Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Arbusto

 * See: Requests for comment/Vivaldi for starters
 * Below are deliberate violations of WP:STALK, WP:TE, WP:CIVIL, WP:POV, WP:ISNOT, WP:NPA, WP:V, WP:AGF, WP:CON, WP:POINT, External links, Criticism, WP:RS, and WP:LAWYER.

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 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.
 * 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 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 same edits.
 * And again.
 * User deletes sources/press mentions without comment.
 * Other uncommented deletes.
 * Vivaldi's proposed edits to this article 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 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:, , , , , , , and . To meet this user half way I added a criticism section and summarized Hyles' criticism of the article's subject. Vivaldi ignored this and simply continued reverting without any explanation(see list of diffs above).
 * This is ongoing. There is even more if you view the history:

Jack Hyles

 * Without any edit summary 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.
 * User bolds section to emphasize one claim over another.
 * User removes criticism claiming the book is self published. When asked for proof of this user did not give evidence.
 * Massive deletions and content change. No explanation or consensus.
 * User completely removes a Chicago Tribune quote
 * 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."
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * There is MUCH more if you view the history pre-June:

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 removed "unaccredited" and moved a list of names in the middle on the hiding the criticism section.
 * User removed "unaccredited" and criticism.
 * User added in uncited slander of person cited as critical of the church.
 * Without reason or explanation criticism removed
 * Criticism removed again without reason
 * Again with still no reason left on the talk.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * This is ongoing. There is even more if you view the history:

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.
 * In this edit the user removes, without commentary, the wiki link to school accreditation.
 * This is ongoing (recently today Sept. 15th). There is even more if you view the history:

Hyles-Anderson College

 * Various removals of information and a POV edit on accreditation. No explanation or consensus to remove news reports involving the church/ school/ and president.
 * More deletions.
 * More deletions, no discussion, explanation, or compromise.
 * Edit summary claims "Improved the article. The partially-wooded lake is not part of "history".", but more deletions including the removal of external links containing criticism.
 * User completely removed the mention of a 1993 news report about the school. Edit also revert a cleaned up version of the citations.
 * This is ongoing (recently today Sept. 15th). There is even more if you view the history:

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. " . See for more reference.
 * "dont play stupid..."
 * "The statement that 'If you are really are stupid or lack common sense in then I am deeply sorry' was not an apology."
 * "What are smoking?" ,
 * "...you are clearly out of touch..."
 * "As long as you continue with the mistaken assumption..."
 * "I thought I was argueing with someone with at least a little common sense."
 * "If you are really are stupid or lack common sense in then I am deeply sorry."

May after 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 Criticism. All criticism comes from one article.
 * User changed the citation method and removed a newspaper invovling the school's president and three former students. Including one with a rape charge later dropped.
 * User removed the unaccredited template that states the legality of unaccredited degrees.
 * In the edits above the user also removed, without comment, all external links that had criticism.
 * Vivaldi edit's, 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 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, "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. 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. Vivaldi removed the whole mention and source without explanation.
 * User removed it again.
 * And again.
 * May 25, 2006 User removed the wikipedia template for unaccredited schools calling it redudant after this had been reinserted by others.
 * May 25, 2006 WITHOUT ANY EDIT SUMMARY OR COMMENT user changes paragraph stucture and adds two paragraphs changing the POV of the section.
 * Most alarming is is the contri. list solely devoted to pushing a POV with WP:TE.

RfC
It is worth noting that on Requests for comment/Vivaldi, Vivaldi's main supporters are a user who is banned from scientology articles (see: Requests for arbitration/Terryeo) and worked with Vivaldi in edit wars on those subjects, while the main other supporter is who is self-admittedly tied to the church/people Vivaldi has whitewashed criticism on. Pooua's edits mainly consist of one subject (four articles connected to each other) to get criticism and news articles removed that reflect poorly on the subject.

Revealing people’s names is against policy
In this on 5 September 2006 edit Vivaldi gives the name of an editor "Ms. Schwarz." Vivaldi knew it was against the rules because he on 8 May 2006 reported this to an administrator when another user claimed to know Vivaldi's name and revealed it. In this edit Vivaldi claims it involved a "Ms. Schwarz". Thus, as evidenced in this case Vivaldi knew it was against policy in May and didn’t like it when it happened to him, but did it to another person to attack him/her in September.

