Arbustoo's rebuttal to the response and Vivaldi's response to the rebuttal[edit]

(Note: I believe it is inappropriate for Arbustoo to have created this new section following my response. He has his own area up at the top to add as much information as he wants. The section after his section is devoted to my response and following my section should be the response of third parties. Arbustoo is being uncivil by trying to garner "the last word" on this page with his creation of an entirely new section -- which he also inappropriately entitled "deconstructing" my reponse.) Vivaldi (talk) 09:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Vivaldi demonstrated above with his response to evidence of incivility, this user does not care to obey WP:CIVIL or even give other editors respect.Arbusto 23:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you are willing to obey WP:CIVIL. You have lied numerous times about what I have done in your attempt to defame me and in your attempt to defame Jack Hyles and others. Vivaldi (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also as evidence this user unapologetically admits to using deceit edits[1][2] to get his POV on the page.Arbusto 23:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not use "deceit edits", nor did I "admit to using" them. I reverted just as you reverted and explained why in the brief space that is available. Considering the small lack of space in the edit summary and the vast difference in our versions of the article, it is not possible to detail all the reasons for the revert. Vivaldi (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user has campaigned to downplay as much criticism of a controversial leader as possible, which is not NPOV.Arbusto 23:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have campaigned to keep criticism of Jack Hyles on the Jack Hyles page and not strewn about as far and wide as Arbustoo wants. Criticism of Hyles-Anderson College belongs on that page. And criticism of First Baptist Church of Hammond belongs on that page. I have also campaigned to completely delete and merge the contents of Preying from the Pulpit into the FCBH article. Arbustoo and one other person were the only 2 people that voted in the AfD for Preying from the Pulpit to stay. Eight other people voted to delete or merge. Clearly Arbustoo is in the minority viewpoint on this. Unproven allegations of adultery by Nischik against Jack Hyles do not belong on the Hyles-Anderson College page -- nor do they belong on the First Baptist Church of Hammond page. They really don't even belong on the Jack Hyles page. And if Jack Hyles were a living person these edits wouldn't even be allowed to be put in the article according to the guidelines of Biographies of Living Persons. And though Jack is admittedly dead and the guidelines of BLP don't apply to him, I do believe it is still unwise to include every last bit of newspaper blurb into an encyclopedia article. Vivaldi (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hyles was only a somewhat controversial character, having probably less than a handful of detractors. Two of his detractors never amounted to anything and were malcontents upset that Hyles didn't give them promotions or jobs that they were seeking. No reputable or reliable publication has ever accused Hyles of committing any crimes. Now there is certainly room to discuss some controversy that was published, but one must be careful not to violated the policy of WP:NPOV which states that points-of-view held by relatively few people should not receive the same attention as points-of-view held by the vast majority. Hyles had 100,000 members that followed him when he died, including 20,000 that came to his church every week -- even after the "controversies". Only a couple of people ever suggested that Hyles acted improperly. The people that did make the accusations are not reputable and reliable sources for information about Jack Hyles. They are clearly biased sources that had a personal grudge against Hyles. Vivaldi (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Far too much article space was and still is taken up by alleged and unproven allegations that have never been made by a reputable or reliable source. Vivaldi (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that his user cannot even admit fault or error with deceitful edit summaries or even admit to breaking the 3RR[3] demonstrates the difficultly in continuing to have this user involved in the Hyles articles. Arbusto 23:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again Arbustoo is lying. I wrote regarding my violation of 3RR, "I will trust JzG here and admit that it probably did happen and it was not appropriate and a violation of policy." When I was making the edits I did not think that I was breaking 3RR. It was not a deliberate violation of 3RR. Since JzG banned me for 3RR, I am trusting his judgment and I believe that I probably did violate 3RR, since he said that I did. I'm not that interested in going back to check the history arguing that I did not violate 3RR -- mainly because I believe JzG when he said that it happened. Vivaldi (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arbustoo has had a number of deceitful edit summaries. Here he wrote, "(revert; indepth criticism goes in a criticism section; stop reverting content; your copy edits violate NPOV)" -- but instead of moving what he feels is "indepth criticism" to the criticism section, he completely removed the comments from Hyles that explained the out-of-context events that Preying from the Pulpit detailed. Arbustoo also removed criticism of the entire show that was made by the Northwest Indiana Times -- who said that Preying from the Pulpit was a "monstrous overreach" among other criticisms in an article they called "Baptism by innuendo" since the newspaper accused the TV station of using innuendo and sensationalism to defame Hyles and FCBH in order to garner high rating during May sweeps. Also, Arbustoo deleted three typographical corrections. Vivaldi (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another deceitful edit summary by Arbustoo. This time Arbustoo writes: "the transcipt available on lexus nexus proves he attended this school and critics believe his actions are linked to his Hyles education" -- however Arbustoo didn't just re-add the name of Beith to the article (which is inappropriate since Beith is not notable and because there is no verifiable source presented given that Beith has a BA from HAC as Arbustoo's edits to this article indicate) -- Arbustoo also got rid of the correct spelling of the word "chancellor" (which was explained in an edit summary) and reinserted the incorrect spelling for the word. Also, he removed my "subst" of the "unaccredited template" that he added to the article. Such templates are inappropriate for the middle of article text and if you read Arbustoo's version you will see why. It repeats the same information twice in two sentences: "Hyles-Anderson College is not accredited by any agency recognized by the Council on Higher Education Accreditation or the US Department of Education." and then "Hyles Anderson College is not accredited by any recognised accreditation body. " It is poor writing to say "Hyles Anderson College is not accredited...." two times in two sentences especially when both statements mean exactly the same thing. The CHEA and US Dept. of Ed. are who determines which accrediting agencies are valid. So I changed the text to read that HAC is unnaccredited by any recognized body and then sourced the claim to the CHEA and the Dept. of Ed. Then Arbustoo changed it back so that it reduntantly said "Hyles Anderson College is not accredited..." Arbustoo also readded links to sites that are critical of Jack Hyles to the HAC, when such links belong on the Jack Hyles page and not on the page for HAC. Arbustoo also readded information to the page that talks about how two former students of HAC were charged with burglary. This is highly inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. There is no precedent for adding the crimes of non-notable former students to an article about the college they attended previously. It is patently ridiculous to do, and Arbustoo's wish to defame HAC and Hyles, is getting in the way of good article writing. Arbustoo also removed the newspaper article citation that declared that Preying from the Pulpit was sensationalized crap -- a "monstrous overreach" based on insinuations and innuendo. Arbusto also removed a wikilink to Textus Receptus for some reason. Each of these edits was deceptive because all Arbustoo said in his edit summary was the readdition of 1 line -- about Bieth. Vivaldi (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user refuses to admit fault, allow POV that is critical of the subject, or obey in a civil manner. As evidence above indicates, there is much arm waving and no admission of responsiblity.Arbusto 23:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbustoo has also refused to admit fault. He consistently readded material sourced to a book by Voyle Glover that was demonstrated to be self-published by Glover's own "publishing company" called Brevia. Arbustoo then readded the material by Glover again and then he claims that just because Glover owned Brevia publishing NOW in 2006 doesn't mean that he owned it back in 1990 when his book was published by Brevia.
