Case Opened on 01:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 18:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 21:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Vivaldi ( talk · contribs)

Arbustoo ( talk · contribs)

Requests for comment

In May 2006 the disputes began at the Jack Hyles article when Vivaldi began removing cited criticism from the article. My interest in the article began solely because people were removing documented facts about a pastor and a molestation at his church (most recently was white washed the other day [1]). This progressed into edit problems in related articles Hyles Anderson College, Jack Schaap, Preying from the Pulpit(ongoing view history [2]), and First Baptist Church of Hammond.

I opened Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vivaldi in May hoping to settle the disputes. I closed the RfC with basic agreements about editing warring, harassment, breaking civil, and other wikipedia rules. This user signed [3] agreeing to cease this behavior. Yet, the failure to comply with WP:CIVIL, WP:POV, WP:TE, etc has continued. When this user knows I've edited he visits something I have editted and offers POV and/or uncivil. Examples in the last few days: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] and keeps claiming I am pushing a POV and Vivaldi removes material in those edits [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] Vivaldi uses wikilawyering tactics (see many on the RfC) [19] [20] [21] [22] citing policy in obtuse incorrect, POV, and illogical ways [23] (again see the RfC for details [24]).

It is worth pointing out that several times Vivaldi claimed to want his behavior to be reviewed by the committee. [25] [26](Note the personal attack in the edit summary as well.) However, when I filed for this RfAR Sept 5th and posted a notice on Vivaldi's talk [27] this was ignored while the user continued making edits like this on the Sept.9th [28] and about 50 others. As of now there is still no formal response and the committee accepted this without Vivaldi's reply.

This is similiar to events surrounding the RfC. When the issues were being addressed this user stopped editting. This June 9th edit [29] with a discussion on the RfC was Vivaldi's last edit until July 9 [30]. Then Vivaldi's next edit was one month later on August 5th [31]. This same day edits were made on the RfC [32] as well as his talk page was archived. [33]

I believe this user did this to avoid a full review of his behavior. Thus, I urge the committee not to take lightly these edits and past history separating these few months of behavior. I believe the decision ArbCom makes should be strong enough to demonstrate to Vivaldi the severity of his actions, which he completely and utterly dismisses the seriousness of WP:POV, WP:CIVIL, and even this ArbCom case. [34] Arbusto 04:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply

September 20th update

As of September 20th Vivaldi is up to his same tactics: Wikilawyering, personal attacks and going against consensus here in one issue while another user explains issues of WP:V is not met and has been ignored for six weeks (Note:Vivaldi is the only one pushing to put this in). Meanwhile I requested this Arbitration on September 5th (15 days ago from this posting), and Vivaldi has still not formally responded to the his RfAf even though he continues with the very issues this RfAf is about. [35] Arbusto 23:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Since Arbusto has brought me into this matter, maybe I can leave a comment without him blanking it. I am an anon-by-choice former user who tickles his wiki-itch from time to time mostly in AfD. I happen to leach off a public IP that is shared by employees of Office Depot. Early this morning I was intrigued by the AfD of several well known envangelicals ( David Jeremiah, Darrell Bock, John Hannah, and Andy Stanley) I posted my support to keep them. The theme of the AfD and the obvious pattern their nomination had intrigued me.
On all the AfDs, Arbusto subsequently deleted my comments. He would later go back and insert strike marks through my votes. On two of the AfD, Vivaldi reverted back my comments and noted my history of commenting on other AfDs. I thanked Vivaldi for his actions and noticed the Rfc and mentioning of the AfD so I made a comment here to give some background. Arbusto also took it upon himself to blank that comment.
While I can not offer insight into the heart of the disagreement between Vivaldi and Arbusto, I consider Arbusto's actions of blanking my comments and manipulating them with strike mark vandalism of my comments and wholly inappropriate and uncivil. As an anon-user, I understand that in items like AfD discussions that my comment may carry less weight and even be viewed with suspicion. It is appropriate for other users to voice those supicions and even, if they wish, choose to tag the IP with a suspected sockpuppet tag. While I personally would say that's wiki-paranoia, it is still appropriate. What is not appropriate is to vandalize other user's comments and to treat them in an uncivil matter. While Arbusto's actions are not bannable, I do request a warning reprimand for him and believe that his comments and actions in relation to this RfA should be evalulated in light of his demonstrated behavior. Thank you. 205.157.110.11 11:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Response

205.157.110.11 ( talk · contribs) voted on only four AfD, which included edit summaries that said "strawberries" [36]. Prior to this the IP's last AfD votes that were not Gastrich-my AfDs was on August 30, 2006 (five days before). These articles created by Gastrich 1 anon Gastrch 2 user who made 5 edits. Jason_Gastrich ( talk · contribs) was caught pushing POV and is banned from wikipedia.

The previous day my AfDs also go hit by a sock: Use_Your_Naugin ( talk · contribs) whose first and only edits were on my AfDs and were Gastrich related (note user's edits on Lousiana Baptist University--the basis of the banning). This was brought to an adminstrators attention [37] and those votes were lined out my me.

