Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/John Favalora/page1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OK, how would you like to do this? On this page, private Wiki mediation, or private e-mail and/or IRC mediation? Andre (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Private email sounds slow. I don't know what IRC mediation is. "On this page" is okay with me. I'm amenable to other forms of mediation.Student7 19:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

IRC mediation is instantaneous, in a chat room. I agree that e-mail is probably too slow. As an alternative to this page, we have a MedCom Wiki which has confidentiality. Andre (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Chat room is a bit too fast for me. This seems okay, even preferable, if okay with the others.Student7 00:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
This method is fine with me. Aafm 01:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, this medium is fine. Can all of you stop editing the pages in question during the mediation? It makes it easier, I think. I can protect the page to prevent edits as well if all of you want me to (but I won't otherwise). Does either of you know how to get DominvsVobiscvm to stop editing and come to this page? Andre (talk) 08:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a large part of the problem. This individual does not honestly seem interested in compromise or discussion, only continuing to publish his material. I think given the nature of what is going on, it would be advisable to lock both the John Favalora and Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami articles. That might, perhaps, get DominvsVobiscvm to come to the discussions. Undos are reaching 2 or 3 per day now. There is some possible indication that this individual is now using the alias Annpavlosky, as this individual is now also now repeatedly attempting to add the same material as DominvsVobiscvm even though the article is under mediation. Aafm 13:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. If you could lock the pages with the controversial stuff under discussion missing, that might get his attention. Since it would probably not be desirable for you to do reversion, maybe I can do it and refer him to this page. Student7 13:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
So are you two in the same camp, and you both disagree with him? Andre (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. If you review the history of both articles since approximately the 12th of July, you will note that we were the first to call DominvsVobiscvm's additions into question. Again, it wasn't the material per say, but proper placement, citation and tone. Since the 12th there have been other individuals who have also been somewhat vigilant in editing the articles due to the repeated additions of DominvsVobiscvm. A review of his talk page seems to indicate this has been an issue in the past. If people are telling you at 6:30am that your material fails to be neutral, might not be in the proper place and needs more sources, one might listen instead of reposting the same material at 2:30pm, then again the following morning, etc. Aafm 00:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear. This is definitely not a coordinated thing! I first encountered User Aafm on these two sites and often agreed with his edits. We do not communicate with each other except to DominvsVobiscvm to try to get his attention and understanding of our concerns which he has steadfastly ignored. As Aafm has noted, other editors appear to share our concern. Some of what DominvsVobiscvm has entered maybe could be used, but he refuses to publish the updated versions since a negative disposition (court dismissal and withdrawal) of several cases he found did not promote whatever object he was trying to achieve. So he reenters them as "active" cases, which they are not, over my objections. Like all editors we have mildly different approaches to editing which Aafm and I can work out with each other and other interested editors. We haven't been able to achieve this with DominvsVobiscvm. Student7 00:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I see. I'm going to give him a day or two to come to this mediation and participate, but if he does not want to cooperate with the dispute resolution process, you two should probably file a request for comment on his behavior, and then possibly a request for Arbitration. Andre (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Wait! Doesn't he have to pay court costs or something? :) Student7 13:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
There's a third article, a church, which I won't look up and which Aafm is not editing. Dominvs+ hasn't been attacking it lately, but did in the recent past. My problem anyway is that this guy's edits prior to the Miami Catholic sites recently haven't been that questionable, so I was reluctant to declare him a vandal.
What is the difference (short version. I'm sure there's a lengthy explanation someplace), between arbitration and mediation? Obviously in mediation, all parties have to show up. Apparently there is a major difference? Student7 13:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The main difference is, mediation is voluntary and non-binding, whereas Arbitration has disciplinary power and authority. Andre (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What this comes down to is that everything I posted is newsworthy and a matter of public record, and cited with references, especially when I go out of my way to note that a aprticular suit was dismissed. As long as I have blood in my veins, my edits will stay. DominvsVobiscvm 17:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then let me ask the following.
What does the following statement have to do with John Favalora or the Archdiocese of Miami? This is content for a separate article of the organization's name, is it not? Quoting, "In 2004, a group of concerned lay Catholics of the Miami Archdiocese constituted themselves a lay "watchdog" organization, under the name Christifidelis. They were moved to do so by what they have alleged is a gay superculture running the archdiocese."
Again, dealing specifically with the organization Christifidelis, would this not be more appropriate under such an article? Furthermore, no source is provided. Quoting, " Broward County attorney Sharon Bourassa, a member of Christifidelis, was counsel for The Rev. Andrew Dowgiert in a lawsuit filed against the Archdiocese in May of 2005. Fr. Dowgiert, on loan from a Polish archdiocese and soon to be incardinated in Miami, alleged that he was "fired" from activie ministry in the Miami Archdiocese after whistle-blowing on homosexual activity by several pastors of the Archdiocese (particularly that of Fr. Anibal Morales of All Saints Parish [in Sunrise])." Furthermore, since the lawsuit was dismissed (regardless of reason), what effect does it still have? Quoting, "The lawsuit was eventually dismissed, on the grounds that in involved "separation of church and state" issues. The court refused to determine whether a religious employer wrongfully terminated the ministerial employment of an ordained cleric. In dismissing the case, the court made no determination on the veracity of the above allegations."
Under John Favalora, the following has no reason for publication. Under the Archdiocese itself, the placement is incorrect. This statement would be more appropriate in an article dealing with homosexual acceptance within the Catholic church. Quoting, "Two of the Miami Archdiocese's parishes (Saints Anthony and Maurice, both in Fort Lauderdale) are publicly featured on the directory of the Conference for Catholic Lesbians as being "Gay-Friendly"; a complimentary directory lists both Archdicoesan universities, Barry and Saint Thomas, as "Gay-Friendly".[1][2]"
The addition of the following "*Gay-Friendly Parishes, in which the Miami Archdiocese is represented" has no place on someone's biography. This is better placed on an article dealing with homosexual relations with the Catholic church, does it not?
The source you are providing for the following was originally placed in the article by me for another section. It does not match the facts you are stating "Archbishop Favaloa has been deposed in a lawsuit filed against retired Broward priest Neil Doherty; at least four lawsuits are alleging the Archdiocese knew Doherty was a pedophile and covered-up allegations, keeping Doherty in ministry until he was first publicly accused of sexual abuse in 2002.[3]". Being specific, the second half of this statement is not sourced.
Source for the following statement is absent, which is clearly an opinion and is not factually based, "The Miami Archdiocese is among the more theologically liberal in the country; liturgical celebration is lax, and Archbishop Favalora has provided only one Latin Mass according to the Missal of 1962. It remains to be seen how (if it all) he will implement the motu proprio of Pope Benedict XVI, Summorum Pontificum."
Your general attitude is somewhat disturbing. Simply because you want to voice opinion, or perhaps have an organization's impact on someone else more predominately placed does not justify the additions. An article for the Christifidelis organization should be created and placed under the root Roman Catholic sex abuse cases article. Given it's involvement in the Archdiocese, having it appear as a link under "Also See" in that article might be appropriate. However, I still cannot find justification for any addition to the John Favalora article. In addition, could you please refrain from continuing to add this material even though the mediator has asked you to refrain? Aafm 21:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course all this is relevant to both articles, in just the same way an article on George W. Bush would be right to document criticism leveled against him. DominvsVobiscvm 22:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Dowgiert

