After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

• Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
• Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
• Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if she/he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, no arbitrators are recused and 3 are inactive, so 6 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Place those on /Workshop.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Biographies of living persons

1) The

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 18:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 16:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. t 04:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. The SimonP comment is reasonable, but I think what is said here is also reasonable ('should' is not an imperative). Charles Matthews 16:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per Charles; slapping a bunch of NPOV and Cleanup templates on the top of the article is sufficient only insofar as they are eventually rewritten or stubbed or deleted.
   t 04:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. Though in my opinion "badly written" should be replaced with "irresponsibly written" here to clarify what kind of "bad" is meant. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I agree with most of this, but that "badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted" is certainly not policy. In all but the most severe cases, slapping a bunch of NPOV and Cleanup templates on the top of the article is sufficient. I've proposed an alternate wording at 2.1. - SimonP 18:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Revised

2.1) Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. 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. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Writing_style

Support:

1. SimonP 18:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Also acceptable.
   t 04:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]

Oppose:

1. A variance from current policy Fred Bauder 12:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   No, it's merely in variance what what the current document describing policy actually says. However, I agree with the policy on this. James F. (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. James F. (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Charles Matthews 16:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. I prefer the above. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 18:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 16:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. (Unsourced anything not obvious from anywhere, of course, but this is important.)
   t 04:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 18:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 16:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. t 04:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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).

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 18:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 16:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. t 04:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support, though I question whether there is any real distinction between public and non-public figures. In both cases only information from reliable secondary sources should be used. With non-public people there would simply be far fewer of these, and thus less detail in the article. - SimonP 18:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews 16:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. With verifiability in mind, but this is still reasonable.
   t 04:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Per Simon. Verifiability has been the yard-stick by which "notability", whatever that it meant to mean, has been measured on Wikipedia since before I joined. James F. (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   It's a nice metric, but it has never been pure. I can use my phone book to definitively verify my neighbor's phone number. Even if they are notable, that doesn't mean it belongs in their article.

   t 04:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

   ]

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

.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 18:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 16:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. t 04:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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)

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 20:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. As all users should be treated. - SimonP 18:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 16:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. t 04:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 20:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 18:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 16:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. t 04:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Controversial articles

10)

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 13:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 18:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 16:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. t 04:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

1. SimonP 18:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews 16:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. t 04:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Fred Bauder 03:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. There is an exception for input from living persons regarding noncontroversial facts about themselves. Fred Bauder 12:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Now updated to include. James F. (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

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.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 20:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 18:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 16:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. t 04:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. Noting "seldom" but not "never", of course. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 20:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 18:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 16:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. t 04:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 21:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 18:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 16:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. t 04:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Courtesy

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

Support:

1. SimonP 18:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 12:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 16:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. t 04:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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)

Support:

1. SimonP 18:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 12:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 16:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. t 04:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of the dispute is

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 18:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 16:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. t 04:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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).

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 18:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 16:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. t 04:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 18:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 16:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. t 04:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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]

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 16:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 18:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 16:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. t 04:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Removal of critical information by Athanasius303

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

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 20:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 18:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 16:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. t 04:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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].

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 20:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 18:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 16:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. t 04:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Bishopschuckardt.com

7) Bishopschuckardt.com is a website which presents the positions of Bishop Francis Schuckardt.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 20:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Content.
   t 04:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]

Abstain:

1. On the surface it seems to, but I am not an expert on the Bishop and his positions. - SimonP 18:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I may not be able to find the basis for this finding, but it is conceded by the parties. Fred Bauder 12:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Not sure that this is needed. James F. (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews 16:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of talk page

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

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 12:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 16:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. t 04:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
5. SimonP 18:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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].

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 20:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 18:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 16:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. t 04:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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].

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 21:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 18:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 16:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. t 04:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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).

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 13:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 18:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 16:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. t 04:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Article probation

2)

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 13:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Wikipedia:Article probation policy. I've thus proposed a very slightly reworded alternative. SimonP 18:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. In favour of 2.1. James F. (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Prefer 2.1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Prefer 2.1. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 16:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. t 04:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]

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.

Support:

1. SimonP 18:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 12:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Worth a try. James F. (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 16:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. (...Or edit warring?)
   t 04:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 13:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Sensible, yes - but we can do this anyway, so it's more of a warning to the participants, really. James F. (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. SimonP 23:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 16:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. t 04:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Enforcement by block

1) Brief blocks may be made to enforce bans made under this decision, up to a week in the event of repeat offences. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Francis Schuckardt#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 13:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. SimonP 23:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 16:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. t 04:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

It should not be expected that one could "win" this case by knocking the other side out of contention. The alternative to everyone doing better is to ban editing by all users who are involved in the real life dispute. Fred Bauder 17:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation notes

Clerks and arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

• Principles: All pass 7-0 except:
  • 2 Writing style, biography of a living person, passes 6-1
  • 2.1 (As above, revised), fails.
  • 6 Presumption of privacy, passes 6-1
  • 11 Original research, passes 6-1
• Findings: All pass 7-0 except:
  • 7 Bishopschuckardt.com, fails
  • 8 Reversion of talk page, passes 6-0
• Remedies: All pass 7-0 except:
  • 2 Article probation, fails.
  • 2.1 The revised version of 2, passes 7-0.
• Enforcement: Passes 7-0.

Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

1. Looks like everything that's going to pass has a majority. Close. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Close.
   t 21:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. Close. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Close Fred Bauder 03:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]