In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 00:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 04:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC).

• Vivaldi ( talk · contribs · logs)

See also: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

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. This user has campaigned through name calling [1], deceitful summary [2], and hostility to policy [3]. Trying to resolve the disputes on the talk pages and on the user's talk page has resulted in insults and complete hostility. This user has deliberately tried to downplay criticism and has removed cited controversy and criticism. Arbusto 01:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Description and Evidence of disputed behavior

Preying from the Pulpit

• User has tried putting this article up for afd, but resulted in no consensus. As a result the user has pushed for its merging.
• With no edit summary [4] of reason left on the talk user removes "unaccredited" and cited newspaper articles explaining the program's contents.
• With no edit summary of reason on the talk more POV edits are made removing content. [5]
• Large sections of quotes 5 sentence criticism to one sentence claims add by Vivladi on the program were removed by me and I added a external link. I explained critcism goes in a criticism section, user revert the changes again [6] also removing "unaccredited" and changing the meaning of a sentence about a police investigation. I added in a criticism section and put the criticism there.
• No reason left on the talk or in the edit summary [7] same edits.
• And again [8].
• User deletes sources/press mentions without comment. [9]
• Other uncommented deletes. [10]
• Vivaldi's proposed edits to this article [11] adds in many full sections of criticism quotes including 2 full block quotes ALL from one article. This edit also contains bolding of certain parts this user wants to emphasize. After being told this violates NPOV and Wikipedia:Criticism, two weeks later this user has continued to edit war. According to wikipedia policy, "criticism that is integrated into the article should not disrupt the article or section's flow." Adding full block quotes of criticism that disrupts the flow and copy anf pasting a 9 sentence rebuttal to a one sentence description changes the POV of the article. And the bolding of one quote over another is clearly a case POV. After explaining this on the talk page, these edits have continued for 11 days: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], and [19]. To meet this user half way I added a criticism section and summarized Hyles' criticism of the article's subject [20]. Vivaldi ignored this and simply continued reverting without any explanation(see list of diffs above).

Jack Hyles

• Without any edit summary [21] or reason left on the talk massive sections of newspaper cited controversy is removed. Including changing around the sourcing method and a bolding a section the user wishes to emphasize.
• User removes the notation that the school is unaccredited [22].
• User bolds section to emphasize [23] one claim over another.
• User removes criticism [24] claiming the book is self published. When asked for proof of this user did not give evidence.
• Massive deletions and content change. [25] No explanation or consensus.
• User completely removes a Chicago Tribune quote [26]
• In the course of removing cited criticism Vivaldi wrote "Originally I tried to discuss your edits as the work of some "editors", but now I am convinced that you alone are on a single-minded mission to sully the reputation of Hyles based on the unproven allegations of a couple of do-nothing malcontents." [27]
• Vivaldi wrote "You have been labeled biased by numerous people besides myself and Pooua," and when asked for the names of three people the user never replied again to this section. [28]
• User POV is very clear. Such as the addition that 20,000 attend this church EVERY Sunday. Well, the town is only 80,000 people and according to the church's "unofficial webpage" it is only 3,000. I fixed this accordingly. [29]

First Baptist Church of Hammond

• User's edit summary claims "Cleaned up some of the biased edits" but removed "unaccredited" and removed cited controversy about a blind man being banned from the church. No reason left on the talk.
• User said he was moving a list of names to a "proper section." However, the edit [30] removed "unaccredited" and moved a list of names in the middle on the hiding the criticism section.
• User removed "unaccredited" and criticism [31].
• User added in uncited slander of person cited as critical of the church. [32]
• Without reason or explanation criticism removed [33]
• Criticism removed again without reason [34]
• Again with still no reason left on the talk. [35]
• On the talk page, user talks about removing a newspaper cited testimony of a convicted child molestor being accused in court of molesting children at the church, includes two girls, a church worker, and a church security guard. [36]
• Also on the talk page user tried to campaign to merge, ie make a Tv news report, critical of the church disappear. I pointed this out. [37]

Jack Schaap

• Schaap is the "president" of a unaccredited school started by his father in law. Vivaldi removed the explanation that the college is unaccredited without any edit summary or comment on the talk. [38]
• In this edit the user removes, without commentary, the wiki link to school accreditation. [39]

Hyles-Anderson College

• Various removals of information and a POV edit on accreditation. [40] No explanation or consensus to remove news reports involving the church/ school/ and president.
• More deletions. [41]
• More deletions, no discussion, explanation, or compromise. [42]
• Edit summary claims "Improved the article. The partially-wooded lake is not part of "history"." [43], but more deletions including the removal of external links containing criticism.
• User completely removed the mention of a 1993 news report about the school [44]. Edit also revert a cleaned up version of the citations. [45]

Modifying other user's talk pages

User removes a welcome message so that his warning is more visible. [46]

Uncivility

• User makes personal attacks and insist that his comments are not personal attacks.

  "You intent is to try to fool people. It isn't a personal attack, it is a statement of fact. " [47]. See [48] for more reference.

