Case Opened on 02:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 08:50, 19 July 2006 (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.

• Bernie_Radecki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Athanasius303 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) AKA Fra. John

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-15 Francis Schuckardt Archive1

Since Februrary, I (and a number of others who don't have user accounts) have been attempting to modify the Francis Schuckardt article, but have had gotten consistent resistance from Athanasius303. He quotes policy a lot and deletes alot, even deleting large sections on the talk page that reflect poorly on the subject of the article. His grounds are that it is a personal attack against the subject of the article! This did provoke some parties. I went to the mediation cabal in March and it did serve to clarify things somewhat. Athanasius303 holds that since the article is about Francis Schuckardt, it should be from his point of view. I hold that the long explanation of Schuckardt's theological views is Original Research and should not be given prominence for several reasons. Additionally, Athanasius303 has consistently deleted my additions that are properly cited from third party sources. The current article on Francis Schuckardt now contains sections that both of us strongly disagree with. We have agreed to keep the article in this form to make the Arbitration Committee's role easier in that the article contains a section that I strongly contest and it also contains 2 sections that I have added that he strongly contests. This article has been hotly debated for 6 months with Athanasius on one side and 5 or 6 on the other. Due to the results of the Mediation Cabal request, the issue has been refined down to a policy dispute on No Original Research and Verifiability of sources. If we got a binding decision on these policy issues, the content issues may evaporate. Simply looking at the article as it now stands may suffice for you to reach an arbitration decision. - Bernie Radecki

Statement by Bernie Radecki

Athanasius303 has added in a 2000 word section titled | "Separation from the Modern Church, Three Principle Causes" with its three sub-parts. This was after I brought up the topic of Original Research in mediation. He writes what Schuckardt thinks and believes, but there are no third party citations showing that Schuckardt actually believes it. I find this to be blatantly against Wikipedia policy. Athanasius303 is a religious brother in Schuckardt's church of 100 or so. Schuckardt is his direct religious superior. Unless he agrees to cite independent, third party sources, I do not think Athanasius303 can keep his own POV out of the article. A good example of this is the section he recently added entitled| "Reaction of the Post Vatican II Church" which is very revealing as to his point of view on the subject of the article. I have searched to find any third party that has cited Francis Schuckardt's views on theology. It is my contention that he falls into the Tiny Minority view as evidenced by the fact that I could find none that mention him. I hold that Schuckardt is a controversial figure, but due to his other and more controversial actions, reputable sources have not published any of his material. Additionally, his theological view is roughly Sedevacantism and there is an article in Wikipedia on this subject already so it doesn't need to be contained in the Francis Schuckardt article in any event.

My second issue is that when I add information from third party sources, Athanasius303 removes them. I beleive, since this is a controversial subject (the subject of the article holds that the Catholic Church is not the "real" Catholic Church and his band of 100 or so followers is) that a NPOV needs to be maintained by using citable material as I have done. There is a lot of published material that refers directly to Schuckardt's non-theological views, especially the bizarre practices of his followers. See my entries in the following sections in which I cite published, third party sources: |"Opposing Viewpoints on Schuckardt's Consecration" and |"Dissension Within the Ranks". Dateline, CNBC, and the Seattle Times have recently all reported on the bizarre practices of his group, but I know if I add this to the article, Athanasius303 will revert. I content that this is what is published on Schuckardt, this is what he is known for, so it reflects the majority view: That he is not a Bishop of the Catholic Church, that he is a schismatic, that he fled one church in 1984, that he has a tiny church now that continues the same bizarre practices as before. This should be well represented in the article and not a tiny, minority view. Bernie Radecki 17:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding Athanasius303's response: I was unfortunately a member of Schuckardt's church from childhood until he fled in 1984. I am married with 3 grown children. I worked at Hewlett Packard as a software engineer for 22 years and am now finishing up my last few weeks of nursing school. Athanasius303's phrase "Radecki's church" may give a false impression that I have a church of my own. I don't. In no way have I profited monetarily from Schukardt's departure. As for my Wikipedia editing, I will admit that when I first started editing in February, I was not knowledgable as to how Wikipedia works. I was dismayed to see what I considered a public site for Francis Schuckardt that was one-sided. I apologized for my newbie entries long ago and have striven to conduct myself well. Bernie Radecki 18:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Athanasius303

My overriding problem is that Radecki, an anti-Schuckardt zealot, wants to turn this article into a critic’s page and try to overwhelm the article with negative and salacious statements. This is contrary to Wiki’s NPOV policy.

