User talk:Vivaldi/Archive 4

You are welcome to have your say
You are welcome to have your say, but cutting up paragraphs in a RfC is not acceptable. If you wish to respond to it, add a section titled "response." Arbusto 22:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * When I advised people to follow the procedures for an RfC and put their comments in the proper sections, I was accused of "wikilawyering". However, when you say I don't follow these same rules, you think its appropriate to delete my comments entirely.  Pure hypocrisy. Vivaldi (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Further proof you either don't understand or are playing games. Arbusto 23:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Further proof that you are a hypocrite. You consistent violate policies that say we should assume good faith.  You consistently make uncivil remarks.  If you continue to engage in this behaviour I will escalate this matter. Vivaldi (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have remove you signature from my closure since you added your own explanation to it when you signed it. Please feel free to sign it if you endorse it. Arbusto 23:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I can add my comments to my signature, just as others have done, right? Or do people only get to add comments you like.  Vivaldi (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You add a response to every sentence. That does not conform to the format. Had you created your response section as the formatting clearly states, and avoided cutting up my paragraphs-- then it would be fine. Arbusto 00:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * FeloniousMonk, after writing that he was a participant in the dispute, inserted his viewpoints in a section called "OUTSIDE VIEWS", which is meant for people that are not a party to the dispute to lay out their opinions. I notice that you and FeloniousMonk don't have a problem with nonconformity to the format of the RfC as long as the comments are meant to defame me.  That is why I call you a hypocrite, Arbustoo.  You claim that I violate policies (guidelines or "formats") and then when I point out the numerous violations of policies that you make, you say that I am "wiki-lawyering" or other such nonsense.  You don't get to have it both ways Arbustoo.  The policies, guidelines, formats, and rules apply to everyone, not just arbitrarly to people that you have disagreements with. Vivaldi (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Preying
The title "investigation" needs to stay -- the title you used sounds like the National Inquirer. Nonetheless, I think most of your material is fine and one paragraph by arbustoo was fine. Whether or not you two will agree on this is another story. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 23:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't care about the title, it is the content that matters. Arbustoo removes sourced material because it interferes with his desire to defame fundamentalists.  Do you find it at all troublesome that Arbustoo does nothing to the articles about fundamentalists except add information that puts them in a bad light?  Vivaldi (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you and Arbustoo tried mediation? Maybe try to get Slim Virgin involved -- she's pretty good at that kind of stuff.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Jim62sch, that sounds like a good idea. I noticed that others in the Arbustoo cabal have been reticent in this area.  It appears as though Arbustoo and FeloniousMonk in particular appear intent on escalating matters rather than engaging in discussion and compromise.  There are a number of places in Wikipedia where it suggests that people with disagreements look to discussion and compromise and mediation before they engage in things like RfCs and ArbCom events.  I have pointed out numerous times that I am willing to engage in compromise -- I have even made a number of compromises on my own, leaving in some questionable criticism in places, for example.  FeloniousMonk wrote that on my RfC that he certified that he had tried and failed to resolve a dispute with me -- however he has only left two brief comments on my talk page.  The first one was bait to get me to respond, and the second comment by Felonious was to laugh at my face and say "See, I tried to talk to you and I've failed now".   Compromise is a process that involves giving up things on both sides -- and while I admit that I am willing to give up some things on my side -- I'm not sure that Arbustoo is willing to accept anything other than complete control and ownership of all the articles about Christian ministers on Wikipedia.  Perhaps mediation is the appropriate step.  Vivaldi (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for signing it
Thank you for agreeing to


 * "The articles at which Vivaldi cannot remain civil should be avoided by Vivadli, with the exception of revert vandalism."


 * "Thus, Vivaldi should avoid quoting wiki-rules for the purpose of pushing a POV that does not conform to an wikipedia consensus."


 * "In matters that he does not get consensus, Vivaldi should kindly avoid making edits that the community fails to support."

