Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/NCdave

Being railroaded? Give me a break, Tropix. NCdave was tolerated for a lengthy stretch of time before this request for comment page was even created. NCdave has, in fact, been abusive and verbally denigrating, he has slandered other users to the point of provoking a response, and he has made up from whole cloth things that other users "said"; ie: he's put words into their mouths in an attempt to negatively characterize them. A subsequent RFC well, well after the fact does not constitute railroading. NCdave's edits were repeatedly reverted because they undermined the encyclopaedic tone of the article, not out of a conspiracy to kill dave's edits. Since we've provided proof of his article vandalism and talk page outbursts, perhaps you'd be so kind as to do something other than hop up on a pulpit with rhetoric and actually back it up with clear examples of what you claim. Professor Ninja 20:46, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I just want to know how Tropix can say this "NCdave has not been abusive or made personal attacks" when he's only been on wikipedia for 3 whole days. FuelWagon 23:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can't speak for Tropix, but I know that I was on Wikipedia for quite a long time before I registered, and even made some minor, uncontroversial edits to articles about the British Royal Family. Also, when I see a new article, I sometimes look at the archive pages as well. The date on which a wikipedian (if that's what it's called) becomes visible has nothing to do with how much he or she has read of the talk pages and revisions. Ann Heneghan 14:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ann Heneghan modified the Terri Shiavo page to defend Carla Iyer's affadavit that had been ruled "Incredible to say the least" by the judge. [1] Iyer's affadavit requires a conspiracy theory to be logically true: [2] FuelWagon 23:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I have explained lower down on this page, the article, as I found it, had (and indeed, still has) some personal commentary, hinting in the editor's voice (so not merely referring to a court decision) that Nurse Iyer's testimony should not be believed. I did not consider this commentary to be neutral. Rather than delete it, I balanced it with another sentence of personal commentary. My sentence was not inserted as a criticism of the judge's ruling (or even as a defence of Iyer); it was inserted to neutralize a previous editor's personal commentary, which happened to be very similar to the judge's commentary (and for that reason could perhaps be considered redundant). It was inserted immediately after the editor's comment, not after the judge's comment. I was fairly new to Wikipedia editing, and feel that my changes could have been reverted with a little more politeness and sensitivity. I also feel that if my balancing sentence is inappropriate, the two sentences immediately before it are equally inappropriate; both contributions were in the form of personal commentary. Ann Heneghan 14:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Haha, check out NCdave apologised on Booth443's talk page and trying to get him on his side. God, he'll bend over any which way to get off the hook. Shameless, that man is. Just shameless. Professor Ninja 23:53, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Update: I knew I was suffering from a disability today; NCdave just slapdashed an edit into another edit on the userpage. So he wasn't apologizing for doing anything to Boothy443's page. Thanks to Bovlb for pointing that out. God, though, I don't know if it makes it less or more funny. Professor Ninja 00:05, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Rebuttals to Response section in project page

Comment: The Tropix user made its first edit three days ago. The Ann Heneghan user made its first edit two days ago. Neither of them has an extensive history. Neither has made significant numbers of edits not related to Terri Schiavo. The patsw user was created in December and made about 25 edits and then became dormant until April 6th. Since then it has made numerous edits, nearly all related to Terri Schiavo. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Counterpoint - Perhaps the 28 above pieces of evidence have provoked the other editors in the same way NCdave has been provoked. Mmm, but not that Patsw. In fact, I can cite multiple instances where the very "Michael Schiavo POV doesn't get reverted" does get reverted. As a matter of fact, I will. Not just can, but I will destroy your argument. More to come. Professor Ninja 04:23, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Accusing someone of murder is not un-biased. Characterizing the judge, the court appointed GAL, and Michael Shaivo as conspiracy is not un-biased. A proper legal course of action was taken on behalf of Terri Shaivo. Characterizing that action as a conspiracy to commit murder is an example of extreme bias and is an extremely serious accuastion. Without proof these accusations are tatmount to defamation and slander. Wjbean 19:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Addition: Boy, nothing like comparing people to holocaust deniers, claiming they've never loved anybody in their life, telling them to leave the country, and declaring them outrageous to be a perfectly innocent person "provoked" into responding so that you can get railroaded. Next time, Tropix and Patsw, do your research. Professor Ninja 08:22, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

"His relentless reiteration has caused other users to lash out at him, which leads me to believe that is part of his intention." How insidious NCdave is, taking his evenings to write up all those arguments and citations, just so he could get the other users to lash out at him. Tropix 06:05, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read what his reiterations actually are in the evidence section. Reiterations that were present long before you ever showed up, before you go making an ass of yourself. Documented evidence of NCdave arguing ad nauseum (about half the time without citation, no less) on such refuted evidence as: Dr. Hammesfahr's Nobel nomination, the definition of life support and whether or not Terri was on it, why he can advance multiple instances of hearsay evidence as proof but dismiss Michael Schiavo's testimony as to his wife's wishes as hearsay, ... well, take a look at the evidence list yourself. Professor Ninja 06:39, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

