Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Francis Schuckardt/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Contents 1 Evidence presented by Bernie Radecki 1.1 Athanasius303 added a whole lot of Original Research that has no verifiable source 1.2 Athanasius303 reverts my properly cited sections 1.3 Athanasius303 is an unreasonable editor 1.3.1 Veils Required 2 Evidence presented by Athanasius303 (Fra. John) 2.1 No Original Research Included 2.2 Many of the Anti-Schuckardt Postings not Properly Sourced 2.3 Athanasius303's (Fra. John's) Edits Were Reasonable in Proper 2.3.1 Further Response to Radecki's Latest Additions 2.3.2 Yet Another Response to Another Addition 2.3.3 Editors Identifying Possible POV 2.3.4 Response to Gimmetrow 3 Evidence presented by Gimmetrow (talk • contribs) 3.1 Slow revert war occurring 3.2 POV-pushing 3.3 Use of personal site as source needs clarifying 3.4 Talk page refactoring needs clarification 4 Evidence presented by {your user name} 4.1 First assertion 4.2 Second assertion 5 Evidence presented by Jossi (talk • contribs) 5.1 Abuse of talk page by both sides of the dispute

[edit] Evidence presented by Bernie Radecki

[edit] Athanasius303 added a whole lot of Original Research that has no verifiable source

Here is a diff [1] that shows Athanasius303's 2000 words on the topic of Schuckardt's views in the late 1960s on the Catholic Church. He cites no newspapar or magazine articles from that time to prove that Schuckardt actually had this belief at the time. I do not doubt that Schuckardt beleived these things and Francis Schuckardt is Athanasius303's religious superior in Schuckardt's band of 5 or 6 religious men, but Athanasius303 just writes what Schuckardt "stated" and "concluded" instead of using either Schuckardt's own words or referencing some material from the 70s and 80s. I think quoting Schuckardt shows his actual frame of mind and so I have found quotes from him either in the newspaper or his own self-published articles from the 70s and 80s that I have put in the article as they accurately portray the eccentric, inflammatory rhetoric that Schuckardt actually uses. (I stongly suspect Athanasius303 is also the author of the website at www.bishopschuckardt.com as the content is often verbatim from the article so I contest that as the sole source of what Schuckardt beleives. The first public appearance of Schuckardt's beliefs on the Catholic Church seems to be this article in Wikipedia which even predated this web-site that Athanasius303 is referencing!) In addition to no verifiability, isn't it blatant original research pulling together selected snippets from the Bible and a few documents of the Catholic Church that has never been published by any verifiable, third party source? I contend as there is no independent source to corrobate this information it is evidence that Schuckardt's theological views are not what he is known for so they shouldn't be prominently displayed since only his few hundred followers hold his views in esteem. On the other hand, there is a lot of verifiable sources (Newspapaer articles, MSNBC, King 5 News, etc) on Schuckardt's behaviours (alleged cult leader, abuser of drugs, fleeing a church, bizarre practices and beliefs, sexual abuse...), but I have found no religious publication citing Schuckardt then or now for his theological views. I conclude from this that his theological views have been deemed extreme and not noteworthy and are overshadowed by his more publicized behaviors and beliefs.

Here is a diff [2] that shows Athanasius303's section "Reaction of Post-Vatican II Church". There is no reference to any source to verify that this is what Schuckardt believes. Additionally, it has outlandish claim like "many in the modern post-Vatican II Catholic Church did not appreciate being exposed for introducing and adhering to non-Catholic doctrines and so used their considerable influence and power to silence him. " This is definitely the unfounded, slanderous veiw held by the very tiny minority of his few hundred followers.

Furthermore, Schuckardt's viewpoint, as quoted in the artice, of the Catholic Church "...the arch-heretic of Rome as "his holiness" and pledges his fidelity to the apostate hierarch of the Church of the Beast - the Mystical Body of Satan?" and of Schuckardt being a pope ("Schuckardt denies that ever declared himself to be the pope. Some of his followers, however, believe him to be so based upon their belief that he is the "last true Catholic bishop"...") demonstrates that the beliefs of Schuckardt and his church are held by a very tiny minority and should not given so much coverage in the article.