Arbusto 23:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for demonstrating that you are still being an uncivil hypocrite. Vivaldi (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe of interest to you
Hello Vivaldi, this discussion   might be of interest to you. Orsini 14:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * We already have an ArbCom member and a number of admins that agree that the article is about a notable person. The article has survived 3 RfDs.  It is getting tiresome to keep rehashing these same arguments all over the Wikispace. Articles about non-notables don't survive 3 AfDs and generate 500kB of discussion on their talk pages.  Anyhoo -- I added a brief comment to that discussion since I was also involved in that same discussion on the articles talk page.  Vivaldi (talk) 10:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikistalking
You continued attacks are not acceptable. Bring an RfC if you truly are troubled. Arbusto 08:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not wikistalking. You don't own Wikipedia, Arbustoo.  You don't get to tell me what articles I can edit.  You need to read what Wikipedia policies and guidelines say about "Wikistalking", because you apparently haven't.  You seem to think that it means I am prohibited in some fashion from investigating your additions to Wikipedia.  However, you are wrong about this.  When an editor, like yourself, demonstrates complete disregard for policies, and particularly the policies regarding verifiability and those regarding point-of-view presentation, then it is entirely appropriate to audit that editor's other works to make sure that they are not infesting Wikipedia with more rubbish.  Wikipedia is supposed to present topics in a neutral fashion, and yet you, Arbustoo, are only interested in showing these topics in the most negative fashion you can possibly imagine (e.g. by insinuating that preachers actually support child molestation as doctrine and other such nonsense; and by infesting articles about living people with tabloid claims from the personal blogs and webpages of their most fervent critics.) Vivaldi (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I, and many others, will be watching your contributions to Wikipedia, Arbustoo, because I am particularly worried that you are letting your desire to defame people and certain organizations interfere with your ability to write articles that conform to Wikipedia polices and guidelines. Vivaldi (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

RfAR
This is a notice for an RfAR involving you. Visit for details. Arbusto 08:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I look forward to more independent and unbiased editors of Wikipedia looking into these matters. I'm confident that Wikipedia has a number of good editors that will notice that you, Arbustoo, are only interested in defamation and portraying your "enemies" in the worst way possible.  Your edit history at Wikipedia belies your intentions.  You have made hundreds, if not thousands, of edits to add only negative information from poorly sourced self-published web journals of critics.  Your point-of-view about Christian ministers and their missions shows through clearly in each of your edits.  This is not how an encyclopedia should be run, and these are not what encyclopedia articles should look like.  Vivaldi (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I will participate in Arbitration after I have some time to read over the rules and policies of the matter and I have some time to collect my thoughts and evidence of your most disturbing violations of policy. I am also involved with numerous activities outside of Wikipedia, so my participation might be slow, but I am willing to participate. Vivaldi (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Rv
I see the you and Arbusto have some history but I want to thank you for rv back to my comments. I get some slack for being an anon-by choice but that's the first time my comments were just blanked, which I found to be very uncivil by Arbusto. Or at the very least it demostrates a rash personality that is quick to jump to conclusion. 205.157.110.11 08:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that Arbustoo eliminated the vote of someone that he didn't think was worthy of voting, and he noted that the person had voted against all of Arbustoo's AfDs and thus was ineligible to vote. Arbustoo does not own Wikipedia.  He isn't even an Admin here.  He certainly doesn't get to decide whose votes are worthy for inclusion in places where we are accumulating votes.  If he wants to leave comments about a particular vote, then he is free to do so, but in a number of places Arbustoo just outright deleted the votes of people from the discussion and didn't even leave a note on the page explaining the reason for the deletion.  I think that is a very poor decision on Arbustoo's part -- and so I reinstated the deleted votes.  Vivaldi (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a note. Arbusto used the AfD as an example of your stalking. I made a comment as a univolved party pointing out the circumstance of your action on the Rfc and he reverted it. :p I'm not interested in a Rv war but he's certainly developing an pattern. 205.157.110.11 08:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Arbustoo has a flawed idea about Wikistalking. I'm particularly interested in articles that are infested with Arbustoo's point-of-view about Christian ministers -- namely that he wants each of these articles to contain as much negative information as he can possibly assemble, no matter what the source.  When I discovered that Arbustoo was consistently infesting Wikipedia with his POV about Christian ministers I decided to take a look at other places where he has done the same thing.  This isn't Wikistalking at all -- this is intelligent editing.  When you discover an editor that is constantly vandalizing articles with libel and smear and defamation, such as Arbustoo -- it is appropriate to audit other articles where he has done the same thing.  That is one of the main purposes of an edit history.  We can all see that Arbustoo has an agenda to insist that defamation must be included in every article about Christian ministers and their missions at the highest volume as can possibly be allowed.  So it makes sense that people that are worried about poor editing, such as Arbustoo's, would take a look at his edit history and examine it.  It doesn't take long to notice the pattern in Arbustoo's edits.  Arbustoo is misinformed about Wikistalking -- I'm not following any of his edits on topics other than those those that I am particularly interested in.  There is a good reason for editors to look into Arbustoo's edits in these areas, because I (and at least 14 others) have noticed that Arbustoo has erred by inserting his biased and extreme POV into articles.  I look forward to more editors of Wikipedia looking into it. Vivaldi (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Vivaldi
I have read through a lot of material in the last hour or two. This talk page, the RfC, Arbustoo's talk page, the articles you have both edited, etc. My eyes are watering but allow me to share with you an observation, one that might get me in trouble. When I first came to Wikipedia and thought to get involved in editing I came across the Intelligent Design article. I made a couple of immature and snide comments in the talk section because I thought the article was poorly written and clearly not a neutral point of view. Regardless, I ducked out of the discussion quickly and never bothered to go back because I was new to Wikipedia and didn't feel like getting involved in such a discussion as a newbie. I did however read through the history of the talk page and was pretty amazed at the lack of scholarship. Instead what I saw was folks like FeloniousMonk and Guettarda doing everything in their power to make sure the article was written from a negative point of view. Since that time about a couple of months have gone by.

Now comes Arbustoo, who seems to want to throw in negative points of view on every article involving the slightest hint of Christianity. Not only that, but the exact opposite is true when it comes to articles critical of Christianity. It seems as though he cannot be neutral when it comes to discussions connected to Christianity.

Then comes the dispute between the two of you. If it could be classified as such (Although this is really a rather poor classification in regards to you Vivaldi) it seems that you have been placed on the pro-Christian side of the fence (Even though you probably don't place yourself there) and the anti-Christian forces have lined up against you. Suddenly, from out of no where, comes FeloniousMonk and Guettarda. Coincidence?

I guess my point in writing this to you is to tell you that some of us read your work and appreciate it. Do not let them gang up on you and wear you down. If you want to see what I mean about FeloniousMonk and Guettarda, I suggest you read through the Intelligent Design talk page. It's no accident that they showed up out of the blue to condemn you. Good luck and keep up the good work here at Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagginator (talk • contribs)


 * It certainly isn't a coincidence that FeloniousMonk comes. Arbustoo has a couple of editors and admins that he contacts to help him with his campaign to stifle me.  In many instances, he has left messages on admins talk pages where he specifically directs them to comment about me at a particular place.  There is also evidence that Arbustoo is using backchannel communications (either e-mail, IRC, IM, telephone, what-have-you) with certain editors in an effort to recruit them to make comments.  I admit that Arbustoo has assembled what appears to be a tiny cabal of people that support him.  A few of these people have reached admin status. Vivaldi (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced that independent unbiased editors would look at this situation in the same manner (as FeloniousMonk or the couple of others in the Arbustoo cabal). In fact, I believe that most intelligent and unbiased editors would rapidly discover that Arbustoo is waging a point-of-view battle (just by taking a cursory look at his edit history).  I think it is bad for Wikipedia to allow someone, like Arbustoo, who is so impassioned and determined to insert defamation and criticism, to participate regularly in the editing of articles on this same topic.  I'm certainly excited at the prospect that this process might bring more editors and administrators to the table to take a look at the situation. Vivaldi (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have noticed that other people have put me on the "pro-Christian" side of the fence. Perhaps this suits their agenda, to put me on a "side" that they can unite to fight against.  I am well aware of the Christian bible and I have studied it somewhat on my own (mainly as a teenager), but I am not a Christian.  I'm not a member of any organized religion, and my views would be considered to be agnostic or atheist by most people.  I try not to label my own views on the matter, but I certainly am not any more "pro-Christian" than I am "pro-Church of Satan" or "pro-Islam" or "pro-Wiccan" or whatever else.  I am only interested in the quality of Wikipedia articles -- and I'm particularly interested in articles that are biographies of living people.  I enjoy contributing to Wikipedia.  I enjoy reading Wikipedia and I look forward to making Wikipedia a better place through my contributions.  I'm excited at the prospect of inviting large numbers of unbiased editors into this topic of discussion, because I think it is something that Wikipedia will need to address more fervently.  I know Jimbo Wales has made a number of comments about this topic and I've seen some WP:OFFICE actions that indicate that the Wikimedia Foundation is willing to actively make sure that unsourced and poorly sourced information about living persons is removed from their articles.  Vivaldi (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Do please try to credit the admins with sufficient intelligence to discern the difference between a genuine report of tendentious editing and an expression of frustration by an editor whose edits are not up to scratch. I have seen, in the past, both types of comment in respect of your actions. If you have a problem with Felonious or any other admin, you have a range of dispute resolution options open to you.  Guy 19:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This isn't about "the admins". I respect "the admins" of Wikipedia as a group. I've also seen that a couple of admins have made poor decisions and decisions based on faulty premises and decisions that specifically violate policies and guidelines of Wikipedia.  I will involve myself in a dispute resolution process with those editors when I feel it is an appropriate time to do so.  For the most part, FeloniusMonk has been completely silent on this issue.  His first comment to me was made for the specific purpose of saying that he was involved in the dispute, so that he could certify the dispute in my RfC.  His second comment to me was to laugh in my face that he restarted the RfC.  So while I'm for the most part very respectful of the admins that spend their time here trying to clean up the mess, there are a specific few that aren't doing a good job -- and in fact -- there are a few that are doing a bad job.  When the errors of FeloniousMonk become so egregious that there are no alternatives but to resort to dispute resolution, then I will do so.  But again, I'm fighting a mostly silent admin that has not ever expressed a desire to cooperate, negotiate, or mediate.  