This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Verifiable information from a reliable source

1) In order for information to be included in a Wikipedia article it must be verifiable information from a reliable public source. The source should be cited

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

NPOV

2) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates fair representation of all significant viewpoints regarding the subject of an article. This includes material critical of the subject.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

On the Proposed Decisions page, there is a section labelled Critical Information in Biographies of Living Persons. It includes this linë: "Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics in case you represent a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article." What if the case is opposite? That is, what if only the subject's own partisan website is used as a source for favorable material on the subject, but there are many third party, verifiable published sources that are critical of the subject. In this case, it seems the warning in the Proposed Decisions should be to be careful to not give a disproportionate amount of space to partisans in order to ensure a NPOV. I would think the prevalence of published material on a subject would determine the proportion of content PRO and CON on a controversial issue in order to maintain a NPOV in the article. As biographies of living persons have a different set of guidelines regarding what constitutes a verifiable source, it seems to be there is a much greater potential for the subject's partisan to impact the article with favorable information solely from the partisan's website ie. an unpublished theory on religion and other positive claims. I could use a little clarification if anyone has time. Bernie Radecki 18:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to use common sense. You can't make the article into a hatchet job and get away with it. Fred Bauder 19:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Fred. This arbitration process is clarifying many things and I appreciate that greatly. I am new at editing so at times I have trouble understanding the parameters that determine how editors balance an article. I was thinking that one parameter is the content is balanced in proportion to published material on the subject of the article. I am hoping more experienced editors are attracted to the article to assist with editing the content. Bernie Radecki 23:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is unusual and the usual formulas do not apply. Here I would aim for balance between positive and critical viewpoints. A more usual case, like say George W. Bush would involve strong well sourced positive and critical viewpoints as well as a number of minor viewpoints. The Trotskyist view of Bush would not get a lot of space, probably none at all, yet those that hold that view are greater in number than those on either side of this dispute. In fact, there are good grounds for deleting the article as "not notable", although I think it should remain, if for nothing else, an object lesson on the difficulties which afflict schismatics. Fred Bauder 00:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

3) Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propounding a religious viewpoint Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Original research

4) Wikipedia is not an appropriate vehicle for publishing one's original work or that of a close associate Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This confused me originally when I read Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought. I now know that it is detailed under Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_source that a personal website written by the subject of the article or the subject's associate is as a valid reference for the subject's own theory. I read one was "Official Policy" and the other was a "Guideline" and I drew an erroneous conclusion. I think it would be helpful to add a line in Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought to clarify that an individual's own website is not considered primary research if the article is about the individual. This could prevent future editors from making the mistake I made. Just an idea. Bernie Radecki 00:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Biographies of living persons

5) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is a guideline crafted to avoid certain frequent problems encountered with the biographies of living persons. It provides "Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." and "badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted." Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Writing_style.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of the dispute is Francis Schuckardt, founder of the Tridentine Latin Rite Catholic Church (TLRCC), particularly the edits of Athanasius303 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is alleged to be associated with the church and to engage in tendentious editing. Much of the disputed material is also at Denis Chicoine.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Unsourced edits by Athanasius303

2) Athanasius303 has added extensive material to Francis Schuckardt for which no source is cited [1] and [2].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Both of the above citations should have been sourced to Bishop Schuckardt's website - it was a failure on my part to have not done that. Athanasius303 17:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Bishopschuckardt.com

3) Bishopschuckardt.com is a website which apparently presents the view point of the Tridentine Latin Rite Catholic Church (TLRCC) regarding Bishop Francis Schuckardt.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I am unaware of anyone contesting that the viewpoints expressed in this website Bishopschuckardt.com are not the Bishop's viewpoints or are not what he teaches and believes. Radecki only put forward an unsubstantiated claim that the Bishop did not author this site, which is not correct. Athanasius303 17:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Removal of critical information by Athanasius303

4) Athanasius303 has removed sourced critical information from Francis Schuckardt [3], [4], and [5].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Scurrilous charges

6) A least one critic has alleged serious sexual misconduct by Bishop Schuckardt. This charge and other charges of serious misconduct are based on newspaper reports which cite the critic Denis Chicoine, see [6]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually a newspaper report of the allegations of a critic Fred Bauder 20:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly [7] PDF file of articles in The Spokesman-Review Spokane Chronicle, July 27, 1986. Fred Bauder 15:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I think 'scurrilous' is too strong an adjective (see talk page) Bernie Radecki 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: