Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-28 Miracles at Lourdes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-05-28 Miracles at Lourdes 1.1 Mediator response 1.2 Evidence 1.3 Compromise offers 1.4 Comments by others 1.5 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-05-28 Miracles at Lourdes

)

Where is the issue taking place?

The issue is taking place primarily in the article entitled Miracles at Lourdes.

Who's involved?

User Barbara Shack, and various persons who have worked on the article, including myself.

What's going on?

Initially, Miss Shack began adding material to the article on Bernadette Soubirous, which she said was intended to make the article conform to NPOV standards by adding the so-called "skeptic" (a la James Randi) point of view. The additions included a good deal of badly-written extraneous material and what looked like original research. She did not bother to cite sources as to how this material was relevant specifically to the events at Lourdes in 1858 (for instance, had anyone at the highly critical 1859-1861 Lourdes Commission suggested that Bernadette had eaten hallucinogenic mushrooms or was a victim of ergotism, she could have said that and it would have been perfectly within keeping).

When asked to remove or change it, she suggested that those who made such requests were credulous Catholics who wished to censor the view that the Lourdes apparitions were anything but miraculous; "Roman Catholics regularly delete material critical of alleged miracles at Lourdes. This biases the article." She subsequently created an article entitled "Miracles connected with Lourdes" where she presented her view. When others attempted to work on the article, she again accused them of being Catholics with an agenda. She has re-added her material into the article numerous times. The article is presently entitled Miracles at Lourdes and is being considered for incorporation into an article to be called "Our Lady of Lourdes".

Miss Shack has been warned numerous times about the 3RR and has disregarded these warnings. Today, she's put her material back into the article for well over the third time, including a dead link to CSICOP's old Lourdes article which I specifically asked her not to put in again. Miss Shack's talk page indicates that several other articles have been vandalized by her in this manner, and other users have complained to her about it.

What would you like to change about that?

She should be given a thorough education in exactly what she is doing wrong and how to contribute properly. Failing that, she should be banned. It says to resolve disputes by going through the mediation process, and this is the next step since I along with other users have attempted to speak to her about her habits.

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

It's okay -- you can contact me through my talk page. I think it will be fairly clear to her who requested mediation and why.

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

Not at this time but possibly in a few months from now. Thank you.

...

[edit] Mediator response

This case originally involved some additions by Barbera Shack that were problematic. She hasn't edited since mediation started. The article itself still has a POV and the edit war did some damage in that earlier versions were better organized. There was talk of an overhaul but it appears that interest was waned. I'm giving one more try to reviving this article and then I'm closing the case off. jbolden1517^Talk 14:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm closing the case I'm recording the following in case this case ever needs to be reopened. [1].

jbolden1517^Talk 02:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence

I was not sure how to get this to work. Her changes can be seen at Miracles at Lourdes, history and Bernadette Soubirous, history. Among other places. Talk:Miracles at Lourdes and Talk:Bernadette Soubirous provide examples of how people including User:MamaGeek are trying without success to get her to cooperate. User talk:Barbara Shack shows the number of messages she has received from others, not just about this subject. I suspect that if she is contacted for mediation, she will simply assume that the mediators are Roman Catholics; I suggest that whoever takes this case should not be one.

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Comments by others

I appreciate that User:Bluejay Young started this mediation procedure which was long overdue. I had similar experiences in February 2006 (cf. Talk:Miracles_at_Lourdes and Talk:Bernadette_Soubirous/Archive_1) and thought about starting a mediation procedure. I dropped it because my lack of time. Barbara usually made edits like [2] and was unwilling to talk about them. I didn't have the energy to follow the discussion (I sometimes had the feeling I was like Sisyphus carrying on a stone on top of the mountain again and again.) so I dropped it. Interestingly enough Barbara Shack has now the same problems with other users (or rather vice versa) so I really think that there something needs to be done. --Benedikt 09:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC) PS: To JBogdan and Bluejay: You added some comments on my talk page and I didn't answer them. Sorry for that, I wasn't active on wikipedia for the last weeks. --Benedikt 09:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion