Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-03 Satanism

Mediation Case: 2007-01-03 Satanism
Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

 * Request made by: Rev. Michael S. Margolin 00:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * ...Satanism article


 * Who's involved?


 * What's going on?
 * ...Editers were working on making the Satanism article non biased

but it got reverted back to the biased Church of Satan definition.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * ...Allow the editors to continue their work toward a non bias article

and provide protection from reverts.


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
 * ...I'm a public person, you can reach me anyway you want.

Mediator response

 * Morning Rev. I had a read over the discussion page, and i would have to say that you guys did actually seem to come together there, it started off reading like the usual sorts of arguments you get on WP, and then turned into a completely coherent and cooperative effort. For that i must commend the major editors to the Satanism article.
 * As i read it today, the article appears to be POV free, and quite balanced (feel free to correct me if im wrong) and i think owing to the nature of the subject, it would be very difficult to come across reliable sources of information that would be accepted as such here. Due to the controversial nature of Satanism, i think you will find that you are going to have to just keep an eye on the page. There will be both fanatical anti and pro satanists stuffing around with that article for as long as it exists, as well as people with good faith wanting to add information and inadvertantly stepping on toes.
 * What i believe you need to do, is to come up with a version that makes ALL the regular editors and critics happy, and make sure you all check that page regularly. If someone makes a big change to the article, revert it and speak to them on their talk page. Do NOT get upset with anyone, if someone refuses to negotiate, request official mediation. Please remember that yes, we are willing to help with advice here, but we are not official Wikipedia policy, and can only help when both sides are willing to take on board the advice we give here.
 * What i dont agree with here is the main Satanism page referring to your particular Church, im sure there are many many Satanists that dont follow you (Or LaVey for that matter) this to me is like calling a Catholic a Christian, just because he follows god, where there are distinct differences between someone following the Catholic doctrine as opposed to someone who goes to say, The Church of Christ. I hope that actually makes some sense, im having trouble explaining what i mean XP. In summary, i believe that the main article Satanism, needs to describe the generic worship of Satan, not your church, and i think you should move yours to perhaps Modern Satanism? or Church of Satan?
 * Happy editing!
 * Squad&#39;nLeedah 21:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Little confused here, my religion is not on the main Satanism article it's in Theistic Satanism. Near the very bottom so definately not trying to advertize or grand Stand. As for the definition of Satanism not being about my religion or LaVey's we are in full agreement. One more thing, Sinagogue of Satan is not a church, it's a legally recognized religion. Thank you for all your help and advice.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 20:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

So it is, i do apologise. My usage of the word Church was more for want of a better word, i do not have a great knowledge of how your Sinagogue operates, im non religious myself. So another apology there if ive offended. Yes, i do realise that Sinagogue of Satan is a legally recognise religion, so again we are in agreeance. Anyhow, i hope that this MedCab has been of some use. I think we have concluded this, so pending your reply ill close this case. Squad&#39;nLeedah 22:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Your fine man no apologise needed. The Satanism article is back to the non biased version, so I guess this is case closed. Thank you very much for your help and time.O and as far as not being religious, Freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion lolRev. Michael S. Margolin 23:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone needs to tell a couple of the more mainstream religions that.... want a cookie Mr Watchtower salesman? Anyway, im glad to have been of service, and i will now close this case. Regards, Squad&#39;nLeedah 23:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Compromise offers
One compromise that has been suggested is the conversion of the main Satanism article into either a general article giving an overview of established Satanism, or a disambiguation page, with each article remaining separated. According to the NPOV policy, Wikipedia does not support any one group. So it would make sense not to have the main Satanism article dominated purely by one definition of Satanism when it seems to have many defintions. Just my two cents. 64.5.145.74 13:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Would you mind if I copy pasted your comment to the Satanism discussion page?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 18:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.



Discussion
As this issue seems to have sorted itself out, i am now closing this case. Thankyou for your time. Squad&#39;nLeedah 23:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC) I really hate to bug you but the Satanism article was again reverted to the Bias previous form. Thank you for your help last time. I'll understand if you don't want to get involved, this little war just doesn't seem to have an end. Anyway again thank you for your help with the last revert.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 00:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)