Initial request

Request made by: Jason Gastrich 02:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?

Mark K. Bilbo

Who's involved?

User:WarriorScribe

What's going on?

Mark K. Bilbo is a controversial figure. He uses a number of unfair and controversial tactics (e.g. ad hominem attacks, character assassination, name calling, personal attacks, mockery) in his dealings with Christians. Here are citations:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

What would you like to change about that?

Need 3rd opinion on the right way to add section on controversy.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

You can post on my talk page, on the Talk:Mark K. Bilbo page, or email me. Thanks in advance.

Comments by others

Does being mediated hurt? Will I need anesthesia? And I can't find my insurance card! Mark K. Bilbo 03:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hate agreeing with Jason, but while running the "official" alt.atheism website may be notable, I doubt that personal attacks are generally citable.--SarekOfVulcan 04:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gastrich wants them noted. The problem is that Mark isn't really a "controversial figure" except with some of the few religionists whom he comes across, and it's a matter of opinion (can we say "POV?") whether nor not his "tactics" in dealing with them are "unfair" or "controversial." Gastrich also seems to misunderstand the concept of ad hominem. I'm a Jew, and I get along just fine with Mark. I find him neither controversial nor do I believe that he engages in any action that is "unfair," and I suspect that Gastrich would be hard-pressed to cite specifics that would appear to be anything other than what they are when left in context. Keep in mind that Gastrich thrives on the removal of snippets from context--the easier to twist and misrepresent them. My own alleged assault on an "innocent Christian" with a "hunting rifle" is a case in point. I had an incident, many years ago, in which I was forced to brandish a shotgun to repel a religious lunatic from my property, after which he was taken into custody, but Gastrich painted that as something else. He deliberately lied, and he does that as a matter of course. So you need to take any claims by Gastrich with a grain of salt, and evaluate the evidence closely and completely. WarriorScribe 05:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Dave Horn's character is just an aside to the actual issue at hand. I'm sure the honorable admins at Wikipedia will recognize that fact. At any rate, if anyone wants to learn more about Dave Hunt's (WarriorScribe's) public admission to pulling a gun on someone, see here (it's the last post in this page from Son of Fred). In this original admission, there is nothing about protecting his family, this man being taken into custody, etc. However, the story has evolved as Horn has realized it has left another black mark on his reputation. --Jason Gastrich 06:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, Gastrich's character goes directly to the problem here. Notice that Gastrich makes no attempt to explain just how he extrapolated the comments to which he refers above into my allegedly pulling a "hunting rifle" on an "innocent Christian." He took what I wrote and twisted it into something else. He lied, just as he has done so many times. No, there was nothing further indicated in my commentary. It wasn't necessary or part of the point at the time. The story did not evolve. It has remained the same for a number of years. The only evolution that it has undergone is when Gastrich decided to make an issue of it. I was there. Gastrich was not. The story evolved in Gastrich's representation, not in mine. One might even pay close attention at how little Gastrich pays attention to detail. I am not "Dave Hunt." I never have been, but Gastrich has referred to me by that name a few times. I do not live in an "inner city" apartment, but Gastrich not only claimed that I did, but belittled the fact that I live in an apartment. The list of irrelevancies when it comes to the issues with respect to Gastrich's attempts to defraud and bilk religious people are almost endless. He has nothing about which he can complain, so he makes things up or blows them out of proportion, and all because he has no integrity, no honor, no sense of true Christian charity or belief, and no true sense of Christian humility. Let Gastrich toss his worst accusations. They don't matter. I don't claim to run a ministry, care for "hurting people" while turning his back on them, or any of the other, multiple pretenses and frauds that he has perpetuated, including pretending to be other people in order to perpetuate yet another fraud. Me? I'm just a private individual who works and provides for myself, and I've never gotten or asked for a dime from anyone. Gastrich presumes to run a ministry that depends not only on donations from gullible Christians, but from me and other tax payers, as well, since he claims tax exempt status. He has also run for statewide office--he's a public figure; and like it or not, he's subject to my scrutiny, and that of anyone else of a mind to take a good, hard look. WarriorScribe 06:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More sleight of hand. Horn posts a link above that leads only to my statement to a disturbed individual. See here that all of the people in the thread, except Horn, agreed that this disturbed individual indeed needed professional, medical, mental health help. But as I said before, Horn's character and lies aren't on trial here. This Cabal request is about including some notable facts about Bilbo's behavior toward Christians. Horn just trolls me and that's why he's here; again and again, and everywhere else I go. --Jason Gastrich 06:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so now Gastrich has gone off on another tangent, from the "innocent Christian" whom I allegedly assaulted to "Bible John." There's no doubt that "Bible John" needs psychiatric care; but whether or not I acknowledge that in the thread is neither here nor there. Gastrich, who claims a "degree in psychology" and who also claims to have a "heart" for "hurting people," turned him away when he was no longer of any use to Gastrich. "Bible John" exposed Gastrich as a fraud (not that we didn't already know that). But that's not the point, really, and once again, we can't see a single lie that I have told. Gastrich does not explain any lies...he simply claims that they exist, just as he make so many other claims that are demonstrably false. Gastrich whimpers that my character and "lies" are not "on trial here." That's true, but Gastrich keeps wanting to make an issue of them. Gastrich tried that, when he fraudulently claimed to be another person, cybersquatted on another domain name, and created his hysterical "maleboge.com" group. Gastrich is the proven liar, here. We can list his lies as a litany of false statements and overblown claims about his own self-importance. This is not a Christian, ladies and gentlemen.