[edit] Athanasius303 reverts my properly cited sections

There are sources that can be used as verifiable third party references for almost all the accusations against the Schuckardt Church that appear in the article. Some of these references are listed in the article Media Reports. As Athanasius303 removes my cited references in other areas, I have not taken the time to fix what currently appears in the article as unsourced, negative information on the subject of the article.

I have gone to considerable effort to retrieve Spokesman Review (The Spokane Washington main newspaper) newspaper articles that date to the 1980s. I have about 10 articles that deal directly with Schuckardt and his church which was in the Spokane area at that time. I have quoted a bit of the information in these articles, often citing Schuckardt's own words. Athanasius303 reverts this. Here is a diff [3] that shows 2 deletions Athanasius303 made on May 11 from the section I added on "Opposing Viewpoints to Schuckardt's Consecration".

I believe that Schuckardt's views (that the Catholic Church is the "Church of the Beast" as the article quotes Schuckardt as stating) are a tiny minority and that the majority view deserves to be included in the article. The portion from the Catholic diocesan Inland Register paper mentions Schukardt specifically and is very relevant. Yet Athanasius303 removed these with the justification of "removed critics view as opposed to biography guidelines" It is a little harder to see, but Athanasius303 again removed these sections on may 12 [4] stating "removal of not properly sourced or relevant materials". We had a bit of a revert war on this that served no purpose so I won't post the other links.

I had added a lot of text citing both newspaper articles and open letters from the parties involved in the breakup of Schuckardt's church. We were in mediation at the time and the mediator said he thought the information I added was too long so I considerably shortened it. Here is a diff showing how I cut down my own sections [5]. I took out all the parts that dealt with information from open letters. I write this here to show that I am an editor who listens to other's input and also to allow you to see that the information I have added to the article as it now stands is all properly sourced from newspaper articles and yet Athanasius303 reverts it.

Athansius303 continues to cut out a lot of material including this part based on the Spokesman Review from August 10, 1983: "He (Shuckardt) also is quoted as saying that media reports have exaggerated the church's claims that the framers of the Constitution were part of a secret conspiracy to eliminate the Catholic Church. It was a common teaching of the TLRCC that the freemasons and Jews had infiltrated the Catholic Church. The school taught the holocaust was a myth. " and this part from the June 21, 1984 article of the Spokesman review: "Regarding the charge of immorality and scandal, the article states: "Chicoine has also charged that Schuckardt was sexually involved with some of his male assisstants. He said he has several sworn statments."". Here is the link but I have shown these parts here as it is kind of hard to pick out: June 3 revert by Athanasius303 but you can look at the history page to see the revert warring.

[edit] Athanasius303 is an unreasonable editor

NOTE: If the arbitrators would be willing to consider whether Athanasius303 (AKA Fra. John, AKA 206.188.34.200) should be banned from editing this article, please read this section. Otherwise, please ignore it.

In February when I became aware of the Francis Schuckardt article, I was a newbie and wrote a few negative things on the Talk page about Athanasius303 out of frustration. I have since learned more about Wikipedia and I believe I have mended my ways. Athanasius303 has continuously thwarted efforts by at least 6 or 7 editors to make needed changes to this article. I have come to the conclusion that his close ties to Francis Schuckardt (his religious superior in the Schuckardt's tiny church) have caused him to be unable to understand other points of view. It is for this reason that I think he should be banned from editing the article on Francis Schuckardt. Take a look at this 2500 word section [9] Athanasius303 has written in the article. You will see his unsubstantiated statements like:

"They claim that it was common knowledge within Bishop Schuckardt's inner circle and well known to the Chicoine faction that the Bishop found Chicoine and his adherents to be both incompetent and untrustworthy"

"The Schuckardt faction claims that it was lust for power and primal greed that primarily spawned the revolution; and that coupled with the widespread dissatisfaction of many members over having to live lives of strict, uncompromising Catholicism, Church members were eager for change and readily accepted Chicoine's accusations without question."

You will see that Athanasius303 uses selected Bible quotes as proof of his points and is adamant that the Schuckardt Church is 100% orthodox on all its beliefs. This bias must be what prevents him from seeing anyone else's point of view.

