Misplaced Pages

User talk:Arbustoo

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WarriorScribe (talk | contribs) at 14:44, 6 April 2006 (→OCCM). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:44, 6 April 2006 by WarriorScribe (talk | contribs) (→OCCM)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Jason Gastrich related

Your fear of Jason Gastrich

I can't believe you just wrote the following in the Bob Cornuke entry:

"Remove Jason Gastrich's self promotion and revert changes he added without commentary"

What are you even trying to say? It sure looks like you're paranoid about this Gastrich fellow. Here is the information I added. Honestly. What's wrong with it?

"He also speaks at Bible conferences like Steeling the Mind, where he shows video footage and lectures about his travels and discoveries . In 2006, Cornuke is schedule to give a workshop at Louisiana Baptist University's graduation week; the same university where he earned his Ph.D. in 2005."

Except for the hot desire that burns deep in your loins against Gastrich, honestly, what's wrong with it? You were the one complaining about lack of citations for Cornuke speaking at Steeling the Mind . . . now you have them, and you complain that it's Gastrich's site. Did you forget to take your fucking medication? --Jack White1 08:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You need to get your sock puppets straight. Your "Jack White1" puppet didn't add your link. The "Jack White 1" puppet is over at the Kent Hovind article. Arbusto 08:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
You need to stick to the topic and defend your sorry self. So what if I post from two different accounts? Where does Misplaced Pages say I can't do that? Now answer my question and don't think your boyfriends are helping you any. --Jack White1 23:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Interesting homophobic innuendo. David D. (Talk) 23:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
You ask "Where does Misplaced Pages say I can't do that?" The answer is here. And for completeness, here is the bit where it says you should not make personal attacks, and here is where it says you should remain civil. HTH, HAND. Just zis Guy you know? 12:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
No this is interesting. You have Jason pretending to be someone who Jason confided his homosexuality to. The direct quote is "defaming him by pretending that person admitted to being GAY" (capitals as quoted). Arbusto 08:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Heh. Whoops...another Gastrich gaffe. Indeed, that was "Jumpstart My Heart" who added that link. You're absolutely right...must be hard to keep track of the socks when there are so many... - WarriorScribe 15:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
You know Arbustoo, that "hot desire that burns deep in your loins against Gastrich" can be cleared up with a few antibiotics nowadays. --Malthusian (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
No one fears Gastrich. The problem is that everything he writes (or his socks write) is made up or propaganda. That goes for Cornuke too. This is an encylopedia and fairy stories are not welcome. David D. (Talk) 16:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Just so Jason Gastrich knows, whenever I see a sock puppet adding his webpage as a citation it will be removed. Arbusto 01:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
JASON GASTRICH FTW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111oneone Itake 20:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Puppet tag

Please don't put a puppet tag on my user page. I'm not a puppet.

You need to discuss why you're deleting the two links on Till's page. See you on the talk page. --Juicy Juicy 02:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Jason Gastrich, are you a little angry your links are removed? Arbusto 02:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Juicy Juicy asked you a valid question. Are you going to answer? You have been VERY hastily calling new users sockpuppets of Jason Gastrich. Why? Where is your evidence? Will you be repenting from this behavior? --Dragonfly02 23:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Why repent when he's been proven right ... time and time again? Justin Eiler 23:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
From what I've seen, he hasn't been proven right even once. Him thinking that all of these users are either "a Jason Gastrich sockpuppet or an impersonator" is completely conjecture. With your definition of proof, I just proved you were 10 feet tall. How? Cuz I said so. --Dragonfly02 23:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
And check Dragonfly's edits. It mays edits characteristically like Jason. Am I the only person who find this funny? JoshuaZ 01:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Your Request for Comment (RfC)

You're formally invited to come and respond to your RfC. --Juicy Juicy 03:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Just ignore it Abustoo, it will be a complete waste of time. David D. (Talk) 03:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Juicy Juicy (talk • contribs • Juicy page moves • block user • Juicy block log) has 11 posts. Arbusto 03:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The page in question, Jason Gastrich, and homosexuality

The page Gastrich is particularly interested in has a unique background. As it turns out, he committed a felony by pretending to be Farrell Till and came out of closet with his sexuality while posing as Till via email. This shows the length and dishonesty that he does in the name of religion. It also shows a particular interest of POV pushing on that page. He later claimed it was a joke. Arbusto 03:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Funny, cuz what I see here is a guy making a mistake and saying he's sorry......AFTER Farrel Till was suspended from posting on Gastrich's internet forum, then returned under a fake name, got suspended, and returned under another fake name and was suspended, again. That's when Gastrich spoofed Till's email address and sent an email to Till's mail list. Not a felony by any stretch of the imagination, and perfectly reasonable given the circumstances.
Linking durangobill's web site and going on and on about Gastrich is only making you look worse; especially cuz you're avoiding your RfC. You better straighten up, or your time around here will be limited.....as limited as Gastrich's. --Joshua39215 06:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
So how do you expalin the facf that Gastrich kept denying he had forged the e-mail? Do those lies and deceit not count? That action was the precedent for many of your actions. As we see today you continue with deceit and thus your apology is worthless. David D. (Talk) 06:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
This is a cycle of abuse. Jason lies to attack someone, he says he is sorry. He lies again, says he's sorry. And again and again. And again, and a-- how many sock puppets should be sorry for? How many deceitful AfD's should he be sorry for? How many personal attacks should be sorry for? The answer is more than one and we haven't even seen one apology for his wiki-ways. Arbusto 08:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I think he is sorry he got caught, again. Although I feel now he is moving into his persecution phase. Could that be why these socks are so easy to find, he wants the all the trouble to wear as a badge of honor? David D. (Talk) 09:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Joshua39215's first edit ever is on this page defending Gastrich. That begs several questions... Arbusto 07:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and it also repeats Gastrich's own whitewash of the incident, almost verbatim, which answers at least one of those questions, I think... - WarriorScribe 15:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a good chance that Joshua39215, Jack White1 and juicy are actually Gastrich's meat puppet Uncley Davey. He posted in the Gastrich RfC and has a more permanent home at usenetpostsdotcom (talk • contribs). See the following discussion. i think that all meat puppets should be treated in the same way asGastrich sock puppets although I'm not sure there is a consensus for this? David D. (Talk) 22:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, we may want to add to the checkuser requests a note about comparing the various puppets to Davy also. 22:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC) JoshuaZ 22:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Bugger. I thought we'd converted him. --Malthusian (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I thought so too, but we need to consider the possibility that we haven't. I added an appropriate note to that effect on the checkuser page. JoshuaZ 14:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
It is NOT me, thank you very much. Please see my rebuttal. You will note that Dr Day has also graciously accepted he was wrong, although he has not amended his comments here, which is a bit disappointing. You have not "converted" me in any theological sense, Malthusian, and you have not changed my mind with regards to Misplaced Pages as it was NEVER my intention to be anything other than a good Wikipedian in the first place. What you guys did - I am grateful to you for it, don't get me wrong - was to expain how things work around here. It was never my intention to work against the status quo wittingly. Having said that, you go ahead and do your userchecks with my blessing. I have nothing to hide and your minds will be set at rest. Hopefully after that in the future you will not have an assumption of bad will towards me in the future, just because I happen to count Jason among my friends. Uncle Davey (Talk) 12:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Good. --Malthusian (talk) 12:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Please note that, the RfC having failed to attract the required number of (provably different) endorsements, it has now been struck out. Just zis Guy you know? 16:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Should the talk page get deleted too? Arbusto 19:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Reconciliation

