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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Request Information 2 Old Discussion 3 Let the Mediation Resume 4 Deletions and Arbitration

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Bernie Radecki 19:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Francis Schuckardt article

Who's involved?

An editor named Fra. John (He is now Athanasius303) and myself, Bernie Radecki. (Others also have been consistently accusing Fra. John of bias as can be seen on the article's Talk page.)

What's going on?

I believe Fra. John is giving an extremely small minority view undue weight. He is a religious brother in Francis Schuckardt's small religious group. In many instances, he does not adhere to the NPOV due to his bias that Franicis Schuckardt is the only living bishop of the Catholic Church. I was a member of Francis Schuckardt's church from 1969 to 1984. I once believed that he was the only real bishop of the Catholic Church but now I agree with the majority view that he had created a destructive cult in Spokane Washington in the late 60s and continues those cult practices in the Seattle Wa. area today.

What would you like to change about that?

1. There is a sentance in which Fra. John links Denis Chicoine's death and his excommunication by Francis Schuckardt to a footnote that insinuates that Denis Chicoine is now in Hell. Since it is an extremely minority view that Francis Schuckardt has the power of a bishop of the Catholic Church to excommunicate, I do not think the footnote is proper. There is a discussion on this particular point in the Talk page. Fra. John has reverted it 3 times so I am seeking an outside opinion from the cabal.
2. I would like the term "Catholic Church" to be used in the article in the way that the vast majority of people use it and the way it is defined in the Wikipedia article titled "Catholic Church". Fra. John writes that the teaching prior to Vatican Council II represent the Catholic Church and Francis Schuckardt is the true representative of that Catholic Church. I beleive the solution is to use the term "TRLCC" (This is the leagal name of Schuckardt's church) when refering to the beliefs of Schuckardt and retain the word "Catholic Church" to apply to the generally accepted definition.
3. It is possible both Fra. John and myself are too biased to edit this article. He writes as though he is an expert on what the Catholic Church teaches even though his education is limited. Additionally, Francis Schuckardt is his religious superior in that he has taken vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience to Francis Schuckardt as a brother in his extremely small religous group. I beleive Fra. John's view represents an extreme minority and my view represents the majority. However, Fra. John wins the revert wars because I don't see any use in reverting. I beleive either the article should be removed if Fra. John cannot accept that the majority view needs to be given either precedence or at least equal footing.
4. My knowldege is limited to living in Schuckardt's church and therefore knowing first hand of many of the activities that many regard as those of a destructive cult. Many others have posted information on the talk page relating to first hand knowledge of TLRCC practices dating both to the 1970s and 1980s and to the last few years. For instance: Schuckardt's claim to have been mystically crowned pope. Fra. John removes these first hand accounts from the talk page on the grounds that they are "personal attacks". I believe that the fact that the TLRCC has not published the beliefs that they have been orally telling others over a period of more than 30 years is an indication that views of the TLRCC are held by a tiny minority .
5. Fra. John has written a long section in which he writes to refute the accusations against Francis Schuckart made in the press and national news shows and by former members. I just want your opinion on whether that is appropriate based on the fact that this is giving undue weight to an extremely small minority view that would not interest readers.
6. There is a wordy section under "Blue Army" in which Fra. John explains Francis Schuckardt's thoughts on how he came to the conclusion that the Pope is a heritic. I think this is "original research" and doesn't belong in the article. There is already a Wikipedia article on "Sedevacantism" which details this issue. Fra. John insists that this is not original reseasrch and he reverted back to include it in the article. I asked him just to reference some published data to support Shuckardt's opinion, but he ignored that advice. The Talk page for the article has this information on this difference of opinion.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

I can be reached at --BernieRadecki | (talk) I hope someone picks this case up. I promise to behave. It has now been 29 days! Bernie Radecki 05:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?

I am finishing Nursing School so I do not have the time. Thank you for the opportunity. Perhaps when I finish.