A POV tag should be left indefinitely ? Now that's odd ! POV tags are a mix between "Work under progress" and "Job offers" signs. Stating that the POV tag should remain forever is like saying that the very fact is POV. If you think that some fact are "POV", it is probably time to take a break and rethink your view of the universe. Rama 20:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Terri Shiavo's factual history has no POV. But the article is, and must be, a subset of those facts, and paraphrasings. I agree, the POV flag is a "Construction" sign of sorts. I hope it can legitimately be brought down, but at this point I prefer to see it up. I have more difficulty with those taking it down than with NCdave putting it up. Just be sensitive and attentive to balancing the article and the problem will go away. Tropix 05:56, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

Since you're three days new, why don't you go all the way back to the February archives, which are cited in the evidence against NCdave you see fit to ignore while providing no counter-evidence of your own, and look at the part where editors were sensitive and attentive to NCdave's concerns for a lengthy period of time. NCdave will not, based on his contributions to the Terri Schiavo talk page, accept NPOV as anything less than including Michael as an estranged spouse abuser trying to kill Terri to shut her up and get her money. Professor Ninja 06:42, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

The above summary was written by Tropix, who is making quite the statement (without evidence, no less) while only registered with wikipedia for approximately 3 days and thus was not present for the large majority of NCdave's 'antics'. Ann Heneghan (also only here since Apr 10) has vandalised the Terri Schiavo article in a fashion supporting NCdave's POV. Please see this page's talk page for more information. Professor Ninja 23:38, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

The use of "vandalized" for Ann Heneghan's few signed contributions is symptomatic of the POV problem here. ...Vandalized? Tropix 05:56, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

Couching your own personal criticism of something in the article itself is vandalism. Ann Heneghan did not cite criticism of the Judge's ruling on the Iyer affidavit, simply factually, without citation, refuted it outright in pseudo-neutral language. Vandalized is accurate. Professor Ninja 06:39, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

It seems inappropriate for you to attack Ann Heneghan because she signed this summary. It lengthens and distorts this conversation. You are using a bizarre term to describe her contributions. I find only a very few changes she made on April 10, and if they are vandalization then maybe Rama's comment about universes means this forum is an alternate universe like Alice in Wonderland. Ann Heneghan provided summaries for each change she made. If anyone did not like her signed edits, they could change them and explain why. There was no revert war. All I find are these:

* 1046 - Corrected spelling of insulin.
* 1420 - Removed a sentence about something the Schindlers did NOT do.
* 1435 - Cited a statement and added a link to the source document.
* 2104 - Corrected spelling of therapy.

If that is "vandalism", and you need to discuss it here, then this is a complete waste of time, and I am amazed. Honestly and truly, I do not understand this at all. Tropix 14:44, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

Or maybe it was in reference to what is cited[3] in FuelWagon's post below: "Despite her claims that she called the Schindlers multiple times in 1996, there is no evidence the Schindlers did anything at the time to demand that the nursing home or police investigate the supposed incidents. Nor did they subpeona Iyer during their 2000 court battle with Michael. However, Iyer's affidavit did not state that she had informed the Schindlers of her suspicions regarding criminal activity on the part of Michael; it merely stated, "but I would call them, anyway, because I thought they should know about their daughter."". Once again, since you seem to purposely gloss over what you don't want to read, [c]ouching your own personal criticism of something in the article itself is vandalism. Ann Heneghan did not cite criticism of the Judge's ruling on the Iyer affidavit, simply factually, without citation, refuted it outright in pseudo-neutral language. Professor Ninja 16:15, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to be criticising Ann Heneghan here. Especially considering you brought her up after she signed a position you don't like. This definition of "vandalism" is as strange as your recent definition of "hospitalization". The Wikipedia article says "Vandalism is an act motivated by hostility to the arts and literature of a culture, or wilful destruction or defacement of its built environment". It is not rational to think that includes matters under civilized debate. Well, if Ann Heneghan was a vandal, then there are many other expert vandals afoot here. I have seen excellent work and thinking here, but my opinion is that there are also agendas out of control. If you had criticism of her work, a more cooperative course would have been to modify and negotiate, not to go nuclear. Tropix 17:44, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