With that in mind from the previous day and that banned Jason_Gastrich ( talk · contribs) watches some of his articles still, I warned an admin to expect [38] socks. This was before this anon appeared. Then this IP directly came to my four AfDs, and being an IP I removed the material with a edit summary explaining that he only voted on 4 AfDs, which are all interrelated by the same user. The last previous edit at this IP was nearly a day before, last AfD vote was 5 days before. I removed the vote with notation of why, and Vivaldi clearly was looking at my edit history, and felt compelled to revert it and make a comment about me (and as of now a day later; Vivaldi has not editted since). Arbusto 17:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Funny, the anon. has removed my comments explaining why I did it. [39] The IP also made personal attacks on the AfD after removing my comments. More puppets. [40] Arbusto 19:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

• Accept Fred Bauder 15:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Accept. Dmcdevit· t 21:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Accept. - SimonP 13:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Accept. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision Information

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

1) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons requires that controversial material regarding living persons have a reliable source.

Passed 5 to 0 at 18:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material

2) Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_controversial_material provides that editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. This action is listed as an exception to the three-revert rule. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.

Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see WP:CSD criterion A6).

Passed 5 to 0 at 18:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources for biographical material

3) Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources requires that any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims.

Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below).

Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers which print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating that does not mean it has a place here. Before repeating such gossip ask yourself consider if the information is true and if it is relevant to an encyclopaedic article on that subject. When these magazines print information they suspect is untrue they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the magazine doesn't think the story is true, then why should we?

Passed 5 to 0 at 18:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

4) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates fair representation of all significant point of view regarding a topic.

Passed 5 to 0 at 18:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Essays are not policy

5) Essays, such as Wikipedia:Criticism, are not policy but primarily opinion pieces, Category:Wikipedia essays. They may, however, as in the case of Wikipedia:Criticism where there has been substantial diverse input by the community, provide some guidance, see, for example Wikipedia:Criticism#Criticism_integrated_throughout_the_article.

Passed 5 to 0 at 18:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Self-published source

6) Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29, a policy, requires that, with the exception of established researchers, self-published material is not acceptable as a reliable source.

Passed 5 to 0 at 18:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Original research

7) Wikipedia:No original research prohibits inclusion of material which has not been published by a reliable source.

Passed 5 to 0 at 18:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Quotation of material from an unreliable source

8) Quotation of material from an unreliable source by a source generally considered reliable does not render the information acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Passed 5 to 0 at 18:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

General applicability of fundamental principles

9) The principles which underlie Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources continue to rule editing of articles follow the death of a subject. A sober balanced treatment remains the rule as does the requirement that controversial information have a reliable source. Likewise, the same principles apply to on-going institutions the deceased was affiliated with.

Passed 5 to 0 at 18:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Guilt by association

10) Guilt by association is never a sufficient reason to include negative information about third parties in a biography. At a minimum, there should be reliable sources showing a direct relationship between the conduct of the third parties and the conduct of the subject (i.e. a nexus), or that the subject knew or should have known about and could have prevented the conduct of the third parties.

Passed 5 to 0 at 18:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of this dispute is the editing conflict between Vivaldi ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Arbustoo ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regarding a fundamentalist Christian minister Jack Hyles, his church First Baptist Church of Hammond, his bible college Hyles-Anderson College, a television special concerning him Preying from the Pulpit, and possibly other related articles. The controversy relates to a wide variety of controversial negative allegations.

Passed 5 to 0 at 18:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of policy by Arbustoo

3) Arbustoo has insisted on an idiosyncratic interpretation of policy supported by no more than an essay [41]. That edit led to an exchange of mutual recrimination between Arbustoo and Vivaldi at Talk:Preying_from_the_Pulpit#Wikipedia:Criticism.

Passed 5 to 0 at 18:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Self published books

4) There are two self published books by critics of Jack Hyles which have been the subject of dispute:

• Voyle A. Glover. Fundamental Seduction: The Jack Hyles Case, Brevia Publishing Company (1990), trade paperback, ISBN  09628-5318-6
• Victor Nischik, The wizard of god : my life with Jack Hyles, Sychar Publishing Company (1990), OCLC 24730334

see Talk:Jack_Hyles/Archive_2#Voyle_Glover.27s_self-published_book and Talk:Jack_Hyles/Archive_2#Victor_Nischik.27s_book_on_Hyles and the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Vivaldi/Evidence#Twelfth_assertion and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Vivaldi/Evidence#Re:Twelfth_assertion.

Passed 5 to 0 at 18:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Poorly sourced controversial material

5) Preying from the Pulpit, First Baptist Church of Hammond, Jack Hyles, Hyles-Anderson College contain large blocks of controversial material which lacks a reliable source, typically material consisting of allegations, quotations and second-hand reports, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Vivaldi/Workshop#Contradictions, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Vivaldi/Workshop#Fact_laundering, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Vivaldi/Workshop#Laundering_of_original_research, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Vivaldi/Workshop#Laundering_of_self-published_book.

Passed 5 to 0 at 18:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Article probation

1) 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 expectation is that Vivaldi, Arbustoo, and other editors of these articles will in the course of editing remove poorly sourced controversial material.

Passed 5 to 0 at 18:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Rescinded by motion at 21:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Vivaldi and Arbustoo

2) As much of the material in dispute between Vivaldi and Arbustoo was material which 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.

Passed 5 to 0 at 18:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Unused Sanctions (November 2015)

Passed 8 to 2 with 2 abstentions by motion at 21:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.