know that already. Instead, I'll point out that I'm better educated than Gastrich, I've lived quite a bit more. I'm not ready for the wreath just yet, but I can guarantee that anyone who spends as much time as he does on myths and fantasies, including those he builds about himself, is far more guilty of a wasted life. WarriorScribe 18:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Harassment

Hi, User:Jason Gastrich has been telling me that you've been harassing him. Of course, I've only heard his side of the story, so I would like to hear your side as well, so that I can finally get to the bottom of what's going on here. If you want confidentiality, you can e-mail me. I have proposed informal mediation or a simple "avoiding each other" as harassment from both sides could lead to a block from the ArbCom (it has happened before). All disputes, even petty ones, should be resolved. Izehar 21:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

mediation

can you two sides of the mediation process can work together and find a compromise? try to, let's see if you can. According to the Wikipedia's ground rule I can urge you giving you a deadline like tomorrow 2 January 2006, time 21 UTC. Let's see if you can find a solution. Work on that paragraph which is disputed. Bonaparte talk 18:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

My position is pretty clear. The paragraph doesn't belong in there at all. It's a clear example of a specific person pushing a POV simply because he doesn't like someone and has issues with him. It's also motivated by jealousy. Gastrich tried to author and push an encyclopedia entry about himself and it was removed because, contrary to his own opinion of himself, he's simply not noteworthy enough. Having found an entry for Mark Bilbo, who is an accomplished IT author whom just happens to be an atheist with whom Gastrich has personal issues, Gastrich decided to target him for POV pushing.

Gastrich has already been told by at least one administrator that the comments are not relevant and the sources are not acceptable. Gastrich is using Wiki comments and Usenet articles and, by so doing, claims that Mark Bilbo is "controversial." Mark is not controversial. The EAC is a gag, but it gets more play than Gastrich's "ministry" in Usenet. Mark is an author, many times published by a reputable, well-known IT publishing house. The best Gastrich can do with his "book" is "publish" it, himself, and react badly when it has been panned as intellectually deficient (and that's being kind). If nothing else, by his actions, his Usenet history, his frequent lies and prevarications, and his abysmal attempts to debate "atheists," Gastrich has probably generated more controversy than Mark could ever dream--none of it good, of course.

Which brings up another point, and that is the hypocrisy of the whole thing. During the time that Gastrich's article was up for consideration, none of the controversial things about Gastrich's Usenet antics or his "ministry" were allowed to stay in the article. Either Gastrich or one of his socks would remove them. Now he wants to demand that "controversial" comments about someone with whom he just happens to have issues should be included in an article about that person? Gastrich "talk" page has a statement at the very top of it about how it will not serve as a "soapbox" for his "critics," and he deletes even mild criticism from admins (he calls it "pruning"), justifying it by claiming that it remains archived in the listing of previous edits. Gastrich has even deleted comments critical of him from the talk pages of other users! But he wants (he's even written, "I want...") that sort of commentary to be inserted in the article about Mark, with whom, as I said, he just happens to have personal issues?

And that brings up still another point: If one has those kinds of issues with someone, or if someone recognizes that he's too personally involved in the issue and unable to detach himself, one should have the honor to recuse himself from inserting commentary into the article. Gastrich doesn't have that kind of honor, nor does he have the honesty to admit that this is all part of his vendetta against Mark Bilbo as well as his purpose to make Wikipedia "more Christian."

Finally, Mark Bilbo, himself, has stated that he's uncomfortable with the very existence of the article. I think that Mark's accomplishments and participation in the field of technical writing and IT are noteworthy enough to include an article about him, and that article should only contain things that are noteworthy and fairly unique and specific to him. It's nothing special that he's an atheist (I'm a Jew, by the way--not an atheist, at all--and I have no problem with Mark), it's nothing special that he participates in Usenet, it's nothing special that he has little patience for "Christians" like Gastrich and the others that Gastrich mentions (all of whom have less-than-savory reputations in Usenet...should we note that, too, while we're at it? I say that, if we note the one thing, we should not the other...otherwise, it's too much POV pushing) and reacts accordingly, and it's nothing special that he participates in something like the EAC as a gag.

It's the accomplishments that make someone noteworthy, not the hobbies or trivial things done in "spare time," and the only "controversies" that should be included are those that are reasonably believed to be controversial by a good cross-section of reviewers and editors, not those that are viewed as such by someone with an ax to grind. WarriorScribe 19:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

His comments are "controversial" (of Bilbo) and the 2nd proposal of Jason is less POV. He can add it. Bonaparte talk 07:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought our aim was nPOV, not lPOV. Do we want "less" or "none?"

Gastrich's claim was that Bilbo, himself, is controversial, but I guess if Wikipedia can add Usenet and Wiki comments by a person in an encyclopedia article and declare them "controversial," that kinda opens the door for, well, pretty much anything...doesn't it? WarriorScribe 07:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

No, you missed my point. You will not let to state that Bilbo is controversial but that some of his remarks are controversial. And speaking about an optim page (nPOV) there will always be an optimum page, an optimal one...:) for now you'll have to reach first an agreement and reach a compromise. That's a good start. His second proposal is better. Bonaparte talk 21:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this before I moved the page...I thought it was done. I don't think that I miss the point, at all. I think that what's getting avoided here is the issue of "controversiality" and just whom makes that call. That's the point that's being missed. I don't find his comments remarkable or controversial. It's Usenet, after all, and that sort of thing is very common. Mark is no more guilty of it than anyone else and, it could easily be said, is a lot less guilty of it. You should read some of the stuff that a fellow named Frederic Rice posts. Strong stuff. The bottom line is that Gastrich wants the "controversy" put in because he has a personal issue with Mark Bilbo (see the comments at the end of David D.'s talk page). It's not a neutral POV for which he strives. WarriorScribe 22:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)