Hi Arbusto,

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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages. 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 01:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

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.

Firstly, I flat out don't believe that you haven't been using sock puppets lately. Your integrity, as far as I am concerned, is so deeply tarnished that it will take a long while to remedy that to give you the benefit of the doubt. By the way, you openly admitted to sending an army of sock puppets on your talk with "don't expect to be hearing from me, but expect to be hearing from them."
I think the CheckUser is good proof of what I've been saying and you could continue doing more CheckUsers if you like.
I didn't openly admit to sending an army of sockpuppets. You misunderstood what I was saying. I was anticipating that like-minded Christians would come and contribute to articles that were important to the Christian community; partly due to their importance and partly due to the way the entries were being treated.
Secondly, don't you dare claim you are trying to "glorify God" by reverting edits about accreditation on the LBU page, removing quotes from the SAB, removing content from diploma mill experts, ect. Those edits were POV to make YOUR "degree" and your ego more publicly acceptable. You aren't leading others "into a relationship with" God by reverting cited edits of Cornuke's deceit.
As JzG admitted, I made a number of good and valid contributions in areas that were lacking. I don't expect for you to admit the same. However, I did a lot to try and improve the LBU page and some of my work was removed for no good reason and replaced with absurd accusations. Even now, as the article stands, there are a number of incorrect things and absent things that should be there. Too bad for you, the entry, the community, and those who trust it. I don't and more and more others don't, too.
Thirdly, no doubt you feel this place is hostile because you put edits on pages to promote stuff you are selling. It's too bad you equate believers with those who will stand by as you spam articles and you equate disbelievers with those who remove your POV and spam.
No, this place has more people who disagree with so-called "fundamentalist Christianity" than those who do. This place has more administrators that disagree with so-called "fundamentalist Christianity" as well. In fact, JzG says he is against it in a private email that I received. If you can't see how this place is an armpit for factual information and a haven for sensational claims, then go ahead and keep contributing like you do.
I'm not about making money. If I was, I wouldn't be in Christian ministry. Uncle Davey has repeatedly articulated this on Usenet and he's quite right. I could make far more dollars doing other things, but I choose to invest in others because God loves me and I love Him and others. However, I do find that I can fulfill His mission for me and my ministry better off Misplaced Pages than on it.
Lastly, if you are truly sorry then simply stop with the bad behavior and self-promotion. I'd rather see that then get a hollow apology. Yet, its too late for that according to RfA. You have no choice, but to cease and desist your behavior-- the behavior that you have known to be contrary to wikipedia spirit. Arbusto 01:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I already have. I'm not a serious contributor to Misplaced Pages, because we all know I disagree with the "Wikipedian spirit" as it disagrees with the Spirit of God. The Wikipedian spirit knows no grace or truth. It's all about majoring on the minors, writing pages about insignificant blemishes, while omitting important and relevant facts that might paint Jesus Christ, His religion, and His people in a positive light.
Now, don't forget that I came and apologized to you and sought reconciliation. You took this opportunity to lay into me, so I defended myself and told you about how I felt on certain issues. Even though this conversation has evolved, don't forget why I came here and what I said to you. I do not excuse poor behavior, from myself, from you, or anyone else. However, I do not admit to things I haven't done and I do know that among my many contributions, I have tried to be a positive contributor to the community, and some have agreed.
I'm more interested in repairing relationships than trying to sway an RfA or RfC. Besides, I'm not even here posting any more. Why would it matter to me if I were banned? My morals aren't guided by consequences. They are guided by God's Spirit, so that's why I have apologized to you and a few others for past behavior that made some upset. --Jason Gastrich 02:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Fine. Arbusto 03:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
"Over the past 4-6 weeks, the Holy Spirit has continually reminded of the scriptures that command Christians to avoid being unequally yoked with unbelievers. Of course, they aren't just referring to marriage, but to relationships. In the coming days, I'll be writing some articles on the problems with Misplaced Pages, but for now, I'd like Christians to consider how working closely with unbelievers to create entries on Misplaced Pages could be considered being unequally yoked." Gastrich wrote that, but I guess the "Holy Spirit" changed his mind. I submit, however, that this is less an attempt at reconciliation, and more an attempt at damage control...an attempt that is too little and too late. - WarriorScribe 03:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Arbusto, I really think you should take this at face value. There is credible evidence that somebody has been impersonating Jason; I would be the last person to suggest he is whiter than white, but I think he has realised that the battle he appeared to be trying to fight is one he cannot win. I would be happy with the original remedies proposed by ArbCom, namely restriction from editing certain articles and rapid escalation in case of future infractions. Just zis Guy you know? 09:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I completely disagree. For one he says NOT A SINGLE SOCK PUPPET IS HIS. (1) Then he went on to accuse warriorscribe and myself of being the same person. In which he denies he requested the check user. When I first began editting the LBU pages he accused myself of being a sock puppet then and has always had his dellusional suspicions. Who else would have done that or known he has done that? (2) As for the false RfC that was done a few days after two LBU related pages were deleted per AfD, which was done by the same account that requested the check user. (3) So the Turkmen account was just a new user who accidently inserted a hollow domain that linked to Jason's webpage/ministry? (4) So the revived "Steeling the mind" articles was a Gastrich impersonator who just happened to have the article saved on his computer before the deletion. Also, you think the Jason is truly sorry for his actions? Then why hasn't he copied and pasted the same message to Warriorscribe? Lastly, he openly said he doesn't care about the consquences of not obeying the wikipedia rules right above. Doesn't sound at all like an apology. Arbusto 19:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
With regard to WarriorScribe, the reason he did not post on his page, or mine for that matter, is that he knows full well he knows his history. David D. (Talk) 19:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Arbustoo, You are Vandalizing Wiki Pages!