Perhaps if you had gone to Wikipedia:Vandalism, which you could have found in two click throughs of the text right above the part of the vandalism article you quoted, you'd be up to speed on what we're talking about here, pedant. Despite this I notice you're not acknowledging or ceding the point that for people railroading NCdave, the overwhelming evidence and the history back to February seems to cast that assertion (the one you made) in doubt. Professor Ninja 21:51, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if Ann vandalized the page on purpose or not. I know her modifications resulted in defending an affadavit ruled "incredible" by the judge, an affadavit that requires a conspiracy theory to be logicaly possible. Whether she intended it or not, the result forwarded an outrageously POV accusation. Iyer might as well have called Michael a witch, that is literally how incredible her affadavit is. It defies all logic. Whether Ann did this on purpose or not, I don't know. It could have been well intended but lazy editing, but the result was POV. It showed up on the article and it was removed, end of story. But in the context of supporting NCdave, her POV edit of an unbelievable piece of evidence seems to be relevant, since NCdave insists on making outlandish POV accusations and is unmoved by logic. Do with it what you wish. FuelWagon 18:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how you can consider she was vandalizing. It appears to me that this is a bias arising from an inflexible POV that the document is a horrible thing of disgust. Is the "context of supporting NCdave" simply 'guilt by association' because some here believe both had a similar POV on this paper? Ann Heneghan, as far as I can tell, did not make objection after her edits were reversed. I see no malice, and you admit you don't know either. I have now read the document and agree it paints an dark picture. It may be all lies or it may be true. Remember that whistleblowers are typically vilified, discredited, fired and ruined when possible. This document may defy all logic for you, and for the judge, but it is not a newpaper editorial and obviously some think it relevant. It is part of the record, and Iyer swore to it. So I believe it is important to link to it, and absolutely do so if it is discussed, as it should be. Tropix 19:57, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed it all the other times I said it, so I will rephrase it this time. Ann Heneghan used the Wikipedia article to criticize the criticism of the affidavit without citation. It blurs the line between author and editor; this isn't a blog in which to couch your denials or refutations. You repeatedly ignore this fact, why, I don't know. If Ann Heneghan provided a cite for this information, there would be no problem with it. If it was simply the affidavit, there would be no problem with it. If it was cited criticism paraphrased or quoted, there would be no problem with it. Absolutely none. The problem came when the article was edited to contain Ann Heneghan's personal commentary on the criticism of Judge Greer's decision. Do you, if at all possible, think you can work that out? Professor Ninja 21:51, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Ann Heneghan modified the Terri Shiavo page to defend Carla Iyer's affadavit that had been ruled "Incredible to say the least" by the judge. [4] Iyer's affadavit requires a conspiracy theory to be logically true: [5] FuelWagon 23:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can't comment on the Iyer affidavit as I have not read it yet. I have the impression some people here don't like it. But an affidavit is part of the written record, regardless of a judge's opinion. The judge does not create facts, and his opinions are important only in terms of his orders. Tropix 05:56, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

Nobody disputes it's part of the written record, you're trying to obfuscate the point, which I won't permit you to do. The point is that Ann Haneghan took the record and modified it to criticize the judge's criticism, without providing citations of cogent arguments to that end. Perhaps while you're busy reading the record you see fit to comment on without knowing what the hell it is, you ought to read up on what acceptable editing policies are too. Professor Ninja 06:39, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

FWIW- patsw Has put out something of a call to arms on his blog, requesting that supporters of the 'culture of life' come make sure their POV stands. --Gmaxwell 04:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, it's worth plenty, Gmaxwell. RfC Patsw now, too. Great. And I thought he had the showings of a reasonable editor. Anyway, in case he tries something deceit tactics (outlawed in the Bible, not that that matters to the culture of life) I've both taken screenshots of his webpage and saved the HTML. My rebuttal to his assertions soon to come. Here is a permalink to his blog Professor Ninja 05:15, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

patsw

line by line is spin showing Michael Schiavo's version of events

So, when the Valentine's Day incident is described entirely using Mary Schindler's words, and I change it to use words from Wolfson/Pearse/whoever, how exactly is that Michael's "version of events", when it was already POV with Mary's "version of events"???? This is so much bullshit. I'm gonna have to look up that diff now. FuelWagon 05:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Haha, if you think that's fun, try reading through every single one of NCdave's edits to find evidence of disruptive behaviour, summing them up, providing the diff... and then making sure they aren't already listed. Professor Ninja 08:17, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Blog call to arms

"patsw Has put out something of a call to arms on his blog" - I'm taking this to the talk page as it seems to be getting off topic for the RfC proper, but I note some interesting comments to Wikipedia has negative slant on Terri Schiavo, which is a related appeal for Schindler-supporters to edit Wikipedia. The first says:

Again, please don't just edit the page or flame. This particular article has already had massive disputes with one user (NCDave) who was banned after doing all of the above. He would edit the article again and again after insulting everyone and was later found to be fabricating evidence. He represented us badly, and we need to show them that we're rational and we know what we're talking about.

The second says:

Please read up on and respect Wikipedia's NPOV policy before doing anything on Wikipedia. NPOV is the treaty that makes Wikipedia work. If you do not understand it, and you are not going to respect it, you will not only find every change you make thrown out of Wikipedia, but you will give a black eye to all of the good folks trying to make sure this article is not biased against the pro-Terri side. In fact, we already have a black eye due to the efforts of some very vocal people who understand Terri's issue, but do not understand NPOV.

Hi there. I wrote that. :) Jdavidb 14:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I find all that very encouraging. Less encouraging is things like:

[P]laying the wikipedia game is an utter waste of time. That source is unreliable, biased, often woefully mis-informed, and I might add, godless, as well.

Bovlb 06:36, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

Here's some more fun folk Patsw's attracted:

Back to the wikipedia topic (I'm sporadic here, which is why I'm not volunteering)... I think the only thing we can hope to accomplish, given that it is pretty clear the wikipedia gods are of the pro-death mentality, is to keep the article "controversial". As soon as the controversy ends (meaning, when Terri supporters give up and walk away from wikipedia), they'll finish up the article and call it done. I think all we need is a couple of dedicated folks to keep the thing active, controversial and disputed.

3. Changed "life support" to "nutrition and hydration by means of a feeding tube".

We need more people on this.

Way to keep it a total lie according to Florida law as been argued ad nauseum, captain truth commando!