Let's try one thing at a time. Dowgiert's suit was dismissed because of First Amendment Issues - separation of church and state in 2005. He dropped his suit in 2006. Therefore, there never having been a suit, this is not newsworthy historically. It is like an annulment. It never happened. You have continually reported this as an "open" case which it is not. The court has ruled. Dowgiert and his attorney have accepted the results. Why can we not report all the facts. Or none of them. This is an encyclopedia. We are supposed to be reporting the truth as it happened, not as we would like it to have happened. Student7 22:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you blind, or just mentally disabled? I did note that the lawsuit was dismissed. That would be ALL the facts. If the dismissal of a suit, or dismissal of charges, were not newsworthy, we wouldn't have articles on Juanita Broderick or the Duke Lacrosse players. DominvsVobiscvm 07:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Dominvs, I think your attitude is a little unhelpful. Please take a step back and consider WP:NPA. I'm going to read over the article and I'll have some suggestions in the next few days, sorry for the delay. Andre (talk) 07:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
If I could add, using your example, head over and look at the root Duke University article. Detailed material about the 2006 case is not present. Instead, a one sentence note that an incident occurred has been placed with a link to the appropriate subarticle...2006 Duke University lacrosse case. Aafm 19:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV & controversy

Meanwhile, I'd like to lay out a few points in the abstract, and I would like you all to let me know if you agree with these general principles without commenting on the specifics of this case.

  • All significant points of view should be reported on in an article.
  • NPOV deals with inclusion of statements as well as the truth and neutrality of the statements themselves.
  • Sometimes including a factually true and neutral statement can impact the neutrality of an article.
  • Weasel words such as "some say" or "many feel" are strongly discouraged.