  "dont play stupid..." [49]

  "The statement that 'If you are really are stupid or lack common sense in then I am deeply sorry' was not an apology." [50]

  "What are smoking?" [51], [52]

  "...you are clearly out of touch..." [53]

  "As long as you continue with the mistaken assumption..." [54]

  "I thought I was argueing with someone with at least a little common sense." [55]

  "If you are really are stupid or lack common sense in then I am deeply sorry." [56]

Since the RfC was opened

• User removed "unaccredited" again, and moved criticism from the criticism into the main body and added in full paragraphs criticizing the article's subject shifting violating NPOV and Wikipedia:Criticism. All criticism comes from one article. [57]
• User changed the citation method and removed a newspaper invovling the school's president and three former students. [58] Including one with a rape charge later dropped.
• User removed the unaccredited template that states the legality of unaccredited degrees. [59]
• In the edits above the user also removed, without comment, all external links that had criticism.
• Vivaldi edit's [60], revert, removed press criticism liking Hyles to Jim Jones. Yet, the edit summary claimed, "Version by Arbustoo is not as good. Why would you take out the fact that the Chief of Police Detectives said there was no investigation Arbustoo? Isn't that important?" However, my version [61] notes "Capt. Bill Conner was quoted in the Tribune saying that, "There is no investigation of the First Baptist Church of Hammond or Jack Hyles". Also it should be noted in another article a police officer mentioned the investigation continued.
• User continues to removed and revert [62], "claiming Hyles' comments are allowed," thereby reverting large copy edits of a newspaper article to change the POV of the article and bolding certain sections.
• On May 20, 2006 the user marked edits as "minor" and reverted without comment the whole page. [63] This removed the correction of sources and removed elements of a newsreport.
• Vivaldi added the sentence: "Hyles completed his college education at East Texas Baptist College, which is fully accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools." Another user sourced this claim that the school was unaccredited when the subject attended. [64] Vivaldi removed the whole mention and source without explanation. [65]
• User removed it again. [66]
• And again. [67]
• May 25, 2006 User removed the wikipedia template for unaccredited schools calling it redudant after this had been reinserted by others. [68]
• May 25, 2006 WITHOUT ANY EDIT SUMMARY OR COMMENT user changes paragraph stucture and adds two paragraphs changing the POV of the section. [69]

August

• WP:CIVIL. [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75]
• NPOV [76] [77] [78]

Bill Gothard

• 31 August 2006. [79] User claims he is "reinserting" while he removes a cited study from WebMD and the history of the MD's attachment to the organization also cited.

Applicable policies and guidelines

Applicable policies

1. WP:CIVIL
2. WP:HAR
3. WP:NPA
4. WP:NOT (a battleground )
5. WP:NPOV
6. WP:NPA
7. WP:V

Applicable guidelines

1. WP:AGF
2. WP:CON
3. WP:POINT
4. Wikipedia:External links
5. Wikipedia:Criticism
6. WP:RS

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

1. On the user's (now) archived talk page. [80] User claims "You are on a one-man mission to destroy the reputation of Jack Hyles based on the unproven allegations of a couple of do-nothings," "LOL. What are you smoking?" "LOL. You really must be joking," "Or is that how logic works on your planet?"
2. "Arbusto, are you high on drugs right now?;" "I suggest you go to bed and wake up with a clear head before you embarrass yourself anymore tonight;" [81]
3. Asking for proof that Christianity Today is a fundamentalist sources was never answer and proof that Nischik's work was self-published was not offered. [82]
4. Tried to get criticism put in a criticism section [83] user refused and kept reverting.
5. See the talks for more evidence of failing to resolve the dispute.
6. After an adminstrator said "please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future," Vivaldi responded "Each of the changes I made and the reasons for them are fully hashed out on the talk page and in the edit summaries." [84] As the evidence above indicates, explanations and changes were not "hashed" out.
7. Addressed the uncommented removal of a news program comparing Hyles to Jim Jones. User responded "Don't play stupid" and does not give any reason for the commented removal. [85]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Arbusto 01:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply
2. FeloniousMonk 19:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Originally included JoshZ. [86] Arbusto 23:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Other users who endorse this summary

1. Will Beback 21:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply
2. El_C 02:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC) reply
3. JoshuaZ 02:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
4. FeloniousMonk 23:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Guettarda 19:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
6. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 19:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
7. •Jim62sch• 21:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Just zis Guy you know? 18:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Orignally included Nikitchenko, but was removed by Vivaldi [87] Arbusto 23:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Users who disagree with this summary

1. The section Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Vivaldi#Modifying_other_user.27s_talk_pages should not be presented. A User's User and Discussion pages are his own to edit as he wishes to edit them with very little exception. The complaint which User:Arbustoo presents is not one of them. Terryeo 11:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply

If you took the time to look at the history you would know I did not put that in about the talk page. [88] Thus, "Arbustoo presents..." is not correct. Also I noticed that Terryeo had some problems with various other users at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo. Arbusto 23:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I moved my original response to the talk page for this article because this RfC was closed at one point because it failed to get two people to certify the basis of the dispute. If you want to read my response to the above allegations then see the talk page. My response below is about the inappropriate actions to reopen this RfC by FeloniousMonk.

