Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich/Evidence

Gastrich Socks

Regarding the suspected sock puppets of Jason Gastrich.

I'm not convinced that they are all Jason Gastrich. He made the argument Here that he is being spoofed by an individual by the name of John Wolf.

Knowing a little of John Wolf from usenet, I think that we need a check-user before a lot of the suspected socks can be used as evidence in the RfA. Harvestdancer 23:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Renegade_Master

What makes people think that this is Gastrich? The edits are not usual Gastrich behavior. JoshuaZ 14:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Not every POV-pushing would-be deleter of good articles is a Gastrich sock. Apparently. Just zis Guy you know? 15:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Posting of additional evidence by an editor

It seems to me that any determination that there is "evidence" from off-site to consider should include all such evidence, not just that which is vaguely designed to inculcate motivation on the part of Gastrich opponents. Consequently, it seems fair to me to consider any evidence that would show a pattern of behavior that existed, as demonstrated by Gastrich, on other web sites and in Usenet discussion forums, so that we may see clearly that this same behavior pattern has been demonstrated at Wikipedia--the same behavior pattern that was the cause of the RfC and this RfA, to begin with. If "Ben" wants to go down this road, and the arbiters accept it as potential mitigation, there is quite a bit that can be added to this already overburdened case. The evidence is vast and the posting of it waits only for the ArbCom to determine that the posting of off-site activities by parties involved, as evidence, is permissible. This would include the evidence that Gastrich conflicts with Wikipedia editors and administrators occurred long before many of us had posted here. To the ArbCom: I am at your service. - WarriorScribe 20:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom is not a courtcase

Ben, ArbCom is not a court case. The ArbCom will probably look more favorably upon what you have to say if you don't use as many legal terms (i.e. "hearing" "case" "defendant" etc.) JoshuaZ 20:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Points of clarification in response to the "evidence" posted today

First, Mark Bilbo is not the "founder" of the maleboge.org group. I would suggest that, if something that elementary cannot be properly represented, what else might be misrepresented?

Second, I feel that it was disingenuous to discuss Cyde's participation within the context of his being an Administrator here at Wikipedia. Cyde's promotion to Administrator is very recent, somewhere around March 9th of this year, which was subsequent to his joining the maleboge.org group and his posting of a single "here I am" message on January 23rd. That is hardly incriminating or indicative of anything, so any malfeasance by Cyde can only be vaguely implied. There is no evidence for it, however, so its mention was intended to unjustiably prejudice the arbiters and the readers.

Beyond that, I don't see much substantive difference in Ben's editing of his "evidence." He admits that Gastrich's behavior has been "abhorrent," but if there seems to be no real reason to post what others have been writing elsewhere other than to presume to mitigate Gastrich's response, what is the point of this allegedly new "evidence?" If Ben's complaint is that others violated Wiki policy by turning Wiki into a battleground, it seems to me that he's going about it the wrong way. After all, if Gastrich's behavior has been "abhorrent," didn't he also, in his own way, act to turn Wiki into first a means of self-promotion and then a battleground? The latter is certainly well-evidenced by his reactions to edits of his commentary and the fact that he, twice that I can immediately recall, came to Wikipedia to edit articles on persons and things about which he had just engaged in arguments and warring elsewhere on the Internet. That would be reasonable to put in an arbitration of this sort, and if the behavior of others is questionable, that should be good cause to generate RfCs or RfAs on those others. Since there is nothing else, really, to Ben's added "evidence," I think that my original response here, along with the points made above, should serve as sufficient rebuttal. - WarriorScribe 22:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

New socks

Fred Bauder just added two new proven socks. I cannot believe that Gastrich would be so stupid as to continue this behaviour despite this RFAr - maybe he's just decided he has nothing to lose :-( Just zis Guy you know? 14:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that pretty much does it for his "apology" and his denials about the sock-puppetry. Even the use of an explicative by one of the affirmed socks removes the "Gastrich doesn't use swear words" qualification (especially since, having been on the receiving end of a tirade including those things, I know he does). I think we can safely say that there's nothing at all to Gastrich's many references to the "best interests of Wikipedia." - WarriorScribe 16:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)