"The Schuckardt faction also alleges that many of the charges against them are outright false and others are rooted in crass ignorance of the actual teachings and customs of the Catholic Church"

"The Schuckardt faction criticizes those who attack the principle of obedience to legitimate Church authority, because in attacking this obedience, they attack the teachings of Jesus Christ Himself"

"The Schuckardt faction claims that the rules imposed were neither arbitrary nor fanatical, but rather that each and every major directive had its basis in Catholic principles."

On the talk page, you can read these remarks by Athanasius303 (AKA Fra John)

"In concluding, every significant practice we embrace can be traced to the teachings and practices of the Catholic Church" 1/14/06

"This is why those of us who continue to acknowledge him (Shuckardt) have never given much weight to the accusations, because even if they are true, it is a matter of personal sin, not of public debate. Furthermore, to take it into the public arena would be to commit a grievous sin of detraction; anyone committing such a sin and dying unrepentant of it, would go to Hell for all eternity. " Fra. John 2/27/06

Replying to me, Athanasius303 wrote "You are neither qualified to make moral judgments regarding any Bishop's diocese nor are you established to pass judgment on them. The Catholic Church has never been a democracy and it never will be." Fra. John. 2/27/06

"My arguments are almost always based upon the teachings of the Catholic Church before Vatican Council II; your arguments are almost always based upon your opinions and emotions" Fra. John Athanasius303 04:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"You just ignore that what you cannot respond to from the position of Catholicism and beat the drums of ill-will all the louder." Athanasius303 20:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John)

I tried to work collaboratively through the mediation process, but it was ineffective. Here is the page [8]. We went round and round trying to determine what the term "Catholic Church" should mean! Almost 5000 words were expended on the topic of whether Denis Chicoine was in hell or at least permanently separated from the Catholic Church due to Schuckardt's excommunication of him. On April 27th, Athanasius303 agreed to accept the mediator negotiated comprimise proposal on this topic Agreement and Athanasius303 implemented it in the article.implementation However, for no given reason, Athanasius303 changed the agreed upon text in the article on May 30th May 30th This really disappointed me because of the effort spent coming up with a comprimise and then Athanasius303 surreptisiously changed it without discussion a month later.

Athanasius303 routinely removes others' talk page input on the grounds of "personal attack" and "against policy". He frequently lectures others on policy and is adamant in his interpretation of it in spite of other editors objections. Almost universally, the input is eyewitness accounts of those who lived in Schuckardt's church in the 1970s and 1980s regarding topics already in the article. It did not constitue a personal attack against any editor and Athanasius303 denies many of the abuses mentioned in the article ever occurred. For instance, in the 80s, all females were required to wear veils in public. Athanasius303 contests this. So a number of females who were in the church reponded on the talk page saying it was true (You can imagine a teenage girl would remember this type of thing), but he deleted their input. I found a high school publication from the late 70s that shows a picture of about a dozen high school girls swimming in a remote lack in North Idaho in veils and long dresses. I cited that in the article, but Athanasius303 deleted it too. For a while, he would just remove all or part of others' input and not show that he had done so! When I told him he should at least bracket his deletions he responded on that talk page with: Lastly, you are incorrect about Wiki suggesting to put removed personal attacks in brackets. Wiki simply advocates the use of brackets in the fashion that is common to all editors - when you are quoting someone, anything added extraneous to that quote by the editor should be placed in brackets. I am going to remove some more personal attacks from this page per policy. Fra. John 3/6/06" All his deletions accomplished was to anger editors and newbies which would at times provoke them to complain about Athanasius303. Here is an example of his behaviour from the talk page: [13]. Another example: [14]. Another example: [15]. Another [17]. Another [18]. Another [19]. Another [20]. Many editors have complained about this behaviour. I know he drove editors away. Our Mediator, DanielPi told him: [21], but this hasn't slowed Athanasius303 down at all. Maybe some of the inputs were improper, but they were from newbies and Athanasius303 was so involved in the debate that he should not have been the one doing the deletions IMHO.

Here is section [6] on the topic of the connection between Schuckardt fleeing Spokane (after being denounced by Denis Chicoine in June of 1984) and the Aryan Nations possibly being on Mt. St. Michaels grounds (This is the main Church gounds in Spokane). The first paragraph is Athanasius303s and the second paragraph is mine. Contrast the content of my paragraph and Athanasius303's content. On the talk page, Athanasius303 claims steadfast that Sheriff Cloud's testimony demonstrates a affiliation between the Aryan Nations and the church at Mt. Saint Michaels. Please take a look at the dialog on the talk page [7] on this subject as I beleive it shows he is unable to work with others. Here is one edit of Athanasius303's: [10] in which he makes an outlandish, baseless allegation. When other editors contested this statement and his continued allegation that Sheriff Cloud's testimony constituted proof of a affiliation between the white supremecisats and Mt. St. Michaels, Athanasius303 added this [11]. The next day, Athanasius303 remained adamant that he had provided proof of an affiliation: [12] I find that he is adamnant that he is right, does some wiki-lawyering, and reverts the article over and over most of the time with no dialog. This has led to endless debate with no results!

[edit] Veils Required

I deleted my entry under this heading. After getting input from other editors, I realized it came down to a disagreement between the words "required" versus "encouraged" and there was no independent, third party source to clarify this. Bernie Radecki 14:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Athanasius303 (Fra. John)

[edit] No Original Research Included

Radecki’s claim against me of adding “original research” stems from his rejection of Wiki’s policy of allowing self-published sources of the subjects of biographies [Bishop Schuckardt's website. ,,,], but only when it opposes his POV. He freely uses them, however, whenever he thinks it supports his POV: [2], [3], [4], [5]. I posted the "self-published" policy for him, but he seems to ignore any policy that stands in the way of his objective. The 1,800 words he just posted above is yet another example of his disregard for following rules and guidelines.

It should be noted that the self-published sources I posted are not constructed as “statements of fact,” but statements of the “Bishop’s opinion or view.” If Radecki would properly give the whole quote instead of cherry picking a certain portion of it, that would have been obvious [6].

My Evidence (Sources): 1. Self-published: *Bishop Schuckardt's Personal Website, all TLRCC publications (the Church Bishop Schuckardt heads). 2. Public sources: All Catholic Church publications prior to 1959 (Bible, canon law books, papal encyclicals, Catholic Encyclopedia...); court records, corporation records.

[edit] Many of the Anti-Schuckardt Postings not Properly Sourced

I reject Radecki's claim that I revert properly cited sections. I believe all the sections I extracted were due to Wiki policy/guideline violations. I'm sure the Committee has better things to do, I would invite them to read the talk pages in their entirety rather than selected portions which distort the overall picture. Outside of perhaps a few snafu’s, I believe the talk pages demonstrate that I made a real effort to get all editors to conform to policy guidelines: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. In my opinion, the postings by the anti-Schuckardt editors are in violation of policies and guidelines and therefore were properly extracted. I could post these policies and guidelines for all to see on this page, but I'm sure the Committee is better informed on these policies than I am. But in general they violate verifiability (false attribution, unaccepted sources, ...); biography guidelines, NPOV (Religion section). Bearing in mind the advice to keep things short, I will not post each violation (Radecki conveniently has posted many of the reverts in contention). If the Committee or another editor feels it would be beneficial for me to do so, then I will. Athanasius303 19:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Athanasius303's (Fra. John's) Edits Were Reasonable in Proper

I feel like I'm back in the 3rd grade, being tattled on and tattling on others. But I should responsed to Radecki's efforts to get me banned from editing because of my "unreasonableness."

It is noteworthy that the only concession made during Mediation process was by me, no one else. He pulled out of Mediation, not I.

The talk pages are about 60 pages long and have proven to be totally ineffectual. I posted to all editors at the beginning of the Mediation process that my time was presently tight and that seemed only to encourage them to post all the more vigorously. Considering the fact that I cannot keep up with all of their postings (almost all of which are rehashes) and the fact that these pages have produced NOTHING constructive, I reject Radecki’s mischaracterization of my failure to engage in meaningful discussions. In fact, you will probably discover that there are more of my postings (initially as "Fra. John") on the talk pages than anyone else’s; but endless debate without results serves no purpose and I raised that concern on a number of occasions [17].