This RfC was deleted by an admin because the required 2 people did not certify that they had tried and failed to resolve the dispute with the 48 hour time frame required for an RfC. FeloniousMonk ( talk · contribs) has recently left 2 messages on talk pages that I responded to -- and now he says that he has "tried and failed" to resolve a dispute with me. This is patently unfair. On June 2, 2006 Felonious signed the section of this RfC admitting that he had not "tried and failed to resolve the dispute" -- but then after discovering that JoshuaZ deleted this RfC because of a lack of basis -- Felonious left a comment on two talk pages and then when I responded to his comments -- he claimed that was enough to show that he had "tried and failed" to resolve this dispute and he unfairly and innapproptiately undeleted this RfC that was properly deleted by JoshuaZ ( talk · contribs).

In the section above titled, Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute -- not one single diff demonstrates that FeloniousMonk has tried and failed to resolve any dispute with me. However the rules for the RfC clearly say at the top: "The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts"

The rules for filing user conduct RfCs state that "The evidence (of trying and failing to resolve a dispute), preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise." Felonious Monk only left 1 message on my talk page, which I responded to at great length. He did not attempt to find a resolution or to seek a compromise. "Repetitive, burdensome and unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. RfC is not a venue for personal attack."

If FeloniousMonk ( talk · contribs · logs) would read the dispute resolution process he would see a section that says: "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."

FeloniousMonk did not ever seek to negotiate or compromise with me at all. He left one comment on my talk page that bordered on being uncivil and I responded to it in good faith and provided evidence demonstrating exactly why his statements about me were untrue. I'm not sure if FM was lying or if he was just ignorant of the facts, but he did state untruths on my talk page. He accused me of not contributing to the wikipedia asserting that I only seek to delete, merge, or whitewash -- when there is a clear history showing that I have made numerous contributions to many articles on Wikipedia. In fact, the current Preying from the Pulpit article is probably mostly my own contribution. The article on Jack Hyles is probably a majority completed by me as well. I made lots of contributions to the First Baptist Church of Hammond article. I made lots of contributions to the Hyles-Anderson College article. I'd guess that at least 50% of the information in all of the articles was added by me. I'd guess that 95% of the information about the background and history of these topics was inserted by me. So for Felonious to assert that I have not contributed reeks of incivility. I've spent hours and hours researching and writing these articles -- while Felonious has done nothing at all to contribute to them. He left two messages on talk pages in the last week -- and nothing else. How hypocritical for him to assert that I don't contribute.

I originally had a detailed response to each of the allegations listed above, but I am removing them now. I will repost my response to the claims above on the talk page of this RfC. If you want to see my detailed response to the above allegations, then please see the talk page for this RfC.

This RfC was deleted by an admin - JoshuaZ ( talk · contribs) -- because he agreed with me that the basis for the dispute was not certified by 2 people within the 48 hour timeframe required by an RfC. In order for an RfC to continue, 2 people must certify it within 48 hours that they had tried and failed to resolve a specific issue. This was not done.

JoshuaZ deleted this RfC -- and he is an admin that originally certified that he had "tried and failed" to resolve the dispute with me. JoshuaZ admitted that he had not tried to resolve this dispute and deleted this RfC.

FeloniousMonk ( talk · contribs · count) has left one comment on a my talk page a few days ago and on the talk page of Preying from the Pulpit. I responded to his comments on the talk pages -- and now FeloniousMonk has innappropriately and unfairly reopened this RfC that was closed by an administrator. FeloniousMonk has not ever "tried and failed" to resolve a dispute with me. He left exactly two messages on talk pages, that I have responded to -- but I haven't made any changes to the actual articles since FeloniousMonk left his comments. Surely I am allowed to have my own opinions and support them with evidence on talk pages, right? How can the fact that I am willing to participate in discussion be used against me? I want the consensus viewpoint to be presented -- but until very recently -- only one editor was actively disagreeing with me, while numerous editors disagreed with Arbustoo on the talk pages. I am not a mind reader. FeloniousMonk has made zero edits or contributions to the Jack Hyles articles that I can remember and I certainly haven't seen him involved in any discussions about these articles -- and certainly he didn't contribute within the 48 hour period after the RfC was created.

I believe FeloniousMonk made his comment to my talk page and the Preying from the Pulpit talk page for the sole purpose of being able to say that he has "tried and failed" to resolve a dispute with me. This is unfair. Especially since the RfC had gone over 2 weeks with only one person being able to certify the basis.

Am I not allowed to have an opinion on talk pages? Why is defending my position on a talk page now used against me?

In closing, all I would like to say is that I want Wikipedia to become a better place. I am working very hard to make sure that the policies of WP:V and WP:NPOV are being followed -- as well as the other guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. I encourage other people to review the edit history of Arbustoo ( talk · contribs · count) in the articles: Jack Hyles, Hyles-Anderson College, First Baptist Church of Hammond, and Preying from the Pulpit. Can you find any edits where Arbustoo has made that are not critical of these topics? Has he tried at all to present the information in a neutral manner? Has he tried at all to present the background and history of these topics? Has he included any of the refutations, rebuttals, or any other material that mitigates his biased viewpoint that Hyles is the most evil person on earth?

I want relevant criticism of Hyles and FCBH to be in these articles -- but Wikipedia should not be used as a forum for unsubstantiated sensational claims. Hyles was never charged with a crime in his entire life -- and there have been no independent sources that have even accused Hyles of any misdeeds at all. But these articles made it seem like Hyles was running a school that taught people how to molest children and that he supported and encouraged molestation. That is completely untrue and unfair.

Vivaldi ( talk) 09:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply

FeloniousMonk ( talk · contribs) has now violated the rule that editors should not edit more than one section of an RfC. It says right at the top of this thing: "Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse." FeloniousMonk has his own section that he has certified for him to present his viewpoints. It is inappropriate that he start up a new section under "Outside Views" when he is now certifying that he is a participant in the dispute. Vivaldi ( talk) 19:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Other users who endorse this summary

1. Pooua 05:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
2. I agree, let's drop this thing and move on. Terryeo 11:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

I began editing the pages related to Jack Hyles a few months ago, after I discovered the outrageous, inflammatory and heavily biased statements on the page. Although several of the people guilty of producing such a dreadful article have signed this RfC against Vivaldi, one user far and away fought to cheapen the pages even farther. That user is Arbusto (also known as Arbustoo). He has exploited several resources, both on Wikipedia and off, in his attempts to defame or even slander Jack Hyles and associated ministries. Though I did my best to oppose his efforts, I was too new to Wikipedia to know how disputes are handled. Fortunately, Vivaldi noticed the condition of the Jack Hyles pages, and chose to assist in researching and re-writing them. He has performed heroically and greatly improved the quality of the Jack Hyles page, despite Arbusto's bullying tactics. He has been heavily involved in the discussion pages of the related articles. All of this, despite the fact that, as he tells us, he has no attachment with Jack Hyles in any way. He simply wants to improve the quality of Wikipedia's articles. I have seen that he has done so, in contrast to Arbusto's constant attempts to spare nothing to sling derogatory statements against Jack Hyles.

I recall that at some time over the last 3 months, I have seen the name FeloniusMonk somewhere, but I cannot recall now where I saw it. He never posted a reply to any discussion in which I was engaged. I have no idea why he has suddenly shown up now. Pooua 06:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Vivaldi ( talk) 06:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
2. User:Terryeo I agree. In a church of 1000s, over a period of years, a small handful of inflammatory incidents should not be presented in an article as a major portion of the article. Terryeo 21:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
3. User:GIen I will go into this further below - Glen 01:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Wikilawyering is wrong.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply

   Asked to clarify, I will. I did no research into this situation whatever, except to see that the response section included the following - 10 paragraphs discussing how the RFC is poorly certified, then 1 paragraph of meaningless snark, then two paragraphs of platitudes. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

2. Ehheh 17:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
3. FeloniousMonk 18:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
4. His latest attempts to remove FM's sections are not just Wikilawyering, they are also misinterpretations of the rules. Guettarda 19:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Also per Guettarda. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 19:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Per Guettarda and KC •Jim62sch• 21:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Agreed. Just zis Guy you know? 19:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
8. C56C 01:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Arbusto 23:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Wikilawyering is wrong

"Wikilawyering is wrong" is not an issue in a Request for Comment. User:Hipocrite states it is wrong and asks for endorcement of his statement. The rightness or the wrongness of wikilawyering should be taken up on policy and guideline pages. This page is not the place to discuss, endorse or deny the rightness or wrongness of wikilawyering. This page could discuss whether it is being done or not. This page could present instances of false wikilawyering or possibly misleading wikilawyering or convoluted wikilawyering leading to confusion but this page is not the place to discuss the rightness or the wrongness of Wikilawyering. If User:Hipocrite views this Rfc as being poorly presented then he should say so, if he sees an outness, then he should say so. He implies there is some Wikilawyering going on but doesn't address it directly, instead he uses the broad, general statement, "Wikilawyering is wrong" and requests endorsement of this tertiary issue. If his statement were endorsed it could mean that no editor could ever quote a policy or a guideline on a discussion page but that he would be accused of Wikilayering and that obviously would not be right. Terryeo 21:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

A bit to litteral with the meaning of "wrong", dude. How about, "Vivavldi is engaging in wikilawyering because he knows he wrong and is trying to save his bacon by deflection"? A little long but to the point. •Jim62sch• 21:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