Arbustoo, you are vandalizing pages, not using proper English grammar, and intentionally misrepresenting others. If you cannot speak fluent English, do not edit English pages. If you are not an expert on a subject, do not edit a page.Jreichard (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

First and only ever edit on my talk page. You get a Jason Gastrich sock puppet tag. Arbusto 03:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Not Gastrich, probably PSRuckman (talk • contribs) (see his talk page). Just zis Guy you know? 15:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe not, but made within minutes of Gastrich's other posts and when I made some edits on the AfR that he doesn't agree with. Arbusto 19:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes Ruckman is out to get everyone. He is everyone and is everywhere! Sorry about that Jreichard. But I am with you re Arbusto/o's spelling. Fantastic that he is out to protect the world from "fake" doctorates, isn't it? Yep, with defenders like that, who needs enemies? PSRuckman
Thus spake the man who loudly "corrected" my perfectly valid British English spelling. Hoist by your own petard, Ruckman. Just zis Guy you know? 10:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you use sockpuppets?

Hi Arbusto,

I hope you're well.

I noticed that someone has requested a check user for your account and User:WarriorScribe. They think you're the same person and I must admit that they make a pretty good case.

How do you respond to this? I'm not making any judgments or assumptions, so that's why I asked you directly.

Take care, --Jason Gastrich 02:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Jason we all know that was you as a sock puppet who requested a check user and started the RfC. I have never posted/used in any way, shape or form another wikipedia account. That is to say, I am not nor have ever met, used or been affliated in any way to Warriorscribe. Your games get old. Arbusto 03:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, it was clearly a Gastrich sock puppet--one that did not answer my challenge about this very issue...I couldn't help but notice that. Regardless, this isn't the first time that Gastrich has engaged in the use of socks and false identities to pretend that "someone" initiated an action or wrote something that, in fact, was initiated or written by him, and that he later would claim is a "pretty good case." - WarriorScribe 03:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I strongly suggest that this section be added directly to the arbcomm evidence since his comment here undermines Jason's claim that the current sockpuppets aren't his. JoshuaZ 03:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, it does. After all, does Gastrich really expect us to believe that he just happened to notice a checkuser request that had, in fact, been removed, so that he had to reference it the way that he did in the comments above? No, he knew it was there, all along, because he put it there; and when it was removed, he needed to bring it out, again. It's not the first time that sort of thing has happened. Quite amusing, of course, but it does seem that he digs himself that well-known "deeper hole." - WarriorScribe 03:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I added a more telling quote from above about getting blocked for poor behavior. Jason Gastrich wrote, "Why would it matter to me if I were banned? My morals aren't guided by consequences." Arbusto 03:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, under his "once-saved, always-saved" theology, Gastrich can pretty much do anything because he'll get forgiven for it, later. This would explain his fairly extensive hostility both here and in Usenet before he knew anything about Misplaced Pages, and also why he feels that he needs to follow no rules but his own (not to mention his selective following of Scripture). - WarriorScribe 03:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but this has the added benefit of demonstrating direct collusion between Gastrich and the current sockpuppets. Remember that a few people suggested that some of the current socks might actually be John. Gastrich's comment here makes that very hard to believe. Also, I think the quote you have here is slightly out of context considering the next sentence after it where Gastrich talks about following the will of his deity. JoshuaZ 03:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I recall that, yes...so that's a fair point, even if I disagree that "Bible John" really had much, if anything, to do with the wave of Gastrich socks and suspected socks. I've seen him in action enough to know that he would have given himself away long before now.
I understand the comments about how Gastrich presumes to follow the "will of his deity," but that's just talk, by my observation. Gastrich makes a lot of that sort of noise, but in the end, there's little evidence for it, especially in light of the fact that, as I said, he tends to ignore much of what that deity is alleged to have said or required of his followers. - WarriorScribe 03:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not out context because he has decided what the will of God is and has repeatedly noted his edits are for that will/God. Arbusto 03:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, ok true. I still think however that the above comment by Gastrich really does sink any last claim Gastrich could make that the sockpuppets were someone else. JoshuaZ 04:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I think you're right. - WarriorScribe 04:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey, the will of MY deity is to slaughter my enemies, see them driven before me and hear the lamentations of their women.  RasputinAXP  c 15:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that's some deity. Mine got nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be if everyone was nice to each other for a change. Just zis Guy you know? 10:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Cool it, guys. Also, Arbustoo, Commander Cool, part deux (talk • contribs) is not a Gastrich sock. Look at the edit history and see also Commander Cool (talk • contribs). Just zis Guy you know? 15:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Looks like Gastrich misses our attention. Pretty pathetic, eh? - WarriorScribe 05:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Gastrich RfA