Agreed to undergo arbitration
It is worth pointing out that several times Vivaldi claimed to want his behavior to be reviewed by the committee.(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 this was ignored while the user continued making edits like this on the Sept.9th and about 50 others. As of now there is still no formal response and the committee accepted this without Vivaldi's reply.

However, this was similiar with the RfC. When the issues were being addressed this user stopped editting. This June 9th edit with a discussion on the RfC was Vivaldi's last edit until July 9. The Vivaldi's next edit was one month later on August 5th. This same day edits were made on the RfC as well as his talk page was archived.

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.

August

 * Vivaldi signed/agreed to end the RfC by agreeing to basic rules. The following were made after agreeing to comply with decisions in the RfC.
 * Edit warring over a citation.
 * Futher edit warring at Preying from the Pulpit
 * More at Preying...
 * More...
 * Edit war (compare these edits to what several editors said on that talk page)
 * More edit warring same page
 * Goes against consesus at Hyles-Anderson College and edit wars
 * Breaks WP:CIVIL on his RfC after agreeing not to break that policy
 * User injects himself into a AfD of mine to make allegations
 * User injects himself into another AfD of mine to make allegations
 * Breaks WP:CIVIL at Bill Gothard
 * at RfC
 * at Gothard
 * Edit warring at Hyles Anderson
 * Personal attacks on a admin's talk, which were ignored.
 * Personal attacks at another user's talk
 * Personal attacks on Vivaldi's talk
 * Edit warring at Jack Schaap
 * Edit warring
 * Personal attack about FeloniousMonk (an admin.)
 * Personal attacks on Monk and Arbustoo
 * More
 * Personal attacks on Arbustoo and wikilaywering
 * Personal attacks, claims "I admit that Arbustoo has assembled what appears to be a tiny cabal of people that support him," and even more distrubing believes "Arbustoo is using backchannel communications (either e-mail, IRC, IM, telephone, what-have-you) with certain editors in an effort to recruit them to make comments." (For the record, I deny this.)
 * Vivaldi presisted this on the evidence page, follow the contradiction, "I don't suggest there is a cabal 'out to get me' as Arbustoo claims. I assert that FeloniousMonk was specifically called into action by Arbustoo. I assert that other editors were also specifically called into action by Arbustoo on talk pages." (Note: above it was "either e-mail, IRC, IM, telephone, what-have-you"). Further is in this diff "This isn't consensus building. This is cabal building" (Note in the paragraph above: "I don't suggest there is a cabal.")
 * Same Diff: Vivaldi admits his edits defy consenus: "I'm not convinced that independent unbiased editors would look at this situation in the same manner (as FeloniousMonk or the couple of others in the Arbustoo cabal."
 * More attacks on Arbustoo
 * Trying to personalize matters.
 * Personal attack.
 * User removes Arbustoo's citation and calls him a "POV Pusher"
 * Personal attacks on Arbustoo in response to a user who supported Arbustoo's RfC against Vivaldi.
 * The history of the Gothard page full of WP:TE (one example is )
 * Vivaldi uses wikilawyering tactics (see many on the RfC) citing policy in obtuse incorrect, POV, and illogical ways (again see the RfC for details).
 * Sept 5th starts a section title that includes a personal attack

Bill Gothard

 * Note: Some of these edits took place during the RfC, a few days before the user stopped editting for a period. Others are from August-- the user's return.


 * Edit warring with FM
 * Edit warring with Jim
 * Edit warring with FM again
 * More with FM
 * More warring
 * Edit warring with C56C
 * More
 * More
 * Even more
 * More
 * There is even more if you view the history:

Since arbitration opened

 * There was a 3:1 consensus against Vivaldi on the talk, and the use made this edit anyway on Sept. 16th. There are questions if the school had a program and if the page linked implies a degree. The claim Vivaldi reinserted was removed by, and some comments on the issue. Vivaldi has edit warred over the matter for weeks:
 * Sept. 16th WP:CIVIL
 * Vivaldi's reply to JzG on the above remark
 * Attacks another user with a title, when Vivaldi is the only one who has expressed interest in keeping it on the page without WP:RS.

General remarks on POV pushing
Compare Vivaldi's behavior and attitudes towards citations at Talk:Barbara Schwarz with Talk:Bill Gothard. It is illustrative of Vivaldi's actions on other articles. Note how Vivaldi scruntizes the sources and qualifies them in the context of the Gothard article (a radical right leader), but the Schwarz (a member of a cult) article contains usenet/google posts, various unlinked court documents, and unpublished papers.

