User talk:Creashin

talk about anything

License tagging for Image:AIG museum.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AIG museum.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page 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.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. 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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:AIG museum.jpg

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. Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk 16:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence that user is a possible sock puppet of banned user Jason Gastrich

In addition to some of the edit history [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], which is indicative of a veteran Wikipedia editor:

Insisted on inclusion of known banned user domain site [6]. 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 Jason Gastrich, of numerous sock puppets on frequent occasions [7] [8] so that the links are surreptitiously inserted into articles at Wikipedia.
- 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 [9], 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 San Diego Padres [10], [11], [12], [13].
Coincidental appearance of Uncle Davey 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 [14], [15],[16],[17], 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"). Uncle Davey has a history of appearing in discussions about Jason Gastrich 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).
- After the appearance of Uncle Davey, Creashin declares to an administrator that yours truly "seems" to be "somewhat of a stalker" [18], another frequent accusation made by both Jason Gastrich and Uncle Davey when their behavior is exposed and challenged.
These comments and this edit, categorizing a celebrity as an atheist. JG was known for his habit of going ensuring that known and suspected celebrity atheists were cited and tagged as such in Wikipedia (for example, this edit).
- In addition to the categorization of Dave Foley as an atheist, Creashin used the celebatheists.org site which, coincidentally, banned user Jason Gastrich references in his most recent "devotional." - Nascentatheist 10:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 user:Creashin 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 Wikipedia before? It'd help. Many thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FT2, I had been reading Wikipedia 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. --Creashin 01:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comments on my talk page

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 Creashin was a "worthless contributor" [19], 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.

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 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 then posted your complaints and demands on my talk page. They may even note that such things are also characteristic of Jason Gastrich, every bit as much as the characteristic sentence structure and use of commas [20]. 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 Wikipedia, 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. Creashin is one of those returns.

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 Jason Gastrich 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 provided more background supporting my claim than most have done when declaring a Jason Gastrich 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 well-worn "deeper hole," more power to you. - Nascentatheist 03:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 Jason Gastrich, 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[21]. - Nascentatheist 05:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. WP:AGF 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 Jason Gastrich, you seem to have difficulty reading for comprehension or accurately representing what others are saying. I have voiced my suspicions. If you are not Jason Gastrich, 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 you keep posting to me. The best advice that you can heed at this time is to remain silent on the matter and let the administrators follow their processes. - Nascentatheist 03:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your comments on Jason Gastrich's talk page

Considering that Jason's history here has been one of deception and sock-puppetry, followed by denials of sock-puppetry, followed by admissions 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 Jason Gastrich, 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. - Nascentatheist 03:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not Gastrich

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. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 15:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to that. If you could ask or post to make it happen, I'd appreciate it. --Creashin 02:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't waste your time or that of the administrators. As you can see by consulting WP:RFCU, 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 Jason Gastrich, you have nothing to worry about. - Nascentatheist 03:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you filed such against him, considering your suspicions? Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 18:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair question. The WP:RFCU 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 Creashin 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 resort" is necessary. Checkuser is reasonably useful, but it is fairly time and resource-intensive and is made more difficult by the fact that Jason Gastrich 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 Wikipedia, my only interest would be in enforcing the community consensus that was established when he was banned. Users like Jason need to be kept out of Wikipedia 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 that much. ;) - Nascentatheist 00:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye

Well, it seems that the powers that be have banned me from editing Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia forever. I really liked contributing here and I thought I was making a difference here. It's a shame that things ended as they did. --Creashin 03:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]