I've been on Wikipedia a long time. I've also been active in the Terri Schiavo article. When you look down the article and see that the picture of Terri is there in her disabled (but responsive) state, that's me; I did that. I'm the guy who INSISTED that that picture be included, with an NPOV explanation, when anti-Terri guys insisted it was POV.

Mmm, nothing like the good old "Michael Schiavo partisan" or "anti-Terri guys". NCdave, is that you?

Nope, that's me. And if you talk to GMaxwell, we came to a pleasing compromise on that image. Yes, I used the term "anti-Terri guys," because a) it's appropriate vocabulary for that audience, and b) there's been a double standard on this article and it has been allowed to express a POV. Be sure to note also where I pointed out that a bunch of fly-by-night POV editors would cause no end of trouble for people like me who have been on Wikipedia a long time and will be there a long time after they are gone! I want an NPOV article. I do not want an article that takes either side. But there are things in that article that are expressed as fact simply because courts said so, which is not an appropriate standard. At Wikipedia we do not determine what is truth; we contextualize and report NPOV facts. I encourage you to look at my edit history; while not perfect, I hope you will see a principled activity by a principled Wikipedian who wants, above all, a good encyclopedia that gives every side a fair shake. It is very unfortunate that misbehavior by some users on the Terri Schiavo article has resulted in one side getting reverted on sight, without explanation, and without discussion on the talk page. (Yes; I recognize we might need to kick out some users in order to make reasonable discussion possible.) Please read everything I said on that blog site with the realization that I wanted to prevent a damaging invasion of blog readers and turn it into a stream of positive, NPOV edits. I think the only way what I said could be seen as otherwise would be if someone carries the assumption that nobody of the "blogsforterri" POV can write NPOV. Far too many people are carrying that assumption, and it is damaging the process of editing this article. I think perhaps the fact that you can't distinguish my tone from NCdave's means you aren't listening closely enough to give me, or any other person who believes what happened to Terri Schiavo was an injustice, a fair chance. Jdavidb 14:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"...But there are things in that article that are expressed as fact simply because courts said so, which is not an appropriate standard." I completely disagree with this assessment. When the courts hand down a decision law becomes fact. To wit. A suspected murder cannot legally be called a murder until a conviction is handed down. Then and only then can the term "murder" be applied legally to the accused. The same is true for rape, theft, or any other crime. In this same light when a court hands down a decision on a persons wishes, when that person can no longer express those wishes themselves, the decision becomes fact. This is most certainly true in this case where virtually every decision handed down by the courts was unsuccessfully challenged. If this, in your view, is wrong then the best thing to do is to start working legally toward constructive change. False accusations of collusion and conspiracy do have a cost. Do you really want to bear that cost? Wjbean 02:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can you explain to me why I am an "anti-Terri guy"? You said it's appropriate for the audience. I think it's slanderous. Guettarda 15:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You and Patsw are by far the most reasoned of the bunch; that's not saying much though. Regardless it's inherently wrong to describe us as anti-Terri. I mean, doesn't the Bible have some things about lying and bearing false witness? Or do you just ignore God's commands for the greater glory of Him? Cripes. Now any person coming from there will be under the impression that every other editor is a "partisan" in the immortal words of NCdave. And cripple debate. What, you couldn't describe it that not everybody has a POV axe to grind on either side? You can take a look at my contribs too, you'll find that I've often made contributions that your "side" would consider good. Professor Ninja 16:10, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

My sentence is misconstrued if it is read to mean that everybody here is "anti-Terri." Perhaps it is being lumped in with statements such as "is pretty clear the wikipedia gods are of the pro-death mentality," which was not said by me AT ALL. I would think that nobody can deny that there are people here who hold a POV that would agree with Michael Schiavo, the so-called "anti-Terri" viewpoint (a name picked just because I needed a convenient term to describe it), just as nobody can deny that there are people here who hold a POV that would agree with the Schindlers. What I am hoping that everyone will acknowledge is that we can all make NPOV edits regardless of our own personal POV. Yes, there are plenty of people who do this all the time and consistently. I hope I approach being one of them. Trying to make it out that I misrepresented people here is 1) irrelevant, and 2) a misrepresentation of the intent of my statement, which was a (possibly incorrect, but definitely not malicious) generalization. Jdavidb 16:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And I don't think it's relevant. I don't know you and I don't know a single one of your edits. Everybody over there thinks people over here are "anti-Terri," and it was the appropriate term to use for people to know who I was talking about. If you think it's slanderous, hire a lawyer. Otherwise, let's get back to the issue at hand: making a good article. Jdavidb 15:29, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

er, yeah...inciting partisans to come and make the article POV, broadly dismissing your fellow editors as partisans...and doing it without bothering to actually read the talk page (where I have posted)...that's really a good way to make a good article. I ask a simple question and get a combative answer with a dismissive (who cares?) edit summary. Everybody over there thinks people over here are "anti-Terri," - hmmm...could that be because you told them that we are? Looks to me like a lot of doublespeak and a clear-cut attempt to subvert the article to a partisan POV. Nice. Guettarda 15:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You obviously have me confused with someone else. I have not incited anyone to come make the article POV. I have instead encouraged people who were going to come here to plan on being NPOV or else not come. (In fact, I have begged people over there not to get involved in Wikipedia if they will not respect NPOV.) Do not lump what I said in with what anyone else said on that blog. Yes, some of my fellow editors are partisans. My sentence didn't specify that everybody was. And I said, "Who cares," because I think it's silly to quibble over one sentence I said on a completely different website, especially when pulling it out of context and lumping it in with things other people said. Judge me by my actions here on Wikipedia. If I want to hold a personal view about some of the people here, and express it elsewhere, big whoop. It's no less "wrong" than the people here who think that any edits from someone with my pov need to be reverted on sight, without comment or discussion on the talk page. And as for accusing me of not reading the talk page, I have been heavily involved in the talk page for the few issues where I felt I could make a difference, and I've had to fight off revert wars from people who wanted to revert without comment rather than discuss there.