I appreciate your comments on this issue, JzG, but you are an involved party already.  I'm looking for more comments from people that are unbiased and uninvolved.  You are one of the people that Arbustoo runs to when people correct his biased works, so we can't really say you are neutral in this respect. Vivaldi (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a risk here that you are mistaking your own biases for neutrality. I have had disagreements in the past with Felonious but have found him to be fair minded and amenable to reason, respectful of different views, and magnanimous when shown to be wrong.  In one arbitration case we were on opposite sides for pretty much the entire period, but we still never resorted to this personalisation of issues, largely because it is obvious that Felonious' intentions are good: what he does, he does because he thinks it will make a better encyclopaedia.  You should at least be open to the possibility that if an experienced admin like Felonious disagrees with you, it could be because you are wrong.  Even if you think you are not, you should stick to the facts of the case and avoid accusations of partisan actions by an admin.  Such accusations are serious and require rigorous proof (not just rhetoric).  Without such proof they make you no friends and can make powerful enemies. Guy 21:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I will accept your admonishment here with some caveats. If it becomes necessary to escalate matters regarding his handling of this issue, then I can show the diffs of the two edits that FeloniousMonk made to my talk page.  It shouldn't be too difficult to go back through the history and find them.  The first edit was made by this admin for the sole purpose of showing that he "tried and failed to resolve a dispute with me", so that he could reinstate an RfC against me.  The second edit was to laugh in my face about the fact that he was reinstating an RfC that was properly deleted by another admin.  In the future, when I make accusations that suggest FeloniousMonk is acting innappropriately as an administrator, I will try to be more specific about the particulars, so there is no confusion.  I am willing to accept that I have made some errors in my handling of this case as well -- and I am more than willing to participate in negotiation or mediation on the issues.  This is not something that has changed.  I've always stated that I am willing to discuss and compromise.  I just want the discussion and compromise to involve people other than those that Arbustoo has consistently gone to for help when people disagree with him.  I am well aware that Arbustoo has recruited a couple of admins agree with him on certain issues.  I could also go around and recruit editors and admins if I thought that it was appropriate behaviour to do so.  Vivaldi (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So, JzG, what do you think Arbustoo's edits in the articles about Christian ministers, in general? Do you notice anything about his edits that would give credence to my assertion that he only inserts negative information in these articles?  Or is it all in my imagination?  Vivaldi (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have made my views on Arbustoo's and your edits entirely clear at WP:RFAR, I believe, and I don't think I have anything to add to that here. I reiterate: if you have evidence of bad behaviour by an admin, take it to dispute resolution, don't make vague assertions on your Talk page, because that can have no good result. "Put up or shut up", to put it bluntly.  This is not to deny the possibility of wrongdoing, only to remind you that admins do not like to see other admins gratuitously insulted.  Guy 23:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * JzG- I'm not making "vague assertions". These are very specific assertions of wrongdoing that I have pointed out on my talk page.  I have even pointed out the specific edits by FeloniousMonk that prove my assertions.  These aren't gratuitous insults either, they are specific claims showing that an admin has done their job here incorrectly.  Surely you don't think that I cannot discuss this matter freely on my talk page?  I haven't checked out the entirety of FeloniousMonk's edits, but it appears as though he is a respected editor by many people, so I will accept that, but I know that in this one particular instance, he made a mistake.  I won't speculate why he made that mistake, but I'm not going to just shut up about it, especially since that admin is attacking me personally.  You do admit that admins make mistakes right?  Maybe a couple of mistakes a week?  A couple of mistakes a month?  You don't suggest that they are infallible do you? Vivaldi (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW - I haven't a chance to read WP:RFAR yet, so I have no idea what you wrote there yet. I promise that I will look at it later.  Will I be surpised with your viewpoint?  Vivaldi (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Jzg writes, "There is a risk here that you are mistaking your own biases for neutrality". Here again I would like to point out that you are laboring under a mistaken notion. I have no bias in favor of Christian Fundamentalists. In fact, my own personal view is that most of them are probably hucksters, selling salvation for their own personal gain. I'm not a Christian. I'm not a follower of any organized religion. My only "bias" is that I support and encourage editors to follow the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. Vivaldi (talk) 10:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Help or stay away?