If that is the issue, dude, then that is what should be presented. Terryeo 11:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm not wrong. The issue is clear. Outside views in requests for comments are meant for people that are not a party to the dispute. Since FeloniousMonk is a party to the dispute, namely he is claiming that he has tried and failed to to resolve this "dispute" with me, he should not also be adding his opinion to the section meant for people that ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THE DISPUTE. This is for OUTSIDE VIEWS, not for people that are in a direct dispute with the person that is the subject of the RfC. And I find it highly absurd that you would suggest that I advise others to follow the policies and guidelines of wikipedia, that you would call it "wikilawyering". When is it okay to admonish people for not being able to read simple rules? Vivaldi ( talk) 07:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Arbustoo, the user who filed this RfC has an obvious agenda on wikipedia, and that is to discredit specific groups/individuals, and is upset with users who wont allow his bias to permeate through these articles with one extreme POV. One only has to look at his edits to see this; please see this Arbustoo edit as an example The resulting article is completely unbalanced. The changes; the insertion of allegations and controversies into the opening section, the addition of so much negative material that (excluding links/refs etc) "his" article has a total of 9 sections, 6 of which are criticism or controversies. Finally just to be sure the addition of an external links subsection called Criticism. You'll see the very next edit was Vivaldi's, where he edits the article down to 6 sections, 3 of which remain criticism or controversy. Which of the two seems more fitting of Wikipedia the NPOV policy "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject". Editors cannot just file an RfC because they cant have it all exactly their way. In the example Vivaldi kept 50% of the article as criticism, whereas I am sure if the show was on the other foot Arbustoo would have blanked the lot. It seems the only "crime" Vivaldi is making is ensuring the articles fit Wikipedia Policy.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. - Glen 02:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Vivaldi ( talk) 08:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Bagginator 05:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Users who don't endorse this summary:

1. C56C 01:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC) Glen's claims are evidence of a revert war not any wrongdoing on Abrustoo. reply
2. Arbusto 23:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Glen's example [89], showed changes that included the removal -without comment- that the college was unaccredited. reply

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.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. FeloniousMonk 16:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Guettarda 19:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
3. •Jim62sch• 21:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
4. C56C 01:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC) Vivaldi seems more interested in removing negative facts [90] on religious leaders and add criticism on articles that criticize religious leaders. [91] reply
5. HResearcher 03:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC) (On the Barbara Schwarz article Vivaldi is more interested in information from her 92-part story that is used to make her look silly, and ignores everything else from her story such as her deprogramming and involuntary psychiatric incarceration which are supported by outside sources. To me this indicates POV editing. -- HResearcher 03:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)) reply

   What does the Barbara Schwarz article have to do with this RfC or with an endorsement of FeloniousMonk's comments? Are you just angry because you were blocked from editing due to your violations of Wikipedia policy that you engaged in on the Barbara Schwarz article, after I pointed it out to the admins? As for you assertion that I am more interested in any part of her story than the other, you might want to check your facts. I haven't added ANY claims to the article on Ms. Schwarz. These claims were added by ArbCom member and Wikipedia admin Fred Bauder ( talk · contribs) or others, not me. Vivaldi ( talk) 08:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

6. Arbusto 23:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply
7. David D. (Talk) 03:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Users who don't endorse this summary

1. User:Vivaldi has been quite active in the Scientology articles, his very first edit was of the Xenu article. Terryeo 11:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
2. The FBC articles are pretty much a walled garden, Arbustoo has been active in a much wider locus without interference from Vivaldi. I think it much more likely that Vivaldi is an alumnus of Hyles-Anderson, or in some other way associated with FBC. Just zis Guy you know? 19:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
3. I am not affiliated with Hyles-Anderson in any fashion. I hadn't even heard of the institution or of Jack Hyles until another editor showed me the very biased edits of Arbustoo that only seek to defame the man at all costs while using very poor-quality, self-published sources. I am not affiliated with any Christian church, let alone any fundamentalist Baptist churches. I am an agnostic. Vivaldi ( talk) 20:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Ridiculous and absurdly illogical allegation. By that logic, all editors who like Pokemon articles must be wikistalkers as they edit the very same Pokemon related pages! I hope no other editor has similar interests to yourself FeloniousMonk - Glen 01:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• User:Arbustoo presents that there is a dispute and requests Comments. His definition of the dispute accuses User:Vivaldi of "hostility to policy". [92] To prove his point he presents an edit difference wherein he states, "The childish games by Vivaldi ( talk · contribs) are out of line". His point is proven, there is a dispute. However, his edit summary only demonstrates there is a dispute, it does not clearly demonstrate that Vivaldi is "hostile to policy", nor does it demonstrate he has attempted to resolve the dispute. The edit summary shows a healthy discussion of Wikipedia Policy.
• User:Arbustoo links [93], saying it is but one example of User:Vivaldi's deceitful edit summaries (Putting the list of pastors back under history where it belongs...among other things.) An examination of that edit shows Vivaldi's summary to be accurate. Another editor might use a different edit summary, but vivaldi's is within reason and his edit does what he claims it does. Worth noting is User:Arbustoo's refusal to confront the apparent issue of whether to consider Hyles-Anderson College to be "a bible college" or "an unaccredited school". Arbustoo's interest seems not to include such an issue, whereas User:vivaldi's interest does, in that editing difference.
• User:Arbustoo links [94] to demonstrate there is a dispute, stating that User:Vivaldi is "name calling". In that edit summary Arbusto accusses Vivaldi of editing Vivaldi's talk page. Vivaldi is responsive to Arbustoo and addresses the points which Arbusto raises. Therefore there is some discussion between the two, despite Arbustoo's uninformed attempt to force Vivaldi to maintain Vivaldi's personal page to Arbustoo's standards.
• Clearly a dispute exists. Both parties of the dispute are not new editors, but, like many of us, are relatively new editors. Both could understand and implement policy a little better. For example, any user may edit his user page in any manner he wishes to, and his discussion page in almost any manner he wishes to. User:Arbustoo's first edit was 20 Jan 2006, List_of_unrecognized_accreditation_associations_of_higher_learning while User:Vivaldi's first edit was 11 July 2005, Xenu. Both seem to have an area of interest and both seem to want to help create a good, workable Wikipedia. The area of difficulty seems to involve how much of an article should be dedicated to certain aspects of the article. The center of this dispute seems to concern religion and educational accredidation. I would put foreward that this Request for Comment should be put aside while a better guideline is created which addresses this issue. There is a fair amount of published material available. WP:V talks about "widely published" being presented as being widely published but in this situation there is a good deal of widely published information for both sides of the dispute. There are at least two points of view about how to present such information. Both sides of this dispute frequently get invovled in specific issues, such as how much page should the "investigation of a parishoner" get. I would put foreward that both sides of the dispute could come to a temporary agreement that some portion of the page be used for the unsavory elemetns. Perhaps the unsavory elements get 10 % or 25% of the page, for example. And then, by more or less sticking to the informal agreement, a guideline could be created which would address the unstated issue of how to deal with this kind of situation. Terryeo 11:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply

The Hammond articles have been a battleground for a long time. Arbustoo has done excellent work on maintaining WP:NPOV on articles related to a number of unaccredited fundamentalist colleges, often against considerable pressure. These are the articles which User:Jason Gastrich, among others, tried to whitewash and (G)astroturf. Vivaldi is a relative latecomer. I largely welcomed some of his early changes, removing some cruft which we could easily do without, but his determined removal of cited, verifiable and (according to numerous editors with no evident connection to FBC) significant facts is problematic. His comments on on Talk contain much evidence of dogmatic assertion and not much of listening to the opposing viewpoint, which is a particular concern given that these are controversial articles which have been subject to gross POV editing from both sides, but largely from their promoters. Pooua is not neutral in respect of content, having made numerous tendentious edits, I do not know about Terryeo because I've not been active on those articles for a while.

It strikes me that there is a strong dose of MPOV on both sides, and there is a problem in that once you have demonstrated that something is true, it is then a matter of debate how significant that may be. On the whole the Hyles article did, at one time, clearly make the case that the end of Hyles' career was overshadowed by some acrimony (maybe a case of senior figures in the church jostling for position in the succession?) without really saying why the story should have been considered so sad by Sumner. Vivaldi's earlier edits fixed this to an extent. Now I am not sure we cover the controversies properly, and it seems to be hard to get past the impression that Vivaldi has WP:OWNed the articles. It would be interesting to know what interest some editors have in these subject, to inspire this degree of dedication; knowing might allay some of the suspicions which underly the issues.

My suggestion would be to call for peer-review of all of them, listing on Talk all the verifiable material, of whatever significance, for or against, and debating what should or should not be included. I don't think the articles will get better without more input.

Users endorsing this summary:

1. As author, Just zis Guy you know? 21:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
2. My interest in the subject is only to improve Wikipedia articles. I have no affiliation with Hyles, his church, or college. I am an agnostic and an engineer. I neither attend nor offer any support to any church. I do support your idea to get more people to review the Hyles articles. I think they do need peer-review and my hope was that this RfC would have helped facilitate that process. Vivaldi ( talk) 20:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. C56C 01:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC) If Vivaldi's really interested in peer review, then she/he should not be a in a revert war against three other editors at Preying from the Pulpit to keep it the exact way Vivaldi wrote it. reply

I would love a peer-review. I'm not engaging in a revert war. I'm adding information to the article that is relevant and is properly sourced. You provided no explanations for your deletions of the material. Vivaldi ( talk) 08:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I find edits like this [95] troublesome. You've had issues with the criticism on the article; why did you move a section out of controversy where he instructs people to pray instead of seek medical help? So I put it back in. [96] C56C 20:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I find your addition of unsourced negative information into a biography of living person to be highly troubling. And I left in the quote that you claim supposedly says that Gothard instructs people to pray instead of seek medical help. (Although I'm not sure "fear" is a disease, since he instructs people to pray to end fear). Without your own personal claims added into the article, it doesn't quite read the same way. If you want to suggest that the foundation that Gothard helped create -- that is headed by a medical doctor -- advised people to avoid medical doctors, then add that information into the article and CITE YOUR SOURCES. Vivaldi ( talk) 03:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC) reply