Please leave some thoughtful comments about these principles, and all of you, stop reverting each other (even if that means letting The Wrong Version be active for a little while during our discussion). Andre (talk) 07:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I was "taught" these principles when I became an editor last year. I try to use them in the articles I edit, even when I don't "like" the statements.
Would you prefer to lead the discussion? i.e. should I hold off answering in Dowgiert, above? I will refrain until I hear back. Student7 12:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Either way -- usually people come to mediation when regular discussion hasn't worked, but go ahead if you think it would be helpful. Andre (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I will wait until Dominvsvobisvm replies to your suggested principles... next week? Student7 18:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Just one point I would like to add. Since one of the articles in question, John Favalora, is also a living biographical article, also have a stricter standard don't they? Quoting from the disclaimer from it, "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous". Again, I think a large amount of the material deals with proper location...as a large amount belongs in a separate article. Aafm 19:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I considered making reference to our WP:BLP policy in my comment above, but that's a very controversial policy that is relatively new, and serves a supplemental role. Therefore I'd like to see if we can address the problem "the old-fashioned way" using our core policies like NPOV and citing reliable sources. If we must, we can discuss the BLP aspect. Andre (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Please note that Dominvsvobiscvm has continued to edit. I haven't. That is fine, but, if we want him here, there's no reason for him to return if the articles read the way he wants. There is currently another editor who disagrees with some of what he writes so he's now in a revert war with her. Student7 19:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you ask her to come help us mediate as well? Andre (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I have sent her an email inviting her to join us but not really suggesting she should if she is happy with the way things are going. She didn't seem to have a discussion page or user page. (It seemed curious that she had an email. Don't know what to make of that). In the meantime, we have yet a fifth editor! This one I have edited stuff with before but I don't remember where. Student7 22:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Can we be content with both articles, as they now stand? I think this makes for a fair compromise.DominvsVobiscvm 02:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami...again, the first two paragraphs you have added about the Christifidelis organization seem to me to belong someplace else and almost seem more like an advertisement (it is also lacking source). In addition, remarks about "gay-friendly" parishes I do not feel are appropriate. Such information is better placed under the Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism article. In general, the "priest sex scandals" deals with a lot more than simply homosexuality. Under John Favalora, the material is not sourced and some of my earlier questions/remarks still stand. Also, about the other user who is contributing, apparently they are identifying themselves as the owner/editor of www.cclonline.org and requested the links/references to their site be removed. (Referenced here[1])Aafm 07:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Dominvs, are you interested in having a mediation or not? Andre (talk) 07:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to be included in the mediation. Thank you. Annpavlosky 31 July 2007

[edit] Christifidelis

What we have left today is the following article in John Favalora"
(Subtitle:) Gay Sex Scandals
"In 2004, a group of concerned lay Catholics of the Miami Archdiocese constituted themselves a lay "watchdog" organization, under the name Christifidelis. Broward County attorney Sharon Bourassa, a member of Christifidelis, was counsel for The Rev. Andrew Dowgiert in a lawsuit filed against the Archdiocese in May of 2005. In 2005 and 2006, Catholic columnist Matt C. Abbott (of RenewAmerica.us) published several articles tracing developments in what became known as the "Miami Vice" scandal."

1. The article fails to state in what way homosexuality is connected with the rest of the article. What does "Gay" refer to?
2. I have trouble finding Christifidelis on the internet. They may have a presence nationally. I'm not sure there is more than a paper organization in Miami. In short, it is a sham organization for purposes of reporting anything.
3.The dismissed and withdrawn Dowgiert lawsuit has been discussed. Dowgiert was annoyed at being reassigned to job where he would not be exposed to minors in view of accusations made against him. This does not tie in well with whatever the section is trying to say. Is molesting/homosexuality good or bad? If bad, why is the editor and Christifidelis defending Dowgiert, an accused molestor?
4.RenewAmerica.us has a noticeable presence on the web. It is run by Alan Keyes, a right wing columnist/politician. It is heavily biased and therefore not a referenceable site.
5.What "vice?" This is a cute name. But there's nothing here to connect anything to "vice," except the accusations against Dowgiert which the editor apparently disagrees with.
6.None of this seems reportable anyway. So what? Even if Christifidelis is a big organization. Why does this section deserve space? There are 4000 organizations in America all wanting to be heard. And most of them have opinions about the Catholic church. What makes this one so special that it deserves space in Wikipedia?
7.And what is this doing under "Favalora" anyway? I don't see how it ties in with him (except for the mysterious reference to Dowgiert. If encyclopedic in some other way, the Dowgiert reference alone might go here).
8.Anyway, as currently written, the paragraph is incoherent. Student7 00:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not working

