Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Vivaldi

message: *User has tried putting this article up for afd, but resulted in no consensus. As a result the user has pushed for its merging. 
::Eight out of ten people that commented on the AfD page suggested that the Preying from the Pulpit article should be gone.  To me, merging and deleting this article are the same thing because the information in the article at the time of the AfD was already merged sufficiently into the Jack Hyles article, the Hyles Anderson College article, and the First Baptist Church of Hammond article. Vivaldi (talk) 09:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added Hyles explanations of the claims made in the articles.  Certainly Hyles explanations as reported in the newspaper are important to determine the full story.  You do not own the article and you cannot dictate to me where these comments belong. Vivaldi (talk) 09:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The overwhelming supermajority of people think that Preying from the Pulpit needs to be gotten rid of.  I removed many of the claims that Arbustoo added that had no valid sources.  Preying from the Pulpit is not a notable article for an encyclopedia. Vivaldi (talk) 09:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Hyles explanation of the full context of what is presented in the story is part of the story is important and should be included in the story.  Not all of his comments are criticisms of the story.  Many of the comments are explanations of events that were presented in the story.  Hyles' comments are relevant and should be included.  Arbustoo does not own this article and I am under no obligation to restrict my edits to ones that Arbustoo finds convenient to his biased viewpoint that 90% of all the Hyles' related articles should be filled with content that is critical of Hyles. Vivaldi (talk) 09:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Preying from the Pulpit]]

message: *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.
:There is explanation on the talk page about why the story about the blind man is not relevant to the article about FBCH.  It is also important to note that FCBH has a specific ministry that is for the disabled -- including a special ministry dedicated to providing services for blind people.  So it is patently ridiculous to leave in this comment.  Vivaldi (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The history of the church belongs in the history of the church section.  If there is more history than criticism of the church that doesn't mean that it is "hiding the criticism section".  Vivaldi (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And you have removed the fact that it was Bible college and you have removed the reasons why the College has stated that it does not want and why it will never seek accreditation.  You want to only include one half of the story and that is inappropriate.  Arbustoo, you must include the information that disagrees with your desire to defame Hyles.  You repeatedly refuse to include any information that makes Hyles look better, even though it is clear that you have access to that information since much of it is in articles where you found the negative information.  Also, you have access to Lexis/Nexis, so I know you are able to find information that explains both sides of the Hyles' controversies.  Check out Arbustoo's edit history in regards to the Hyles related articles and count the number of edits that he has made that make Hyles look good or put Hyles in a more positive light.  Vivaldi (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It isn't slander.  Hyles stated that Nischik's wife complained that she found her husband at home in his pajamas with another woman.  Hyles also stated that Jennie said that Victor had asked another woman who was not his wife to leave town with him.  Those claims can be read in the article "Charges all lies, Hammond pastor says" which appeared in the May 28, 1989 Chicago Tribune, written by Michael Hirsley. Vivaldi (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It was reverted, just as you reverted on numerous occasions. Vivaldi (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It was reverted just as you reverted on numerous occasions.  You were banned for excessive reversions, remember Arbustoo?  Vivaldi (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: As a response to your reversion of my edits. Vivaldi (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Another bald-faced lie by Arbusto.  I objected to Arbusto making untrue and unverifiable statements in the article.   Ballenger was convicted of molesting ONE GIRL.  The other girls that accused him of molestation did not testify at a trial (as Arbustoo claimed) and therefore no judge or jury ever made a determination that the claims of the other girls were true.  Arbustoo then says in the article that Ballenger in fact molested 3 or 4 girls, when he was only convicted of molesting one.  The article needs to clearly state that the other girls that testified did not do so at a trial, but rather at a sentencing hearing and it also needs to make clear that Ballenger was never even charged with molesting the other girls, let alone convicted of doing so as Arbustoo has tried to imply.  Vivaldi (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: 8 out of 10 people that commented said the TV news report article does not belong in the encyclopedia.  Only two people said it should be kept.  I have every right to ask people that have recently made comments suggesting that this article be merged or deleted to make their wishes heard during the current discussion -- a discussion that Arbustoo aborted on his own and without any discussion on the talk page.  Arbustoo had no consensus for your removal of the merge discussion from the article.  Clearly most people think the article should be deleted or merged with the FCBH article.  It is stupid to even pretend otherwise.  Arbustoo found only one patsy that agreed with him to keep the article.  Vivaldi (talk) 10:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[First Baptist Church of Hammond]]