[edit] Old Discussion

Yeah, the old page got a bit too big for my taste. You can still reference your old stuff here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-15 Francis Schuckardt Archive1 But I think this is a good way to symbolize a fresh start.Danny Pi 18:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Let the Mediation Resume

I think we were doing just fine before I left. As I noted, I was a bit overwhelmed with work from school, and I just didn't have time to deal with anything except certain topics in Abstract Algebra. The breakdown in mediation was entirely my fault. Please blame me rather than each other- we were making process and I had to bail out for a while due to aforementioned academic concerns- I apologize for the chaos that ensued. Okay, so I've read over a lot (albeit not all) of the discussion that followed my departure, and it seems things have broken down a bit. I don't think it's unsalvagable, but there have been new edits, and that makes it a bit difficult to pick up where we left off. So, I'm going to go read through the article, and try to spot anything that stands out as POV to me. I will then request a new and revised list of changes Fra. John and Bernie wish to have discussed. I think that's the most reasonable way to go about this. Danny Pi 18:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay I've taken a look at the page as currently written, and the main thing that concerns me is that the whole thing is just so long! Now, if that's agreeable to all of you involved, then I have no cause to quibble, but I must say that it LOOKS like a very overedited article, since every phrase contains excessive qualifications and equivocations. I'm actually starting to warm to the idea (I forget who initially suggested it) of writing a whole new page from scratch. That may be the most manageable way to achieve consensus. We can then agree on what the organization of the new article should be, and build it up NPOV from scratch. So here's how it works:

• First, let me know if you think this (complete rewrite) is a good idea. Remember, I'm just here to help YOU, so don't feel like I'm using any authority here. I'm working for all parties here.
• Second, go to this page Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-15 Francis Schuckardt NewPage and inspect it. Again, these are all proposals from a disinterested party (me). If you have any cause whatsoever to disagree with me, let's talk about it. I'm on nobody's side here. I'm just trying to keep this organized, and any disagreements about the length/organization of the new article will be duly considered. Note: I will generally favor your opinion over my own, since I am only a mediator without a stake in this.
• Thirdly, I want to hear what you all think of the intro paragraph.
• Fourthly, let's not start editing the NewPage article right away. Let's first agree to how this thing is going to be organized. Adding text right now will be counterproductive.
• Fifthly, stop editing the original page. If everyone agrees to the rewrite, it's going to be replaced anyway.

Please reply with the same bullet form that I've used to respond to points 1-5. Let's keep it organized.Danny Pi 19:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Bernie's response.

• Firstly, before digging in to do a re-write, I would like to utilize the current article to come to an understanding as to what is proper and what is not in the article. Let us do a little groundwork first using what we already have as an example. As you know, Athanasius303 and myself have disparate views on what is acceptable although both of us do show an intent to follow policy. Perhaps you could mediate a discusion on this. Look at some of my additions, (Opposing Viewpoints on Schuckardt's Consecration if Athanasius has not yet reverted it!) every single one has citations from published sources or at the least letters that were mass mailed. I consider these sources to hold up well under the topic of Verifiability, NPOV, and No Original Research which I consider to be the three main policy rules of Wikipedia. Then look at what Athanasius303 just wrote under Separation from the Modern Cathoic Church. Over 2000 new words in which he expounds on Schuckardt's beliefs and motivations without any proof that they are Schuckardt's beliefs. There is no source (Read the Verifiability page to see what is said about using a personl website as a source) that Athanasius303 can use because for 35 years no one has printed Schuckardt's theological views. Ask yourself, why is that. What then is Schuckardt known for. Anyhow, I digressed. I would like to know DanielPi, what your opinion is on our different techniques.
• Second, Lets do step one first
• Thirdly, The intro is fine
• Fourthly, OK
• Fifthly, OK. I felt like a moron reverting it. As long as it remains as is with both the things that I object to and the things that Athanasius303 objects to intact. (Darn, I just checked and Athanasius has agiain reverted it. What a pain. I insist it remain objectionable to both of us. This is insane. Here we go again.) Bernie Radecki 20:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Bernie- I understand and share your concern about what constitutes NPOV. However, you have to consider a) the length of discussion on this topic, b) the length of the article. While I'm perfectly happy to sit here and work through the tedious details with you guys, I do have a life outside of Wiki. Anyway, if such a theoretical discussion were to bear fruit, I'd do it, but I suspect it would wind up leading to endless philosophizing on what is/isn't POV. Truth be told, I consider absolute NPOV philosophically preposterous. We just have to do the best we can here, and I strongly doubt that I can get you guys to agree on philosophical questions about universality and all that crunk. So if you don't mind, I'd favor sticking to more manageable topics like Francis Schuckardt's wiki article. If you want my OPINION on your respective techniques, I think in certain cases your way is better, and in certain cases Fra. John's way is better. It's just a question of context and precedent. Danny Pi 20:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