I think this isn't working. Not everyone seems to be interested in having a mediation, and I think you should probably file a request for arbitration. Make sure to review the appropriate policies, I will help if you wish. Andre (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have left a comment on Dominvs' talk page giving him the opportunity to continue. If he does not follow up on it, I will close the mediation. Andre (talk) 01:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Any assistance you could provide with the proper filing of an arbitration case would be greatly appreciated. Don't want to make a simple mistake that causes a problem. Aafm 15:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. If you could help Aafm with the filing, I would appreciate it. I, too, am concerned about making an filing error! Student7 15:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll read up on it -- I've never actually filed an arbitration request before, so I need to familiarize myself with the process. Andre (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Just a note. Dominvs has resumed posting his material. Aafm 06:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the controversial sections and protected the page per WP:BLP#Semi-protection and protection. If Dominvs comes to this page to proceed with the mediation, we will. If it seems that the mediation is not proceeding smoothly, we will go on to arbitration. Andre (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, he also has edited Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami. He may be content with that. Student7 23:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, that page doesn't really fall under WP:BLP. Andre (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Student7, please stop reverting the Archdiocese of Miami page. It's not helpful to have you two going back and forth. Andre (talk) 05:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you had just told me that the page/info in Archdiocese of Miami did not fall under the jurisdiction of your mediation. My intent in telling you in the first place was so you could revert it and lock it bringing Dominvsvobisvm to mediation. I just reverted it prior to reading your admonition. I will re-revert my own reversion as you have directed. BUT, don't be surprised if Dominvs doesn't show up for awhile. Once he has his way, he is out of here, I think. For the record, beginning Wednesday, I will be on tour with no web facility most likely til the start of September. Please continue without me. I think the other editors, particularly Aafm have similar concerns. If they are satisfied, I will be, too, most likely. Student7 13:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Am I the only one not allowed to edit the Archdiocese of Miami page or is anyone else obliged to abstain? The pages submitted by yet another editor, showing a completely different series of events, have pretty much been deleted and replaced by the same material that was there. BTW, I did contact the new editor by email. She was somewhat arch, saying that if the findings had turned out differently, she would have been equally determined to have reported them and reported Favalora and the archdiocese to Rome! Quite a bit different than the response that was made on the talk page suggesting that she was just another diocesan dupe. Student7 22:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Can we get serious? We can't have every church-lady joe-schome nobody who appoints herself church-investigator post her unscientific, undocumented opinions on a web encyclopedia. Heck, I could just as well invent a username and make opposite allegations. I think the articles, as they now stand, are pretty neutral. Excep that I'm willing to reconsider a different subjeading other than "Gay Sex Scandals" for this section. I'm open to suggestions here.DominvsVobiscvm 02:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Dominvs is right that Ms. Heise's additions need to be sourced and referenced. However, I wish you would /all/ stop editing the article and discuss the dispute here in a structured way so we can get to the root of the problem. Andre (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ms. Heise is even newer to Wikipedia than Dominvsvobisvm. What an article to start your editing career on!  :) I did inform her of the mediation. I assume she will continue to revert Dominvsvobisvm until one of them gets sick of it as we did, finally. Neither Aafm nor I have been editing. Annpavlosky has been fairly inactive, as well. It's just Dominvsvobisvm and the new editor, essentially. What's wrong with doing some selective reversion yourself, Andrevan, and locking the article? We'll all chat merrily after that, I would imagine!  :) Student7 03:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
User:DominvsVobiscvm now appears to have an email address. I just wrote him. For the rest of you sitting here on the bench with me, it might give you something to do instead of just watching his edit war!  :) Student7 11:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I will be leaving for several weeks for a place where they never heard of the Archdiocese of Miami, John Favalora, or the internet - Canada! No. It's actually further than that, even. But I will be effectively sidelined with a few days exception, until September 10. I'm sure it will be all settled by then!  :) Student7 00:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

NANCY HEISE RESPONDS: As you all can see if you go to the article Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami and see the page history as of this time, you will see that I have expanded the article significantly. All of my additions are referenced. My investigation is referenced to four Matt Abbott articles and each article has a link right after the small paragraph that mentions my investigation. My name is Nancy Heise, I am a State of Florida Certified Public Accountant license #19566. I used to work as an auditor for Ernst & Young. If you know anything about the CIA or FBI, you will know that they hire auditors and lawyers to do investigations. If the paragraph about my investigation gets deleted, then the entire section of Christifidelis and Sharon Bourassa's allegations should be deleted because they have the same references; Matt Abbott columns. Further, as I have been expanding this article, adding referenced facts, Dominvs deletes my efforts at least twice daily to turn the entire page into an advertisement for Christifidelis. Christifidelis and Sharon Bourassa's lawsuit and allegations are not mentioned in either the South Florida Sun Sentinel or the Miami Herald, nor in any other respected news outlet, only gossip blogs like RenewAmerica. To turn the entire Wikipedia page into an advertisement for Christifidelis makes Wikipedia look stupid and unreliable. I consider Dominvs deletes of my referenced facts irresponsible acts of vandalism. NancyHeise 03:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm Still Here!