Regardless, the facts remain. Having had his fill of Mark Bilbo, Gastrich acted as he so often does--without thinking. He launched into a POV-laden tirade in the article in question and made unsupported and personal POV-influenced statements about another person. It is true that Mark is an atheist. It is true that he has run afoul of a few religionists here and there, Gastrich, included. It seems to me, in fact, that, this being the case, Gastrich should recuse himself from commenting, at all, in an encyclopedia article about Mark, but Gastrich doesn't have that kind of personal integrity. Just as he attempted to do with Reggie Finley (and as he continues to do, in general, with atheists, everywhere, by relentlessly insuring that so many are labelled such), he attempts to use the widespread influence of Wikipedia services to service his agenda and feed his hatred of others whose only crime, really, is to hold a philosophical view that is opposed to his own. Of course, his act was caught immediately, and the offending, POV-laden comments removed. Childish Gastrich, acting as he usually does, threw a tantrum that continues, even now, and demands a mediation. This is the same Jason Gastrich whom, you may recall, posted that there will be no use of his page or his article by his "critics." He, in fact, would brook no criticism or indication of controversy, at all, when it comes to his encyclopedia article, his user page, or his talk page. Criticisms on his talk page, even from administrators, are swiftly deleted by him. Why, then, should he be allowed to input that sort of thing into the articles about others, particularly when he has personal issues with them? It's hypocrisy, pure and simple; and one will be hard-pressed, as I have said so many times, to find a more hypocritical person than Jason Gastrich. WarriorScribe 06:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On Mark's talk page, Gastrich removed my commentary in which I mused about his apparent attempts to inflate his "contributor" numbers by going through a rather large list of people and labelling them "atheists." In fact, checking most of Gastrich's contributions, it seems that they are limited to putting labels on people. There's very little substance, at all, and all of that is happening while boasting of his "contributions" to Wikipedia and how long he's been doing it. He's even referred to a couple of people, condescendingly, I might add, as "newbie." I think that combination of things is rather interesting... WarriorScribe 07:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the citations that Gastrich provides, above. I think that we should look at them, individually, one by one, and consider the context of the discussions in which they occur, as well as the other parties involved. This would be necessary in any mediation, given the claims that have been made and what these references are supposed to represent. WarriorScribe 07:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All right, well, after watching Gastrich do everything he can to avoid making a case for his POV pushing (including going off on a tangent about yours truly and removing some of my commentary from the talk page for Mark Bilbo) and waiting for some sort of rational approach to all of this, I'll say this for now: I believe that Gastrich's reaction is due to a combination of jealousy at the discovery of an article about Mark on Wikipedia (while Gastrich's own vanity-driven article was removed) and indignance at some of his encounters with Mark. But Mark is notable and deserving of an article as an author of several books on computing that were published by major publishers (e.g., Que), mostly during the "boom time" of personal computing in the very late 1980s and early 1990s. In being such a successful, published author, it is likely that Mark had a hand in the success of the computer revolution that we saw during those years. Mark has also been involved in the writing of RFCs and other aspects of network computing extending back at least a decade and a half.

