Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Francis Schuckardt

Statement by James Reyes
My name is James Reyes and I am one of the original authors of this article. My issue all along has been the undue weight placed on the opinions and "decrees" of Francis Schuckardt by Athanasius303 (Rev. Belzak). Belzak ignores the fact that Schuckardt did not attain noteriety for his theological opinions, but for the negative impact he has had on thousands of lives, such as subjecting the children in his schools to physical and emotional abuse and wrecking countless families.

There is substantial published material regarding the abuse and scandal caused by Schuckardt because it is this that makes him notorioius. We all have opinions, but we all cannot go around creating Wikipedia articles about ourselves simply to express them.

Belzak argues that the article shouldn't tarnish Schuckardt's reputation. Schuckardt has already done that himself through his bizzare and scandalous actions. Radecki is simply presenting the facts as they are and Belzak deletes factual information by labeling it a personal attack. The readers of this articloe shoulod be exposed to both the good and the bad regarding Schuckardt. The accusations against him are based on countless published testimonies and are hardly fabrications. Allow the facts to be mentioned.

James Reyes 2 June 06 20:55 (UTC)

Statement by George Wagner
My name is George Wagner and I have been involved with this topic from the beginning. My experiences have been many. The biggest one is as Bernie Radecki points out, is NPOV. I contest 90% of the content that Athansius303 adds because it is a)irrelevant or b) not supported adequately with suitable material. Most of his additions are first hand experiences, not citeable from any book, magazine or paper.

We mention that the Schuckardt group is a cult and add citeable proof of this allegation, he simply deletes in the name of personal attack. Even on the talk forum we mention things of this nature to propose in the article and he deletes them. I don't have the time in my day that he does to revert and destroy someones work. I have left it alone for the time being leaving the major portions untouched, while making only minor changes.

I know that Schuckardt is a living person, or at least we assume he is living, and we need to make sure the facts are straight. Well, I challenge anyone to research him and tell me what you find from third party publications. This article does not reflect the truth in it's present state. It is watered down with unsourced opinions from those who live with him. This is my biggest complaint.

George Wagner

Now that I have read Fra John's response I must add a few thoughts. Bernie has done the research and all the additions he added are SOURCED DOCUMENTS. Fra John must be living in a fantasy world because just about everything in his statements are not true. He pushes the POV card pretty heavily, well, he happens to be living with Schuckardt and is one of the elite in the group. Seems to me his POV is just about everything he writes. We, however, are not associated with the group and we are Catholic in the sense that differentiates us from "groups".

George Wagner 19 May 06 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdub49 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 18 May 2006

Statement by 207.156.196.242
Yet another content dispute. Arbitration is not for content disputes. Please reject without prejudice. 17:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.156.196.242 (talk • contribs).

Statement by TenOfAllTrades
Looking at the history of there appears to be a fairly long history of edit warring among, , and an assortment of floating IP addresses. The article's talk page also leans towards the acrimonious. While the ArbCom probably shouldn't be ruling on a content dispute, there may be user conduct issues to look at. (I've never looked at the article before, and I probably never will again; this comment is just in response to the anon remark above.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Bernie Radecki
It has been brought to my attention that Athanasius303 has been cutting and pasting an excessive amount of information straight from the Francis Schuckardt article into the Denis Chicoine Wikipedia article. It appears to me an edit war has been ongoing there over the insertion of this material. As a historic note, Denis Chicoine is the man whose public accusations against Schuckardt caused Schuckardt to flee his church in Spokane in 1984. This activity by Athanasius303 may be considered by some to be evidence of unacceptable editor behaviour. Bernie Radecki 20:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Again you are wrong. Several different neutral editors (several days ago: Tangotango) have reinserted large sections of the article removed by Chicoine partisans and have posted vandalism notices on these partisans’ talk pages (if they have one). Athanasius303 17:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Athanasius303 is also 206.188.34.200 and 206.188.36.238 as can be readily proven. The discussion on the Francis Schuckardt article's Talk page under |Aryan Nations gives an example of Athanasius303 pushing his POV regardless of the solid and courteous input from multiple, reasonable individuals. Bernie Radecki 22:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The "reasonable individuals" Radecki refers to is a deceptive statement. They are all Mt. St. Michael - pro Chicoine partisans and like Radecki, have something personal at stake here.   I could play their game and gather partisans from my side to overwhelm the talk pages and claim numerical superiority from “reasonable minds,” but this would do nothing to change the facts and only serve to bog down this process even further.  Athanasius303 17:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)  (Fra. John)