319:. They will then note that my comments today are merely a response. Be that as it may, the sequence of events makes it clear to me. You have no interest in bettering Knowledge (XXG), as we saw when you wrote disparaging things about the Project and even claimed that you would brush the dust from your feet and never return, not wanting to be unequally yoked with "unbelievers." You did return - apparently some 200 times, and that's what can be at least suggested by evidence.
298:, I simply wrote that "he" had posted a number of "substanceless edits" when "he" should have been arguing "his" point at the Kearny High page. I am also convinced that you are who I say you are by your insistence to carry on in this manner. I posted what I wanted to post and have, until now, had nothing further to say on the matter. If you were put off because I insisted that you provide justification for your claims, well, you'll just have to get over that.
118:. One of the reasons JG was banned was due to his constant inclusion of self-promoting web sites into articles and discussions. The ban has since seen a number of editors and administrators who remove JG links as soon as they are discovered, as a consequence of the ban, a bot that automatically prevents known Gastrich-owned domains from being used as links in articles, and the creation, by
553:
community consensus that was established when he was banned. Users like Jason need to be kept out of
Knowledge (XXG) by all reasonable means, and the overwhelming majority of his suspect socks, even those that flew under the radar, as it were, were never submitted for Checkuser. If it comes to that, I'll consider submission, but it hasn't come to that, and I don't really care
308:
from me. I have better things to do than argue with you. You have already lodged a complaint and it would have been better had you left it at that and let the site administration conduct their investigation. They will note that I've had nothing to say to you since I posted my claims. They will note that you complained to them. They will note that you
402:, you have nothing to fear from an administrative investigation, but your every comment merely confirms my suspicions. One more thing: Let's have no more complaints about "harassment" or "attacking," since I have already stated that I would prefer to leave it at the last comment that I made and let administration conduct an investigation, and
547:
is found under "acceptable requests," item F, which states that
Checkuser may be requested to investigate "evasion of community-based bans or blocks." However, I don't see the need and I don't see this particular case as falling under the "difficult" rubric, nor am I in a situation in which a "last
307:
Now, we both know that you are simply trying to provoke a long-term argument over this issue and I suspect that you also hope that this will draw attention back to the Kearny High page so that your kearnysoccer.net web site can be reinserted without controversy. There will be no long-term arguments
576:
Well, it seems that the powers that be have banned me from editing
Knowledge (XXG). It's a shame. My last request is that Nascentatheist will take a look into his heart and ask himself if my edits are that worthless that I should be banned from Knowledge (XXG) forever. I really liked contributing
552:
hasn't posted as himself in a couple of weeks. Checkuser is also not always conclusive. It can be countered. Thought it appears that I have been caught up in the
Gastrich-hysteria, as many of us have since Jason's first appearance in Knowledge (XXG), my only interest would be in enforcing the
341:
sock puppet. You should trust that you're better off remaining silent and allowing them to conduct what investigation they intend, because your every comment during and subsequent to our encounters simply verifies, in my mind, at least, my suspicions. On the other hand, if you want to dig that
336:
and I provided some of the evidence that causes me to believe that. You have neither answered nor refuted any of it, you continue to confirm it with characteristic behavior, and you have complained to administrators. I am content to let them investigate the matter, as I am also content that I
256:
has probably edited under a different name prior to commencing editing under this name. For the record, Creashin, to avoid doubt, it would help if you could comment on this, and confirm whether or not you were a new user when you commenced this account on 26 May 2007, and if you had edited on
491:, requests to "prove your innocence" are categorized as "unacceptable" and "not accepted." Stop expecting others to carry your responsibilities, go about your business, post and edit as you have been doing, and allow the process to play out. As I have said before, if you are not
446:, you should drop the matter and continue to edit as you have been doing, and allow site administration to conduct the investigation. As long as you do that, I will not be responding to you, and will go about my business, as well. It is now in their hands. -
359:
Jason, your reversion has been changed back, pending the review of administration. As you have discovered in previous episodes, the removal of the boilerplate tends to be frowned upon. If you can prove to site administration that you are, in fact, not
251:
As an uninvolved outsider asked to look at this, I concur that this was very likely not a new user when this account was created in May 2007. Whilst I haven't reviewed the rest of the debate yet, that much at least is clear - it seems likely that
364:, their word will satisfy me and, at that time, yours will, as well. You'll get that apology then. Until then, my suspicions not only remain, they are strengthened. The fact is that I have more evidence than I have bothered to present
177:
when called, and also has a history of accusing others of sock-puppetry as a means of diverting attention from the topic under discussion (references available on request, as most of them are from off-wiki exchanges).
441:
of sock-puppetry, followed by admissions of sock-puppetry to edit articles while banned, you should probably consider that his word will not be sufficient on the matter. As I have suggested elsewhere, if you are not
28:. Knowledge (XXG) gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Knowledge (XXG), the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an
36:
indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
270:
FT2, I had been reading
Knowledge (XXG) and lurking for a long time. I had not been editing, though. An administrator recommended that I post this issue on the admin notice board, so I'm going to do that, now.
71:
I went ahead and corrected the missing tag problem on AIG museum.jpg as I read your comment "creationwiki public domain" and assumed that meant you intended to release it into the public domain.
169:, even to the point of declaring that he didn't care about the subject under discussion ("I could care less about American High Schools, it really is remote from my experience of the world").
291:
Jason, your latest comments, your exaggerations, and your over-the-top reaction have simply confirmed my suspicions. You are not a "new editor." You were never attacked. I never wrote that
130:
Insisted on inclusion of the link because it is "pertinent" for "obvious reasons," but is not inclined to provide those reasons, in part due of a conveniently sudden lack of time
543:
article also includes the statement, "Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases. Use other methods first." The only provision that I can see that might apply to
133:, after which there is apparently plenty of time to post a number of substanceless edits, mostly about sports figures and celebrities, including a number of
394:
is a good policy and I support it, but I do not follow it blindly, nor was it intended to be followed blindly. I also said nothing about "abusive." Like
216:. JG was known for his habit of going ensuring that known and suspected celebrity atheists were cited and tagged as such in Knowledge (XXG) (for example,
398:, you seem to have difficulty reading for comprehension or accurately representing what others are saying. I have voiced my suspicions. If you are not
390:
I won't argue this point incessantly, and my suspicions are not limited to the inclusion of the link or disagreements about it, as I have explained.
332:
Demands for apologies and retractions is also characteristic, but there will be no apologies, nor with there be any retractions. I believe you to be
460:
Immediately go to the nearest Admin and request a Check User to clear your name. That will immediately and permanently clear you of any suspicion.
548:
resort" is necessary. Checkuser is reasonably useful, but it is fairly time and resource-intensive and is made more difficult by the fact that
60:
157:
into the discussion after a 4-1/2 month absence, and, except for a couple of token edits, appearing only to make accusations of another user
410:. The best advice that you can heed at this time is to remain silent on the matter and let the administrators follow their processes. -
33:
437:
Considering that Jason's history here has been one of deception and sock-puppetry, followed by denials of sock-puppetry, followed by
49:
29:
59:. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at
125:
44:
312:
posted your complaints and demands on my talk page. They may even note that such things are also characteristic of
123:
521:
465:
197:
182:
170:
154:
80:
558:
549:
496:
492:
447:
443:
430:
411:
399:
395:
368:
361:
343:
338:
333:
313:
236:
232:
193:
174:
119:
90:
25:
577:
here and I thought I was making a difference here. It's a shame that things ended as they did. --
517:
461:
74:
540:
488:
134:
391:
56:
578:
544:
475:
320:
292:
272:
253:
228:
186:
189:
declares to an administrator that yours truly "seems" to be "somewhat of a stalker"
487:
Don't waste your time or that of the administrators. As you can see by consulting
474:
I'm open to that. If you could ask or post to make it happen, I'd appreciate it. --
450:
337:
provided more background supporting my claim than most have done when declaring a
161:
127:
so that the links are surreptitiously inserted into articles at
Knowledge (XXG).
316:, every bit as much as the characteristic sentence structure and use of commas
224:
258:
365:
213:
581:
561:
524:
499:
478:
468:
414:
371:
346:
275:
261:
239:
83:
231:
used the celebatheists.org site which, coincidentally, banned user
40:
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
111:, which is indicative of a veteran Knowledge (XXG) editor:
89:
Evidence that user is a possible sock puppet of banned user
317:
296:
217:
209:
205:
190:
167:
164:
158:
146:
143:
140:
137:
131:
116:
115:
Insisted on inclusion of known banned user domain site
109:
106:
103:
100:
97:
516:
filed such against him, considering your suspicions?
122:, of numerous sock puppets on frequent occasions
257:Knowledge (XXG) before? It'd help. Many thanks.
173:has a history of appearing in discussions about
342:well-worn "deeper hole," more power to you. -
235:references in his most recent "devotional." -
200:when their behavior is exposed and challenged.