I insist that these scandals deserve a place in the articles about Favalora and the Miami Archdiocese. Yes, RenewAmerica is a conservative website. So what? The Matt Abbott articles don't contain right-wing commentary; rather, they contain primary source material: the actual texts of lawsuits, emails and press releases by Broward attorney Sharon Bourassa, etc. This merits mention. I've shown myself willing to compromise, but I will not stand for an outright deletion. OR FOR FALSE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST FATHER DOWGIERT. He was never accused of molesting a soul! DominvsVobiscvm 05:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You need to calm down. If the information you want to add is valid, it will be added. We are having this mediation to resolve this dispute for the benefit of the article and everyone involved. Are you willing to participate in the mediation? If not, we'll refer the matter to arbitration. Andre (talk) 05:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
From the start I've shown myself open to compromise. When others show me proposed revisions, I'll comment then. DominvsVobiscvm 16:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I need you to participate, not just comment when others have suggestions. Andre (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
After being off the web due to a theft, I am back and once again able to participate where needed. Respnding to Dominvs' remarks from earlier in this section, the material being added is not neutral. A separate section on Wikipedia for "RenewAmerica" and related organizations should be made. There is indeed a place for it. However, appropriate linking would be under the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases article. Furthermore, some of the content is simply misplaced. Statements about supposed "openly homosexual accepting" parishes is fine...but belongs in an article dealing with that issue. It does not belong on a biographical page, nor on the root Archdiocese page. Perhaps on individual parish websites if anything. Content directly relating to the Archbishop, properly sourced, neutral and not belonging part of another article should remain. However, on the flip side, such material should not also appear on the Archdiocese of Miami article. It can't be both ways. Aafm 22:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a) why information pertaining to sex scandals within a particular Archdiocese cannot be contained in an article about the Archdiocese, b) why information pertaining to the episcopal administration about a particular bishop cannot be contained in an article about the bishop, or c) why it would surprise anyone that information contained in one article would appear again in a related one. DominvsVobiscvm 02:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
If you will look at any other corporation (and the archdiocese is a corporation), you may find that someone has sued it. You will most likely not find that suit listed in the bio of the president of the corporation which is the same as the archbishop. The difference is corporate responsiblity versus personal responsibilty. The bishop is personally responsible for himself. He must follow traffic rules while driving, etc. If he violates the law personally, maybe it should be listed. But when someone sues the corporation, it shouldn't be listed under the president/archbishop. because he is simply following the requirements of his job. He may do his job well or poorly. That is a matter for latter analysis. But he is not responsible personally for day to day administration of his diocese. There must be thousands of suits against the governor of Florida and the president of the US and the president of General Motors. None of those suits will be listed there unless there is some real hanky panky such as the president personally lying in a lawsuit as a personal witness (Clinton) or personally lying to Congress (Nixon). Neither Favalora nor most other presidents have done any of these things. They are just corporate officers. Assigning people is part of their corporate job. Setting policy is part of their corporate job. Being summoned a thousand times a year for one thing or another is part of their corporate job. It is mundane. Their performance can be analyzed later by expert scholars, but when it's done by tabloids, it's not fit for Wikipedia. Student7 03:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The Archbishop has been named as a party to every one of the suits I had brought up. Therefore it most certainly pertains to him personally.
Sure and all suits brought against your governor, mayor, president, president of General Motors, names them personally as well. It is simply a lawyer's ruse. The CEO is almost never held personally responsible. There was a bishop who struck a child while driving in some northern diocese. You better believe that is in his bio (and he is no longer bishop). But otherwise, pretty much never. The lawyer is trying to prove that "she's going the whole way for her client." That she's got the bishop's attention now. Blah-de-blah. Attention getting device. How many actual suits has the bishop been actually been held personally responsible in the past thirty years in Miami. Answer: none. In how many has he been personally named? Answer: All of them. Dozens. You must not work if you do not understand this difference. It is not that subtle. It's why organizations incorporate. Student7 10:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Progress on continued edits

Otherwise, I think Ms. Heise and I are coming to compromise quite nicely in the Archdiocese article. This lady claims to be the same Nancy Heise that was involved in the "Miami Vice" debacle.DominvsVobiscvm 06:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Great. Newbie versus the editor from hell. Have fun! Student7 10:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

DominvsVobiscvm - please stop using material from my website (cclonline.org) linking us to your comments on John Favalora and the Archdiocese of Miami. We are not involved officially or informally with diocese or parish leadership.