Gastrich claims that Mark is "controversial" because of his alleged mistreatment of Christians due, in part, to his atheism. He provides 12 references to encounters with Christians in Usenet and in talk pages at Wikipedia. But I would submit that, even if we are not to consider the context of these encounters, a relative few Usenet postings and comments at Wiki with respect to dealing with a fairly insignificant number of people does not warrant a POV-driven comment in the article with respect to "controversy," nor does it allow us to declare someone "controvesial." The participants in Usenet, even combined with those at Wikipedia, represent an exceptionally small microscosm within society, and the fundamentalist Christians, easily offended by Mark's occasionally brusque and impatient comments represent a still smaller group of people. As a Jew--not an atheist, at all--I find Mark's honesty and directness rather refreshing, at times; and certainly not controversial. Once again, I will point out that it is hypocritical for Gastrich, who would not allow even a hint of controversy to appear in his user page or his talk page (and certainly not his encyclopedia article), to insist that those things be included in the pages dedicated to Mark Bilbo. In fact, again, given the personal problems that Gastrich clearly has with him, it would be right and honorable for Gastrich to refrain from posting anything on a biographical article and to recuse himself from participating in any evaluation of Mark's Wikipedia participation, as he clearly cannot approach the issue in a fair and unbiased manner. Under the circumstances, this mediation should be closed, immediately, and Gastrich's comments, clearly driven by emotion and a lack of objectivity, should remain out of the article. WarriorScribe 09:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator response

First, I want to see the section on controversy you want to add. -- Bonaparte talk 13:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to its exact phrasing. Here is a proposal. I took careful steps to only include things he has said and to make the section as nPOV as possible.

Can you make a little bit more NPOV? It's simply too POV right now. If can do it you can add that paragraph. Bonaparte talk 17:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post another. --Jason Gastrich 01:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Another" turned out to be what has been claimed before, and has already been rebutted. WarriorScribe 03:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 2nd proposal is much better. You can add it. There must be also an opinion on B's controversial statements and Jason just did that. Bonaparte talk 07:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bonaparte, please see the talk page for Mark K. Bilbo. WarriorScribe has disregarded your input and has deleted nearly all of the paragraph that we worked hard to form. He has even deleted my contribution, in the talk page, about your help and decision. I just put it back, but he may delete it again. Please help. --Jason Gastrich 23:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion #1

In Bilbo's public conversations (usually with Christians), Bilbo can become condescending and offensive. For instance, he calls Jesus "Jeebus" and God "your perfect god widget." Bilbo has been known to make fun of their names, calling Uncle Davey "Unca Dorky" and calling Pastor Frank "Plastic Fake." His general name calling includes condescending remarks like "dense one, twit boy, disphit, and hypocritical asshole." Furthermore, when Bilbo becomes flustered, he also says offensive things like "bite me" and "fuck you." --Jason Gastrich 22:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asked and answered...this is all completely irrelevant to the encyclopedia article on Bilbo, and is hypocritical on the part of Gastrich, who simply wants to put whatever he wants in such an article, skewed by his own point-of-view. He's also been advised by at least one admin that the sources are not permissible under Wikipedia rules.