In the Barbara Schwarz article, these sources (google/usenet posts, and unpublished papers fail WP:RS) reflect poorly on Schwarz and Scientology are overlooked by Vivaldi. Meanwhile magazine's, books, and organizations cited in Bill Gothard that question a man who "warned" that "if your daughter has a Cabbage Patch doll she could become mentally ill because their middle names are demonic" is played down, removed or qualified by Vivaldi.

Evidence of POV at Gothard article
 * This edit claims to get rid a website, but note how the certain criticism was COMPLETELY REMOVED without comment. In its place Vivaldi added, "PFO consists of 10 people that also publish a quarterly journal," without noting the 10 people are board members of this journal published since 1981. This edit contains many POV problems and its simply one of many diffs that can be presented from the Gothard article alone.

Vivaldi knows he should discuss changes on the talk but doesn't. Evidence is a diff about a revert war in June 8 on the Gothard article. Jim responds, discussing Vivaldi's POV pushing edits. Vivaldi was told by other editors. Moreover, Vivaldi knows his edits are unpopular and defy consensus, ("I'm not convinced that independent unbiased editors would look at this situation in the same manner as FeloniousMonk or the couple of others in the Arbustoo cabal".) but still tries to force his POV.

Evidence presented by vivaldi
I will respond to this ArbCom event with my 100 diffs and better formatted evidence when I have the time to do so. I haven't even had a chance to read about the rules of this process yet and I certainly haven't had the time to dig through Arbustoo's long history of biased and tenditious editing to choose the 100 best examples of his policy violations. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a full-time job for me, so I will participate in this ArbCom even as time becomes available.

I would be interested in hearing from ArbCom members with some suggestions for what I should be doing here and how I should best proceed with the ArbCom. I'm not entirely convinced that laying out a long spiel of Arbustoo's crimes here will do us any good in reaching a point of compromise, mediation, or negotiation. However, I am prepared to do so if that is what is considered the appropriate avenue in an ArbCom event.
 * I recommend you offer some evidence to support your assertions. Fred Bauder 18:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Zeroth assertion
I find it highly objectionable that Arbustoo would link to banned editors that have attempted to reveal what they believe to by my real life name. I would ask that the Arbitration committee immediately remove each of these comments from the database so that people like Arbustoo do not use this tactic as a means to intimidate me or other editors.

This type of behaviour by Arbustoo is repulsive and uncivil.

Vivaldi (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

First assertion
I have been wrongly accused of being Jason Gastrich, a former member of Hyles' Church, or a former student.

I do not admire Jack Schaap. I do not admire Bill Gothard. I do not admire Jack Hyles. I have absolutely no association with any of these men. I certainly do not admire them; and truth be told, I personally do not care for Christian ministers at all, and I have particular distaste for the ones that are extremist or fundamentalist or right-wing -- or whatever you want to call it.

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

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

I do not want all the criticism removed. I don't want to add only good things about these guys. The problem is that Arbustoo's agenda is opaque. His edits make Wikipedia look like a tabloid. Repeating the unverified claims of self-published critics is not appropriate for a biography of a living person. Vivaldi (talk) 06:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Second assertion
Arbustoo suggests that there is consensus for his edits, when it is clear that there is not. During the RfD process for Preying from the Pulpit, only one person agreed with Arbustoo's opinion that the article should stay. The only reason it still exists is because about 1/2 the people suggested that we merge the material in the Jack Hyles article and the other 1/2 said to delete it.

There are certainly a few people that agree with Arbustoo and support him. In fact, in many instances after I make edits, Arbustoo will call up the cavalry and try to get editors to specifically go against me. This isn't consensus building at all. It is an artificial consensus of 3 or 4 folks.

For example, user FeloniousMonk, participated in my RfC discussion and, in fact, he even certified the basis for the dispute, suggesting that he was involved with a dispute with me.

I would ask anyone to look on my talk page for comments by FeloniousMonk. Look on the "disputed" articles for discussion by FeloniousMonk.

He never participated in any discussion of any of the issues at all. His only comment to me (prior to certifying the basis for a dispute on my RfC) was specifically crafted for the sole purpose of elevating the dispute rather than seeking compromise or mediation. His second comment to me appears to be an effort to taunt me with the fact that he restarted my RfC that another admin had deleted. Vivaldi (talk) 06:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Third Assertion
Regarding my edits at Preying from the Pulpit. Arbustoo has removed properly sourced criticism of the news show on numerous occasions. Apparently Arbustoo only believes that a tiny amount of criticism is appropriate, when its his own viewpoints that are being criticized. However, it is highly relevant that numerous people disagreed with this article.