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

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

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

text: The editor I was talking about in that edit was banned permanently from editing that article because of his repeated "mistaken assumptions".  Furthermore, it is not a personal attack to point out that another editor has mistaken assumptions.  Vivaldi (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That was true.  I did think that I was argueing with someone with a little common sense.  Vivaldi (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That is true also.  If you are in fact a stupid person or if you truly lack common sense, then I am deeply sorry.  Again you are assuming that the IF part of a conditional statement is automatically true when there is no logical reason for you to do so.  It is entirely possible that you are not a stupid person and that you possess common sense.  In which case, I am not necessarily deeply sorry for my statements.  Vivaldi (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncivility

message: (Note: I removed this from the RfC because the rules for the RfC specifically say that people should not edit more than one section other than to endorse)
===View by FeloniousMonk===
After reading Pooua's viewpoint above, I took a look at the articles Vivaldi has been active on, and there's a clear pattern that emerges. Vivaldi has been focusing on article's that were heavily edited by Arbustoo, removing or weakening any criticisms found therein: First Baptist Church of Hammond, Bill Gothard, Preying from the Pulpit, Jack Hyles, Hyles-Anderson College, Hyles-Anderson College, East Texas Baptist University, Jack Schaap. This comes very close to wikistalking. There are just too many articles where Abustoo had previously been contributing where Vivaldi has showed up and gutted criticisms for it to be just a coincidence. Vivaldi's pattern here establishes the foundation of the allegation that he's conducting a POV campaign, and the fact that he has remained active in doing so during the course of this RFC compounds the allegation that it is indeed a campaign. Campaining is not acceptable behavior.FeloniousMonk 16:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found Jack Hyles and from there I noticed that the same exact same poorly written and biased information was in Jack Hyles, Preying from the Pulpit, First Baptist Church of Hammond, and Hyles-Anderson College.  I also visited East Texas Baptist University, because it was linked from a Jack Hyles article.  I also visited Jack Schaap because he is mentioned in the First Baptist Church of Hammond article.  Amazingly enough Arbustoo had nothing but criticism to add for each and every one of the Hyles-related articles.  Each of these articles happened to be edited by Arbustoo, and each of them was edited by him in a very biased and poor fashion -- in fact 18 seperate editors on talk pages and in edit summaries complained about the biased edits of Arbustoo in regards to these articles.  It is not innappropriate to evaluate the edit histories of people that have made poor edits and to visit other articles where they may have done similar things.   Please read up on what WP:wikistalking is.  It is entirely appropriate to make sure that systematic bias and distortion be fixed up.   My goal is to improve the quality of the encyclopedia, and when I see that a specific editor has a history of leaving behind rubbish -- I have a right to clean up his mess.  Vivaldi (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FeloniousMonk's additional viewpoint

message: After reading Pooua's viewpoint above, I took a look at the articles Vivaldi has been active on, and there's a clear pattern that emerges. Vivaldi has been focusing on article's that were heavily edited by Arbustoo, removing or weakening any criticisms found therein: First Baptist Church of Hammond, Bill Gothard, Preying from the Pulpit, Jack Hyles, Hyles-Anderson College, Hyles-Anderson College, East Texas Baptist University, Jack Schaap. This comes very close to wikistalking. There are just too many articles where Abustoo had previously been contributing where Vivaldi has showed up and gutted criticisms for it to be just a coincidence. Vivaldi's pattern here establishes the foundation of the allegation that he's conducting a POV campaign, and the fact that he has remained active in doing so during the course of this RFC compounds the allegation that it is indeed a campaign. Campaining is not acceptable behavior.FeloniousMonk 16:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found Jack Hyles and from there I noticed that the same exact same poorly written and biased information was in Jack Hyles, Preying from the Pulpit, First Baptist Church of Hammond, and Hyles-Anderson College.  I also visited East Texas Baptist University, because it was linked from a Jack Hyles article.  I also visited Jack Schaap because he is mentioned in the First Baptist Church of Hammond article.  Amazingly enough Arbustoo had nothing but criticism to add for each and every one of the Hyles-related articles.  Each of these articles happened to be edited by Arbustoo, and each of them was edited by him in a very biased and poor fashion -- in fact 18 seperate editors on talk pages and in edit summaries complained about the biased edits of Arbustoo in regards to these articles.  It is not innappropriate to evaluate the edit histories of people that have made poor edits and to visit other articles where they may have done similar things.   Please read up on what WP:wikistalking is.  It is entirely appropriate to make sure that systematic bias and distortion be fixed up.   My goal is to improve the quality of the encyclopedia, and when I see that a specific editor has a history of leaving behind rubbish -- I have a right to clean up his mess.  Vivaldi (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: View by FeloniousMonk

message: #Removing view from RFC
# Removing view from RFC again
# Removing view from RFC one more time. 
#Refactoring this talk page
#Removing comments from RFC
#Attempted to delist his own user conduct RFC
What does "refactoring this talk page" mean?  Vivaldi (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You duplicated the 'Vivaldi's continued disruption' section heading. Was that on purpose? It looked very strange. Ehheh 20:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't on purpose.  I was editing this section at the same time as someone else and when I submitted there was an edit conflict.  I tried to re-add my comments to the bottom since I thought they were lost.  I apologize for this, I certainly didn't intend for that to happen, but edit conflicts are difficult to handle when many people are editing at the same time. Vivaldi (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of incidents