I read through the WP:RFAR and have some thoughts, Vivaldi. As i'm new to Wikipedia and really respect your opinion, ive decided to ask you if I should add my voice (Not sure how that is done yet and in what context) or stay away. What is your opinion? The administrator Guy makes some interesting comments. For example, Arbustoo's personal views are hostile to this particular strand of fundamentalist Christianity, and as far as I can see to Christianity in general. I've noticed the same thing. If I knew how to do the research, i'd look and see and provide evidence to all the Christian articles that Arbustoo has edited unfairly. Case in point was the first time I encountered Arbustoo over the David Jeremiah Article. He could have simply fixed the article and satisfied his own reasons for deletion, but instead tried to have the article deleted. Why? I think with plenty of examples like this (If I knew how to go about doing the research) the answer will become clear. Maybe he can be restricted by the powers that be to stay away from articles dealing with Christians? That seems like a good remedy to me since he is so obviously hostile to it. Another thing that Guy writes is, Arbustoo performs valuable work policing a large number of articles against aggressive POV pushing by certain Christian fundamentalists I would love to be able to verify this one way or the other. Any suggestions as to how this can be done? My limited in scope view is that here Guy is setting up a boogeyman to help his friend Arbustoo but without the research capability I cannot be sure. I am skeptical though when someone starts name calling and saying people they disagree with are fundamentalists. Any suggestion on how I can verify Guy's claims? So far the only example that Guy cites is one person but his statement makes it sound like these evil fundamentalists are swarming all over Wikipedia. Another thing Guy writes that i'd love to respond to is this line, This has not impeded a productive working relationship with other editors such as myself and others who are self-identified Christians. but how can he say this? He likes to tout his own Christianity (Apparantly he's no fundamentalist, maybe only those who disagree with him on his Christian views are? I'd like to know how he defines Fundamentalist) in support of Arbustoo but to me actions speak louder than words. And in my admitedly limited experience with Arbustoo, Guy's statement is untrue. He does impede working relationships with Christians, I cite the David Jeremiah article again as case in point. Guy writes; I believe Arbustoo has been distinctly isolated, fighting a war against determined POV pushing, has felt that others have ganged up on him, and has at least sometimes been entirely justified in that view, at least in my opinion. There is a lot of talk about feelings and opinions here as if that is sufficient but he very tellingly doesn't back up these statements he's making to defend his friend Arbustoo. My view was exactly the opposite of Guy's so i'm surprised to see it. Arbustoo gangs up on others and sends in his pals (Guy being one of them) to help support his position. Again though, i'm new here and could be wrong and would love to discover that I am, so i'd like to do the research. It's my line of work to investigate and i'm hoping you'll help me learn how. I'd love to put together a case against a group of Wikipedians colluding in this manner, or to set my mind at ease that this is not happening, but i'm not sure how to use the database here in order to do this. Finally, Guy writes;  Vivaldi's Talk page currently includes some pretty blatant trolling and attacks on two other admins who may have useful perspective to offer, User:FeloniousMonk and User:Guettarda which is apparantly a way of saying two things at once, A: Don't listen to Bagginator he's just a troll and B: Let's bring in the rest of the Arbustoo gang to pile on Vivaldi. Hope i'm wrong about that charactization but I find it difficult to believe otherwise considering the evidence at hand. I came here to give you some encouragement and to tell you that others see what you are seeing. A concerted effort of Gastroturfing Vivaldi. Apparantly though its "trolling" to give you my opinion on your talk page. In order to avoid "trolling" in the future do I need to find some means of sending private email to you or some other private means of communication? Or is that another form of misuse of Wikipedia in which you get accused of doing something wrong? So, I ask you Vivaldi, am I too new here to be of any help to you? The etiquette and mannerisms displayed here at Wikipedia are foreign to me and I notice that well versed users take advantage of that. Would you be better served by my silence?Bagginator 08:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, no matter what you say or do, you will be criticized for having an opinion that differs from Arbustoo's cabal. Vivaldi (talk) 09:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't had a chance to read my ArbCom yet, so I don't know what you are talking about. Before I got involved with that process I want to read up on the proper procedures and etiquette and give myself some time to make a proper response.  And you can be assured that the rest of Arbustoo's tiny cabal will appear in short notice on my ArbCom page, if they haven't already.  They are specifically called to action by Arbustoo and they act in concert on a large number of articles specifically related to criticism of Fundamentalists and/or Christians.  Perhaps the ArbCom members have started to notice a pattern of acting in bad faith by these individuals?  I guess we'll see later on. Vivaldi (talk) 09:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not worried about being "Gastroturfed". I'm not Gastrich, I'm not even a Christian.  I am very confident that the Wikipedia Arbitration panel will be able to see through Arbustoo's plan to stifle any of those people that oppose his edits on Wikipedia.  My only concern is making Wikipedia a better place by pointing out that people with an obvious and fervent POV, such as, should probably be prevented from editing articles on topics in which they are so fervently opposed.  His editing is not disimpassioned, nor does it hardly ever seem neutral in tone.  