The comment you stuck in Ben's section- comments shouldn't go in other peoples evidence sections, it is appropriate in ones own evidence section or the talk page. (I wouldn't worry that much anyways, since I don't think the ArbCom is going to take what he has to say very seriously anyways). JoshuaZ 03:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't feel it was a response nor did I want to respond to it. Moreover, I just wanted to point out that he has his own ongoing RfA regarding the same POV problem. Arbusto 03:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but it doesn't change the rules about the RfA evidence sections, and considering how Ben is acting it is probably in our best interest to stay as close to the literal rules as possible. JoshuaZ 03:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to remove Gastrich and his 11 votes selectively from California recall election results, 2003? I'd be fine for removing everyone who got less than a 1,000 votes, but to erase one name seems unencyclopedic. -Will Beback 01:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
That entry was added by Jason himself (according to the AfD of the entry of his name). If his 7 votes can be independently cited they should remain if not they should be removed according to the wikipedia policy on autobiographies and deleted as uncited/verifible vanity. Arbusto 01:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
No the entry was already there, he just made it into a link. I recall distinctly, as it was the first time I encountered that editor. Yes, he did run and get 11 votes. http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/sov/2003_special/sum.pdf. Self-promotion? He didn't start when he got here. -Will Beback 01:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Good source. Edit reverted. Arbusto 02:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, -Will Beback 02:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Your spin

I just wanted to let you know that I thought you were being a weasel when you deleted Jason Gastrich's bibliography and ministry information from his user page, right after he was banned from Misplaced Pages for 1 year. Adding "an unaccredited institution" next to one of his alma maters was also a weasley thing to do. --Weasel Finder 01:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jason Gastrich. You are banned from wikipedia for one year. Good bye. Claiming to be a "Dr." from an unaccredited mailorder "school" is deceitful. Arbusto 04:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
BTW, before you get blocked again Jason, what is "spin" about labelling a unaccredited school "unaccredited"? Arbusto 06:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not Gastrich's biggest fan, but you're far worse than he is, Captain Misplaced Pages. Get a life. --Weasel Finder 07:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, is it possible that Weasel is Ben? This doesn't seem that likely but they both disavow liking Gastrich and Weasel's first edit is about 40 minutes after Ben's permanent block. JoshuaZ 08:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that calling yourself a Dr. without being a Dr. is a crime. Mike (T C) 01:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
If that were the case, then the whole Dr. thing is criminal, as the first person ever to have a doctorate must of conferred it on himself, and if his doctorate was non-kosher, then by that reasoning every doctorate ever conferred since then has been wrong, deceitful and criminal. No wonder they never seem able to heal anyone for long. Uncle Davey (Talk) 18:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Cool. Another example of improper conflation, bad logic, and useless rhetoric which can the basis for another exposé article. Tick, tick, tick, tick. - WarriorScribe 14:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Warning about redundancy and primacy in accreditation enteries

Please stop putting accreditation info in the first paragraph. This is not how Wiki university and college entries are written, especially when there already is a section on accreditation. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--Shocka5 03:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

In the edit summary you said you were "moving" accreditation info, when in fact you deleted from two sections. You did this at least two other schools as well. This is vandalism. Arbusto 03:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
If something was deleted, it was only because it was mentioned twice. Misplaced Pages has a policy against redundancy. Accreditation issues belong in the accreditation section; not in the first section and/or sprinkled throughout, simply because you think they're important enough to repeat. Follow consensus and Wiki's model for uni entries. --Shocka5 05:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Deleting something is much different than "moving" something as you claimed you were doing in the edit summary (you purposely mislead people). Yes, do follow consensus of the other unaccredited schools; unaccredited schools are introduced as such in the first parargraph and go into detail on specifics later. Arbusto 06:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
All of my edits have been beneficial and they've followed Misplaced Pages policy. Your false accusations fall flat.
You and your friend do not make up the consensus of the community. Simply because you've been editing unaccredited universities, categorizing and labeling them, and putting their lack of accreditation in the first paragraph AND in a section about accreditation, it doesn't mean you're right or that you have the community's best interests in mind. As I said, Wiki has a policy against redundancy. Why do you feel the need to repeat accreditation issues? Why do you like to put them in the opening paragraph? According to your contribs, it looks like you have something against unaccredited universities and their graduates; which, incidentally, are generally (if not always) religious universities and people. What gives? --Shocka5 06:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The reason is "Unaccredited schools are introduced as such in the first parargraph and go into detail on specifics later." (pasted from my last response) It is important to have a balanced wiki article so well-meaning people don't get ripped by degree mills or expect their degrees to be valid when they are not. And the vast majority of unaccredited schools claim religious standing, which according to the diploma mill page is a way for them to get around legal issues.
You have attacked/editted the LBU page twice. 3 out of the 4 schools you whitewashed are related in some way to LBU. You are a new user and seem well-versed with using wikipedia, and only editted on questionable unaccredited schools. You have not answered issues of your identity on your talk. "What gives?" Arbusto 07:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

User tagged as a suspected Gatrich sock after the user ignored my questions about his account. Arbusto 07:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It's appropriate that the introduction has the major themes of the article in the first paragraph. These are then expanded later. In all these universities a major theme is that they are unaccredited and therefore it is approprite for the introduction. In all cases the repeat later in the article is to give the details. I agree with Arbusto that reomving this inofrmation from the introduction is vandalism. If wikipedia has a rule about repeating information then the introduction for every artcile shold be deleted. Of course, wikipedia has no such policy. David D. (Talk) 14:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Bob Cornuke

Could you take a look at what is going on over there when you have a minute? Thanks. (He's an LBU grad who you have worked on before). There is a new editor who seems to be strongly pushing a pro-Cornuke POV. JoshuaZ 21:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverted and test tag added. Arbusto 22:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Looks like Gastrich is using his "multiple sock" tactic, as well. - WarriorScribe 15:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not a sock puppet.