8:
192:, another frequent accusation made by both
61:Knowledge (XXG):Media copyright questions
96:In addition to some of the edit history
20:License tagging for Image:AIG museum.jpg
495:, you have nothing to worry about. -
223:In addition to the categorization of
7:
284:Response to comments on my talk page
50:Knowledge (XXG):Image copyright tags
14:
212:, categorizing a celebrity as an
45:Knowledge (XXG):Image use policy
55:This is an automated notice by
295:was a "worthless contributor"
1:
582:03:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
539:That's a fair question. The
429:Response to your comments on
562:00:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
525:18:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
500:03:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
479:02:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
469:15:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
451:03:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
415:03:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
372:05:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
347:03:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
276:01:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
262:07:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
240:10:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
153:Coincidental appearance of
63:. 05:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
597:
428:
323:is one of those returns.
181:After the appearance of
84:16:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
456:If you are not Gastrich
34:image description page
24:Thanks for uploading
67:Image:AIG museum.jpg
26:Image:AIG museum.jpg
16:talk about anything
518:Jason Harvestdancer
462:Jason Harvestdancer
73:Steven Williamson (
588:
406:keep posting to
135:San Diego Padres
596:
595:
591:
590:
589:
587:
586:
585:
574:
458:
435:
286:
227:as an atheist,
94:
69:
32:applied to the
22:
12:
11:
5:
594:
592:
573:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
559:Nascentatheist
550:Jason Gastrich
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
505:
504:
503:
502:
497:Nascentatheist
493:Jason Gastrich
482:
481:
457:
454:
448:Nascentatheist
444:Jason Gastrich
434:
431:Jason Gastrich
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
412:Nascentatheist
400:Jason Gastrich
396:Jason Gastrich
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
369:Nascentatheist
362:Jason Gastrich
352:
351:
350:
349:
344:Nascentatheist
339:Jason Gastrich
334:Jason Gastrich
327:
326:
325:
324:
314:Jason Gastrich
302:
301:
300:
299:
285:
282:
281:
280:
279:
278:
265:
264:
247:
245:
244:
243:
242:
237:Nascentatheist
233:Jason Gastrich
206:These comments
203:
202:
201:
194:Jason Gastrich
175:Jason Gastrich
151:
150:
149:
120:Jason Gastrich
93:
91:Jason Gastrich
87:
68:
65:
53:
52:
47:
21:
18:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
593:
584:
583:
580:
571:
563:
560:
557:much. ;) -
556:
551:
546:
542:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
526:
523:
519:
515:
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
506:
501:
498:
494:
490:
486:
485:
484:
483:
480:
477:
473:
472:
471:
470:
467:
463:
455:
453:
452:
449:
445:
440:
432:
416:
413:
409:
405:
401:
397:
393:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
373:
370:
366:
363:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
353:
348:
345:
340:
335:
331:
330:
329:
328:
322:
318:
315:
311:
306:
305:
304:
303:
297:
294:
290:
289:
288:
287:
283:
277:
274:
269:
268:
267:
266:
263:
260:
255:
254:user:Creashin
250:
249:
248:
241:
238:
234:
230:
226:
222:
221:
219:
215:
211:
207:
204:
199:
195:
191:
188:
184:
180:
179:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
152:
147:
144:
141:
138:
136:
132:
129:
128:
126:
124:
121:
117:
114:
113:
112:
110:
107:
104:
101:
98:
92:
88:
86:
85:
82:
78:
76:
66:
64:
62:
58:
51:
48:
46:
43:
42:
41:
38:
35:
31:
27:
19:
17:
575:
554:
513:
459:
438:
436:
433:'s talk page
407:
403:
309:
246:
95:
75:HiB2Bornot2B
72:
70:
54:
39:
23:
15:
198:Uncle Davey
183:Uncle Davey
171:Uncle Davey
155:Uncle Davey
522:Talk to me
466:Talk to me
439:admissions
225:Dave Foley
218:this edit
210:this edit
57:OrphanBot
30:image tag
579:Creashin
545:Creashin
476:Creashin
321:Creashin
293:Creashin
273:Creashin
229:Creashin
187:Creashin
572:Goodbye
541:WP:RFCU
489:WP:RFCU
214:atheist
392:WP:AGF
512:Have
555:that
367:. -
310:then
208:and
196:and
81:talk
514:you
404:you
259:FT2
220:).
520:|
464:|
408:me
271:--
185:,
160:,
145:,
142:,
139:,
108:,
105:,
102:,
99:,
79:-
166:,
163:,
148:.
77:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.