While "wikilawyering is wrong" may oversimplify the criticism, I do find it troubling that Vivaldi's response consists almost entirely of procedural disputes. The issues raised here are substantive: healthy editorial collaboration does not include deletion of relevant citations to reliable sources or insults aimed at other editors. This RfC is about Vivaldi's behavior, not anyone else's, and if some other editor's behavior does merit concern then please open a request for comment on that person separately. The aim of RfC is to resolve a situation amicably with the input of fresh perspectives, not to draw lines in the sand and dig battle trenches. Nobody ever got trampled to death because they were editing an encyclopedia. This looks like an editor who had some productive edits but got carried away. Please accept feedback in with constructive goodwill. Durova 23:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I certainly understand why you think it is troubling. I moved my original response to all of the claims to the Talk page for this RfC. The RfC was then closed because there was only one person that certified the basis for the dispute. I can see how it was confusing for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivaldi ( talk • contribs)

Users endorsing this summary:

1. Arbusto 23:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Vivaldi ( talk) 23:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I, the original bringer of the RfC, have not seen this user's attitude or editing change. Since June Vivaldi has been the only one (other than anon.) to revert his changes on Preying from the Pulpit. Moreover, today this user has removed citations that Bill Gothard does not run a licensed medical school, and that his recommendations for illness such as praying are not viable forms of treatment. In response to my revert this user has claimed I seek to "defame Gothard" [97].

Wikipedia is not a battle ground for revert wars, such as the last three motnhs of reverts by Vivadli at Preying from the Pulpit. This user must conform to wikipeia rules. Thus, Vivadli should seek community consensus in matters, which get reverted twice or more. In matters that he does not get consensus, Vivaldi should kindly avoid making edits that the community fails to support.

As Talk:Preying from the Pulpit demonstrates, Vivaldi seeks to remove/merge material off wikipedia he finds "defames" a subject. When a number of people addressed this motivation, Vivaldi replied with long wikilawyering tactics, also seen at the start of this RfC. In turn these people, as I often have, felt as if the conversation goes nowhere. Thus, Vivaldi should avoid quoting wiki-rules for the purpose of pushing a POV that does not conform to an wikipedia consensus.

User must remain civil. In this Sept. 2, 2006 Vivaldi wrote "Arbustoo has littered with his defamation and single-minded POV." This has made it nearly impossible for myself to engage in an active discussion. The articles at which Vivaldi cannot remain civil should be avoided by Vivadli, with the exception of revert vandalism.

Using edit summaries are supposed to give wikipedia readers/editors a chance to understand why an edit was made. This is based on assumed good faith, the basis of wikipedia. Yet, as demonstrated above and on August 29th 2006, this edit shows Vivaldi "reverting anons removal of sourced information that explains who Gothards critics are. The number DOES matter otherwise you are a weasel." The edit however claimed that a source was a "group of ten people" (not sourced), and removed citations that " Scientific studies have showing praying has no positive effect on cures while medical science has proven effective [98]; This is ran by Director Dean I. Youngberg, M.D., who was been affliated with Gothard since 1976. [99]; This should not be confused with a licensed medical school."

This is a breach of basic neccessity of good faith and civil on wikipedia. Thus, this user is given a final warning to disclose what an edit is; ie if it removes any cited study, etc. and give an explanation. If this edit is revert further changes must achive consensus.

Interestlying, when this RfC was certified by adminstrator on 6 June 2006, Vivaldi's last round of major editting ended June 9th 2006 and regarded this RfC. [100] I, myself, had to step away, but emailed two admistrators giving reason before I did. I believe Vivaldi wanted to let this RfC die down before making further edits. This demonstrates a lack of responsiblity for his editting, which must be taken into consideration with breeches of WP:CIVIL.

If this user continues with the behavior mentioned above, there is no other action but to move this user's behavior to the Arbitration Committee. Thus, this serves a community request to prevent further edit warring and breeches of wikipedia rules, and closes this RfC.

Users endorsing this summary:

1. Arbusto 22:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply
2. I hope that more unbiased editors and admins get a chance to review this because Arbustoo's POV pushing is pretty obvious. Vivaldi ( talk) 23:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply
3. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 23:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC) per Arbustoo, Vivaldi is apparently renewing his campaign of incivility, misrepresentation, and gutting articles. reply

Above, Vivaldi signed/agreed to end this RfC by agreeing to basic rules. Within a day the user has broken the following things to remain civil [101], avoid edit warring [102], and come to a consensus. [103] Arbusto 06:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I signed this RfC agreeing that it should be closed and you moved my comments out of this section leaving only your own. Talk about "wikilawyering", Arbustoo. You are a complete hypocrite. Vivaldi ( talk) 08:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Another sign of incivility. [104] Arbusto 23:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Arbustoo writes: I, the original bringer of the RfC, have not seen this user's attitude or editing change. Since June Vivaldi has been the only one (other than anon.) to revert his changes on Preying from the Pulpit. Moreover, today this user has removed citations that Bill Gothard does not run a licensed medical school, and that his recommendations for illness such as praying are not viable forms of treatment. In response to my revert this user has claimed I seek to "defame Gothard" [105].