Arbustoo also accuses me of making up information when I wrote about Glover's personal webpage on the Talk page of Jack Hyles. In the same discussion about Glover's self-published book I had originally titled the section "Voyle Glover's self-published book and personal web page". Arbustoo asked me if Glover had a web page. I told him that he did have a web page, but I would retract my comments stating that Glover had a personal webpage. Then Arbustoo assumes bad faith and tells me to provide a link to show I was correct. I then provided him with [brevia.com] which you can clearly see is owned by Glover (his email is VAG@BREVIA.COm and the domain Brevia.com is owned by Brevia Publishing -- and Glover is listed as the contact person. See: Brevia.com entry in the WHOIS database. Arbustoo never apologized for wrongly insinuating that I was making up information -- and more importantly he has still not admitted that Glover's book was self-published. Vivaldi (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One good example is the user put in claims that the school Hyles "finished" was accredited by the Southern Association. I proved this was not the case in the years he attended.[4] The user removed my mention and source, admitting "What is relevant is if these institutes were considered "unaccredited" when he attended them, not [sic] if they are accredited now."[5]Arbusto 23:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the article to read such that the school was unaccredited by ALL recognized accrediting agencies during the years that Hyles attended. The source you provided only demonstrated that one accrediting agency had first given its first accreditation in 1957. If you want to add the positive claim that the school was unaccredited by all recognized accrediting agencies from 1944-1953, then you need to provide a verifiable source for your claims. That is the policy of Wikipedia. Vivaldi (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then the user put on the talk page that I have to prove it doesn't have accreditation. Well, I did this[6], but the user is claiming I have to prove it doesn't.[7] I can't prove Sanata Claus doesn't exist either. If this user wants to claim his "degree" (note we have no evidence of him having a degree or graduation date) then the user has to provide a source.Arbusto 23:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have to provide a source for any claim that you make in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia doesn't allow Original Research If you can't prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist and you don't have any sources that say "Santa Claus doesn't exist" -- then you cannot put the claim that "Santa Claus doesn't exist" into an article. It really is that simple. The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth -- it is verifiability. Find a source that says that East Texas was unaccredited by all known recognized accrediting agencies from 1944-1953 and then you can put the claim in the article. (And there is a source that says that Hyles graduated from the school, but it doesn't provide his degree or his graduation date -- therefore we cannot include the date or his specific degree.) Vivaldi (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, Vivaldi requested to have the Hammond church page unlocked "to add verifiable information to this article."[8] User failed to mention the page was locked because he was removing cited criticism in a revert war. Thus, I think it is more probable that more information will be removed than added.[9][10][11]Arbusto 23:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again Arbustoo is being uncivil and assuming bad faith. Arbustoo also failed to mention that HE HIMSELF was blocked from editing Wikipedia for violating the 3 revert rule and that the page was protected as a result of his own participation in a revert war. Vivaldi (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I specifically suggested that I would be adding information to the article and I intend to do so. And the very day that the article is unprotected I will add the information that I intend to add. Vivaldi (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Vivaldi needs to take a step back and end his campaign of removal. Since this user cannot admit error or mistake, this user cannot be reasoned with in the sense of sourcing and criticism. Thus, Vivaldi should avoid Hyles related articles. Arbusto 23:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Arbustoo needs to take a step back and end his campaign of defamation and smearing using unverifiable and unreliable sources of information. Self-published books by unnotable critics of a topic are not worthy to be included in an encyclopedia article. The unproven allegations of two do-nothing malcontents are not worthy of devoting 90% of an article to criticism of the topic -- especially when the topic has a proven number of devoted supporters that exceeds 20,000 people every week, while the detractors can be counted on one's digits. It is a violation of NPOV to make the opinions and points of view of a small number of people to appear to be the majority viewpoint. As such, criticism of Hyles should not take up the huge amount of space that Arbustoo does when he is left to his own devices for more than a day. Vivaldi (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope some outside opinions help solve this users issues. I must take a break to attend to matters outside of wikipedia. Arbusto 06:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no greater desire for me than to see outside editors get involved here. I was happy to see that even a sworn enemy of mine Terryeo came to these articles and quickly noticed that Arbustoo was making biased and inappropriate edits that were based on unproven allegations and innuendo. Terryeo was not the only one that has specifically criticized Arbustoo for a biased edit to Hyles related articles. A more complete list of people that have told Arbustoo in edit summaries or talk pages that at least one of his edits to Hyles related pages were not biased and/or inappropriate: 1) myself, 2) Pooua, 3) Terryeo, 4) 68.252.176.158 (or really 68.252.*.*), 5) Thatcher131, 6) Teeja, 7) Kalmia, 8) 66.72.98.180, 9) 69.214.212.201 10) Daycd 11) Ta bu shi da yu, 12) Superm401, 13) A.J.A. and 14) Katefan0
I'm not a Baptist. I'm not a fan of Hyles. I'm not a fan of Hyles-Anderson College. I'm not a fan of the First Baptist Church of Hammond. My only interest in these articles came about because Arbustoo's blatantly biased edits here were made known to me. After taking a quick glance at the articles it was plain to see that Arbustoo was on a mission to defame Hyles, the church, and the college no matter what. Arbustoo had access to plenty of news articles, but he carefully and deceitfully extracted only the most critical information as possible out of each article that he used and then he added this out-of-context criticism to the Hyles articles in such a way as to put Hyles in the worst light possible (and his tens of thousands of followers with a similar point-of-view). Arbustoo is acting in bad faith and he is violating the policy of WP:NPOV. Arbustoo's edits are the kind of edits that make Wikipedia look bad. They are the kind of edits that get bad articles written about Wikipedia in the popular press. Many of Arbustoo's edits are not appropriate for an encyclopedia at all. Wikipedia is based on using Verifiable Sources that are Reliable and Reputable. When defamatory information is included it should be supported by independent 3rd party research. Unproven allegations by non-notable and unprofessional people (non-journalists and non-professional researchers) are not worthy of basing an entire encyclopedia article around.
I encourage all editors to please read Jack Hyles, First Baptist Church of Hammond, Hyles-Anderson College, and even Preying from the Pulpit. Please help make Wikipedia better by improving these articles and by involving yourselves with the discussions. WIKIPEDIA CAN DO BETTER! Wikipedia deserves better.
The above can be only viewed as discounting objections voiced by others and attempting to expand the conflict by recruiting editors and fanning the flames, both things frowned upon by the community. I suggest to Vivaldi that he spend more time considering the comments of others here and at the above listed articles (where little to no support for his efforts are seen) and less on trying to add fuel to the fire that landed him here. FeloniousMonk 03:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FeloniousMonk-- Can you please tell me which editors besides Arbustoo have made comments about my edits to the Hyles articles? I can point to at least 10 that have made comments suggesting that Arbustoo's edits were biased and/or innappropriate. I would love to consider the opinions of others in the Hyles articles, but currently it appears that more editors of Wikipedia prefer my edits than those of Arbustoo. I am most willing to discuss all the issues on each of the pages and present the consensus viewpoint in the article. My only wish is that more editors could come here and help improve these articles. Until recently, I have been editing with the impression that nobody supported Arbustoo's biased edits to the articles about Hyles. If my recollection is correct, I think I found 18 seperate editors that have told Arbustoo in edit summaries or on talk pages that his edits were not appropriate. I would love to see more comments and discussion about the articles so that Wikipedia can be made a better. I love Wikipedia and I am confident that if enough editors can be made aware of these articles that we can make them quality articles worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. I believe I have made a very good start at improving them and I would love to see to more input from others on how the articles can be improved. Vivaldi (talk) 09:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vivaldi's response to the original RfC created on May 20[edit]

This RfC was started on May 20. Over 2 weeks went by without any editor other than Arbustoo (talk · contribs · count) being able to properly certify that they have tried and failed to resolve the dispute with me. Admin JoshuaZ (talk · contribs) deleted this RfC because it failed to meet the 48 hour requirement. FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs) has just recently reopened the RfC on his own and apparently believes that his 2 comments on talk pages that I responded to give him the required authority to reinstate this RfC. I believe he left his comments with the sole purpose of trying to restart this RfC. FeloniousMonk left a comment on my talk pages saying: "That's an unfortunate sort of response. Regardless of what your personal beliefs and motives are, there's little or no support for your efforts and methods on certain pages yet you insist on forcing the issues. Considering this response and your unwillingness to accede to the community's comments, I've reinstated your user conduct RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vivaldi, and certified the basis for the dispute." However, if one looks at the Jack Hyles, Hyles-Anderson College, or First Baptist Church of Hammond articles I think you'll discover that I had numerous people that agreed with me that Arbustoo was engaging in a one-man crusade to defame Hyles. I see few if any people that agreed with Arbutsoo or encouraged his edits.

In any case, here is how I responded to the RfC that was properly deleted by an administrator:

Response[edit]

This RfC should be closed and deleted. Over 48 hours have passed and only one person is able to endorse the basis of the dispute showing that they have tried and failed to resolve this dispute. That is the editor Arbustoo.

I welcome the comments of editors to this discussion and I sincerely hope that the attention of editors can be directed towards Jack Hyles, Hyles-Anderson College, and First Baptist Church of Hammond so that these articles can be vastly improved -- so that Wikipedia will become a better and more reliable and reputable encyclopedia.

Arbustoo (talk · contribs) is engaging in deceitful practices in order to further his agenda of making the Hyles' related articles dominated with criticism. When verifiable information is added that refutes the claims he writes in articles, he has threatened to dig up more critical quotes and put them in the articles. If you look at Arbustoo's edit history regarding all of the articles you can see that he is on a virtual one-man mission to defame Hyles -- and Arbustoo does not let the truth or anything else get in his way. Arbustoo does not include information from sources that mitigates or refutes the critical claims that he cites and puts in the article, even though it is clear that Arbustoo has the full copy of these sources and could easily write the article in a neutral point of view -- giving both sides of the issue some room. Arbustoo is unwilling to cooperate in this endeavor.

Arbustoo has repeatedly reinserted quotations that are sourced to the self-published books of Glover and Nischik, at one point even offering the laughable argument that just because Glover owns Brevia Publishing didn't mean that it was a self-published book back when he wrote it. The other publishing "company" was Sychar Publishing -- which appears to have only published two books, both of which advertise each other. This means that it is a vanity publishing outfit. There is nobody that vouches for the reliability or reputability of Sychar Publishing. There is no indication that a "company" even exists, let alone an editor, fact-checkers, or a legal staff. These works are not considered to be reliable sources as is required by the policy of WP:V. These claims should not be in an encyclopedia.

Vivaldi (talk · contribs) This user has continued to make POV edits by deleting criticism and bolding sentences. Moreover, this user has been devoting the majority of time to simply reverting the page to weeks ago thereby ignoring and white washing better sourced and correct criticism of a controversial subject.

All of Arbustoo's edits to the Hyles related articles have been to make Hyles appear in the worst light possible. At least 13 seperate wikipedia editors have commented, complained, or corrected Arbustoo since he started his biased editing style in which he feels is his mission to include every single negative factoid he can find into every article that is even remotely related to Hyles. Just take a gander at Arbustoo's edits at Jack Hyles, Hyles-Anderson College, Preying from the Pulpit, and First Baptist Church of Hammond. Each of Arbustoo edits is a deliberate attempt to create a biased version of the article in order to promote an undue negative impression of the topics at hand. Arbustoo violates the policy of WP:NPOV by willfully and deliberately ignoring any and all information that he finds in his sources that tends to refute or mitigate the criticism while at the same time he continues to strip out every last critical comment from these sources and place it into the articles. It is terrible editing. It makes for a terrible encyclopedia. And it makes the article very poorly written in the end. Vivaldi (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there is a place for an appropriate amount of relevant criticism of Hyles. I want these articles to contain criticism. I also want this material to be written in a neutral point of view instead of the deliberately deceiving style of Arbustoo. I encourage all editors to help make Wikipedia better. Vivaldi (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user has campaigned through name calling[12],

When I tell Arbustoo not to play stupid, he calls it a personal attack, yet he has made his fair share of similar remarks, including accusing me of "childish games". [13]

deceitful summary[14],

A practice also engaged in by Arbustoo, who removed the verifiable title of "Chief of Police detectives" from an article while suggesting in the edit summary that he was doing something else.

and hostility to policy[15].

I have no hostility to policy whatsoever. I think that Arbustoo is misapplying the policy. Hyles comments and explanations about the Preying from the Pulpit show are relevant and belong in the article. Some of these comments are not criticism, but rather explanation of material that was not fully explained during the show. In any case, hundreds of supporters signed a statement supporting Hyles and published it in the paper. Even the Northwest Indiana Times newspaper said that the Preying from the Pulpit show was an innappropriate stunt for sweeps week that should not have been put on the air. The predominate point-of-view regarding Preying from the Pulpit is that it was crap. That point-of-view should be the point-of-view that receives the most attention.
Also, it is important to note that only one single editor has agreed with Arbustoo that Preying from the Pulpit should remain as an article on Wikipedia, while 8 others have suggested that it go. Vivaldi (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to resolve the disputes on the talk pages and on the user's talk page has resulted in insults and complete hostility.

Yes. Arbustoo has insulted me and shown complete hostility as well. Vivaldi (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user has deliberately tried to downplay criticism and has removed cited controversy and criticism. Arbusto 01:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I seek to follow the policy of WP:NPOV which requires that editors give the appropriate weight to points-of-view that are held by very few people. Hyles had tens of thousands of supporters, while Nischik and Glover had very few supporters. Vivaldi (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tabloid style reports and snippets do not belong in an encyclopedia article, and certainly they should not take up 90% of the article's space, when it is clear that such viewpoints are only held by a small minority of people. Vivaldi (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reponse to Description and Evidence of disputed behavior

Preying from the Pulpit

Eight out of ten people that commented on the AfD page suggested that the Preying from the Pulpit article should be gone. To me, merging and deleting this article are the same thing because the information in the article at the time of the AfD was already merged sufficiently into the Jack Hyles article, the Hyles Anderson College article, and the First Baptist Church of Hammond article. Vivaldi (talk) 09:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added Hyles explanations of the claims made in the articles. Certainly Hyles explanations as reported in the newspaper are important to determine the full story. You do not own the article and you cannot dictate to me where these comments belong. Vivaldi (talk) 09:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The overwhelming supermajority of people think that Preying from the Pulpit needs to be gotten rid of. I removed many of the claims that Arbustoo added that had no valid sources. Preying from the Pulpit is not a notable article for an encyclopedia. Vivaldi (talk) 09:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hyles explanation of the full context of what is presented in the story is part of the story is important and should be included in the story. Not all of his comments are criticisms of the story. Many of the comments are explanations of events that were presented in the story. Hyles' comments are relevant and should be included. Arbustoo does not own this article and I am under no obligation to restrict my edits to ones that Arbustoo finds convenient to his biased viewpoint that 90% of all the Hyles' related articles should be filled with content that is critical of Hyles. Vivaldi (talk) 09:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Jack Hyles

Since the FBI, the Hammond Police, and the prosecutor of the county all stated that there was no investigation of Hyles or of First Baptist, it is stupid to include these allegations in an encyclopedia article. Doing so makes wikipedia look no better than a tabloid. Vivaldi (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bald faced lie. There are multiple redundant statements that the school is unaccredited. I left in the fact that HAC was unaccredited in the article. On the Hyles-Anderson College page there were 3 statements in the first paragraph stating that it was unaccredited and at least 6 total mentions. It is inappropriate to be so redundant with this information. I want to include the fact that HAC is unaccredited, and I want to include the information from HAC and Hyles that indicates why they chose to never seek accreditation. Arbustoo is the one distorting the view there. Vivaldi (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because the claims of a superior made after his employee hold more weight. The Hammond Police department and the FBI and the county prosecutor and the Chief of Police detectives all stated there was no investigation of Hyles or the Church. Since this is the case, there is no reason that any of the junk previous needs to be discussed at all. Trying to suggest that there was an investigation after all despite the overwhelming evidence saying there was not an investigation is demonstrating Arbustoo's bias and inclination to defame.
The book is self-published. There is only one other book published by Sychar Publishing and it advertises this book. It isn't published by a reputable publisher. Sychar Publishing is not cited in any list of national or regional publishers. This book is the very definition of what self-published means. Vivaldi (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another lie by Arbustoo. There was an explanation provided. Arbustoo has not developed any consensus for his additions here either. He is being bold and making his additions, just as I have done. Claiming that I must develop a consensus to make my edits, while he is free to do as he pleases is just plain wrong. Vivaldi (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Just because the quote appeared in the Tribune doesn't make it appropriate to an encyclopedia article about Jack Hyles. The quote was added and phrased in such a way as to put Hyles in the worst light possible. It is pure tabloid journalism. The quote was not relevant to an encyclopedia article about Jack Hyles. Encyclopedia articles should not be a collection of disparaging quotes found in newspapers. They shouldn't even be a collection of newspaper quotes at all. Also Arbustoo neglected to include the numerous quotes by Hyles that explained his side of the story. Arbustoo has engaged in a relentless campaign to only include the most negative information he can fine about Hyles and to phrase everything in such a way as to make Hyles seem as evil as possible. I want both sides of the issue explained and I want the views held by very few people to receive the appropriate amount of space that they deserve according to WP:NPOV. Vivaldi (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by that statement. The edit history of Arbustoo demonstrates his single minded desire to do nothing except sully the reputation of Hyles while doing nothing to present a fair and neutral viewpoint. Vivaldi (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not required to answer to Arbustoo's every request. Numerous people have stated that Arbustoo has made biased edits and inappropriate edits including irrelevant criticism to articles where it doesn't belong. In any case, I cited now 13 separate editors in the Hyles articles that have pointed out that Arbustoo has made biased edits: 1) myself, 2) Pooua, 3) Terryeo, 4) 68.252.176.158 (or really 68.252.*.*), 5) Thatcher131, 6) Teeja, 7) Kalmia, 8) 66.72.98.180, 9) 69.214.212.201 10) Daycd 11) Ta bu shi da yu, 12) Superm401, 13) A.J.A. and 14) Katefan0 Vivaldi (talk) 10:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that 20,000 people attend the church EVERY Sunday was made in two different newspapers articles in 1993. The claim was made again in 1994 in a book that is also cited. Then again in 2001 another newspaper article stated that 20,000 people attended the church every week. There are 4 distinct references over an 8 year time frame that say that 20,000 people were attending the church on Sundays. Arbustoo is mistakenly taking the capacity of a single building in the Church to define the daily attendence, when there are multiple church services that are performed throughout the entire church in many buildings and on multiple occasions throughout the day. Clearly the appropriate figure to use for attendence is 20,000. Vivaldi (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First Baptist Church of Hammond

There is explanation on the talk page about why the story about the blind man is not relevant to the article about FBCH. It is also important to note that FCBH has a specific ministry that is for the disabled -- including a special ministry dedicated to providing services for blind people. So it is patently ridiculous to leave in this comment. Vivaldi (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The history of the church belongs in the history of the church section. If there is more history than criticism of the church that doesn't mean that it is "hiding the criticism section". Vivaldi (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And you have removed the fact that it was Bible college and you have removed the reasons why the College has stated that it does not want and why it will never seek accreditation. You want to only include one half of the story and that is inappropriate. Arbustoo, you must include the information that disagrees with your desire to defame Hyles. You repeatedly refuse to include any information that makes Hyles look better, even though it is clear that you have access to that information since much of it is in articles where you found the negative information. Also, you have access to Lexis/Nexis, so I know you are able to find information that explains both sides of the Hyles' controversies. Check out Arbustoo's edit history in regards to the Hyles related articles and count the number of edits that he has made that make Hyles look good or put Hyles in a more positive light. Vivaldi (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't slander. Hyles stated that Nischik's wife complained that she found her husband at home in his pajamas with another woman. Hyles also stated that Jennie said that Victor had asked another woman who was not his wife to leave town with him. Those claims can be read in the article "Charges all lies, Hammond pastor says" which appeared in the May 28, 1989 Chicago Tribune, written by Michael Hirsley. Vivaldi (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was reverted, just as you reverted on numerous occasions. Vivaldi (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was reverted just as you reverted on numerous occasions. You were banned for excessive reversions, remember Arbustoo? Vivaldi (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a response to your reversion of my edits. Vivaldi (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another bald-faced lie by Arbusto. I objected to Arbusto making untrue and unverifiable statements in the article. Ballenger was convicted of molesting ONE GIRL. The other girls that accused him of molestation did not testify at a trial (as Arbustoo claimed) and therefore no judge or jury ever made a determination that the claims of the other girls were true. Arbustoo then says in the article that Ballenger in fact molested 3 or 4 girls, when he was only convicted of molesting one. The article needs to clearly state that the other girls that testified did not do so at a trial, but rather at a sentencing hearing and it also needs to make clear that Ballenger was never even charged with molesting the other girls, let alone convicted of doing so as Arbustoo has tried to imply. Vivaldi (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8 out of 10 people that commented said the TV news report article does not belong in the encyclopedia. Only two people said it should be kept. I have every right to ask people that have recently made comments suggesting that this article be merged or deleted to make their wishes heard during the current discussion -- a discussion that Arbustoo aborted on his own and without any discussion on the talk page. Arbustoo had no consensus for your removal of the merge discussion from the article. Clearly most people think the article should be deleted or merged with the FCBH article. It is stupid to even pretend otherwise. Arbustoo found only one patsy that agreed with him to keep the article. Vivaldi (talk) 10:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Schaap

Because the fact that it is a Bible college is far more revealing about the nature of the school than the fact that it is unaccredited. Vivaldi (talk) 11:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because the fact that it is a Bible college is far more revealing about the nature of the school than the fact that it is unaccredited. Most people that hear that it is a Bible college will have a good grasp of the kinds of classes and the kinds of degrees that are offered and most people will even have a pretty good idea of what goes on during a typical day at such an insitution and the kinds of rules and polices that such an institution might have. The statement "unaccredited" is not the most revealing thing about the school and it does not deserve top-billing every time BAC is mentioned in the encyclopedia. Yes, accreditation is important to some people and the HAC accredition status should be mentioned prominently in the HAC article.

Hyles-Anderson College

Just another revert war that you were a party to as well. You also were removing cited material without discussion during each of your reverts. Vivaldi (talk) 11:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The links were about Hyles and not Hyles-Anderson college. Links that are critical of Hyles belong in the Jack Hyles article. They do not belong in a section that is for criticism of Hyles-Anderson college. Your unrelenting desire to include every last bit of unproven allegation about Hyles in every article about the school, church, and the man is not appropriate for an editor of Wikipedia. Vivaldi (talk) 11:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The 1993 article was not about the school at all. It was not a critique of the school, nor was it about anything relevant to the schools notability at all. An article discussing that 2 former non-notable students of a college were charged with burglarly is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. We don't do it for any other colleges and we shouldn't do it for HAC either. Vivaldi (talk) 11:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modifying other user's talk pages

User removes a welcome message so that his warning is more visible. [58] (this comment was added by Nikitchenko (talk · contribs).

It is sick and petty behaviour for Nikitchenko to be bringing up this incident as some sort of disputed behaviour on my part. The "User" that I removed the welcome message from was permanently blocked from editing on Wikipedia because they were using their account to harass, intimidate, and stalk me. The person who blocked them permanently was also RadioKirk, who didn't understand the full story behind the "User" in question. Once RadioKirk learned the true nature of the "User", he banned them permanently. The permanent ban was upheld by another admin, BanyanTree. I behaved completely appropriately to harassment and vandalism in this situation and I would hope that whoever added this claim would have the courage and honesty to admit that he was wrong and to remove this claim as "evidence of disputed behaviour". I will not put up with people that create accounts solely with the intention to stalk and harass me -- this particular person even believes that they know my real name and posted information about that and included links to a website that reveals personal information including phone numbers, addresses, and other personal identifying information about that person that they believe to be me. They deserved to be instantly and permanently banned and I should not be criticized for what I did in this situation. I am flabbergasted that Nikitchenko would have the audacity to include this in this RfC. I could almost vomit in disgust at his petty behavior. Nikitchenko has no business with the Hyles-related articles and his only involvement in this RfC and the Hyles articles is to spite me because he is a Scientologist and I have been involved in editing the Scientology articles. His wikistalking of me here on this RfC about Hyles-related articles is part of the same type of behaviour that is discussed at Fair Game and Suppressive Person. Nikitchenko believes that as a suppressive person, I can be tricked, lied to, or destroyed. Nikitchenko attempts to "out" what he believes to be my real identity and to provide readers outside links to other defamatory webpages about this identity. Nikitchenko should be ashamed and embarassed for his behaviour and the behaviour of other people in his criminal cult. Vivaldi (talk) 11:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivility

The user I told that to was permanently banned from editing articles because an ArbCom agreed that he continually made unadvisable edits. This is a permanently banned user that was banned for his poor behaviour. And that is statement of fact, which you can read about in the ArbCom if you wish. It is also relevant to note that I was lobbied to participate in the ArbCom in an effort to get this user permanently blocked and I refused to do so. Vivaldi (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Arbustoo, you should not play stupid. It does not become you. If you look at your edit, you removed the fact that the Chief of Police detectives directly contradicted his underlings report just a couple of days after his underling made it. (Then a week later the Hammond Police department issued a statement on its own behalf that said that THERE IS NO INVESTIGATION OF HYLES OR OF THE HAMMOND CHURCH.) You deliberately removed that information from the article because you find it inconvenient to your desire to defame Hyles at all cost. The official policy of the police department of Hammond is that Hyles and FCBH were not under investigation for any misdeeds. You accused me of being a liar, or of making a mistake, when you knew damn good and well that you removed material that was Verifiable just because you didn't like the article pointing out information that clearly refuted the claims that you wished to get in the article. Vivaldi (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"What are you smoking?" That was a question. I was concerned that your edits may have been the result of you being under the influence of some sort of smokable narcotic since your edits were garbled, fuzzy, and possessed no sense of logic or cohesion. Vivaldi (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot to include the first part, "If you are suggesting that a newspaper should merely collect quotes and provide no analysis of the motives behind the people that make them, then you are clearly out of touch with how professional journalism works." It wasn't a personal attack at all. It was a statement saying that IF you think that newspapers should merely collect quotes and provide no analysing THEN you are out of touch with how professional journalism works. That is a completely true statement and it isn't a personal attack. Anyone that thinks that a newspaper should merely collect quotes and provide no analysis of the motives behind the people that make them is literally out of touch with how professional journalism works. It can only be construed a personal attack if you assumed that my description in the "IF" part of the statement was automatically true. Vivaldi (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The editor I was talking about in that edit was banned permanently from editing that article because of his repeated "mistaken assumptions". Furthermore, it is not a personal attack to point out that another editor has mistaken assumptions. Vivaldi (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was true. I did think that I was argueing with someone with a little common sense. Vivaldi (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is true also. If you are in fact a stupid person or if you truly lack common sense, then I am deeply sorry. Again you are assuming that the IF part of a conditional statement is automatically true when there is no logical reason for you to do so. It is entirely possible that you are not a stupid person and that you possess common sense. In which case, I am not necessarily deeply sorry for my statements. Vivaldi (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the RfC was opened