I’ve unsuccessfully tried to get Radecki to agree to three simple fundamental facts: this article 1) is a biography of a living person, 2) is controversial and 3) and deals with religion. Any perusal of the article will demonstrate all three of the above. Wikipedia has set forth policies and guidelines on dealing with all three of these topics and I simply ask that all editors comply with these policies or state why compliance with them would be inappropriate. Radecki has never attempted to demonstrate why these policies/guidelines should be ignored, but does indeed ignore them. This is the fundamental problem in my view.

Some Radecki policy violations: 1) Under “Opposing POV” Radecki adds nothing that was not already in the article’s earlier editions; his additions seem only to push his POV, sometimes with purely gratuitous statements, (e.g., Viewpoint of Pope John Paul II… Brown never received…). 2) “Dissension within the Ranks” if full of gratuitous, unsourced references, including self-published “public letters,” all of which violate verifiability policy. 3) Under “Accusations…” very little of this is sourced and again largely gratuitous. The McKenzie quotes don’t mention the Bishop at all; it’s guilt by association. 4) Radecki changes this article on a daily basis and squawks whenever I revert to the pre-agreed to version prior to the Mediation process (which he pulled out of). I DID NOT agree “to keep this article in the present form,” for the Arbitration Committee to review. I reject Radecki’s tactics of making major edits (and extractions of material in contention) just before submitting this to Arbitration as though this current version is the basis to work from. It is not.

Radecki has also mischaracterized my arguments against his editing:

• As a biography, I believe this article should explain what Bishop Schuckardt believes and how he got there. This of course represents a “minority view,” a view of one. It’s a biography after all.

• Wikipedia’s verifiability policy allows the biographical subject’s personal website and other self-published material to be used as a source. Radecki rejects this and deletes the website link.

• Bishop Schuckardt’s views are his own. Simply to characterize him as a “Sedevacantist” both misrepresents the truth and is non-verifiable.

• As to the charge that there is little to no publications detailing Bishop Schuckardt’s beliefs, that is not surprising: it’s boring, and boring doesn’t sell.

I am not in opposition to a balanced opposing POV. I have demonstrated this by answering non-verifiable criticisms instead of simply extracting them, because I felt this would better inform the reader and favor a more neutral approach. I do, however, oppose undue weight being given to the critics. Much of this criticism I know to be factually untrue (I know, it’s not truth, but verifiability) and is without question harmful to Bishop Schuckardt’s reputation. I think that is one of the distinguishing differences between Radecki and me: his version will do damage to someone’s reputation, my version will not. I have patiently exercised restraint and have not gone to the articles on Radecki’s church (also a tiny minority) or his church leaders and retaliated in kind. I hope that I am not punished for my restraint and he rewarded for his lack of it.

Once Mediation came into play, Radecki toned down his rhetoric so as not to appear as an anti-Schuckardt zealot, but this is indeed what he is. I do not believe he is capable of representing a NPOV – the millions of dollars of church assets he and his church now enjoy was obtained through the demonization of Bishop Schuckardt. The moral justification for the retention of these assets and their ousting of Bishop Schuckardt would dissolve if the Bishop turned out to be someone other than who they have been portraying him to be all these years.

Our differences will never be amicably resolved, we need help. Thanks. Athanasius303 17:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Accept Fred Bauder 03:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept, but narrowly to look at POV-pushing, not to rule on content. Charles Matthews 11:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept as per Charles. James F. (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept.
  t 21:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

---

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

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

Biographies of living persons

1) The

.