I only voted for the posts because the person asked me to. I'm just new to wikipedia. I'm not a sock puppet. --Hayson 22:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for tagging you as a puppet and will remove the tag once things become clearer. But it is against wikipedia rules to request people vote a certain way on a AfD because this sways the voting process.
Who asked you to and how? I did not see anyone ask on your talk page. Did you get a message by email and if so what is the name of the person? Jason Gastrich?
Also thank you for your honesty.Arbusto 22:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment, in any case, the fact that such an event occured should be put on the AfD so the closing admin knows and the Arb Com should be alerted. JoshuaZ 23:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Afd Kept by "No Consensus"

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of TRACS members.--Jersey Devil 04:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually the closing admin says that it would have been no consensus even without the socks. JoshuaZ 04:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that was disappointing. I think moving the comments to the talk confused the closing admin. I left a note asking what his tally was. Arbusto 06:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Now that's something serious. Give me a while, I'll sort this one in a few hours. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 10:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
A check user hasn't always worked with this suspected puppet. In fact, it is strongly believed that an anonimizer(s) is used to change and hide his IP. There are over a hundred puppets linked to Gastrich (see: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich/Evidence), which only two were verified through check user. For example, User talk:Turkmen was not verified with check user results and denied being a sock. Yet, the account was blocked when this new user was making Gastrich style edits and added links to Gastrich's promotions(see that talk for proof). Meanwhile this User talk:Chuck Hastings sock puppet claimed he was not and did not know Gastrich. Yet, the email this sock puppet used was an account ran by Gastrich(see that talk for proof). Arbusto 20:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

SACS

I think that people should know what schools are acreditted, so they can goto the right school. so therefore I'm putting to school list back on SACS. ChanTheManWithAPlan 21:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome! Just so you know you commented with your fifth ever into a hotly debated issue surrounding the use of 10 new users who are suspcted of being sock puppets. It would benefit you to mention how you came across this issue and use your fifth edit ever to post on my talk. Especially, since it has been revealed that a banned user, User:Jason Gastrich, has been purposely recruiting people to vote keep a list of accredited schools.

Also since your fifth ever edit and first edit and only edit in a week relates to Jason Gastrich and his program to recuit "keep" these lists, you should reveal any possible relationship you have with him. Also I am curious why you have an interest in this. Again, welcome. Arbusto 21:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Your lies/deceit

You're lying to Chan and trying to deceive him. Why? You have no proof that Jason Gastrich even posts on Misplaced Pages any more. There isn't even an outstanding accusation from someone that they received a message from Jason telling them to vote. Don't bother Chan or anyone else with your nonsense. You're making Misplaced Pages a not-so-fun place. --BryanW4C 21:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jason. (The above is the user's first edit ever.) Also in case people want to see it again, that is proof Jason is still involved with POV pushing on wikipedia despite his ban. Arbusto 21:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
My name is not Jason. You are one paranoid person. Wiki4Christ is much bigger than him. --BryanW4C 22:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Just how big is wiki4christ? It sounds like a great organisation, can anyone join? David D. (Talk) 22:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Heh...you're killin' me!  :-D - WarriorScribe 02:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, "Bryan" how did you come across my talk page, and be able to use the talk page and sign your name with your first edit? Secondly, what is your relationship to Jason Gastrich? You clearly mentioned his name and gave indications you know about his use of wikipedia. Lastly, if you are a new user how to you know anything about me (this section being titles Your lies/deceit)? Arbusto 22:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
"Bryan"'s comments are vintage Gastrich. Good spot and good job on the part of Admin to block him, quickly. - WarriorScribe 02:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The post script to this bit of banter is hysterical. "Brian" says that there's no proof that Gastrich posts to Misplaced Pages, any more, he denies being Gastrich, boasts about the size of Wiki4Christ...and a checkuser shows he is Gastrich. Three more lies, one sock, one section of one user's talk page. And the hits just keep on comin' - WarriorScribe 14:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess that is a yes

"I'm tired of you people and your ways, and in time people will no doubt know wikipedia for what it really is." ;-) David D. (Talk) 20:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It appears so. I mean who hard is it to stand up and accept the consequences for violating the rules? Arbusto 20:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed this edit. Absolutely right. Not to mention good usage of summary edits. Something no new user does when they arrive. But also remember WP:BEANS. David D. (Talk) 21:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Giving the amount of admins who abuse their powers to sway AfD votes in their favour, it is obviously very hard to stand up and admit such faults. Itake 21:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
That is no excuse for your own deceit. Arbusto 21:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Interesting then how you excuse your own deceit with the deceit of others. Hypocrisy? YES PLEASE! Itake 21:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Give examples of my "deceit." Right now you are caught in possible violations of the rules and want to attack the person who pointed it out. But post away with all my "deceit." Arbusto 21:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
How about your self-titled vote counting on the AfD page? Disqualifying "keep" votes because they weren't made by someone withhin your closely knitted little group of editors? Or your claims that I am hinting somekind of involvment with Gastrich? Itake 21:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't disqualify anything because I am not an admin. only they can do that. I did include a count that 9 out of 12 votes (yours included) are by socks and meat puppets. I stand by that completely.

You are hinting at Gastrich contacting you. It's not just my opinion. If you notice you are posting under a section titled "I guess that is a yes" referring to your answers of that question. But how again is that deceitful. Come on, let's see some firm proof of my deceit. Surely you can do better?

Give your history there is no doubt that you are still in contact with Gastrich.Arbusto 21:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Of course you stand by that completely. Anyone taking a look at your history can see that you indeed have a firm POV stance on everything. Congratulations.

Yes, it is only your opinion. Otherwise you would not have posted it like your opinion. It is only your opinion that there is no doubt that I am still in contact with gastrich. It is only your opinion that I'm a sockpuppet, even though the fact is that me and gastrich live on separate continents. It is my opinion, that your deceitful POV ways should stop for the better of this community. Itake 21:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You called me deceitful. Give proof of it. All you have posted is POV. You claim that "I am deceitful" is itself deceitful. You have no proof whatsoever of your claims and you have not even denied that wiki4christ contacted you either. Arbusto 22:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
And you have not denied that you are infact Adolf Hitler resurrected. By your (wonderful) logic, that would make you Adolf Hitler. I can only feel sorry for you.

On to a more serious point, you've got your proof right there. You make claims, then you cannot back them up. That is being deceitful. Itake 22:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No proof? I didn't think so. Arbusto 22:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
So english is not your main language then? Itake 22:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Gastrich contact

When did Itake deny it? JoshuaZ 23:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

On the AfD. Arbusto 23:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Do you know what he means by FFS in that context? JoshuaZ 23:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I assumed it was a full scale denial. Hey, check out Jack Hyles right now. Arbusto 23:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Your Tenetuous Editing

Arbustoo, why do you fear Christians? I respect your right to be ignorant of Gods word, but running a cabal to oppress Christians is downright discriminatory and hateful. Please, I would like to open a dialogue and help you come to terms with the 95% of Americans who believe in Christs love.

cordial links to Oxford university

What a complete sham. i just noticed that Oxford graduate college page. Cordial links? Does that mean they have phoned up some of the profs in various departments at Oxford University? These universities are so pathetic in their transparent attempts to be linked to Universities with real standing. I am beginning to realise that there are many of these places in the US not just a few scattered examples. I'm amazed this sort of thing is legal and to think they are always crying persecution. Persecution? They have no idea at all, personally i'm surprised they have not been shut down and thrown in jail for fraud. Oh, by the way, good edits on that page and please excuse my rant. David D. (Talk) 22:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind the rant at all. It's good to see people feel the same way about education. Arbustoo 01:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
According to the school's webpage they have 100 students, been in existence since 1980, don't list tuition prices, and have no departments. Arbustoo 01:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hyles etc.

I protected the page. Please work toward a consensus on the talk page; afterwards, any edits that contravene that consensus should allow you and the other agreeing editors to make judicious use of reporting any 3RR's. · Katefan0/poll 03:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've also added it to my watchlist and will be interjecting ... er, guidance ... when needed ;) · Katefan0/poll 03:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help again. Arbustoo 03:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Your removal of Disputed Tag

Arbustoo, please do not remove the Disputed Tags from the Jack Hyles or First Baptist Church Wikis. As noted in the talk section of the Jack Hyles wiki, these articles are in dispute, hence the tag. Removing them is considered to be vandalism. --Teeja 13:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Even an Admin. removed the tag after you reinserted it. It will be removed if you cannot argue the grounds you put it in. See the talk pages for my response. Arbusto 19:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Minor edits

Hi Arbustoo, I hate to seem overly critical, but I think you need to look at your use of the 'minor edit' function. Minor edits are only for typo fixes & formatting. Don't mark it as minor if you have added or deleted any info, and especially don't use it is you've done a revert. See Minor edit & WP:REVERT. Otherwise, keep up the good work! Ashmoo 07:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Arbusto 18:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, a great deal. I look forward to Arbusto/o giving this better attention. Don't know why JzG and JoshuaZ never noticed. They can be such sticklers for rules! PSRuckman
Simple: once somebody has established a reputation as a reasonably neutral editor with a good grip of the ruiles you tend not to watch their every move. Nobody is above scrutiny, but neither is anybody required to critique every action by every editor. As far as I'm aware Arbustoo has never "corrected" perfectly correct British English spelling - people living in glass houses should not throw stones. Just zis Guy you know? 10:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, different people have different issues they put emphasis on. In Ashmoo's case, he apparently cares about the rules for marking minor edits. (Actually, until I saw this I didn't know that reverts shouldn't be marked minor either for that matter). Don't assume bad faith just because you disagree with people. JoshuaZ 18:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


U of N Accreditation

Thank you for your comments on University of the Nations (U of N) accreditation. No I am not trying to mislead anybody about the school's accreditation, but rather trying to follow the normal paradigm for university entries. You have been stating that the U of N is unaccredited in the first descriptive line for the Wiki entry. If you continue to do this, it will continually be deleted. If you would like to comment on a university's accreditation, I suggest that you do this in the section titled "accreditation", following the example of countless university entries throughout Misplaced Pages.

Secondly, your statement that the U of N is not accredited in the United States is true. However, as it is an international university offering courses around the world (and as its international provost office is in Switzerland, its transcripts and records office is in the UK), a far more relevant statement would of an international nature. I have updated it with a full and internationalized explanation.

Lastly, I have once again added the link for U of N Kona as this is the most important branch of the U of N. Please stop removing it as it is highly relevant information. Thank you. 82.33.116.35 (talk • contribs)

No, you are misleading people about the accreditation both in relation to the school in the US (Kona) that lacks accreditation and the international body schools. There is CHEA (North American accreditation) and UNESCO (international database) neither of which list the school. Your comments are POV and misrepresent what accreditation is.
Lastly, the two articles are merged so it does no good to link the page to itself. Arbusto 11:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Note: UofN Kona is a redirect, which is why it was unlinked. Circular redirects are Bad. Note also: accreditation details per Arbustoo are factually correct. If the anons and drive-bys can link to a document showing recognition by UNESCO as accredited, please do so. Just zis Guy you know? 12:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Indiana Christian University

Is this of some interest to you? I became curious about Indiana Christian University when looking at the CV of Ulf Ekman, a Swedish minister and leader of the controversial U.S.-influenced Swedish charismatic congregation Livets Ord ("Word of Life"). Ekman has a legitimate theology degree from Uppsala (and started out as a minister in the former Swedish state church, the Church of Sweden) but also claims honorary doctorates from Indiana Christian University in South Bend, Indiana, and Oral Roberts University, Tulsa, Oklahoma. He is also president of Livets Ord University, which is unaccredited in Sweden (where accreditation – or whatever it should best be called – is not private, as in the U.S., but conferred directly by the government) but awards American degrees through an agreement with Oral Roberts University. ORU is accredited. Indiana Christian University seems more obscure, but real. It is not in the CHEA database, as far as I can see. It is mentioned here (on talkorigins.org), referencing a different, now unavailable, web page, and here (in the bio for the president of Summit Theological Seminary. Here is a discussion, where somebody links to this PDF file about ICU, apparently an official catalog. ("ICU offers a Certificate of Charismatic Studies".) In their not very extensive presentation of faculty, it appears that almost everyone has only got a degree from ICU (which seems remarkable, considering the number of people in the U.S. who go to at least some kind of college). There is probably more, but that is what I could find looking through the first few Google hits. Tupsharru 06:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent research, that should be an article.Arbusto 18:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