Get over it. When I said, "I don't know you or your edits," I was explicitly saying that I never personally referred to you as an "anti-Terri guy." Jdavidb 16:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can see someone trying to make a case for non-encyclopedic, but if they do, point out to them that this poll was widely reported in the news, and so it is significant. (That was the tactic I took to get the picture of Terri being responsive kept in the article.)

Yeah, cause Wikipedia is a news site...

34,500 bytes in the article and they decided that 40 words from Fr. Pavone linking the death of Terri to the Culture of Death is bloat

Wonder why. I appreciate your good faith, Bovlb, but seeing those comments has put me on hyper alert. I really like that if you don't agree with them you're "anti-Terri". At least according to Patsw and Jdavidb. And might I just add that being freeped like this really pisses me off? So they can advance a POV? Like anything that doesn't fit is anti-Terri... ffs... I mean bugger off. "Remember guys, if you're going to inject baseless pejorative remarks, make sure you say it like this and argue it like this." Professor Ninja 06:57, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Blogsforterri themselves are sending holy warriors to fight the culture of life/culture of death battle here? No wonder why this whole thing has been such a pain in the ass. --AStanhope 13:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

pita. I second that. FuelWagon 22:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From the link Wikipedia has negative slant on Terri Schiavo by one poster on that blog.

Here's some important information for updating Wikipedia:

1) You cannot just edit the page on Terri Schiavo, as it has been classified as a controversial topic. This means you have to justify the changes on the discussion board first, or they'll just be replaced. It's been split into a few topics so they're easy to find and dispute.

2) There's a standing policy against putting speculation in the articles because it causes big messes. So when you make an edit you need to include a source or references.

3) There's also a strong disapproval of flaming on the board, so be careful with your language. Accusing others of being "pro-death" or inflammatory statements about the people involved, which I've seen a few times here, will only damage our position.

4) Again, please don't just edit the page or flame. This particular article has already had massive disputes with one user (NCDave) who was banned after doing all of the above. He would edit the article again and again after insulting everyone and was later found to be fabricating evidence. He represented us badly, and we need to show them that we're rational and we know what we're talking about.

Ah a voice of reason. BTW, I don't think NCDave has ever been banned. In matter of fact NCDave made an edit here not more than ten minutes ago. Wjbean 02:23, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's String the Son of a Bitch Up!

Yeah! Hooray! --AStanhope 00:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, what? Seems a little anxious to say, AStanhope. Professor Ninja 01:01, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I really have to say that these kinds of comments hurt the RFC and mediation process, and only serve to make NCdave look better. Mike H 16:26, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

"Let's string the SOB up" doesn't help the RFC process, but it doesn't change NCdave's past behaviour either. The point of RFC and mediation is to resolve a conflict between two opposing views. If you expect one side to remain completely unaffected by being compared with Nazis, being accused of attacking all christianity, and being continuously offered troll bait, then I think you're missing the point of having a third party come in. Most of the people who are working on the Terri Schiavo page in good faith are fed up with NCdave, and we would like some resolution around this. If being fed up means we can't get some sort of neutral resolution, then the process is worthless, since almost no one runs to get arbitration at the first sign of trouble. Rather, they put up with a great deal of shit until they can't take it anymore, and only when they can't take it anymore do they try to get it fixed. That I have had enough of NCdave's shit does NOT make him look any better. It means I've had enough, I'm no longer going to assume "good faith" on his part, and I want someone to do something about it. That does not mean this is a witch hunt. It means he's a troll and I'm sick of it. If being fed up with a troll disqualifies me from getting resolution from a neutral party, then this has been a complete waste of time. FuelWagon 19:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Sigh... well, I'm actually on a partial Wikivacation right now, caused, actually, by recognization of the futility of trying to keep the Schiavo article from becoming overtly combative on a daily basis.

My basic statement as far as this request for comment goes is this: the vast majority (if not all) of what's written about NCdave is true... but it did not occur in a vacuum, and that's what's troubling to me.

NCdave has, without a doubt, been the single most disruptive, stalling, and difficult element on the talk page, but he has always required someone to take the bait and play the part (in his mind) of "Michael Schiavo Partisan Number 1" in order for him to really get into his talk page bloating, original research speculating, wild accusation swinging top form. He's been provided with one or more of those partners at every turn. That's including one or two, I suspect, who really were attempting to introduce their own POV contrary to NCdave, but who were able to camoflague themselves in with the forces of NPOVness simply by virtue of their opposition to NCdave.

The problem I see is this: NCdave has easily done enough damage to warrant a RFC, certainly enough to begin mediation with any number of parties, and maybe even enough for a request for arbitration.... but the demonization of him above and beyond that can, I think, only hurt attempts to have a speedy trip down the road to resolution. I think specifically, accusations of incivility and personal attacks are rather weak. Sure, he's been prickly, snarky, and often insufferably condescending, but he's been the target of far worse attacks than he's thrown out.

In any event, I really wanted to sign one of the outside view portions of the RFC, but I can't claim I haven't tangled with the guy on a few occasions, including losing my temper with him and posting to the talk page in anger once, so I'll leave it at this and return to my Wikivacation on the Wikibeach. Someone get me another WikiMai-tai?

Fox1 08:22, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wish I could agree with you, Fox. At first I felt you were right when you posted on my talk page, but NCdave's edits are scattershot as to whether it's in response to somebody else, or a tangential argument that's arisen because of his baiting, or whatnot. Going through his edits, I've found it difficult to believe what he's saying. The absolute worst I've seen him do is comparing a user to a Holocaust denier [6]; I think that takes the cake as far as anything that's been said, to him or from him. We've thrown our share of invective around; in this case I find it very difficult to fault the other users, myself and you included. I can fault myself for, say, snapping at Patsw a few times when he went off on a tangent that reminded me very much of NCdave; I should have clarified what I meant instead of barking off at him in a gut reflex and cooled the whole situation down.

But dave is just out there. There is a point in a shoving match when somebody throws a punch, and the other person can hardly be faulted for punching back. In every instance, dave has thrown the first punch. Other users coming into the talk page see his comments and automatically get on the defensive; other users editing the article see his edits and automatically reach for the revert button. To claim he's the target of far worse attacks than he's thrown out implies some bullying on our part. I don't think it's a matter of us bullying dave, or demonizing him. There's a point where you have enough. Do the editors just throw the article to the wolves because NCdave can burn them out? If that were the function of this site, a site that's so damn handy to me, well, it would lose its handiness. I came to the Terri Schiavo page after a long solace (and a longer solace before re-registering; so long in fact I don't even remember what my old User: was) to take up the challenge of helping wrangle in a POV article where I felt that I could contribute, since I can understand the complaints and positions of either side, as well as their fallacies, and, being Canadian, don't have a vested interest in any political fallout.

I've seen a lot of POV coming from both sides; I've seen some absolutely vulgar vandalisms that have only come from the pro-death (or, the death-mocking) side, but by far the most are from "don't murder terri!!1!" people. And of the most mainstream of these is NCdave. I've developed a knee jerk reaction that actually sickens me; I've lashed out rather unfairly at Patsw and Jdavidb instead of acknowledging and working with their bias.

You're bang on with the assesment that people can couch their POV as NPOV by virtue of being against NCdave, but unfortunately for us this works both ways, as people showing NPOV that even slightly resembles the POV of NCdave, or showing the same NPOV that NCdave has (on occasion) shown can get reverted quick, or pounced on. NCdave's presence has tarnished the Terri Schiavo article. The sooner he's resolved, the better.

Make of this little speech what you will, but I think a lot of people here are engaging in too much victim blaming; NCdave is a billowy-cloaked anarchist tossing a bomb into a crowd, you can't blame the person who gets blown up for picking it up and trying to toss it away. Professor Ninja 13:17, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying one more attempt with NCdave

A user comment to the effect of trolling NCdave off wikipedia really made me think, has anybody ever tried to reason with him kindly, ever? I don't think so. Most are just cease and desist orders. I started considering the fact that maybe NCdave came here with good intentions, feeling he had some knock-out evidence that just kept getting reverted out. The evidence I cited on the other page is all dead serious; I'm not picking and choosing, but it made me wonder why the hell he's not attracted any other disciplinary action. I considered the fact that he might genuinely feel that he's being victimized here -- after all some of his actual, genuinely good edits have been reverted along with his POV injection into the articles; maybe he felt that he's the one reciprocating and being provoked, not us. I don't particularly feel like turning a request for comment into a serious action against him. My main concern is getting him to smarten up and realise we're not all out to kill Terri or cover the evidence, we're not pro-euthanasia, and sometimes even though things tug at your heart strings you just have to swallow it down. I went over to his talk page and left a little olive branch there, as it were. I don't think anybody has ever tried a serious, friendly tone with him. There's been vandalism to his page, general snarkiness on our parts, etc. Not one of us has done anything in an equal tone. It's all "do it again and you're blocked" or "you're a liar dave" or "a troll" or whatever. You know, nobody likes to be ganged up on. Nobody thinks "gee, everybody here is grouping up on me and yanking my chain."

I don't doubt dave was in the wrong for a lot of things, but I also don't think anybody made a genuine effort to cooperate with him. I did read through a huge amount of diffs last night and I didn't see much, if any, cooperation of anybody on behalf of working with NCdave. Hostility, as it were, just breeds more hostility, and we've all been encouraging each other to engage in this pack mentality that hasn't been conducive to anything. If any of you came along with false evidence that was well intended and had it reverted without friendly explanation; had your good edits reverted; had your user page vandalised; you'd probably be hostile as hell too.