That Mark has little patience with certain kinds of personalities is completely irrelevant to his published works in the field. Meanwhile, Usenet, the World Wide Web, and even Wikipedia are loaded with examples of Gastrich's poor and even unChristian behavior, but he would never stand for examples of these things to be put in an encyclopedia article about him (as the record shows) and he doesn't even want it on his "user page," as he clearly states, when he demands that it not be edited "for any reason." He even removes critical comment from the the talk page associated with his user page, as well as from the talk pages of other users. For Gastrich, this is all about perpetuating a vendetta and forcing Wikipedia to bend to his demands, and it should be rejected as such. WarriorScribe 23:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion #2

In Bilbo's public conversations (usually with Christians), he can become condescending and offensive. For instance, Bilbo calls Jesus "Jeebus" and God "your perfect god widget." Bilbo has been known to make fun of people's names, calling Uncle Davey "Unca Dorky" and Pastor Frank "Plastic Fake." His condescending remarks also include "dense one, twit boy, disphit, hypocritical asshole, bite me, and fuck you."

Wow, "suggestion #2" is just a repeat of what was said before, and does nothing to support the reasons for inclusion in a biographical, encyclopedia article. In addition to that, I have already pointed out that I can find lots of examples of Gastrich being condescending and offensive--probably at least as many episodes exist on Usenet and even on Wikipedia (e.g., referring to others as "newbie," as if Gastrich views himself--as he probably does--as some sort of Wikipedia veteran). Gastrich has told mean-spirited, offensive lies about a number of people in a number of venues. He's thrown temper-tantrums here at Wikipedia, on Usenet, and during set-ups to at least one debate. He has used Wikipedia as a means to belittle and attack those with whom he doesn't agree and with whom he has issues, he's insulted the parenting of at least two other people, and he's forged at least one email (that is known). The point being, again, that Gastrich has his own, rather sordid history, and this is a guy who wants to claim to love others and be a minister of God. This is also someone whom, when these kinds of controversies came up during the discussion of his own encylopedia entry, deleted them, often under the guise of sock puppets, and who will also not allow comments about his controversies to exist even on the "talk" page. In short, he's being a hypocrite.

The comments that have appeared in Usenet are not controversial. The fact that Mark is an atheist is not controversial. The fact that he participates in a gag "organization" (the so-called "Evil Atheist Conspiracy") is not controversial. Mark is not controversial. Gastrich just doesn't like him, and wants his character sullied by any means necessary. It's silly and juvenile and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. WarriorScribe 03:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I will not be reading or responding to any of WarriorScribe's personal attacks and off-topic comments. This isn't the appropriate place for them. --Jason Gastrich 05:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one believes that Gastrich hasn't been reading. He's got no intelligent defense for his actions...pure and simple. WarriorScribe 05:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Christian and I must say that I am more offended by the tactics Jason Gastrich uses than those used by WarriorScribe or Mark Bilbo. As a Christian I find it offensive that Gastrich uses Wikipedia to "sale" his material and his point of view. With the exception of a few minor edits, the majority of his contibutions are VERY nNPOV. I have recently gotten myself mixed up in this mess and the first thing Gastrich did when he saw my entry on a few talk pages was run to an administrator and had me blocked for 24 hours for "Attacks" and "Vandalism". Running to administrators seems to be common for him every time he can't get his way. Gastrich has repeatedly deleted and altered entries by other editors (Including my own) on several talk pages. Jason apparantly likes to think that he is being persecuted for his beliefs and sees himself as some sort of modern day martyr. His most common rant is that people are stalking him and making personal attacks on him based on his religios persuasion. I haven't seen a single entry by anyone attacking Jason for his beliefs. If anyone has attacked him for anything, it has been for his using Wikipedia for his own gain and to preach his own brand of Christianity. As I've said before, I apologize for Jason's actions. Christians should not act the way he does. Icj tlc 18:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]