Here is the description of "gay-friendly" on our Connect page - the page you accessed for parish information:

"The Catholic parishes, retreat centers and educational institutions shown are those we are aware of that are not actively homophobic, have compassionate and listening ministries, and welcome all to be one in the Spirit."

"Below is a list of known "gay friendly" parishes and faith communities. The parishes are known as welcoming to membership and participation by lesbian and gay Catholics because of pastoral outreach or simply because the staff and parishioners are open and welcoming."

There is no official endorsement implied or stated, and no where does it say the parishes named do not endorse church teaching on the subject. In fact, church teaching requires ALL Catholic parishes to welcome gay people and their families.

I would like to ask you to please not continue to use infomation from this site in a misleading manner. Please consider that you are possibly hurting many innocent people in an attempt to prove your point, not state facts. Wikipedia should be a nonbiased source of information, not a place to market a political agenda.

Thank you. AnnPavlosky

AnnPavlosky --
Your description of what makes a parish "Gay-Friendly" is ingenious. If this were simply a matter of neighborly charity, then nearly every parish in the country would be on your Gay-Friendly directory, and in fact your directory would be moot. But they aren't, and it's because you know as well as I that the Conference for Catholic Lesbians is a dissenting organization which does not adhere to Catholic teaching vis-a-vis the immorality of homogenital relations and the psychological disorder of the homosexual orientation. I'm not saying the Catholic Church is right in its teaching, but don't be dishonest or euphemistic to hide your agenda. Your organization has also been affiliated with "Call to Action". Puhleeeze. DominvsVobiscvm 17:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but please remember our policy of No original research. Andre (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
This is exactly my problem with Nancy Heise. Otherwise, the position of the Conference of Catholic Lesbians on homosexuality, and its dissent from church teaching, is publicly documented on their own website. DominvsVobiscvm 02:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see my response to your talk at the bottom of the section on this page titled "not working". It is very obvious from DomivsVobiscvm's edits and deletes of my referenced facts and his insertion of inflammable language making the entire page 70% about a topic with absolutely no major news coverage (Dowgiert lawsuit that was dismissed), that he is pushing an agenda not trying to be an editor in good faith. Please see my expansion of the article as of this date and time. I ask the Mediator to please block Dominvs from vandalising this site. His vandalism is evident by looking at the history of the article, seeing what he has deleted and then inserted in its place. NancyHeise 03:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nancy Heise's responses