1) Gothard never claimed to run any school, let alone a licensed medical school. The claim that MTIA wasn't a medical school is patently ridiculous and absurd. Who in the world has ever put forth that it was a medical school? Vivaldi ( talk) 22:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply

2) Your edit history is viewable Arbustoo. 13 seperate editors on Wikipedia have noted that you make biased edits that ONLY defame fundamentalists that you apparently have something personally against. Vivaldi ( talk) 22:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Arbustoo writes: Wikipedia is not a battle ground for revert wars, such as the last three motnhs of reverts by Vivadli at Preying from the Pulpit. This user must conform to wikipeia rules. Thus, Vivadli should seek community consensus in matters, which get reverted twice or more. In matters that he does not get consensus, Vivaldi should kindly avoid making edits that the community fails to support.

Arbustoo has a couple of friends that help him. This isn't a community at all. If you look at Preying from the Pulpit's AfD discussion you'll see that when unbiased editors look at the article the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY think it should be deleted outright or merged. Vivaldi ( talk) 22:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Arbustoo writes: As Talk:Preying from the Pulpit demonstrates, Vivaldi seeks to remove/merge material off wikipedia he finds "defames" a subject. When a number of people addressed this motivation, Vivaldi replied with long wikilawyering tactics, also seen at the start of this RfC. In turn these people, as I often have, felt as if the conversation goes nowhere. Thus, Vivaldi should avoid quoting wiki-rules for the purpose of pushing a POV that does not conform to an wikipedia consensus.

LOL. I'm wikilawyering? That is all you have ever done. This entire RfC was your attempt to stifle me through the unwarranted use of wiki procedures. I shouldn't quote rules that go against consensus? I will continue to point out that you consistent violate Wikipedia policy as long as you continue to do so. You don't own Wikipedia. Vivaldi ( talk) 22:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Arbustoo writes: User must remain civil. In this Sept. 2, 2006 Vivaldi wrote "Arbustoo has littered with his defamation and single-minded POV." This has made it nearly impossible for myself to engage in an active discussion. The articles at which Vivaldi cannot remain civil should be avoided by Vivadli, with the exception of revert vandalism.

User Arbustoo does not engage in discussion, because he knows that an honest discussion on talk pages would immediately show that he is only interested in defaming people. He believes he has a right to insert whatever defamation he wants into whatever articles he wants, without regard to the rules and policies of Wikipedia.

User Arbustoo writes: Using edit summaries are supposed to give wikipedia readers/editors a chance to understand why an edit was made. This is based on assumed good faith, the basis of wikipedia. Yet, as demonstrated above and on August 29th 2006, this edit shows Vivaldi "reverting anons removal of sourced information that explains who Gothards critics are. The number DOES matter otherwise you are a weasel." The edit however claimed that a source was a "group of ten people" (not sourced), and removed citations that " Scientific studies have showing praying has no positive effect on cures while medical science has proven effective [106]; This is ran by Director Dean I. Youngberg, M.D., who was been affliated with Gothard since 1976. [107]; This should not be confused with a licensed medical school."

MTIA never claimed to be a medical school and not even a mole rat could be confused that MTIA was a medical school. It is absurd that anyone would want that absurd claim in the article. Vivaldi ( talk) 22:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Arbustoo writes, This is a breach of basic neccessity of good faith and civil on wikipedia. Thus, this user is given a final warning to disclose what an edit is; ie if it removes any cited study, etc. and give an explanation. If this edit is revert further changes must achive consensus.

I am giving Arbustoo a final warning. If he continues to remove material that is critical of Preying from the Pulpit, I will seek to pursue further recourse with him. Vivaldi ( talk) 22:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Arbustoo writes, Interestlying, when this RfC was certified by adminstrator on 6 June 2006, Vivaldi's last round of major editting ended June 9th 2006 and regarded this RfC. [108] I, myself, had to step away, but emailed two admistrators giving reason before I did. I believe Vivaldi wanted to let this RfC die down before making further edits. This demonstrates a lack of responsiblity for his editting, which must be taken into consideration with breeches of WP:CIVIL.

You get to say whatever you want, huh, Arbustoo? You can call into question my motives and actions, ignoring the duty to ASSUME GOOD FAITH, but when I point out the same things with you, then you say I'm not civil. You are a complete hypocrite. Arbustoo loves to bring out all the rules, litigation, policies, guidelines, when he thinks he can stifle others, but when others point out that Arbustoo consistently violates policies, he calls it "wikilawyering". Vivaldi ( talk) 22:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply

User Arbustoo writes: If this user continues with the behavior mentioned above, there is no other action but to move this user's behavior to the Arbitration Committee. Thus, this serves a community request to prevent further edit warring and breeches of wikipedia rules, and closes this RfC.

I encourage the Arbitration Committee to take a look at these issues. Vivaldi ( talk) 22:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Users endorsing this summary:

1. Vivaldi ( talk) 22:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.