Hyles had a number of quotes explaining nearly everything in the newsprogram, point by point.

The FBI said there was no evidence of any wrongdoing.

The police said there was no evidence of any wrongdoing on multiple occasions.

The prosecutor said there was no evidence of any wrongdoing.

A newspaper specifically criticized the Detroit newsprogram for its faulty logic and poor decisions.

But, Arbustoo thinks that's too much criticism, so he removes it.

Eventually, even Jim62sch, who seems to have supported Arbustoo in the past, has reinstated my edits at Preying from the Pulpit and we compromised by changing the section title.

Fourth assertion
Re: the supposed outing of Barbara Schwarz

Barbara Schwarz is the subject of a Wikipedia article, she is a public figure and she is admittedly an editor here that signs her own posts. edits under her real name and she is a banned user. Even when she posted from numerous IP addresses, she often signed her posts as Barbara Schwarz. It is not inappropriate to note that her real name is the name she signs her posts with. She has recently been reincarnated under numerous sockpuppets that have all been banned by other admins. I have pointed out that the sockpuppet accounts belonged to Ms. Schwarz. This isn't revealing a r/l name of an anonymous user -- this is revealing obvious sockpuppetry.

This is no different than Arbustoo calling some 20 different editors, "Gastrich". If Gastrich is indeed a real person that signed his posts with that name, and he is a banned user, then it is appropriate to associate his socks with his name.

Since Arbustoo has no problem with calling people, "Gastrich", the only purpose to linking to posts that supposedly have my r/l name in them is to frustrate and intimidate me and stifle my expression on Wikipedia. Vivaldi (talk) 06:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Fifth assertion
Regarding the Usenet posts in the Barbara Schwarz article:

The claims attributed to Usenet posts were added to the article by ArbCom member and admin Fred Bauder after he deleted the article for what he deemed to be POV issues. Mr. Bauder and many other editors and admins have argued that the Usenet articles in question, being written by the subject of the article, are acceptable to be used in an article about that subject, just as one would accept the written words of a subject on their own web page. These USENET postings were verified by the Salt Lake Tribune and Ms. Schwarz admitted to them in that newspaper that she wrote them.

There is a history of some 80 court cases that were all linked in the article prior to it being deleted by Bauder and restarted.

I thought it would be best to allow Bauder to recreate the article and discuss the issues on the talk page rather than fighting against an admin and editor that deleted and protected the article.

I do not want ANY unsourced claims to be in the Barbara Schwarz article.

There are many critics of Ms. Schwarz, including David Touretzky, that have written about her, but I think it is wholly inappropriate to use David Touretzky's website and writings in an article about Ms. Schwarz.

It isn't appropriate to use the web pages and self-published writings of critics in the biography of a living person, such as Barbara Schwarz.

I have also argued the same way on the Fred Phelps page -- a man that I have had the displeasure of encountering in person as he protested in the streets of my hometown at funerals and churches. Even though I despise Fred Phelps, I don't think that we should allow people that are dedicated self-published critics to be used as sources.

I have also argued the same way on the Sollog article -- another well known Wikipedia B.L.P. If you read the talk page and review my edits there, you can see that I find it wholly inappropriate that Wikipedia has revealed this guys name, birthdate, and inconsequential "crimes" from his distant past. Before I got involved with the article, it was infested with tons of claims sourced only to USENET sources -- and not even sources that claimed to be Sollog.

I have also argued the same way on other biographies of living people. It is certainly something that I became interested in, particularly after Jimbo Wales said that he was concerned about unsourced and poorly sourced negative information appearing in biographies of living people.

In any case, I don't believe my opinions or contributions at Barbara Schwarz show that I have a different standard for inclusion.

I believe that standard for inclusion is verifiability and I respect the guidelines that discuss what reliable sources are. I also believe that the guidelines about external links should be followed.

Examine some of the webpages that Arbustoo has cited that criticize Gothard and Hyles. These are nothing but the self-published websites, forums, and blogs of critics. They are not acceptable for inclusion in an encyclopedia.

Sixth assertion
Arbustoo also engages in edit warring, primarily with myself on these topics. In fact, if Arbustoo didn't consistently revert me, then I rarely have ever had anyone to revert.

Arbustoo himself was blocked for violating the three revert rule.

I agree that edit warring has not been a very productive adventure and I do not wish to engage in repetive reverts. I believe that if more enlightened editors and admins could participate in the discussion, then we could greatly improve the articles. Vivaldi (talk) 07:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Seventh assertion
Arbustoo also engages in uncivil behavior. He has suggested that my motives for not responding immediately to this ArbCom were some sort of means to avert discussion or review. I wholeheartedly support a full review of both of our edits. I wholeheartedly support a full review of the articles in question.

I wholeheartedly and anxiously hope to be able to participate in a process that would involve mediation, discussion, and compromise that would look forward into working out compromises in the articles.

Arbustoo believes that he owns these articles and he will immediately revert my additions, even if I am adding "ref" tags, changing misspellings, or what-have-you. Arbustoo says that I need to develop consensus for my edits prior to making them, but for some reason he feels that he has the full authority to grant himself the right to add long spiels of criticism into the articles about Gothard and Hyles using self-published websites as sources, even without developing consensus for his biased edits. Of course, nowhere do the policies of Wikipedia suggest that only one side should be required to give prior notification and develop consensus on talk pages.

This was the first day that I saw an invitation to participate in the ArbCom by a member of ArbCom. I wanted to allow everyone else an opportunity to present their side and then I wanted to spend some time of my own reviewing the assertions and responding to them.

I think this process could take weeks or months for me to go through all the diffs so that I can present my evidence in a similar manner as Arbustoo, because I know I can certainly link to at least as many diffs that he has done showing that he is adding material that is inappropriate and engaging in revert wars and violating Wikipedia policies and ignoring Wikipedia guidelines.

Arbustoo also suggested that I had spurious motives for not editing for a time during my RfC. I spent a few weeks responding at the RfC and on the discussion pages for the RfC.

Arbustoo was the only legitimate reason that the RfC existed and he stopped editing on Wikipedia. I suppose I'm supposed to argue with myself?

I certainly didn't hesistate to make necessary changes to any of the articles when I deemed it appropriate to do so, during my RfC or otherwise.

Arbustoo is attempting to stifle me and intimidate me from editing on Wikipedia just because I am peeling off the layers and making it transparent. Arbustoo is engaging in a defamation campaign against Christian Fundamentalist ministers. I have no idea why he is doing so, or why he feels that it is appropriate to do so, and I really don't care to speculate on his motives.

I do however want to make sure that we follow the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia and the guidance of Jimbo Wales when he talks about adding critical information that is poorly sourced to the encyclopedia. Vivaldi (talk) 07:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Eighth assertion
I don't suggest there is a cabal "out to get me" as Arbustoo claims. I assert that FeloniousMonk was specifically called into action by Arbustoo. I assert that other editors were also specifically called into action by Arbustoo on talk pages.

This isn't consensus building. This is cabal building. It is innappropriate that Wikipedia editors to suggest that are developing a consensus for their edits when in reality they have only invited people to the discussion that they are specifically recruiting because they already have a long history of cooperation.

I have bolded the words "out to get me" above, because I do not think that the editors that Arbustoo has specifically called into action are "out to get me". However, I do suggest that these editors were called into action by Arbustoo. And I personally believed that some of this recruiting has also gone on outside of the talk pages, but if Arbustoo specifically denies communicating with these folks by e-mail then I will take him for his word on that. My main complaint isn't that he has resorted to using back-channel communications, but that he uses his blantant recruitment of editors to justify his distorted opinion that he has consensus for his edits and I do not. The discussion pages of these talk pages demonstrate that I am not the only one that has disagreed with Arbustoo and the way he goes about editing here. Specifically, recruiting folks to express your point-of-view on talk pages is not what "consensus building" is all about. That is cabal building. Vivaldi (talk) 08:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ninth assertion
Each of the articles in question here are undoubtably better due to my participation in the editting process. Take a look at each of them back before I participated and look at them now. My participation has improved the quality of these articles and Wikipedia in general.

Tenth assertion
Arbustoo says I never responded to him when he asked for 3 editors that have criticized his editing on these articles. I listed 14 of these editors immediately after his comments here. It took me 6 days to respond to him, and that was 5 months ago, and yet he still repeats this absurd claim.

Eleventh assertion
The discussion page here belies the claim that Arbustoo had support for his edits, and that I did not. I'm not going to provide specific diffs at this point because of time constraints, but I will do so in the future.