This isn't an immediate retraction of my support for rfc, I want to see how he replies first. It's basically, in my opinion, his last chance to get on my probationary good graces, but I'd at least like to believe I extended that last chance to somebody, given that I'd probably want it for myself. There's a lot to forgive and forget with NCdave, but it can be done. I'll offer this in his defence, in all fairness, is that he was the only editor to call the false info on the Partial Birth Abortion page. You can actually see that in some of his POV injections into the PBA article in the evidence section.

If he accepts, I'm not going to roll over and be his gimp, but I don't feel like running a potentially good editor off wikipedia. I don't feel like martyring him either. Or souring others if they encounter an initially hostile environment. I thought about what Fox1 said about encouraging him. I don't blame any of us for reacting, it's unavoidable. But we did, some of us (myself included) more than others encourage it by not offering friendly corrections. I've been noticing a trend lately around wikipedia, I don't know if it cropped up in my 2 year absence or if it was here all that while ago (like I'd remember) but it's hostile and impersonal around here lately. Go anywhere and you can see the invective fly; it's nonsense. dave approached editing as a newbie in a bad way and got stepped on for it, instead of learning from it he stubbornly repeated doing it. It's caused no permanent damage and despite the sheer volume of it hasn't managed to spill beyond 2 articles and 2 talk pages. I just feel like taking one last go at being the bigger man here. And that, as they say, is my two cents. Professor Ninja 20:09, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Whatever floats your boat. I tried explaining things kindly a couple of times. That was usually when he would take my words, twist twist them around, and ask me why I felt justified in trashing an entire religion. Or he'd announce to the world "For FuelWagon, when he says "this" he means "that"." I told him to knock it off and he said "<quiver>". He is irresponsible, meaning he does and says things without acknowledging and clean up the problems they create. And my take on individual responsibility is that you're responsible for what you do/say no matter what anyone else around you does. NCdave has NEVER apologized for any of his trollish behaviour, his word twisting, or his love of "Begging the question". He has NEVER admitted any wrong doing except to the extent that he'll admit he got the wrong year or got the wrong name or something. He has never admitted that his arguments are pure logical fallacies, guilty-until-proven-innocent, or that his favorite conspiracy theories are unfounded and do not belong in wikipedia. He has NEVER admitted he was WRONG and he has NEVER once given a real APOLOGY. If he can be reformed, it will have to be by someone other than me, because when I'm an ass to someone and they didn't deserve it, I apologize, and I expect the same from everyone else around me. I've been through enough shit that I don't have to put up with it anymore. I was hoping that someone neutral would have a talking with him about trolling and baiting and NPOV as a result of this RFC, but I really don't even know what an RFC can actually do or if its just a lot of hot air that doesn't actually acomplish anything. And THAT, as they say, is my two cents. FuelWagon 20:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know, I don't doubt that, I added the large majority of those citations. I also take issue with Tropix claiming NCdave is being "railroaded" after being here for only three days when the comment and Jdavidb not apologising for calling us anti-Terri. I don't agree with the rather ridiculous assertion that this is therefore a witchhunt against anybody who doesn't share my views. Where's the witchhunt in pointing out these things? I don't know, but there it is. I don't agree with MikeH's characterization of bile-spewing; it's pretty ridiculous, the closest anybody's come (and gone) to spewing bile is AStanhope above. If MikeH agrees that people are siding with NCdave because of that, then he's got to agree that the multiple cites I put up (I won't speak for other's evidence) is fairly indicative of bile spewing; why can he thereby not understand our supposed witchhunt? God only knows. But that's not the point. My point is I'd really, really like to make one last effort. If for no other reason then the only two possible outcomes is that 1) NCdave reforms and no lasting harm is done or 2) NCdave rejects it and thereby cannot claim nobody made the attempt. Professor Ninja 20:42, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'll take NCdave's latest comment on the RFC page Well, three days have gone by, and thus far nobody has identified a dispute with me which two or more people tried and failed to resolve. Time to delete the page. NCdave 16:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) to mean that he is hopeless. Apparently one hundred bulleted items of dispute is not enough or something. Or maybe he thinks he resolved all the disputes by changing the subject a-la whack-a-mole. FuelWagon 17:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: Ann Heneghan

I had previously asserted that Ann Heneghan's editing of the Iyer affidavit was bad faith vandalism; I based this on Ann's relatively new registration, the fact that she couched the criticism within the sentence itself without citation, and the fact that the criticism she used echoed NCdave's comments nearly word-for-word on the talk page. I hereby retract those statements; Ann Heneghan's edits have all been to the effect of deligent copy editing, I believe that although her edit was undoubtedly in error, it was not made with intent to introduce misinformation or POV into the page and was made ostensibly for the purpose of clarity. So, to Ann, I'm sorry for the accusation, my knee jerk got the best of me. Professor Ninja 13:39, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Your apology is accepted. Thank you. I would like to clarify something concerning my controversial edit on 10 April. It has been stated that I inserted personal commentary to criticize the judge's ruling. I did not. The article had a paragraph quoting Iyer's affidavit. In that paragraph, the editor advanced certain grounds on which Iyer's testimony should not be believed. This was done in the voice of the editor, not as a quotation from the court ruling. In other words, it was personal commentary.

