Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vivaldi

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: 07:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC).

Vivaldi (talk · contribs · logs)

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

Statement of the dispute

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], 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]

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.[46]
User changed the citation method and removed a newspaper invovling the school's president and three former students.[47] Including one with a rape charge later dropped.
User removed the unaccredited template that states the legality of unaccredited degrees.[48]
In the edits above the user also removed, without comment, all external links that had criticism.
Vivaldi edit's[49], 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[50] 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[51], "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.[52] This removed the correction of sources and removed elements of a newsreport.
User makes personal attacks and insist that his comments are not personal attacks. See[53] and [54]. See [55]. [56]

Applicable policies and guidelines

Applicable policies

WP:CIVIL
WP:HAR
WP:NPA
WP:NOT (a battleground )
WP:NPOV
WP:NPA

Applicable guidelines

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

On the user's (now) archived talk page.[57] 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?"
"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;" [58]
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.[59]
Tried to get criticism put in a criticism section[60] user refused and kept reverting.
See the talks for more evidence of failing to resolve the dispute.
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."[61] As the evidence above indicates, explanations and changes were not "hashed" out.
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.[62]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Other users who endorse this summary

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{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:

Outside view

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:

Discussion

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.

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 weeks ago thereby ignoring and white washing criticism of a controversial subject. This user is using deceitful edit summaries and name calling to intimidate other users. Arbusto 00:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]