I know that ArbCom in the past has suggested that members of a religion shouldn't edit articles about their religion -- or Don't edit articles about your guru or something like that.  Perhaps ArbCom will also suggest that people shouldn't be editing articles about religious gurus when they have a fervent dislike for the entire religion.  Who knows?  I guess we'll see later as the process develops and I have a chance to read and respond to whatever has been said.  Vivaldi (talk) 09:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I would prefer that your communication with me be on open channels.  has on numerous occasions resorted to recruiting people to side with him on my RfC and on talk pages.  There is also evidence that he has been using back-channel communications, like you suggest here, to get people to talk badly about me on my RfC and other places.  It reeks of bad faith on his part, because he is recruiting people to make opinions that coincide with his own and then he claims on the talk pages that he has consensus based on his ability to recruit his friends to the articles.  This completely subjugates the entire consensus process.  And Arbustoo is aware that recruiting people is wrong, but he continues to do it.Vivaldi (talk) 09:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course, talking on closed channels would allow Arbustoo to say whatever he wants about me, without fear of retribution for violating policies that would otherwise prohibit him from saying those things out in the open on talk pages. The back-channel communications also hide the connections that the editors have with Arbustoo, making it look like they are disinterested 3rd parties, just stumbling into a discussion to offer a neutral and unbiased point-of-view on the discussion.  However, these connections can be made and will be made if necessary.  There is no doubt in my mind that a specific set of editors will show up to comment on my ArbCom to be puppets for Arbustoo and there are going to be clear connecting lines directly between Arbustoo and those editors.   And of course, these same editors will suggest that I shouldn't even be allowed to make those connections on my own talk page.  Let's have ArbCom take a look at how many times the people that contribute to my ArbCom have attempted to discuss, mediate, colloborate, or compromise with me.  The dispute resolution process specifically suggests that people should attempt these other processes before they escalate matters.   Are any of the people in the Arbustoo cabal willing to compromise or discuss this matter at all? Vivaldi (talk) 09:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, Arbustoo has worked to prevent agressive POV pushing by some fervent Christian fundamentalists. There is no need for you to investigate that claim.  There are many people that support these ministers that come here and incorrectly delete even well-sourced, documented, and notable transgressions.  Arbustoo has done some good work to restore criticism to the articles when that happens.  I do not dispute ALL of Arbustoo's edits in all locations.  I'm sure he has done some courageous and valiant editing back in the day.  Vivaldi (talk) 09:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't been made aware of any "ganging up" on Arbustoo, other than by the obvious edits by sockpuppets of Gastrich. I haven't invited my Wikipedia mates to the talk pages of articles to make comments against another editor to give the impression of consensus.  I haven't seen other critics of Arbustoo doing that either, but perhaps it does go on in some places.  I do know that Arbustoo engages in this behaviour.  Arbustoo does recruit people to gang up on those that dare oppose his edits.  Vivaldi (talk) 09:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And to answer your question, "Help or stay away". I'm not going to direct you what to say or do.  If I did so, then I would be just as bad as Arbustoo.  Do what you think is right.  I know that members of ArbCom will not punish me for something that you say.  Before you make any additions, I would encourage you to read up on the rules and procedures for the ArbCom (try the help files) and try to make sure that you follow them.  You should also be aware of all the other policies and guidelines of Wikipedia.  These are often brought out by Arbustoo when he goes into attack mode to stifle his critics, but when others point out that he is violating the same exact policies, he improperly calls it "wikilawyering".  My only guidance for you, Bagginator, is that you should only say truthful things that you believe will ultimately lead to Wikipedia being a better place.  Vivaldi (talk) 09:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

SGGS on Meat is now SGGS on meat, Thanks to you!!
many thanks for spotting this - I seem to have had a mental block on the title and the convention on naming. It's now fixed, thanks to you. --Hari Singh 18:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --FloNight 02:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your third assertation on the evidence page you wrote, "Eventually, even JzG, who seems to have supported Arbustoo in the past, has reinstated my edits at Preying from the Pulpit and we compromised by changing the section title."

Please supply a diff of that because from what I see that never happened. Jim62sch did a compromise edit, which included the majority of my changes including the title I had. Is that what you are referring to? If so you might want to change the user name on the evidence page. Jim62sch did it to end the edit war not because he agreed with your contributions. Arbusto 16:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right. It was Jim62sch and not JzG that reinserted the properly sourced material that you improperly deleted due to your persistent and obvious bias against fundamentalist ministers.  Vivaldi (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on perpetrating a personal attack during an ArbCom case which is focused on your behaviour. Brilliant.  Guy 19:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure what you are talking about JzG. What is the personal attack to which you are referring?  Is it a personal attack when I point out that Arbustoo has made persistent and biased edits to Wikipedia?  Is it not a personal attack when he does the exact same thing?  He accused me of that in my RfC and in the current ArbCom.