Regarding extracting some of the comments posted on the talk pages, I believe I was accurately following the policy guidelines given on the "No Personal Attacks" article and "Biographies of Living Persons" article. I first posted a warning that I would start to employ the tool of removing personal attacks [18] before I actually started to do it. Here is a sampling of some postings which I felt were in violation of the No Personal Attacks policy and the "Remove unsourced criticism" guideline from the Biographies of Living Persons which states: "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 and without regard to the three-revert rule." You be the judge: [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. Athanasius303 20:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Radecki's unsubstantiated claim that Bishop's Schuckardt's website is not his own is false and unmerited. Athanasius303 18:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further Response to Radecki's Latest Additions

Radecki makes his changes in the text of his original argument which makes it difficult to address his changes with specificity.

Since he is using this evidence page to do more than simply cite evidence, I think in fairness to Bishop Schuckardt, I should be allowed to respond in kind.

I think some context is needed here. When Bishop Schuckardt was forced to leave in 1984, his enemies launched a smear campaign against him. Since there were no provisions in any Church law which they held at the time (or presently hold) to justify their conduct, they opted to assassinate his character to give validity to their conduct. Historically speaking, hardly a new concept. They were very successful at this. The stuff they were telling was sensational (sex, power, revolt, …) and the kind of material which sells newspapers. The truth of the matter is much less sensational, if not downright boring, and no media corporation answering to their shareholders would publish such material, because boring doesn’t sell. An example of this is the Dateline story Radecki references. Our Church members spent 3 hours doing taped interviews with them, debunking many of the errors prior broadcasts had been airing. They of course were not interested in the truth; again, boring doesn’t sell. They took from those 3 hours of taped interviews about 4 of the worst possible minutes, completely out of context, and tried to further sensationalize the story with these edits. Sex, cult, abuse… these are the things that sell!

So along comes Wikipedia. A format where making shareholders happy is not the objective. A format which allows all sides of the story to be told (bearing in mind certain criteria). Wikipedia is the first public format where the anti-Schuckardt crowd have been challenged, and they are livid. You should see some of the things they say about me on their blogs, simply because I dared to come forward and challenge many of their outlandish statements. Some of these outlandish statements Radecki posted right here on this evidence page. If you are interest, I can go through them one-by-one for you to see. I have no objective here other than to get the truth out. I do not engage in attacking them in any format, whether it be our Church websites, Church publications, or even their church articles here in Wikipedia. I don’t have an axe to grind. I am not interested in retaliation. I am interested, however, in correcting the many falsehoods regarding Bishop Schuckardt and I presume so is the average reader.

Having said that, this article is a biography. How can anyone raise an objection that it represents a tiny minority view. Biographies, by their very nature, are to represent a tiny viewpoint, a viewpoint of one – the subject of the biography. Radecki’s unsupported claims about Bishop Schuckardt’s personal website are false and more accurately represent wishful thinking on his part than factual accuracy. He hasn’t heard Bishop Schuckardt speak for over 22 years, yet he would have you believe that he is qualified to pass judgment that Bishop Schuckardt is not the author of this website? Of course there are similarities occurring both on the website and in the article. Much of what is in the article was more or less directed downloaded from the website and vice-versa. It’s not a dead website, it’s an active website. If it were a secretive website set up simply to bolster the article, do you real think that we would be so stupid as to not to try to camouflage it?

I’ll admit that perhaps some of my extractions went too far. But it is the responsibility of the posting editor to post only verifiable and relevant statements, and I would find myself frustrated at Radecki’s lack of regard for these policies and found it quicker and easier simply to extract the entire addition than to do the actually editing myself. After all, the burden is on him to post only properly sourced and relevant materials, not the other was around. I wasn’t going to do his work for him, separating that which was purely gratuitous from that which may or may not be properly included. Now I'm probably over a 1,000 words; see what happens! Athanasius303 18:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yet Another Response to Another Addition

