Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi

Statement by User:JzG

 * The articles at the centre of this dispute have a long and inglorious history of Gastroturfing. I have been around these articles for some time and I find it very hard to come down unambiguously on one side or the other.  I'd like to make a couple of comments:
 * Arbustoo performs valuable work policing a large number of articles against aggressive POV pushing by certain Christian fundamentalists, as we saw in the Gastrich case, and this has included long-term monitoring of articles on some unaccredited universities and their alumni and founders. In most cases the principal focus of each new or anonymous editor has been to remove any criticism, however well cited, or to try to neutralise it through special pleading.
 * Arbustoo's personal views are hostile to this particular strand of fundamentalist Christianity, and as far as I can see to Christianity in general. This has not impeded a productive working relationship with other editors such as myself and others who are self-identified Christians.
 * Vivaldi is a contributor clearly sympathetic to these subjects. He is familiar with policy and guidelines and I cannot recall offhand any examples of his adding content which seriously fails on that score.  His early edits removed a great deal of what I can only characterise as cruft from the articles.
 * One recurring source of conflict between Arbustoo and Vivaldi, and one where I tend to side more with Arbustoo than with Vivaldi, is the removal of cited critical material from the biography of Jack Hyles. Much of this criticism is quite singular, in that I am not aware of similar criticism of other Christian figures of equivalent standing.  This may, however, be a reaction to the actions of Gastrich and his cronies, or it may be my own personal bias as an Anglican and former Methodist, with an innate suspicion for the lavish displays and aggressive certainties on offer from independent Baptist megachurches.  The last time I was a parishoner of a megachurch, the building had been on the verge of falling down due to neglect at several points in its history.
 * Nonetheless, I am not persuaded yet that Vivaldi is actively stalking Arbustoo, although there is little doubt each automatically takes a contrary position to the other, whether due to past bad blood or innate differences is hard to say. Anyone who watches AfD will see new AfD nominations, and if two editors are interested in the same set of articles then they are going to run across each other a lot.  That said, it is sometimes stretching assumption of good faith a little hard when the same voice pops up quite so quickly; but then, it is arguably legitimate to watch a user's contributions if he has a history of making comments about you, which Arbustoo undoubtedly does in this case, albeit not without justification.
 * Arbustoo is, in my view, somewhat over-inclined to diagnose Gastroturfing when the more likely explanation is simply hive-mind mentality by people associated with the individuals and groups concerned. I have seen plenty of evidence that members of these churches and most especially graduates of the unaccredited universities take any implied criticism of their insititutions very personally indeed.
 * Due to various other events I have been less active on these articles for some time. 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.
 * As far as I am concerned, Vivaldi needs to tone down the rhetoric and stop winding Arbustoo up. And Arbustoo needs to - well, I'm not sure.  I think he needs more support from me and others like me.
 * I have no idea what ArbCom can do here, I am not even sure if my own view on the matter is neutral, valid or valuable in any way. As far as I can tell, both Arbustoo and Vivaldi are editors with a history of valuable contributions.  If Arbustoo is driven off then a number of articles on institutions and individuals will be at risk of sliding into uncritical admiration and special pleading.  If Vivaldi is driven off we lose one of the more reasonable of the "pro" contributors, in that he is at least amenable to argument from policy.  I think both need to back off and stop personalising things, but I can certainly see why Arbustoo would personalise things since there is no doubt in my mind that he has been aggressiovely trolled in the past. I am not good at ignoring trolls, and I don't think Arbustoo is either.
 * For the avoidance of doubt, althoguh both Vivaldi and Arbustoo have clearly exhibited a strong bias in respect of these subjects, and have both been at times uncivil towards each other and others, it is my view that of the two Vivaldi is both the more tendentious, and the more problematic, because his bias is less in line with what I perceive as the mainstream view. Also Vivaldi has been in my view the more aggressive and uncivil. Whether you want to accept my opinion on that is up to you, I guess.  Guy 17:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Minor note: Hyles wasn't a Southern Baptist, he was an Independant Fundamental Baptist, and the institutions which were associated with him still are. A.J.A. 18:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right. All these fundamentalists look the same to me :-)
 * A detailed comparison of Vivaldi's history on the Talk pages of articles whose subjects he admires (Bill Gothard, Jack Schaap, Jack Hyles) and those he does not (e.g. Barbara Schwarz) is instructive. Guy 19:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: 1) I am not hostile to Christianity or any religion. (I dare anyone to cite a diff of me saying anything negative about Christianity, Scientology, Islam, Hindu, etc.) I am hostile to fake/misleading credentials, white washing someone's past, and using wikipedia for the purpose of promotion. (Example, my interest in the Hyles article started from this POV fork that was getting white washed.) 2) There are numerous other editors that are self-identified Christians that I edit/work with. (Example, AJA is a Baptist.) 3) My religion and education are of no business though it might be suprising to most here if I did tell. While some people feel the need to share their beliefs and credentials I don't. I use sources to doing the talking about the subject, not for me to "win" a side by claiming to be something or not. But I will say to become a respected and notable minister and academic, it takes more than a few vanity books, an unaccredited "school," and a group of fringe followers.
 * Wikipedia does not exist for people to feel better about their POV. It is to give facts in NPOV. It means avoiding this at Jack Hyles a few months back and avoiding this at Jack Hyles two weeks ago. Arbusto 04:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * One more comment: 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. Guy 23:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Response to JzG
JzG wrote: A detailed comparison of Vivaldi's history on the Talk pages of articles whose subjects he admires (Bill Gothard, Jack Schaap, Jack Hyles) and those he does not (e.g. Barbara Schwarz) is instructive.

JzG is again labouring under a false premise, a false premise that I corrected for him on at least two occasions. I do not admire Jack Schaap. I do not admire Bill Gothard. I do not admire Jack Hyles. I have absolutely no association with any of these men. I certainly do not admire them; and truth be told, I personally do not care for Christian ministers at all, and I have particular distaste for the ones that are extremist or fundamentalist or right-wing -- or whatever you want to call it.

I am not a Christian at all. Most folks would say that I am either an agnostic or athiest.

However, I do not let my personal distaste for Christian ministers interfere with my ability to edit articles on Wikipedia. It is improper to insert critical information into a biography of living person when it comes from self-published sources, such as the personal websites and blogs of critics. This is a long-standing tradition on Wikipedia that is supported by Jimbo Wales own words, Wikipedia policy, and previous ArbCom decisions.

I do not want all the criticism removed. I don't want to add only good things about these guys. The problem is that Arbustoo's agenda is opaque. His edits make Wikipedia look like a tabloid. Repeating the unverified claims of self-published critics is not appropriate for a biography of a living person.

Vivaldi (talk) 06:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)