Twelfth assertion
This page shows that that Arbustoo failed to respond when it is proven he is making tenditious edits.

For example, Arbustoo has often used a self-published book by Voyle Glover as a source of critical information about Jack Hyles and Hyles-Anderson College, and First Baptist Church of Hammond. According to Wikipedia policy it is innappropriate for self-published works by anyone other than the subject of the article to be used as sources of information in the encyclopedia.

Glover's book was published by Brevia Publishing. http://brevia.com is owned by Brevia Publishing. A "whois" of the domain shows that Glover is the owner of Brevia Publishing and that vag@brevia.com is Glover's e-mail address. Clearly Glover is self-published. Brevia is not a reputable publisher of works. It is only a vehicle for Glover to get his crap into print. Brevia hasn't even published anything other than these particular works critical of Hyles and his missions.

When confronted with the evidence proving that Brevia was owned by Glover, Arbustoo made the ridiculous assertion that it was okay because it is possible that even though it is proven that Glover owns Brevia Publishing now, he might not have been the owner back when he wrote the book. Now this is the kind of ridiculous argumentation and tenditious editting that I and other editors have had to deal with.

Does Arbustoo honestly believe that Glover bought the publishing company that has published nothing other than his own work, and because he may have done so after his books were published, that somehow that makes a difference on whether or not the book is self-published? If so, that is very fanciful argumentation, and I would suggest people that are capable of justifying their tenditious edits with such perverted logic are incapable of editing in these areas while maintaining a neutral point-of-view. Vivaldi (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by JzG
Please bear with me as I compile evidence. I have already stated that it is my belief that both involved parties have both merit and fault on their side.

Vivaldi makes many good edits

 * Over time Vivaldi has made many good edits, often accepting valid criticism of the subjects under dispute. Examples include.

Vivaldi is incivil

 * Vivaldi is also periodically uncivil, makes personal attacks, imputes motives and fails to assume good faith. shows all of these in a single comment.
 * This edit to this very RFAR is incivil.  "To get his crap into print?"  Clearly if it's crap then he will have been sued for libel.  No?  Perhaps it's not crap then, except in the eyes of those who perceive their own bias as neutral...

The articles in question have a history of astroturfing

 * This is evident from Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich, Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich, and the histories of, , and the deleted  along with its deletion debate.

Arbustoo's response to Vivaldi's assertations
Some of the general claims made by Vivaldi don't warrant a response for obivious reasons. I would like to see some diffs of Vivaldi's claims because, frankly, some of them aren't true or are misleading. However, I will address one issue, which is further evidence that Vivaldi is a POV-driver user.

Re:Twelfth assertion
Again, Vivaldi is telling one side of the story, and purposely failing to mention the otherside. Why would a user try so hard to exclude a book and the mention of a man who was cited several times in the press?

Regarding Vivaldi seeking to exclude Glover's book (Fundamental Seduction), one response I had May 6th, was:

"Glover's book was mentioned and he was quoted by the Northwest Times ('The pamphlet, 'Fundamental Seduction: The Jack Hyles Case,' written by Glover, delves into Texas-based evangelist Robert Sumner's allegations of moral laxity, doctrinal heresy and financial impropriety by Hyles.) Again in 1991 Glover's Fundamental Seduction is mentioned in the Times here('Glover wrote the book 'Fundamental Seduction: The Jack Hyles Case,' which was critical of Hyles' financial dealings with church funds'. That article also mentions Glover 'works for the Lake County Prosecutor's office on misdemeanor cases.' In 2001, Glover was even included in Hyles' local obituary ('Voyle Glover, a former member of the church, said Tuesday was a sad day for him because Hyles 'did do a lot of good reaching out to all the neighborhoods and ghettos to bring the gospel to as many people as possible.'."

In sum, the book Vivaldi wanted to exclued was mentioned in Hyles' local paper three times by name, even interviewed on TV as recently as May 24, 2001 about the 1991 case, Glover was mentioned in Hyles' 2001 obituary praising Hyles' work, and Glover was published in that paper. This is just the sources I found, there are probably more.

What was Vivaldi's response to that section? Nothing. Vivaldi never replied in that section after I cited that. In fact, this mention on this RfAR is the first time since. Clearly, the user refuses to admit being wrong to include a source, but carrying on the tired on claims with insults. Arbusto 00:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

First assertion
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

Second assertion
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.