Radecki’s latest addition regarding “all females were required to wear veils in public” that he added on June 6 under “Athanasius 303 an unreasonable editor” exemplifies what I consider to the be one of the major editing issues I have with him and the other anti-Schuckardt people. His argument for verifiability is based upon a picture showing women in veils and the claimed personal experience of three women (all of whom have demonstrated a very anti-Schuckardt POV on the talk pages). He has not produced any acceptable source material substantiating the claim that they were “required” to wear their veils as he states and yet argues for its insertion into the article. He has failed to meet Wiki criteria here and my read of policy supports deletion under such circumstances. He has failed to meet his burden of proof. (Furthermore, that women were encouraged to wear their veils at all times in public as stated in the Answers to Accusations Section of the article is factually correct.) Athanasius303 19:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editors Identifying Possible POV

I think I can truthfully state that with the exception of Jossi, all the contributing editors here are “traditionalists” and are not coming from a neutral POV. I was up front in disclosing myself right from the start and in the spirit of fairness, I would ask all other contributors to do likewise.

[edit] Response to Gimmetrow

I have detected a little POV from Gimmetrow right from the start and I would ask him to disclose more about himself if he doesn’t mind. He may be involved in the traditionalist Catholic Church movement and I think that if this is correct, for the sake of NPOV, it should be disclosed.

Gimmetrow’s statement that “The phrasing pushes point-of-view by having the encyclopedia say 'it turns out this fear was well founded,' (quote from court testimony)” is incorrect. The court transcript quoted here makes no reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia and neither does the article in this instance. I have not stated that Bishop Schuckardt’s personal website claims that “he fled because of the Aryan Nations,” but that he fled “in fear for his safety” which is accurate, both as to website content and to the actual facts. (While I did on one occasion state that it was factually correct that Bishop Schuckardt did flee in fear for his safety, because “I was there,” at no time did I ever suggest that my personal experience in this regard should be included in the article.)

The mediator did indeed suggest not removing anything from the talk pages, but Wiki policy does not support him here. I said nothing at the time because I thought there were more weighty issues needing to be addressed.

I believe I have already addressed the website issue. Athanasius303 19:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Gimmetrow (talk • contribs)

[edit] Slow revert war occurring

There may have been a revert war developing over what should be the "stable" version during arbitration. Nevertheless, one section became the focus. Note the "Expulsion, Exile, and Aryan Nations" section if you look at the diffs:

• [25] - first removal by Diligens, 20 May
• [26] - reinsertion by 206.188.34.200, 21 May
• [27] - removal by 24.9.99.172, 21 May
• [28] - reinsertion by 206.188.34.200, 22 May
• [29] - removal by Diligens, 22 May
• [30] - reinsertion by 206.188.34.200, 23 May

Talk page discussion on the Aryan Nations quote started by Bernie Radecki at this point.

• [31] - removal by Diligens, 23 May)
• [32] - reinsertion by 206.188.34.200, 24 May
• [33] - removal by 24.9.99.172, 24 May
• [34] - reinsertion by 71.36.46.171, 24 May
• [35] - removal by Bernie Radecki, 25 May
• [36] - reinsertion by 206.188.34.200, 26 May
• [37] - removal by Bernie Radecki, 26 May
• [38] - reinsertion by Athanasius303, 27 May
• [39] - removal by JamesReyes, 27 May
• [40] - reinsertion by Athanasius303, 29 May
• [41] - removal by Diligens, 29 May
• [42] - reinsertion by 206.188.34.200, 30 May
• [43] - removal by Diligens, 30 May
• [44] - reinsertion by Athanasius303, 31 May

At this point, Athanasius did further substantial edits [45] and [46]

• [47] - removed/reverted by Bernie Radecki, 31 May
• [48] - reinserted/reverted by 206.188.34.200, 1 June
• [49] - removed/reverted by Diligens, 1 June
• [50] - reinserted/reverted by Athanasius303, 1 June
• [51] - removed/reverted by Bernie Radecki, 1 June
• [52] - reversion by Diligens to Athansius303 version, 1 June

Diligens here acknowledged hold on that version in attempt to break revert war.