DannyPi- Is the 2000 word section of the article entitled Separation from the Modern Cathoic Church not original research? By coming to an understanding on this, many problems are solved and time is not wasted on philisophical questions. I assume you are familiar with the policy on No Original Research Bernie Radecki 23:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

George's response: I think that a re write would be in order. It's actually burdonsom to read the article in its present state. Bernie has added some excellent information, which I am pleased with. With that in mind, we need to get all the input from the editors and go from there. George Wagner

Heh. Yeah, that section is REALLY long. I am familiar with the no original research policy. The trouble is that I'm in no position to say whether Fra. John is "interpreting" Schuckardt's views or merely explicating them. I do think the absence of citation (given our situation) is rather egregious. At any rate, I think the section is basically too long and theologically detailed to be very approriate for wiki's average reader. In our new article (should Fra. John agree to start from scratch), we ought to be more rigorous in our bibliographic efforts. Again, though, I really think it would be more useful for us to agree/disagree/compromise on specific text, rather than methodology. If you're asking me whether that "Separation" section should've been better sourced, I'd probably agree. But the main problem is that it's just too long and too detailed. Encyclopedia entries are, by necessity, succinct. Detailed exposition is for books not articles. And wikipedia is all articles.Danny Pi 08:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind having Schuckardt's views presented as reported in reputed, cited, third-party sources. In the article, almost all the direct quotes from Schuckardt were added by me. I want his words in the article, but they have to be cited from material that is independently sourced so that no one has to guess whether Athanasius303 is presenting Schuckardt's real views. Newspapers, magazines, CNBC... I agree Separation section is too long, to detailed, but it is also all original research that can't even be tied to Schuckardt. The sections that I recently added (with sources) are way to long. I made a mistake with the length. It scares the reader away. My additions need to be cut down considerably. You and I agree on that. Let us also agree on verifiable, third party citations. Sorry to appear as belaboring this. I will agree to break out the cleaver on my additions if we can agree to adhere to the No Original Research official policy. Your mentioning that you have a life outside Wikipedia made me realize how much time I am spending on this. Before your arrival, Athanasius303 and I argued the same point on No Original Research to no avail. Oh, maybe this will help. I agree the openning paragraph and the sections on Early Life and The Blue Army are perfectly fine with me. Bernie Radecki 16:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Danny Pi: Thank you for returning to lend a helping hand here; I’m sure you can see it is much needed and I hope I and the others do not make this an unpleasant experience for you.

• I agree to a complete rewrite – this article is disproportionately long. I am willing to try it as you suggested, but shock of shocks, I agree with Radecki here to a certain extent. It seems to me that some ground rules have to be established so we are all working from the same page. For example, we need to agree that all of the Wikipedia non-binding guidelines supplement the three binding policies (NPOV, Original Research, Verifiability) rather than oppose them. Surely the Wikipedia Community would not allow them if they contradicted the Three Pilars.
  • I also think we need consensus right from the start that this is a biography of a living, controversial person with necessarily heavy religious overtones. Controversy, Religion and Biographies have all been given special attention in both Wiki Policies and Guidelines and it seems to me to be POV to ignore them. These sections address many of Radecki’s issues as well and in acknowledging them and abiding by them should greatly narrow the focus of contention and give us a good, fresh starting point.