REGARDING REFERENCES I have added links. In the Christifidelis section where it mentions my investigation, there was no reference to where my investigation is discussed in detail in the Matt Abbott columns in Renew America web site. I have added links to the four separate articles where my investigation and grievance are discussed and revealed in these columns. Please note, these columns are from the same source that Dominvs references when he inserts his extensive additions. If my investigation is deleted, so must his allegations be deleted because they reference the same source. The Neil Doherty scandal section did not have a reference either. The link (to a major news source)I added confirms that no lawsuit or allegation during the tenure of Archbishop Favalora was brought against the Archdiocese until four years after he was removed in 2002. The only section of this article that has no link is Dominvs addition of the gay friendly parishes and universities. Since I don't know where to look to find these references, I left them alone. Maybe Dominvs wants to provide references or eliminate this sentence. Further, I could find no proof to support the sentence that states that stock owned by the Archbishop is for an aphrodisiac beverage. I did find from Matt Abbott's columns that the stock is Xtreme Beverage Network, Inc and that the stock has been sold and is no longer owned by the Archbishop. Going to the website for this company and looking at the advertisements on other sites, I could only see that their beverages are marketed as energy drinks. I don't think that it is right to put any reference to Sharon Bourassa's allegation that the Archbishop owned stock in an aphrodisiac company when there is nothing online to support such a statement.NancyHeise 04:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Nancy: You might want to do a Google search on what the ingredient Yohimbe is marketed as. As well, the name of the drink in question is not Xtreme but XStream The name is sexually evocative, and perfectly in line with the nature of the primary ingredient in the company's proprietary drink! As well, the Yohimbe drink is marketed on XStream's website as being "sensually stimulating". Don't be naive. Also, how convenient that the Archbishop sold his shared only after he was exposed by Bourassa. DominvsVobiscvm 06:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The Archbishop owns all the shares of stock owned by the Archdiocese of Miami. All of that stock is bought and sold by hired brokers. The Archbishop does not spend his time on Etrade. If you had any idea how much stock is owned by the ARchdiocese and the percentage of it that is donated by people's estates, you would understand how absurd your accusations are. See the Florida Catholic edition that lists the assets and liabilities of the Archdiocese. My husband owns a stock portfolio, I have no idea what the stock broker tells my husband to buy or sell, I am not involved in those decisions. I know the Archbishop is not in charge of the day to day management of the finances, only the big decisions. The web site of the XSTREAM BEVERAGE NETWORK, INC reveals no evidence to back up the accusation that its drinks are sold in gay bars as aphrodisiacs. That is an unverifiable statement and has no place in the Wikipedia. That statement is inadmissable by Wikipedia standards. Further, the percentage of stock owned in the company is less than 1% of the total stock owned by the Archdiocese, it is immaterial and does not suggest a trend for investing in aphrodisiac drinks. The XSTREAM BEVERAGE NETWORK INC website shows a list of energy drinks and other common brands - it does not ever say "aphrodisiac".NancyHeise 18:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Nancy: Did you look up what the drug Yohimbe is advertised as?! As well, what part of XStream's (AGAIN, LOOK AT THE SEXUALLY PROVOCATIVE NAME!) characterization of their drink as "sensually stimulating" DON'T you understand?DominvsVobiscvm 20:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Rather than going back and forth without any structure, how about a mediation? That's what I'm here for. If you aren't interested in a structured mediation, fine, then I'll close this page right now and you can all proceed to arbitration. Andre (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Andre, First, allow me to thank for your most obvious patience in dealing with these issues. I'd like to just enter in here as a complete outsider, with no bias either way. I was on Recent Changes patrol yesterday, and I noticed a very large blanking/removal of the article Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami. As I freely admit I do not know about Catholicism, so I was very cautious in approaching the blanking. Rather than assume vandalism, I looked over both versions, and decided that I was not a good judge of the validity of the removal, so instead, I added much needed cleanup tags, for there were "naked" urls all over the article's mainspace, in place of valid references. I placed tags to reflect this, which were immediately removed by DominvsVobiscvm. I reinstated the tags, and left a hand-written note on Dominuvs' talk page regarding the tags, why they were placed, why they should remain, and links to WP:RS and WP:CITE. Then, I placed a note on the article's talk page, expressing my concerns regarding proper citation format, reliable sources, and possible NPOV issues. I worked with Nancy some, helping her understand how Wikipedia works, explaining WP:RS, WP:CITE, WP:COI, and other policies and guidelines. I followed along behind her, watching while she learned, and as you can see from her talk page, giving pointers, but allowing her to fix most errors. We discussed her possible COI issue, and agreed that she would not add any information related to her, or to her investigation, but would discuss that with a third party and see if it was appropriate. Again I'll reiterate that I'm not qualified to judge on the content of the article, but it had severe issues with the format, and citation style, and those were the things I was concentrating on. I felt that if the article's foundation were strong, then the problems may more easily be solved.
Since then, DominvsVobiscvm has reverted all changes made to the article 15 times 19 times in the last 24 hours, (four since my beginning this comment) with absolutely no explanation whatsoever. Large blanking of sections, entire removal of other sections, and removal of properly cited references, replacing them with improperly cited references (simply placing a URL between <ref> tags is not a proper reference). I have again warned him that he should not indiscriminately remove large sections, but instead, add his information to the article. Again he reverted my changes, removing large portions of material, and placing undue weight on the sexual allegations issue, citing sources that are probably not considered reliable. As I mentioned to Nancy, there appears to be only one reliable third party resource, the NBC one, the rest appear to be affiliated with the catholic church in some way, and thus, would probably not be considered neutral. I explained that more news articles need to be cited, such as Associated Press, Miami Herald, etc.