The next paragraph quoted, with reference, from Judge Greer's ruling: "It is impossible to believe that Mr. and Mrs. Schindler would not have subpoenaed Ms. Iyer for the January 2000 evidentiary hearing had Iyer contacted them (in 1996) as her affidavit alleges." This time, it was neutral. Quoting Judge Greer, with reference, does not imply agreement or disagreement. It is a fact that Judge Greer made that ruling.

Both paragraphs give reasons why Iyer's testimony might be doubted. The first paragraph gives the editor's opinion; the second gives the judge's ruling. The reasons advanced by the editor are essentially the same as those given by the judge. (I can't help wondering why the editor's opinions on Iyer's credibility need to be there at all. Apart from POV issues, it seems an unnecessary duplication.)

I believe that if I had inserted my personal commentary immediately after the quotation from Judge Greer, I would have made the article less neutral. I did not do that. I inserted it immediately after the personal commentary of some previous editor in the previous paragraph. This editor advanced reasons why Iyer's sworn affidavit seems to lack credibility; I balanced that by pointing out that Iyer had not claimed to have told the Schindlers about the insulin. In my opinion, this made the article more neutral. Without it, we are left with the editor's voice hinting that Iyer's sworn affidavit should not be believed.

I am fairly new to editing on Wikipedia, and have no problem with being told that personal commentary is inappropriate. I can see that a personal commentary criticizing the judge's ruling would be removed. I cannot see why a "second half" to an already existing personal commentary, made for the purpose of balancing and neutralizing that personal commentary is removed, while the original personal commentary is allowed to remain, and is, in fact, still there as I write these words.

Anyway, thanks for your message. I appreciate it.

Ann Heneghan 00:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you see something like that, go ahead and take it out. Keep taking it out, don't worry about a 3RR, it won't happen in that case. Personal commentary just does not belong there. I understand what you did, but "editor's voice" stuff really has no place. It doesn't actually make it more neutral, it turns the article into an inner-mologue point/counter-point issue. Professor Ninja 15:23, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Ann, the diff is here [7]. There isn't any personal commentary in the text before you added your part. It is a list of things Iyer claimed in her affidavit, followed by two relevant facts (The Schindlers never contacted the police or the nursing home in 1996, and they never subpeonead Iyer in 2000) that explain why Greer ruled her affidavit to be "incredible". The idea that Iyer never mentioned to the Schindlers that Michael was killing their daughter is part of what Greer ruled incredible. She said she called the schindlers. She said she called the police and got fired for it. That she would go so far as to disobey standing orders and call the police but then fall silent and not bother telling the Schindlers is a tale of convenient fiction. I stand by the text that I put in the article that lists Iyer's claims and lists the two glaring facts that completely contradict Iyer's claims. They are not POV in any way. I haven't quite figured out if you believe Iyer or not, since you've avoided making a comment either way. But I also stand by my original comment I put on the talk page, which simply said you defended Iyer's affidavit and that Iyer's affidavit defies all logic. I made no statement as to your intent, your internal thinking, or whether you did it in bad faith or not. I never called it vandalism. FuelWagon 14:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Time to delete the page

Well, three days have gone by, and thus far nobody has identified a dispute with me which two or more people tried and failed to resolve. Time to delete the page. NCdave 16:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand. Read the top again. Professor Ninja 17:33, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Just implying that you want to delete this page just gives people more evidence to file an Arbitration request against you, and don't think people aren't thinking of doing that. Mike H 19:00, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

I read it, did you? 48 hours have long since come and gone, and there have been no examples in which 2 or more people have signed saying that they tried and failed to resolve a dispute with me.

It doesn't matter how much I discuss, justify, and document something, if I add it to the article it just gets immediately reverted by the M.Schiavo partisans, generally without so much as a substantive comment on the Talk page. NCdave 05:31, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're right; there aren't examples of two users trying to reason with you; there are seven...count them, seven (and that isn't even counting the two users who still want to see you censured but don't want to support the RFC in this state). So I'd just stop while you can still be deemed "ahead," because arbitration isn't that far behind. Mike H 06:22, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

I think the count is much more than this. I count Eighteen users who have endorsed the complaint. To my mind 18 >> 2. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:27, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Two people of the people who endorsed the complaint also vandalized Dave's User Page - one by inserting "as long as we're talking about my version of the truth", and the other by replacing Dave's profile with the words "I am an utterly deranged right-wing nut, who lacks any basic power of reasoning, and disrespects evidence." If those two people forfeited their right to endorse a complaint, wouldn't that bring it down to sixteen? And mightn't the number decrease still further if those who used foul language in their dealings with Dave were excluded? I could be wrong, but I have looked through his contributions (not all of them), and I see no evidence that he vandalized user pages or engaged in name calling or obscenities. Those who oppose Dave seem to belong to two separate camps. What a shame! Ann Heneghan 14:54, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Probably. Ghost Freeman, for example, withdrew his RFC after making a fairly personal attack on Dave. However, a user's talk page's are a place for criticism. On the other hand, I think Dave now understands what he did was wrong, and may lay off for a while. I don't want to get rid of him by arbitration, just have somebody give him a talking too. Maybe this accomplished it. Professor Ninja 15:27, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)