• [53] - removed/reverted by Bernie Radecki, 1 June, apparently didn't notice
• [54] - reinserted/reverted by Athanasius303, 2 June
• [55] - removed/reverted by JamesReyes, 2 June
• [56] - reinserted/reverted by Athanasius303, 3 June
• [57] - removed/reverted by JamesReyes, 4 June
• [58] - reinserted/reverted by 206.188.34.200, 4 June
• [59] - removed/reverted by JamesReyes, 4 June
• [60] - reinserted/reverted by Athanasius303, 5 June
• [61] - removed/reverted by 138.163.0.41, 6 June, in 2 steps

This is basically the edit history since 20 May. It discouraged editing. Aside from these, 24.9.99.172 changed the way the subjects personal website was identified (which got wrapped into the revert war), and Jossi and a bot fixed some spelling and format. None of the major players look good, but give credit to Diligens for trying to break the revert war.

[edit] POV-pushing

This is the content dispute at the heart of the previous edit war, the quote from court testimony mentioning Aryan Nations: [62]

The phrasing pushes point-of-view by having the encyclopedia say "it turns out this fear was well founded, for" (quote from court testimony.)

Discussion on talk was about whether the quote supported that the "fear was well-founded."

[edit] Use of personal site as source needs clarifying

I have no problem with a personal site as a source for personal beliefs. For other matters, anyone can self-publish a website claiming anything. Policy on use of a personal website as a source about contentious historical events is debated by participants.

Compare the tables of contents of the wiki article and Schuckardt's personal site, as viewed today (00:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)). Correlation suggests not independent, possible sense of ownership of article, and possibly that content has been copied one way or the other. (2 column table follows, expand browser window if necessary.)

According to WHOIS lookup, the website was first registered on Dec 02, 2005, after this article started.

  Domain Name: BISHOPSCHUCKARDT.COM
  Registrar: ENOM, INC.
  Whois Server: whois.enom.com
  Referral URL: http://www.enom.com
  Name Server: NS6.AFMU.COM
  Name Server: NS5.AFMU.COM
  Status: ACTIVE
  Updated Date: 02-dec-2005
  Creation Date: 02-dec-2005
  Expiration Date: 02-dec-2006

[edit] Talk page refactoring needs clarification

Athanasius303 has removed material from talk page. The examples listed in his evidence section are clear. Some of the removed content is objectionable as a personal attack on an editor.

These seem less clear:

• [63] - comments by 71.102.147.243 removed
• [64] - comments by Bernie Radecki removed

This sort of refactoring did not help the atmosphere. It seems justifiable, but not customary. The refactored statements seem similar to other moderate controversial content about religious groups on other talk pages:

• [65] - Unverifiable accusations of antisemitism, not removed since May 19
• [66] - Claim that a religious belief is superstition, not removed since May 25

Athanasius303 was warned to be reserved deleting talk content (by mediator during mediation process)

Policy on this point needs clarifying to all involved.

[edit] Evidence presented by {your user name}

[edit] First assertion

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "Jimmy Wales engages in edit warring". Here you would list specific edits to specific articles which show Jimmy Wales engaging in edit warring

[edit] Second assertion

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "Jimmy Wales makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where Jimmy Wales made personal attacks.

ATHANASIUS DELETES INPUT ON TALK PAGE

Athanasius writes the article as fact when he is writing from his personal experiences. When others refute what he writes on the talk pages with their experiences he deletes the contribution as "personal attack" "vandalism", etc.

The Counterclaims and Answers to Accusations make false statements. (I don't know how to link to these) When someone brings up an experience on the talk page that refutes these counterclaims Athanasius deletes the contribution. In the article Athanasius calls what we all know as the "Catholic Church" the "Post Vatican II Church" and calls the church we know was founded by Schuckardt as "the Catholic Church".

Bottom line - The article about a controversial subject such as a cultish religious group is written in this instance by a member of the group. When ex-members try to enlighten readers, the input is deleted. (Laurie Pipan June 6)

[edit] Evidence presented by Jossi (talk • contribs)

[edit] Abuse of talk page by both sides of the dispute

The talk page has been abused by both sides of the dispute, with disregard for basic talk-page discipline.

1. The "anti" faction (namely ex-members) is using the talk page to further their criticism of Schuckardt, by writing lengthy comments about their "personal experiences", under the excuse of "enligting readers", an obvious case of using talk pages for advocacy against the subject of the article;
2. The "pro" Schuckardt faction (in this case User:Athanasius303) is deleting and refactoring comments on the basis of an assessment made on these to be against WP:BLP guidelines.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)