• Re: Intro paragraph - I believe the opening paragraph needs to include Bishop Schuckardt’s rejection of Vatican Council II as well, a major and defining event in his early life which shaped things to come. Perhaps like this: “…Holy See is vacant. Francis Schuckardt also rejected Vatican Council II as a false Council from a very early date.”

• Absolutely no editing until consensus – yes.

• Regarding editing the original article: I’ve reverted this article to where we were before we started this mediation process. That seems inherently fair to everyone. Radecki’s latest additions have inflamed others whose actions are beyond my control and I believe this is only way to avert an endless revert war.

Athanasius303 17:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John)

DanielPi's words continue to ring in my ears: "I have a life outside of this." It has been 3 or 4 months now and has eaten up too much of my time. The thought of starting over is unbearable. I believe adamantly that Athanasius's writings on Schuckardt's theological beliefs fails the No Original Research policy. I believe citing newspaper articles, news shows and other published materials are the required standard. I am tired of arguing what is to me obvious. Collaboration has failed. I need someone with the authority to make binding decisions to say: Bernie, I've listened to your argument and you are wrong about the Original Research and the Verifiability. (I of course discount Athanasius303 telling me that.) All this mediation and the one thing I have accomplished is to remove 1 footnote. This is too unproductive. I grow tired. Tommorrow morning, I am going to revert the article to how it last stood with the stuff of Athanasius303 that I find objectionable and the stuff of mine that he finds objectionable. I am then going to shorten my additions as I do concur with DanielPi that they are excessively long. I am going to then submit the article for arbitration. I will vigorously oppose any attempt from any party to delete my additions that are based on verifiable, published, third party accounts. I will not delete the work of any other party. (So Athanasius303, if you want to modify your stuff, fine; but don't delete a bunch of my stuff and then add in a bunch of your stuff.) I know Athanasius and I discussed this option during the time DanielPi was necessarily and understandably occupied. DanielPi, your last suggestion was very reasonable, I just don't think it would work with myself and Athanasius303. I do sincerely thank you for your time. It was very self-sacrificing of you to volunteer you time. You definitely brought a needed calmness and order to the process. Bernie Radecki 04:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Radecki: Much of the material you are adding is from self-published sources, especially the so called “open letters.” Self-published material is not permitted; these so-called “open letters” are certainly self-published and are therefore unsourced. Since you keep mentioning the Three Pilars – here is what one of those Three Pilars has to say: Verifiability -Biographies of living persons need special care, because biographies containing unsourced material might negatively effect someone’s life… If the article is about a living person, REMOVE THE UNSOURCED MATERIAL IMMEDIATELY IF IT COULD BE VIEWED AS CRITICISM OF THEM, AND DO NOT MOVE IT TO THE TALK PAGE.” (My emphasis) Wikipedia’s Biography guidelines states the same thing with this addition: “Restoring such material is a blockable offense.”

Why am I telling you this? Because if you persist on restoring your negative, unsourced material, I will remove it according to policy and guidelines and seek to have to blocked. I don’t want to pick a fight with you, which is why I am giving you fair warning of what I will do if you insist on publishing defamatory statements from unsourced references. I don’t understand the rush.

Danny Pi: I'm sorry that all of your time appears to have been spent in vain. Thank you sincerely for all the time and effort you put into trying to resolve this dispute. Have a nice day. Athanasius303 06:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John)

I have now reverted the article to the mutually detestable version. I have also removed my recently added material from the open letters. I hope you remember that unsourced and self-published material are not allowed as that is the primary issue I had with you which you continuously persisted in with the original research. You did cite personal letters when they were favorable to Schuckardt. (The letters I cited were not private correspondence but rather newletters that were widely diseminated which yours probably were also since that is how people in the cult did things in the 70s and 80s since no one was allowed to read the newspaper or listen to TV or radio.) However, since I conform to the policy of Verifiability, I have removed the material that depended on these newsletters for coroboration. You should find my defamatory material to now be properly sourced. I plead with you to leave it be as I have left your lengthy dissertation on Schuckardt's supposed views untouched. Makes me wonder why you don't quote Schuckardt. I quote him in numerable places since it shows his state of mind. I have never found any third party source that quoted his theological views after he left the Blue Army.[removal per violations stated above] Anyway, I'll give you a day to do any clean up on your stuff and tommorrow morning I'll request arbitration. I hope this time they will take it. I know when you requested it in the early part of this year (I wasn't involved then) that they passed on it. Hopefully, they'll take it this time if we keep the issue one of policy clarification. Bernie Radecki 17:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

