Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-01-02 St. Stanislaus Kostka Church (Saint Louis)

Request for cabal mediation[edit]

Request Information[edit]

Request made by: Kenj0418 05:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?: St. Stanislaus Kostka Church (Saint Louis), and to a lesser degree on Raymond Leo Burke. (Previously the problems were on the Burke page until the relevant content was moved to a seperate article.

Who's involved?: Kenj0418, ~~Kmccoy~~, Kbh3rd, numerous anonymous users that have edited this and related pages only, for example 71.11.137.224

What's going on?: There are apparently three types of edits going on on the page, 1) edits that appear to attempting to maintain NPOV, 2) edits that are clearly biased toward the views of the St. Stanislaus lay board, and 3) edits that are clearly biased toward the views of the Archbishop (Raymond Leo Burke). Both the pro-board and pro-bishop individuals/groups have ignored repeated requests to refrain from POV edits.

What would you like to change about that?: I think an outside party, who has not been involved in the dispute might be persuade the relevant parties to following NPOV guidelines, and/or determine what other steps could be taken to stem the continuous edit/reverts taking place on this page.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?: N/A, you can use my user talk page.

Comments by others[edit]

I have observed the process of reversals and edits in the associated articles re: St. Stanislaus Kostka Church (Saint Louis) and Raymond Leo Burke.

My concern is with the maintenance of NPOV, inclusion of all relevant fact sets, inclusion of all opposing points of view with non-inflammatory language in both articles.

It is disappointing to see reversals and edits without substantial thoughtful comment, particularly by those with user names let alone by the anonymous participant.

My recomendation is to use the Wikipedia approach of separate paragraphs in each article subject to NPOV etc.

The challenge with the associated articles is that they involve Ecclesiatical and Secular facts and opinions that each side feels strongly about. As a consequence the existence, relevance, and importance of facts sets as well as what constitutes NPOV will very likely depend on the individual's POV.

The role of mediation should not be to determine whose fact set is most correct. Rather it seems the process of mediation may want to identify aggregious statements and non-inclusivity of the other side in the respective articles.

Ultimately the mediation process may result in the modification of each article in a way that may not be 100% satisfactory for each side, but meets the standards and goals of Wikipedia.

Clearly,the process of mediation for both articles is supported.

I apologise for the lack of internal links that will be remedied in future edits.-- Thank you

BNA-WTTWA 19:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator response[edit]

It looks like we're going to need temporary duplicate articles. User:BNA-WTTWA seems to think that the versions accepted by most (if not all other users) as adequate (Raymond Leo Burke 18:40, 4 January 2006 and St. Stanislaus Kostka Church (Saint Louis) 00:33, 4 January 2006), may not be sufficiently NPOV. I invite BNA-WTTWA to edit the duplicate articles (which are copies of the versions accepted by most other involved parties) and to let us know when they are ready. Luckily, they are relatively small articles, so it shouldn't be too hard ;-) Hopefully, we will all be pleasantly surprised with his versions and accept them as adequate.

The duplicate articles are (or will be) at:

As these are rather long titles, I have created temporary shortcuts to them in my userspace:

For the duplicate of St. Stanislaus Kostka Church (Saint Louis), go to User:Izehar/SSKC
For the duplicate of Raymond Leo Burke, go to User:Izehar/RLB

Once you have finished with them BNA-WTTWA, let us know. If anyone else disagrees with the majority view (Raymond Leo Burke 18:40, 4 January 2006 and St. Stanislaus Kostka Church (Saint Louis) 00:33, 4 January 2006), they can start a set of duplicates as well.

The idea is that by comparing relaxed versions (unlike the kind you get in an edit war), we will actually identify the problem (if there is one). I think that duplicate articles is the best way to do that, as I don't think it would be appropriate asking you to engage in a revert war in order to get the various versions. The first step in resolving a dispute IMO is to find out exactly what the dispute is (and if one actually exists - if everyone else agrees with BNA-WTTWA's duplicates, then there may not even be a dispute). Izehar 23:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Mediator from BNA-WTTWA[edit]

First of all I hope this the correct venue to respond.

I will be happy to attempt a modification of each article on the mediators suggested page. I do have several thoughts that relate to the articles at this time. Basically as kenj0418 has done within the Raymond Leo Burke article's St.Stanislaus Kostka Church section in posting warning with regard to NPOV. I would like to suggest the same at this point re: the entire St.Stans article.

I have found Kenj0418 to be helpful and thoughtful.

There are two reasons for this. (1) It indicates to any interesested party (or occasional party) that the points are under review.

(2) This indicator would help to dampen edits and revisions by those not pleased with the either article.

Izehar, as I have followed this somewhat "religously contexted" dispute, I have noted opposing views have been passionately stated outside of and inside of Wikipedia. Therefore, I would like to proceed carefully with my language, review of fact sets and linguistic context so as to be be able to meet the highest standards of Wikipedia and yet do this in a timely fashion.

Both current articles although brief have demonstrated the ability to be perceived as inflammatory by someone holding an opposite view.( notwithstanding the efforts to try to achieve a NPOV)

I would hope that you and the other participants would concur with this approach. I believe that this will result in a minimum number of revisions.

I am uncertain if my comments to you will get to all interested parties that have been identified in the mediation request. Would you please help me in this, as I do not wish to in any way offend any participant. Thank you BNA-WTTWA 20:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

kenj0418, izehar I have not forgotten about this project. Unfortunately I have been constrained by some external events. I will be getting into the editing process on the duplicate pages. (1)I would like to invite [kenj0418] to make changes on the duplicate page as he has a deep sense of Wikipedia goals and objectives (2) continue the POV warning on RLB and St. Stans page. (3) {kenj0418|kenj0418]]and I have had some productive discussion which mediator should be aware of on the discussion of the RLB discussion page. Thank you

Sorry I forgot to stamp the above remark--BNA-WTTWA 21:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]