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

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

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

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

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

Involved parties

Vivaldi (talk · contribs)
Arbustoo (talk · contribs)

Requests for comment

Statement by Arbustoo

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

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

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

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

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

September 20th update

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

Statement by now involved User:205.157.110.11

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

Response

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

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

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

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

Preliminary decisions

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

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

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

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