To DanielPi - Just so you know, since that is how people in the cult did things in the 70s and 80s since no one was allowed to read the newspaper or listen to TV or radio.) However, since I conform to the policy of Verifiability, I have removed the material that depended on these newsletters for coroboration. You should find my defamatory material to now be properly sourced. I plead with you to leave it be as I have left your lengthy dissertation on Schuckardt's supposed views untouched. Makes me wonder why you don't quote Schuckardt. I quote him in numerable places since it shows his state of mind. I have never found any third party source that quoted his theological views after he left the Blue Army. He would never have been able to string an argument together on a theological subject without going off on how the Catholic Chucrch is the spawn of satan or had been infiltrated by the jews or the masons or the communists. I suppose that is why you don't even quote self-published material. Tell him for me: The holocaust did happen. I still remember being taught in his school that it was a fabrication of the jews. I remember the book we had to read: "The Myth of the 6 Million" Anyway, I'll give you a day to do any clean up on your stuff and tommorrow morning I'll request arbitration. I hope this time they will take it. I know when you requested it in the early part of this year (I wasn't involved then) that they passed on it. Hopefully, they'll take it this time if we keep the issue one of policy clarification. Bernie Radecki 17:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

- To DanielPi - Just so you know, there are literally hundreds of individuals, like me, who lived through Schuckardt's destructive cult from 1969 to 1984 that could tell stories that would make your head spin. We have a unique perspective. Mainly the verbal belittling and going to hell if you didn't conform and having to get permission from Schuckardt for everything. He is a life wrecker. Very little of it is in the article. It would take a book. Schuckardt's one remaining priest, 4 clerics, what 10 nuns and maybe 80 folks - these I pity.

Fra John: If you are going to use the "published letter card," then you need to practice what you preach. In the article you quote Bishop Brown from a letter he wrote, a letter that is not published to the best of my knowledge. so, you need to remove any reference to letters or first hand knowledge you have written into the article. I am doing research at the moment for my article on my web page, and the only thing I am finding out is how cultish Schuckardt is. Please, point me in a direction that would give me some PUBLISHED material that states otherwise. George Wagner 16MAY06

I have never requested arbitration, but look foward to their involvement here. Athanasius303 18:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I love this. You are deleting my statements on this page now! At least you are using brackets to show your deletions. Do you remember when you used to just delete others words off the Francis Schuckardt talk page. When I pointed out to you that that was wrong and that you should at least bracket things, you told me I was wrong. Just flat wrong. This is why the collaborative effort would not work. However, I was wrong about your request for arbitration. It was a mediation request as shown | Fra. John's rejected request. Now stop reverting the article! Let us hope that the arbitrator's accept the task. We obviously need binding decisions! Bernie Radecki 20:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Fra John, STOP EDITING PEOPLE'S THOUGHTS ON THE TALK PAGES. YOU ARE AT IT AGAIN AND IT IS UNACCEPTABLE. YOU REFUSE TO PROVIDE ME ADEQUATE MATERIAL TO SUPPORT YOUR BISHOP. FIRST HAND INFORMATION IS INADMISSABLE. PROVE US WRONG.....

George Wagner 18 MAY 06

[edit] Deletions and Arbitration

Ugh. Okay, so Fra. John, you really shouldn't delete stuff on the talk page or on this page ever. If the page gets too big, you can archive the discussion. Deletions really only disrupt the flow of communication, and that point is fairly clear. Bernie, do you want to continue with this mediation? I'm getting mixed signals. If we are continuing with mediation, can we just focus on writing the new article? I agree that we can revert to a mutually detestable version for the time being, and focus on writing a mutually agreeable one here. Danny Pi 20:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)