However, Nancy did a great deal of work yesterday and today to get this article properly formatted, and properly cited. While I cannot comment on the neutrality, certainly placing an NPOV tag would be better than simply blanking out large areas. It is evident to me that DominvsVobiscvm is not neutral regarding this issue, from reviewing his contributions, his involvement in prior mediation, and his conflict with others in a variety of areas. I feel that at least in the short term, this article would better be served by being reinstated to Nancy's latest version, with an NPOV tag, and protected until a third party expert can come and verify that there are no NPOV issues with it. It also is evident that DominvsVobiscvm would like a large section relating to sexual abuse placed in the article. As I mentioned to Nancy, certainly a small mention is worth adding, if properly cited, but in the context of the entire article, it should not be given undue weight. DominvsVobiscvm seems to believe otherwise, and although there is a much more appropriate forum for his discourse, he does not avail himself of it. I would also like to add that he has added in information about Nancy, in a less than neutral way, for instance: here "The results of this "investigation" are" - DominvsVobiscvm uses the word "investigation" in quotations, which implies it was not an investigation. Whether it was or not, it is not up to him to judge. I refuse to get into an edit war with this individual, as it is quite apparent from his contribution history, as well as his talk page, and comments here and on the article's talk page, that it would not be productive. However, I would request temporary protection of this page, as these are valid concerns, and should be reviewed by someone who is neither familiar with Nancy, nor with DominvsVobiscvm, but has familiarity and knowledge of Catholic history and culture. Thank you for your time in reading this rather long opinion, and good luck with this mediation. Ariel♥Gold 21:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Ariel: I don't know if you've noticed, but I've taken your suggestions to heart and have revised the article accordingly. I've always been open to compromise, from the very beginning. Heck, if you notice I'm actually going through Nancy's material (on the non-sexual-abuse stuff), helping to polish it up.I'm just getting the hang on the mechanics on how to edit properly. Thanks for the patience! DominvsVobiscvm 22:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
That may very well be true, however, you have undeniably removed significant portions of the article, as well as placed undue weight on this sexual abuse issue, which should really be put into the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases article. While it may be worth a small section and (properly sourced) mention, it does not need to be a significant portion of the article. This article's content is not about sexual allegations, but about the Archdiocese. You're also still not conforming to the proper citation style, which results in a reference section full of nothing but URLs, with no title, author, publisher, or date. See the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases article for how disorganized, distracting, and illegible this problem gets. And again, I would note that archdiocese websites, catholic websites, church websites, and biased organizational websites are not WP:RS, and those references need to be balanced by valid, reliable news resources (AP, Newspapers like Miami Herald, NYT, etc.). While I appreciate your desire to help, my concern remains that you are not able to remain neutral, and you seem to be seriously compromising articles by pushing certain viewpoints or agendas. Wikipedia is not a platform for your personal beliefs. As I stated, I believe that your revisions, and Nancy's revisions, need to be evaluated by someone who can verify the validity, and evaluate the article's neutrality with relation to the Catholic church and culture. Until then, your continued reverting and pushing your viewpoints, even after explanations to you about the issues, seem to be outright defiance of policy, and may be seen as a perception that you think you "own" the article. Sincerely, Ariel♥Gold 22:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
As stated many times since this entire situation started, the information you are attempting to add Dominvs does have a place on Wikipedia. However, it is not being placed in the proper location. Much of the content you continue to add and try to force belongs in the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases page. Under that article, feel free to create a subjection dedicated to the Archdiocese of Miami. However, again, neutral point of view and proper sourcing continue to be an issue. Furthermore, since this entire situation started, the tone of much of the content appears to be that of an advertisement for a particular group. What I do not understand is why you seem to believe almost identical content belongs on the John Favalora article and the Archdiocese article. Aafm 01:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Editors, From my efforts to find major news articles to reference the facts I added, I found it very difficult to find any reporting about Catholic hospitals, seminaries and the other ministries listed. The articles I did find talked about specific things that were happening there, not the entity itself so I did not reference the article. I referenced the best third party source I could find for each of the sections in the article above the sexual abuse section on my last page. I want you to know that I spent many hours searching for the best third party reference, I then included, in the external link section, a reference to the actual web site of each entitys section. Thus each of the sections above the sexual abuse paragraph has two references, a third party one and an external link. The sexual abuse section has reference to the Wikipedia article on that subject and to an external link to the Archdiocese Charter on the Protection of Young People. This Charter was the fruit of the John Jay report and much discussion at meetings with all US bishops. This is a significant thing to mention in any article that discusses the Catholic Church sex scandals. Any mention of the Christifidelis controversy would be incomplete without information on my investigation. References for both sides of this issue come from Matt Abbott's columns. From what I can gather from reading Wikipedia guidelines, these columns are not considered a reliable source. Please read the section on the sexual abuse scandals in my latest version of the article. I thought it was very complete, unbiased, properly referenced. I have not made changes to DominvsVobiscm's subsequent revisions and deletions of this article. I am not going to be reverting or having an edit war with him. I have given my best effort to make this article better. What you decide is what I guess it is going to eventually be. I will be checking the talk pages to answer any questions directed to me otherwise I think I am finished with this article. Thank you for your help and I wish you good judgement in your final decision. NancyHeise 01:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)