It isn't just criticism that was added. It was explanation of context that was left out of the report by Hyles, who is the subject of the report. Hyles statements regarding what happened are important and relevant to this article and they do not belong in a separate criticism section. Vivaldi (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is only Arbustoo allowed to "change the citation method"? Since when did Arbustoo gain ownership of the articles?
Also I fully explained the reason for removing the article about 2 former students being charged for burglary. It is not appropriate for an article about a college to talk about the crimes of its non-notable former members. We do not discuss the non-notable members from other colleges that commit crimes in this encyclopedia and we should not start now just because Arbustoo has an unfathomable desire to defame Jack Hyles. This type of information is not appropropriate for an encyclopedia article. Vivaldi (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did so after explaining that you have mentioned that HAC was unaccredited at least 6 times in the article and 3 times within the first paragraph. This in inappropriate and redundant. Also, the unaccredited template is not something that is required by policy to be in the first paragraph of every unaccredited school. As editors we can decide if it is appropriate to use the template, we can decide whether it is appropriate to place the template in the lead paragraph, and we can decide to remove reduntant uses of words caused by the ill-advised insertion of a template into a lead paragraph. Even after my edits, there exists an entire section devoted to the accreditation issue and it mentions in the lead sentence that the school is unaccredited. We get the idea Arbustoo: THE SCHOOL IS UNACCREDITED. You wrote it six times. Now it is time to start paring down the redundant statements and including the reasons that Hyle's leaders have given for not seeking accredition for their school. That is the fair thing. Vivaldi (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They were not criticism of H-A-C. They were criticism of Jack Hyles and those external links belong in an article about Jack Hyles.
The FBI, the Chief of Police detectives, and the prosecutor for the county all stated that there was no investigation of Hyles or of FBCH. Then a few days later on June 2 the Police Department confirmed yet again that there was no investigation of Hyles or the Church. Including information from a police department underling that is contradicted by his boss, the department itself, and by the prosecutors office is not appropriate to an encyclopedia article. Arbustoo only includes information that puts Hyles in the worst light possible. Arbustoo can read. He has access to all these articles, but he has deliberately chosen to distort the facts to make it look like there was evidence that was investigated by authorities when it has been repeatedly stated by all interested parties that there was no investigation. Vivaldi (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't to change the POV of the article, it is to make sure that all points of view receive their appropriate place in the article. It is to make sure that Hyles statements get their appropriate and prominent place in the article. Points of view that are held by many people should receive more prominent attention. Points of view that are held by few people should receive less prominent attention. Hundreds of Hyles supporters signed a statement and put an ad in the Sun-Times stating their point-of-view about the Preying from the Pulpit story and related events. Even 8 years later, Hyles was still drawing 20,000 people every week to his church. He was loved and admired by many people and these people hold the point-of-view that Preying from the Pulpit did not accurately portray their hero.
Hyles comments about the entire situation are entirely relevant and appropriate to this article and they should be included. It is not necessary that his explanation of context go into a criticism section. Not all of his comments are criticism of the article, some are just explanations of the full story that was not provided by the news story.
Arbustoo also removed verifiable information during this revert war with me. Including information that was reported in at least 5 separate verifiable sources over a period of 10 years that showed that FBCH gets 20,000 people to attend the church EVERY SUNDAY. It was also reported in the 1991 Economist newspaper article called, Counting the congregation.(growth of fundamentalist megachurches) that FBCH was receiving 20,000 people each week at services and that since the auditorium only held 8,000 and was filled twice on Sundays that many people had to pack into overflow buildings. it was reported in 1993 twice in the Sun-Times that FBCH gets 20,000 visitors every Sunday. It was reported once in 1994 in a book about religions that 20,000 attendees are at FCBH. It was reported again in 2001 in the Tribune. Arbustoo finds it inconvenient to his own biased and distorted viewpoint that 20,000 people show up each week to FCBH, a church that Hyles turned into the largest protestent church in the U.S. (Also it was reported in 1989 that FBCH was recognized by researchers for a "long time" that FCBH was the largest protest. church in america). Arbustoo also made comments on talk pages suggesting that the "controversies" regarding Hyles in 1989-1993 conversely impacted the membership of the church. His comments have no merit whatsoever. Even in 2001, 20,000 people were still packing it in at FCBH each Sunday. The Northwest Indiana Times even commented in 1989 during the onslaught of their criticism that FCBH and Hyles were receiving that the "attendence was up" and the "collection was up" at the church.
The person, Arbustoo, did not source the claim that Texas Baptist was unaccredited before 1957. He only sourced the claim that it was accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools in 1957. If you want to include that it was unaccredited in 1957 you need to provide a verifiable source that says it was "unaccredited". There are many recognized institutions that provide accreditation, so the start of SACS accreditation in 1957 does not necessarily imply that the school was unaccredited before that time period. It is entirely possible that the school was accredited by other institutions at the time. Without a verifiable source it is not appropriate to comment on the accreditation status of the school when Hyles attended. Vivaldi (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is still no verifiable source for the unaccredited claim. SACS is not the only body that performs accreditation. Most schools have multiple accreditations. You can't say it was unaccredited without a verifiable source Vivaldi (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is still no verifiable source for the unaccredited claim. SACS is not the only body that performs accreditation. Most schools have multiple accreditations. You can't say it was unaccredited without a verifiable source Vivaldi (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There were at least six mentions of the lack of accredition in the article including 3 mentions of the lack of accredition in the first sentence. There was also a section devoted to accredition in the article. It is certainly biased and distorted to redundantly repeat the same information over-and-over again. It is appropriate to mention the accredition status but not 6 times on the first page. Also there is no policy that suggests that the wikipedia template for unaccredited schools must go in every article about the school, nor does a policy suggest that editors must put such a template in the lead article, nor does a policy suggest that editors should add the template in places where it already mentions the lack of accredition numerous times. Vivaldi (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added verifiable information that explains Hyles versions of the events. The discussion is about Hyles and his statements regarding the events are highly relevant. As for "changing the POV" of the section -- I agree. Now the section is written in a neutral point of view that explains both the accusations that Nischik made and Hyles' response to those accusations. That is appropriate. Vivaldi (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Arbusto 01:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC) JoshuaZ 02:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember JoshuaZ having "tried and failed to resolve the dispute". I'm pretty sure he never talked to me on my Talk page, nor do I recall being addressed by JoshuaZ in any other talk pages.

Other users who endorse this summary Nikitchenko 05:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Nikitchenko (talk · contribs) wasn't even involved with any of this discussion or topic until he decided to wikistalk people that he thinks are critical of his religion: Scientology. His interest here has nothing do with the content of the posts, but is entirely based on spite. Even Nikitchenko should see (as did his fellow Scientologist Terryeo) that my insistence on presenting both sides of a story and requiring sources that are verifiable and reliable is something that will also make the Scientology articles better. There is indeed some information in the Scientology related articles that needs to come out because the information is unverifiable. (And also this same argument applies to the Sollog article). Criticism is one thing, but overemphasis of criticism that makes it appear as though there are more critics than supporters, when the opposite can be shown to be true, is innappropriate to an encyclopedia article. Vivaldi (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nikitchenko (talk · contribs · count) has been indefinitely banned from editing Wikipedia. I removed his signature as an endorser of Arbustoo's comments because Nikitchenko is not allowed to participate in such discussions on Wikipedia since he is a repeatedly banned sockpuppet of AI (talk · contribs). Any comments made by Nikitchenko on this page should also be checked to make sure that the people who endorsed them understand exactly who and what they are endorsing. For example, I was criticized for removing a "Welcome Banner" from a page of one of his sockpuppet accounts -- an account which was banned indefinitely. Do any other editors of Wikipedia fault me for removing this "Welcome Banner"? If not, you guys might want to remove that material from this RfC.


FeloniousMonk's additional viewpoint[edit]

(Note: I removed this from the RfC because the rules for the RfC specifically say that people should not edit more than one section other than to endorse)

View by FeloniousMonk

After reading Pooua's viewpoint above, I took a look at the articles Vivaldi has been active on, and there's a clear pattern that emerges. Vivaldi has been focusing on article's that were heavily edited by Arbustoo, removing or weakening any criticisms found therein: First Baptist Church of Hammond, Bill Gothard, Preying from the Pulpit, Jack Hyles, Hyles-Anderson College, Hyles-Anderson College, East Texas Baptist University, Jack Schaap. This comes very close to wikistalking. There are just too many articles where Abustoo had previously been contributing where Vivaldi has showed up and gutted criticisms for it to be just a coincidence. Vivaldi's pattern here establishes the foundation of the allegation that he's conducting a POV campaign, and the fact that he has remained active in doing so during the course of this RFC compounds the allegation that it is indeed a campaign. Campaining is not acceptable behavior.FeloniousMonk 16:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found Jack Hyles and from there I noticed that the same exact same poorly written and biased information was in Jack Hyles, Preying from the Pulpit, First Baptist Church of Hammond, and Hyles-Anderson College. I also visited East Texas Baptist University, because it was linked from a Jack Hyles article. I also visited Jack Schaap because he is mentioned in the First Baptist Church of Hammond article. Amazingly enough Arbustoo had nothing but criticism to add for each and every one of the Hyles-related articles. Each of these articles happened to be edited by Arbustoo, and each of them was edited by him in a very biased and poor fashion -- in fact 18 seperate editors on talk pages and in edit summaries complained about the biased edits of Arbustoo in regards to these articles. It is not innappropriate to evaluate the edit histories of people that have made poor edits and to visit other articles where they may have done similar things. Please read up on what WP:wikistalking is. It is entirely appropriate to make sure that systematic bias and distortion be fixed up. My goal is to improve the quality of the encyclopedia, and when I see that a specific editor has a history of leaving behind rubbish -- I have a right to clean up his mess. Vivaldi (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored my comment to the article. Vivaldi's removal of is based on his selective and flawed reading of the guidelines, something that's likely to result in this RFC being escalated were he to continue these disruptive shenanigans. FeloniousMonk 18:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vivaldi's continued disruption[edit]

Relying on his misinterpretation of the RFC instructions and his pattern of creative wikilawyering, Vivaldi has gone on to disrupt his own RFC by insisting on removing my view from the main page: 1st time:[82], 2nd time:[83], 3rd time:[84]. His refusal to consider any criticism or contradiction while insisting on disrupting his RFC all while continuing the behavior of campaigning that landed him here in the first place is troubling. WP:DR provides for next steps; perhaps now is the time. FeloniousMonk 19:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your view is already on the main page -- you certified the basis for the dispute saying that you were an active participant in the dispute. You are now trying to add your ideas under a section meant for OUTSIDE VIEWS -- meaning those people that are not participants in the dispute. Vivaldi (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, you're getting worked up over a view FM wrote, which is not written as an Outside view, but a view. The guidelines are only that you write one view, although you can endorse as many or as few as you like. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"WP:DR provides for next steps". You seem to bypassing a number of the steps FeloniousMonk. Let's start with #1) First step: talk to the other parties involved -- Failure to pursue discussion in good faith shows that you are trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it. This will make people less sympathetic to your position and may prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution. In contrast, sustained discussion and serious negotiation between the parties, even if not immediately successful, shows that you are interested in finding a solution that fits within Wikipedia policies.
You did not ever participate in "sustained discussion and serious negotiation" with me prior to escalating your dispute with me to an RfC. Your failure to pursue a discussion with me in good faith demonstrates that you are trying to escalate this dispute rather than resolve it. Vivaldi (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did try to talk to you about it, [85] [86]. Your reply was an unresponsive rant[87] and that's why you're here now.
Instead of wikilawyering and disrupting this proceeding, how about you telling us how you intend to put the community's concerns about your editing at ease? That's what this process is here for. FeloniousMonk 20:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My reply responded to each of your "points" with evidence showing how your comments were flawed. I'd like to know how I could have been any more "responsive" to your "attempt to communicate" with me. And I believe what you call "the community's concerns" about my editing are limited to just a couple of people in your little cabal. I'd love to see these articles get some peer-review from other disinterested parties. Vivaldi (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of incidents

  1. Removing view from RFC
  2. Removing view from RFC again
  3. Removing view from RFC one more time.
  4. Refactoring this talk page
  5. Removing comments from RFC
  6. Attempted to delist his own user conduct RFC

What does "refactoring this talk page" mean? Vivaldi (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You duplicated the 'Vivaldi's continued disruption' section heading. Was that on purpose? It looked very strange. Ehheh 20:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't on purpose. I was editing this section at the same time as someone else and when I submitted there was an edit conflict. I tried to re-add my comments to the bottom since I thought they were lost. I apologize for this, I certainly didn't intend for that to happen, but edit conflicts are difficult to handle when many people are editing at the same time. Vivaldi (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question - lies?[edit]

Vivaldi, you keep claiming people "lied" but have failed to show one single instance of evidence to support that very hostile accusation. Please provide evidence of lies, or retract the accusation. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Killer- Arbustoo mistated what I did numerous times, but one such time is listed above when he said: "Also as evidence this user unapologetically admits to using deceit edits[1][2] to get his POV on the page.Arbusto 23:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)" I did not ever admit to using deceit edits to get my POV on the page. That is a bald-faced lie. Vivaldi (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A mistatement is one thing; you certainly used misleading edit summaries in the two diffs Arbusto linked. I am still waiting for evidence of a lie. Do you have anything stronger to offer? If not, I suggest you retract and try to be a little more civil, as accusing someone of lying is a very strong accusation indeed. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The person stated that I "admits to using deceit edits to get his POV on the page". To me, that is a lie. I never admitted any such thing. If Arbustoo wants to assert that my edit summaries were deceptive then that is fine, but he should not say that I have admitted something when I did not ever admit to it.
However, as a display of good faith, I am willing to retract the comments about Arbustoo being a liar. When things get heated in discussion people say things they probably shouldn't -- and even though Arbustoo was wrong, I didn't need to escalate this dispute further by using words like liar. So instead of lie, I will say that Arbustoo has made a number of incorrect statements. Vivaldi (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So noted. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilawyering[edit]

When I first began submissions to the Jack Hyles et. al. discussion pages, Arbusto objected to several of my statements by citing Wikipedia guidelines. Being new to Wikipedia, I was not familiar with the guidelines. Then, after a month or so, Vivaldi joined the discussion. He clarified several instances in which Arbusto had misapplied Wikipedia guidelines, and in some instances had construed the guidelines to say the opposite of what they actually stated. Now that Vivaldi has shown that per Wikipedia guidelines, Arbusto has no valid reason for the majority of his edits, you folks make the ironic charge that it is Vivaldi who is wikilawyering. Pooua 06:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some diffs would be appreciatted. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar with your terminology, but if you are asking me for examples, I can provide some.
One of my biggest complaints about the way the Jack Hyles article was written is that the editors justified the inclusion of any statement on the basis that the statement had been published somewhere by someone other than Wikipedia. So, if someone printed on their own any sort of claim against Jack Hyles, that claim found its way into the article, where it remained unchallenged and lacking context. Supposedly, this was justified by Wikipedia policy of No Original Research. So, when someone made the statement that Jack Hyles taught a version of the Mormon doctrine of celestial marriage, that statement was put in the Wikipedia article without explanation or rebuttal. The fact that the claim was printed was sufficient reason for its inclusion in Wikipedia. When I complained about this extremely low standard for inclusion, I was informed that Wikipedia editors don't attempt to substantiate the facts of claims; Wikipedia only substantiates that someone made the claim.
But, the low standard of inclusion went further. Evangelist Robert Sumner had been quoted by a Chicago newspaper; Arbusto used this as justification for quoting material from Robert Sumner that had appeared only in Sumner's own self-published material. Supposedly, the fact that Sumner had been quoted by a reliable source made Sumner a reliable source.
When Vivaldi joined the discussion, he pointed out that Wikipedia policy allows the use of self-published material only in certain limited cases. Specifically, self-published material about a well-established, reputable author's field of expertise might be permitted. Self-published material about one's own self also is permitted. But, self-published material about someone else's work or about a field of study not one's own speciality is not permitted. Arbusto objected that if self-published material by Robert Sumner or Victor Nischik or others about Jack Hyles is not permitted, then self-published material by Jack Hyles ministries about Jack Hyles ministries should not be permitted. Of course, Arbusto only quoted self-published material that made negative statements against Jack Hyles.
Several other examples are contained on the talk pages. Pooua 06:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I want to bring up one other example. Arbusto has made a big deal about Vivaldi's claim that Victor Nischik's book about Jack Hyles is self-published. He demands that Vivaldi provide proof that Nischik's book is self-published. I think Arbusto even mentioned that issue on this RfC. I believe this misses an important point; Wikipedia articles should be from demonstrably reliable sources. Now, that should be a redundant statement; if a source is reliable, it must have been demonstrated to be so, or we could not know it. So, the burden actually should be on Arbusto to show that Nischik's book is reliable, not on Vivaldi to show that it is self-published. Besides, anyone with half a brain could see that Nischik's book was published by the people who wrote it and not by a reputable publishing house. So, Arbusto--and not a few other Wikipedia editors--are fussing about the letter of the guidelines while ignoring the spirit of the guidelines. Pooua 06:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV Campaign[edit]

FeloniousMonk alleges on the Project page that Vivaldi is engaged in a POV campaign against Arbusto. FM says he arrived at that conclusion after looking at the pages on which Arbusto had been active and then Vivaldi heavily edited Arbusto's comments. What I find interesting is that FM did not notice that Arbusto comments in every article regarding Jack Hyles always present Jack Hyles in the most negative way possible, while ignoring any positive statements or context that would put the charges into perspective. In fact, Arbusto even created an article for the explicit purpose of publishing a TV news broadcast's investigative report that went beyond mere criticism of Jack Hyles; one newspaper stated that the TV report was yellow journalism. Note that Arbusto made prolonged attempts to publish MP3 copies of the TV broadcast without copyright notice. But, FM ignores this pattern of behavior by Arbusto, while claiming he finds a pattern in Vivaldi's behavior. FM should have noticed that it is Arbusto who is using Wikipedia to publish a POV campaign, not against another editor's views, but against the readers of Wikipedia who look to these pages for encyclopedic information. Pooua 06:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since WP:NPOV specifically calls for all significant viewpoints to be represented in articles, Arbustoo's additions of opposing viewpoints to articles do not constitute POV campaigning while Vivaldi's extensive pattern weakening or removing criticism altogether does. Read the policy. Adding criticism is necessary for making complete articles. And Preying from the Pulpit meets all criteria for notability. You should become more familiar with WP:NPOV and how it relates to article content before rushing to condemn others while defending your friend. FeloniousMonk 16:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arbusto violates WP:NPOV repeatedly, by editing and producing articles that are mostly attacks made against Jack Hyles. He is not merely adding criticism; he makes the majority of the articles he edits nothing except vicious claims against Jack Hyles. This is all extensively and specifically documented on the talk pages of the related articles. Vivaldi did an excellent job of putting the criticisms into proper perspective. Arbusto's complaint is that his efforts to vilify Jack Hyles have been thwarted.
I find it odd that you have suddenly taken such an interest in this matter, FM. You never contributed anything to any of the articles that I saw, over a period of several months. But, here you are, ready to spring into an attack on Vivaldi and defend Arbusto. Do you even know anything about Jack Hyles or his ministries? Pooua 05:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And Preying from the Pulpit meets all criteria for notability. - It was not a noteable news story; it was a sensational bit of yellow journalism, produced by a TV station with falling ratings. Within a year of that broadcast, that station was sold to a competing network. And the news story? It went nowhere. Nothing came of it. The claims and accusations amounted to nothing. All it did was whip people into a frenzy for a brief period. Federal and city investigative agencies dismissed the hysteria, concluding there was no evidence of wrong-doing by First Baptist Church of Hammond. But, certain people want to keep the hate-mongering alive. That is what is happening on Wikipedia. Pooua 05:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is a correct assessment of Preying from the Pulpit. Vivaldi (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, churches are featured on mainstream TV for this kind of thing all the time. Well, OK, some of the time. Er, hardly ever. Um, actually, this is the only one I know of... Just zis Guy you know? 22:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only church you've ever seen that had a supposed scandal reported on? There are hundreds, if not thousands, of such "scandals" reported on "mainstream" TV all the time. And this particular one was thoroughly investigated by the FBI, who said there was no evidence of any wrongdoing. The local police also said that there was no evidence to even begin an investigation into any wrongdoing. It is quite clear that the only reason for including this bit of yellow journalism in Wikipedia is to smear the church and Hyles. But again, it appears as though the cabal has spoken. It would be nice if we put the articles through a peer-review to be examined by some unbiased editors. Vivaldi (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More