 * Is it a personal attack if you accuse me of being a Christian Fundamentalist or a former student of HAC? Is it a personal attack when editors ignore the duty to assume good faith and question my motives for improving the encyclopedia?  Or do these rules, policies, and guidelines only apply to myself?  That is hypocritical. Vivaldi (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And the fact that an ArbCom case exists at all only demonstrates that Arbustoo has inappropriately decided to escalate the tension rather to seek compromise, mediation, and negotiation in good faith. Vivaldi (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikilawyering too? Do you honestly think you have nothing to reproach yourself for?  Guy 10:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * JzG writes, "Wikilawyering too?" So it is Wikilawyering when I mention policy violations by others, but it is not Wikilawyering when Arbustoo cites my policy violations?  Or do you believe that Arbustoo also engages in Wikilawyering?  If you will admit that Arbustoo has committed the same offenses as me, then your argument here will hold some water. Vivaldi (talk) 10:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * JzG writes, Do you honestly think you have nothing to reproach yourself for?. I've never said that at all, and in fact I have admitted previously that I have made a number of mistakes throughout this process.  I would note that my particular method of handling the situation (especially early on) was probably not real conducive to obtaining the willingness of Arbustoo and others to accept my edits.  However, despite the fact that I acted in a manner that was unnecessarily confrontational, particularly at first, I do believe my arguments above hold merit.  (And again, Arbustoo deserves much of the blame for the escalation of tensions between us as well). Vivaldi (talk) 10:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I still think I was inappropriately attacked, and continue to be attacked by Arbustoo because he has a false impression of my motives based on his bad experiences with another user that attempted to completely erase even the properly sourced and notable criticisms in the articles. I am unlike Gastrich because I want those claims that are verifiable and from reliable sources (meaning not self-published web logs of critics) to be inserted (or left) in the articles.  I'm also very concerned that Arbustoo's POV regarding Christian Fundamentalist ministers (and their missions) is so blatantly obvious, that it makes the articles that he edits about them to be very one-sided affairs.  Vivaldi (talk) 10:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you notice that my edits revolve around people of little to no notability and schools without accreditation and notability? I do not try to clean up accreditation matters at accredited and nationally ranked schools like University of St. Thomas (Houston) and Boston College. They don't need cleaning up or need there academic claims verified. And notice how the ministers, like Hyles, are connected to these unaccredited schools giving out "degrees" that are mentioned on wikipedia without any indication that their credentials proved to be the same caliber as academics tied to accredited schools? And notice how their followers don't bother mentioning that a book is self-published, that there is no evidence the schools meet accreditation standards, or that the degree might be worth little to nothing in academia, government employment, to get a job as a teacher, or to even put it on a resume?


 * You and Gastrich, want to paint this as some type of religious thing because you want to cover for your poor behavior. This is about schools, academics, and degrees. It just so happened that there was a concentrated effort to remove criticism of Jack Hyles, and I wouldn't let it be white washed. On the flipside, there are wikipedia user that choose not to follow policy and keep unnotable people and institutions on wikipedia because of their promotion of their religion. Arbusto 16:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't believe I have ever voted to keep any of the articles created by Gastrich, in fact, I doubt I've voted on more than 10 AfD discussions in total. I know you intend to delete every contribution he made, as I've seen you mention the fact the he was the contributor in your AfDs.  However, it looks like many editors think that at least some of the works belong in Wikipedia, even though they were started by Gastrich.  I haven't even looked at more than a handful of your AfDs, but it didn't look like you were successful in gaining deletion for any of them.  I don't mind that you are starting the AfDs, I just think you may be starting them just because they were created by Gastrich and not because they actually deserve to be deleted.Vivaldi (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am now well aware that there was a concentrated effort to remove ALL criticism from the Jack Hyles related articles, and that you were partly or majorly responsible for making sure that properly sourced criticism stayed in the article. However, in your efforts to combat whitewashing you have gone overboard and inserted much criticism that comes only from unreliable and self-published sources.  That is not appropriate.  Hopefully we can learn to work together to make Wikipedia a better place.  This will likely involve compromise on all sides.  Thanks for taking the time to communicate with me again.  Vivaldi (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Arbustoo writes: Do you notice that my edits revolve around people of little to no notability and schools without accreditation and notability?. Yes.  I did notice that.  I think it is important that these schools that are unaccredited be tagged in the relevant articles with a message noting that status, especially the schools that are degree mills, but it is also appropriate to note that information for even the religious schools (in the relevant articles).  