Peter Ruckman

Newsflash! an anon, 172.130.180.94, is making multiple, good edits to Peter Ruckman. JoshuaZ 05:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, its time for an admin. to show some tough love. The sock puppets and civil attacks are tiresome and its not even a controversial or heavily visited article. Arbusto 06:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Um, Arbustoo, I did say "good" in that sentence and I really meant it.
Sorry, I was confused on the IP. I thought you meant this one. Arbusto 06:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


Email

Your wikipedia email is once again not on it seems, so I emailed you using the address that you sent from last time. It concerns the socks. JoshuaZ 23:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Please check the email ASAP. JoshuaZ 23:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't have access to that one today. Please contact the new one via wiki. Arbusto 19:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Adminship

I'm thinking of nominating you for adminship soon. Would you a) mind if I did b) have any relevant issues that I should consider when drafting the nomination? JoshuaZ 15:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't nominate me. I have no interest at all. Thanks anyway. Arbusto 19:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Kennedy-Western University

I would be grateful for other opinons on Kennedy-Western University, which is called a "diploma mill" in many places but has apparently come to some agreement with the Oregon degree office that it shouldn't been called thus. They still say that it is unaccredited and that its "Degrees do not meet requirements for employment by State of Oregon or for work in any profession licensed by the State of Oregon for which a degree is required". Somebody who presents himself as a current student there has been editing the article and tried to purge a mention of KWU as a diploma mill in an old comment of mine from an old Votes for Deletion page. See User talk:Tupsharru#Incorrect_statement (and following section), Misplaced Pages talk:Votes for deletion/Knightsbridge University, and Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Dispute regarding a "dead" page. Tupsharru 16:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll look into it and keep my eye on it. Thanks for pointing it out. Arbusto 09:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Lay off Itake

I'm serious. Itake is a good-faith editor, he has a different point of view but then so do I on many things. He is voting according to conscience, and that should be respected. Play the ball, not the man. OK? Just zis Guy you know? 22:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


in an AfD and . Arbusto 22:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
His behavior hardly looks like a good faith editor. Arbusto 22:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
He has also refused to give a straight answer about whether or not Gastrich contacted him. However, since you insist, I will drop the matter, since Itake clearly isn't going to answer. JoshuaZ 22:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Smart man. And Arbusto, stating the truth does not make you a bad faith editor. Trying to cover up the truth however, isn't the way to becoming a good faith editor. Itake 22:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
AGAIN I ASK: WHERE HAVE I MADE ANY DECEITFUL EDIT!!! Arbusto 22:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Only 12-year olds use caps Arbuto. You made a deceitful edit a few minutes ago, trying to cover up your hypocrisy in the AfD. Itake 22:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Have to disagree with you again, Guy. Itake may be a good-faith editor, but he has severe problems with civility. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
No doubt, I have a severe problem with civility with users who have a severe problem with civility themselves. Civility only stretches so far, and it definently doesn't stretch into the wastes of the uncivilised.

But then again, you were involved in the old AfD about Gastrich too weren't you, Malthusian? Nice to see I'm right again. Itake 23:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

When have I ever had a severe problem with civility? --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Just check the old AfD's on the LBU related to Gastrich. Itake 23:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
So it's just a sweeping accusation then. Not even a "You said such and such", let alone a diff. Oh well. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 23:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Nice take on civility there. And no, I do not have the time nor the dedication to find the old logs, and look them through for those multiple civility violations. I've got better things to do, promise. Itake 23:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Just more wild allegations without any proof. Arbusto 23:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
He's a child. I'd expose his POV edits and his lack of civility, but other than that, there's no point in engaging such an obviously immature person in any sort of exchange. FWIW. - WarriorScribe 03:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Agree with WarriorScribe. There is absolutely no point engaging in a slanging match with Itake. Engage on issues, keep all exchanges neutral and factual, and ignore provocation. That way, if Itake continues to attack you, somethign can be done about it - as is, any admin is just goign to dismiss it as a spat or (quite possibly) block both of you for violating WP:NPA. Just forget it. Just zis Guy you know? 08:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Kennedy-Western article

Thank you for your evenhandedness in this matter.

I will avoid editing the article but if you do not mind, I would like to contact you if I see any attempts by any parties to try to sabotage this article. That way a completely neutral party, which is what I presume you are, can determine if the change is worthy of edit.

At the very least I would like to insert criticisms in the discussion page.

I understand your points that you made. I do have couple of criticisms though. First, the statement The Seattle Times noted in article that included Kennedy-Western that some believe Wyoming has "become a haven for diploma mills." is in the seceond paragraph. Wouldn't it be better to put this under the section "Controversy and criticism"? And the second, mention that KWU is unaccredited in the opening sentence. Should this not also go under "Controversy and criticism?" Just my own, admittedly biased opinion.

On final thing to mention. I believe there should be more civility in this discussion. So that this does not become a mud slinging fest I will not mention names but if you read through the comments you will know what I am talking about. This discussion should be about the article and noting else.

And contrary to what that individual said I do edit and create other articles on other subjects, from such subjects as German Industrial Music to history, though the KWU article has taken up the bulk of my posts here.

Oh yea this also: I do not know that Honest Joe character. He is not a friend of mine and is doing nothing to help with that article.