Passed 7 to 0 at 08:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Writing style, biography of a living person

2) From Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Writing style:

Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted.

The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view.

Passed 6 to 1 at 08:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced criticism may be removed from the biography of a living person

3) Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion; this is also listed as an

Passed 7 to 0 at 08:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Potentially defamatory material in the biography of a living person must have a reliable source

4) Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Reliable sources.

Passed 7 to 0 at 08:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Use of the subject as a source in the biography of a living person

5) If the subject or their representative edits the article, they may offer information correcting the article or such information may be available through a personal website, blog or other self-published material such as an autobiography. Such material should be used in preference to contradictory, unsourced material. Information supplied by the subject may be added to the article if: it is relevant to the person's notability; not contentious; not unduly self-serving; does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; and there is no reasonable doubt that it was written by the subject. A blog or personal website written by the subject or a representative may be listed in the external links/further reading section, even if the subject is not used as a source.

From Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Using the subject as a source and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources in articles about themselves (recently removed by this edit).

Passed 7 to 0 at 08:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Presumption of privacy

6) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy provides that biographies of living people must be written conservatively, and with due regard to the subject's privacy.

Public figures In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is it notable, verifiable and important to the article? If not, leave it out.

Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the

New York Times

publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source.

Material from primary sources should generally not be used. For example, public records may include personal details such as home value, outcomes of civil court cases, traffic citations, arrest records, and vehicles and real estate owned. Use material only from reliable third-party sources. If X's arrest records are relevant to his notability, someone else will have written about them.

Non-public figures Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. Material from primary sources should generally not be used (see above).

In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.

Passed 6 to 1 at 08:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Critical information in biographies of living persons

7) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Critics provides for vigilance regarding malicious editing:

Editors should be on the lookout for the malicious creation or editing of biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics in case you

represent a minority view as if it were the majority one

. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.

Criticism should be sourced to

reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association

.

Passed 7 to 0 at 08:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Dealing gently with the subject of a biography

8) Should the subject of an article or a close associate or representative become involved in editing the article on themselves, they should be dealt with as gently and courteously as possible. (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with edits by the subject of the article)

Passed 7 to 0 at 08:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

9) Wikipedia is not an appropriate vehicle for extended presentations of particular religious viewpoints or controversies. Such material, if available on another site, is much more appropriately linked to with only a summary included in the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

Passed 7 to 0 at 08:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Controversial articles

10)

offers guidance on the editing of articles about controversial persons or groups.

Passed 7 to 0 at 08:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Original research

11) Wikipedia:No original research forbids use of personal research as a source; this includes the personal experience of Wikipedia editors which are primary sources. However, there is an exception for non-controversial facts, see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Using the subject as a source.

Passed 7 to 0 at 08:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of talk pages

12) It is seldom appropriate to revert a talk page, especially if it results in the loss of comments by others.

Passed 7 to 0 at 08:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of libelous comments from talk pages

13) Libelous material may be removed from talk pages as well as from articles. However, this does not extend to negative expressions of fact or opinion that are not libelous.

Passed 7 to 0 at 08:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

14) Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy extends beyond name calling, including "[u]sing someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Examples of personal attacks.

Passed 7 to 0 at 08:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Courtesy

15) Wikipedia editors are expected to be reasonably courteous to one another. (Wikipedia:Civility)

Passed 7 to 0 at 08:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing personal attacks

16) The remove personal attacks guideline (and the application thereof) is controversial. It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly. (From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI)

Passed 7 to 0 at 08:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of the dispute is

.

Passed 7 to 0 at 08:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Principal editors

2) The principal editors adapted a practice of signing their edits to Talk:Francis Schuckardt with their names, sometimes editing from anonymous ips. Ips used by Fra. John (sometimes referred to as as Mr. Belzak) (in addition to Athanasius303 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) include 206.188.39.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 206.188.34.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and 64.129.0.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Ips used by Bernie Radecki include 71.34.208.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). His wife Francie Radecki has used 71.34.208.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Ips used by George_Wagner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) include 138.163.0.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 4.255.40.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 138.163.0.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 4.255.41.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 4.255.42.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and 4.255.46.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Laurie_Pipan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits under that user name. There have been a few edits by Mikelawless (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Passed 7 to 0 at 08:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Accounts of personal experiences

3) At times the principal editors have mentioned personal experiences on the talk pages. Fra. John has adopted a practice of deleting such references, characterizing them as "personal attacks" [1]. Bernie Radeck has expressed the opinion that "eye-witness accounts that validate material either contained in the article (or placed in the article and then removed by Fra. John) have a place on the discussion board." "I see them as adding validity to statements present in the article." GeorgeWagner, editing as 138.163.0.41, offers the results of an interview [2]. See also this edit by Laurie Pipan, "I am not a wikipedia expert but how can publications be more valuable than firsthand knowledge? Just because something is published doesn't make it true." and this correction by Bernie Radeck.

Passed 7 to 0 at 08:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Strong negative point of view

4) It is the point of view of Bernie Radecki that Bishop Schuckardt's Church is a "dangerous cult" [3] and [4]. "The majority view supported by reliable, published sources is that Schuckardt is and has been the leader of a destructive cult." [5]

Passed 7 to 0 at 08:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of critical information by Athanasius303

5) Athanasius303 has removed sourced critical information from Francis Schuckardt [6], [7], [8], and [9].

Passed 7 to 0 at 08:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of critical material from talk pages by Athanasius303

6) Athanasius303 has removed critical material from Talk:Francis Schuckardt which he considers personal attacks [10] and [11]. Bernie Radecki (or his wife) has retaliated [12] as has George Wagner [13].

Passed 7 to 0 at 08:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of talk page

8) Talk:Francis Schuckardt has been reverted by George Wagner removing comment [14] as well as restoring comment.

Passed 6 to 0 at 08:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Mutual failure to assume good faith

9) There is a mutual failure on the part of the principal editors to extend good faith to each other [15]. They have organized themselves into hostile camps with Fra. John defending and the others, most with some personal association in the past with Bishop Schuckardt, attacking [16] [17].

Passed 7 to 0 at 08:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

10) There have been mutual attempts on the part of the principal editors to discredit one another based on religious affiliation and other factors [18].

Passed 7 to 0 at 08:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Some ground rules

1) In consideration of the fact that the principal editors are new to Wikipedia and inexperienced in editing according to our policies no penalties will be assessed for the numerous violations of Wikipedia policies that have occurred. However continued participation in the editing of the article will depend on following some basic ground rules. The premier rules to be observed are Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks: you are counseled to be courteous to one another. This is a policy which extends beyond formal politeness. Please do not address one another with insulting bantering language. Please do not answer one offense with another. Please do not remove each other's comments from the talk pages. The second rule to be observed is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: this policy contemplates fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a subject. Applied to this article it means fairly representing Bishop Schuckardt's life and doctrinal positions (without a lot of wikilawyering about where and whether they are published outside of his personal website) and the criticisms that have been made of him and his church, including a summary and links to published newspaper reports. The third rule is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: a conservative approach which avoids defamation is counseled. Any negative information must have a credible source. Non-controversial material (such as statements of his doctrines) may be obtained from his website. (His doctrines may be controversial but what they are is not).

Passed 7 to 0 at 08:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Article probation

2.1) The Francis Schuckardt article is placed on probation for three months. During article probation any Wikipedia administrator may briefly ban (from the article or its talk page) any editor of the article or its talk page who violates Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, or who engages in tendentious (biased) editing. No permanent or lengthy bans shall be made during the period of probation. Probation may be extended for additional periods after review by the Arbitration Committee. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Francis Schuckardt#Log of blocks and bans.

Passed 7 to 0 at 08:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Continuing jurisdiction

3) Should article probation prove ineffective, the Arbitration Committee may under its continuing jurisdiction impose appropriate editing restrictions on the editors of Francis Schuckardt who have continued to violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Passed 7 to 0 at 08:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.