I also believe it is important to note that some religious schools suggest that one of the reasons they do not want accredition is because it would affect the way their schools are run and they believe that making a religious school subject to following rules of an outside agency is against their principles.  Of course, as you note, this is a highly self-serving position to take, but nevertheless it is an important one.  If a religious school says they have religious objections to the accredition process, then that should be noted.  Yes, most religious schools appear to gain accredition, but it looks like around 30% of the bible colleges listed on Wikipedia have decided that they do not want accreditation and have not sought to gain it (despite the fact that gaining accredition wouldn't be difficult for many of the schools, because with enough money all the requirements for accreditation can be met).  I highly suspect the reason that these schools do not seek accreditation, or the federal funding of students that comes along with it, is because they would become subject to federal regulations regarding institutions that accept such funds.  I don't believe their position is very honorable or moral, but that doesn't mean they don't have a right to hold that position. Vivaldi (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD times two
Hey there Vivaldi, was hoping you could answer a question for me. Recently ive noticed a pattern that some people will put an article up for deletion, no one will give their delete or keep opinion (Or very few will) and then two days later the same article is listed again as an AfD. To be clear, the first AfD is still ongoing, say one can be found on the AfD page for September 9th and then if you go through the AfD page for September 12th it is listed again in an identical fashion. Am I making sense? If I am, is this appropriate Wikipedia behavior to be double listing an AfD to basically keep it up front and center? Thanks for your time. Bagginator 06:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I usually only look at AfDs when someone specifically directs my attention there, so I can't really comment on the assertion that you are making. Also, I'm not sure what the appropriate rules for listing an AfD are.  I've filed only a couple of such AfDs since I've been on Wikipedia and I've helped others get the formatting right when they've messed up.  I believe that I've voted on less than 10 of these in my history.  I've always just tried to follow the instructions provided and I haven't really paid attention to the other matters.  I don't really care if an AfD gets more publicity, because typically that means we will get a better sampling of editors to decide the issue.  I'm always FOR more editors looking at an issue, because 20 editors are infinitely better than 2 or 3.  You might try asking one of the Wikipedia admins your question, because I'm not familiar enough with what you are talking about to make a decision.  Take care.  Vivaldi (talk) 09:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"There are no Schools...
At this edit: you introduced the datum that there are no accredited secondary schools that use Study Tech. Please cite your source of that information. Terryeo 00:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should say instead that "none of the 7 primary or secondary schools that license the Study Tech course materials from Delphi Schools, Inc. are accredited." This information comes from looking at the accreditation databases for each of the regional accreditation bodies that cover the schools in question.Vivaldi (talk) 02:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Preying from the Pulpit, First Baptist Church of Hammond, Jack Hyles, Hyles-Anderson College, and any related article which contains poorly sourced controversial material are placed on article probation. The material in dispute between Vivaldi and Arbustoo has been determined to be controversial material which does not have an adequate source. They are warned to avoid edit warring and encouraged to edit the articles in dispute appropriately.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srik e it (Talk 18:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello from a new user
Dear Vivaldi, I am a new user to Wikipedia, I recently uploaded some information from a book on marriage by Jack Schaap to the First Baptist Church of Hammond and the Jack Schaap wiki. I read the guidelines; but could you (if you have the time), look them over and let me know if I did it right? Thanks so much--NovumTestamentum 08:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There should be lots of folks willing to help you with that. Try the discussion pages for the articles for a start, they are being watched by lots of people. Take care. Vivaldi (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Digital Lightwave
Hi Vivaldi... I'm interested in getting input from other editors about getting more info about Digital Lightwave assembled and represented on Wikipedia, since the subject is extremely Scientology-related, involving David Miscavige's sister Denise Licciardi, Doug Dohring, Norton S. Karno, Greta Van Susteren, and Scientology attorneys Michael Baum and George W. Murgatroyd. Since you were a recent editor to the Dohring article, I thought I'd fly this by you. The Digital Lightwave story is such a convoluted labyrinth I'm hoping there are other editors who understand it better than I. wikipediatrix 16:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello wikipediatrix. The Digital Lightwave story should be in Wikipedia.  I noticed that it was missing when I added the Scientology information to the Doug Dohring webpage.  I might be able to help write this over the next few weeks.  I'll see what I can dig up.  Vivaldi (talk) 03:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for finding and fixing my typo on The Quare Fellow. I wish you good luck in your efforts at cleaning up the articles on unaccredited schools and the related areas of contention that have arisen. It seems like a real headache. -- House of Scandal 00:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)