PeacePiercetp 16:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure no problem contact me if you need me and if you see vandalism on that page feel free to revert it and contribute. I just wanted you to be aware of the policy and becareful. Arbusto 06:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Revert war- 3R

Arbustoo, I noticed that you have now reverted Southern Association of Colleges and Schools three times in less than 24 hours, in the process removing my change to the article. You have also not entered the discussion I started on the talk page. I also noticed that you have on many times in the past removed any type of list from this page in the face of opposition from a range of editors. For the time being I will restore the list (my first revert). I would appreciate it if you would use the talk page to make your ideas clear on the subject rather than revert warring. -- JJay 23:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you also notice that the person who made two reverts two (that I reverted) was banned by an admin and a suspected sock puppet? Unless you were a sock puppet, it wasn't your change (you only added a word). Arbusto 23:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Maybe so. But I also saw in the edit history that the section was started by an established editor here and that you have previously revert warred with other established editors over that part of the article. Which makes me wonder why I was the first person to post to the talk page of the article. -- JJay 23:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
What you talking about? The "24 hour" period you mentioned did not involve any "established user." I did, however, remove the list 4 days ago, which did not, by definition, happen in the "24 period." Arbusto 23:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Review the edit history. The section was started by an established user here. You have previously revert warred over this with established users. In the last 24 hours you have reverted the page three times, perhaps with socks as you claim. Nevertheless, it would be better to find a solution rather than edit warring. -- JJay 23:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I reverted that section a month ago with an established user. But you are talking about a "24 hour" revert war with socks and now banned users. This is getting a little old. Arbusto 23:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
So you stopped using the talk page to discuss your changes? You argue that a list of member schools is helpful and yet removed non-colleges. Is this making the list even less complete? Arbusto 00:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Those "suspected sock puppets" are now confirmed sock puppets belonging to banned user Jason Gastrich. Arbusto 05:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Referral

I have taken you to the arbitration committee. You can find the request in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Arbustoo, Arbusto, Just zis Guy you know?, David D.. Pooua 18:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That is a gross misuse of arb. Arbusto
I'm guessing Arb Com rejects it by this time next week. JoshuaZ 23:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
There is so much wrong with that filed referral I don't know where to begin. You can't just take someone to Arcom because they put in sources from the AP that criticize someone you personally knew. Arbusto 23:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, well, you can't write an authoritative, reliable encyclopedic biography just by quoting scandalous statements you found in a newspaper, either, but you are trying. Pooua 02:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Either add sources to it or not. Verfiable sources stay. Arbusto 02:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The article will grow to be more balanced if you start editing it. David D. (Talk) 02:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Buxton University

You DO realize that this is a recreation of a previously deleted article, right? And therefore has to go through WP:DRV? --Calton | Talk 02:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not notice, but I just added it to review after you mentioned it. Arbusto 02:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

History of diploma mills

I started working on an article offline on the history of diploma mills, but it appears that some relevant American publications are unavailable to me here in Sweden. Are you interested in collaborating on the article? Tupsharru 11:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

More specifically, *Robert H Reid, American degree mills, a study of their operations and of existing and potential ways to control them, Washington, American Council on Education , seems to be a standard work on this topic but unavailable around here (although it may be in one of the old dead-tree catalogues but missing from the electronic catalogues, if nobody has borrowed it in the last 20 years - I'll need to check that). Tupsharru 15:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Email me about it and as to what you said about consolidating the mills check out University Degree Program. Arbusto 03:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

OCCM

In case you miss it i just posted this.

I have followed OCCM for quite a while and i believe that the initial idea was to endorse his friends ministries with a long term goal of accrediting schools like SBC (for the origins of SBC check this thread) gastrich was always careful to use the term certified. Gastrich got a lot of criticism since I believe SBC did use the term accreditation on their web site. I actually do believe this was deceit on behalf of SBC and not Gastrich. However, this is hard to really know. I consider there was a working relationship between Dennis Tio (SBC) and Gastrich which explains why Tio briefly moved to gastriches neighborhood in the San Diego area (from florida). They have since split and since then i have seen that gastrich has quite harsh comments for SBC. One can only imagine why their relationship soured. Actually, i am surprised they are still in the OCCM fold...... OK ,I just checked and in fact OCCM do not certify them any more. i could dig for more stuff if you want.
Anyway, to sum up I actually think OCCM should be removed from the list. i am not aware that Gastrich or OCCM have ever used terminology other than certified, Warrior Scribe has touched on this too. I do think it was set up to look like an accrediting agency but i don't think that is the same as actually being one.

I hate to side with gastrich :( but in this case i think he may be right. David D. (Talk) 04:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a screen cap of the claim to accreditation somewhere, and Durango Bill had it, as well. I think it's telling that Gastrich didn't get into his denials about the whole thing until he and SBC were criticized for it, and the legend on the web site changed without comment or warning.
As a side note, I'm not sure that Tio was ever actually in the San Diego area. The Douglas Street, El Cajon, apartment was almost certainly Gastrich's private residence, and the apartment in Lakeside might have been, also. It could be that Tio uprooted himself, his family, and his "college," moved them clear across the country, moved twice in a very short period of time while here, and then moved back to Florida. It could have happened that way, I suppose, but now that SBC is showing a Florida address, again, it's just speculation.
My guess about the relationship between the two is that Gastrich was paving the way for Tio to bring the "college" to San Diego and there was probably a power play of some sort. Some of us speculated that, given Gastrich's sense of self-importance, he probably envisioned himself as one of the "college" officers, and he may have gone about that in a means that Tio did not find appropriate.
We do know that Gastrich eventually posted that he was "returning" the "doctorate" to the college, due to some things he had allegedly discovered about the college and Tio, as well as some "questions" that did not get the sorts of "answers" that Gastrich expected. He didn't say what these questions were and never was specific about the alleged concerns. It's not like people hadn't been writing about Tio for years. A couple of things are interesting about this alleged repudiation of the "doctorate," however. The first is that Gastrich only mentioned this in one of his "devotionals," the one place where the issue was not controversial. Secondly, Gastrich also claimed SBC as the source of his ordination, but there wasn't a word about giving that back.
Regardless, the OCCM/SBC situation was part of Gastrich's overall plan to pull a fast one on people, and it failed, as all such schemes fail. - WarriorScribe 14:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your clarification at Riek Machar. I had done a brief look around the wiki trying to figure out what article to link to and was incredulous that one didn't already exist. In 2006, a diploma mill is much more likely that Misplaced Pages missing an article on a British university. Also, I read through some of the above sections. Very interesting. Good luck and thanks again, BanyanTree 14:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)