Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NCdave

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for comment
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Professor Ninja (talk | contribs) at 21:51, 13 April 2005 (→Response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 11:00, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 10:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC).

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.

Description

NCdave has edited the article on Terri Schiavo more or less for a few weeks now, and has since taken the side of Terri's parents. He has edited in defiance of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, inserting his point of view into the article and then relentlessly reiterating his point of view on the talk page, despite consensus that his edits do not conform to the NPOV policy. He has, since the earliest manifestations of the talk page, made personal attacks, factually inaccurate statements to support his POV, and many other breaches of etiqutte. Coupled with his relentless reiteration, other users lash out at him, which leads me to believe that is part of his intention.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

  1. POV warning
  2. "We need some kind of consensus"
  3. POV
  4. NCDave's POV Editing
  5. POV Dispute
  6. POV Tag addition talk
  7. adding the tag back most recently
  8. a past edit summing up a rough consensus of NCdave's edits on the article
  9. Instances where NCdave alleges "everyone knows" POV is disputed: [1], [2], [3]
  10. [4], [5], response to edit war which led to a 3RR reported against me (NCdave, just about everyone else disagreed with your insistence on spatchcocking the Schindler/Randall Terry POV into what is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia article. That is why your edits were reverted. Yes, they were discussed on the Talk page - and overwhelmingly rejected. User:Firebug)
  11. his edits to justify his point of view on Wikipedia:Wikiquette [6]. Only after much reverting and discussion on the talk [7] did he edit in something compliant with what Wikipedia is [8]
  12. Inserts personal, unsourced POV about Terri Schiavo in the article, Persistent vegetative state: It is sometimes claimed that Terri Schiavo is another such case, but her condition does not meet the medical definition of PVS. [9]
  13. Quote from talk page, "Terri was neither on life support nor in a PVS", in complete opposition with court decisions and independent reports that all agree Terri is PVS, and in complete opposition with the state of Florida's definition of life support. [10]
  14. Michael is "imposing hulk of a man" provided to prove he is a wife beater [11]
  15. Terri Schiavo not filing charges because "it is very common for women to silently put up with spousal abuse" provided as evidence for spousal abuse. [12]
  16. Logical argument is "proven" with the conclusion "it sure looks suspicious". Guilty-until-proven-innocent mentality [13]
  17. Pointing out logical inconsistencies in Iyer's affadavit (same inconsistencies that Judge Greer found) is "smearing" Iyer. [14]
  18. Quotes information from Dr. Boyle's blog as unbiased material. Ignores court decisions. Ignores examinations by doctors. Dr. Boyle's comments include such neutral statements as his assertion that all Democrats want to "murder" Terri. [15]
  19. I question the "trustworthyness" of zimp.org website because it is not a journalistic website. NCdave announces that "for FuelWagon, trustworthyness means..." Literally putting words in my mouth. [16]
  20. Additional act of putting words into mouths (line 1730)
  21. Advancing that Larry King rush transcript proved Michael Schiavo was not aware of Terri's wishes on 3 April, despite correction that the live tape showed a sarcastic tone not displayed in transcript when he originally proposed this on 24 March. (Refusing to concede)
  22. Has edited 4 of the 18 archived talk pages for Terri Schiavo article a total of 13 [17] [18] [19] [20] times to continue his argument in the archives. There are a total of 29 edits across all 18 archives, including his edits. Of those 29, all of them constitute vandalism or POV editting, including one completely removing all criticism of NCdave [21] from 210.23.187.247, the rest of 210.23.187.247's edits all consitute vandalism/POV to the Terri Schiavo article[22]. Only 5 edits to the archives can be considered to be made in absolute good faith and they are either a) absolutely non-combative or argumentative or b) in refutation to vandalism or extreme POV enforcement. Ncbill's response to NCdave's POV [23](his first edit ever [24], may have been mistaken in editing archived page),Iceberg3k's response to NCdave [25], Fbjon's response to a vandal [26] and two style contributions from Vt-aoe [27] [28] not related to advancing a polemic.
  23. Attempted to advance an unsourced, unarchived, unavailable email purportedly from Dr. Hammesfahr which "proved" his Nobel prize nomination was valid. Seemingly went to all that trouble when he could have simply checked the Nobel web site. When the text from the Nobel website was pointed out to him, refused to concede.
  24. Between Mar 28 and Apr 4 [29], advanced four times that Iyer's hearsay testimony of her overhearing Michael asking "When's that bitch gonna die?" re: Terri as absolute fact, on Apr 7 advances that the only hearsay was Michael Schiavo's testimony re: Terri's end-of-life wishes [30]. Additionally advanced that hearsay testimony of associates of Terri Schiavo that she expressed a wish to divorce him was prima facie evidence, not hearsay.[31] (One example of many, this argument has been repeated by NCdave and can be verified by other users and in the archives, I don't have the energy to drag up every diff that indicates it).
  25. On 7 Apr states "Plus, Michael's hearsay testimony was inconsistent with his own previous testimony in the 1992 malpractice trial (not hearsay)."[32] If Michael Schiavo's testimony during the malpractice trial (that his wife was improperly diagnosed bulemic), this is in contradiction to his previous assertion that Michael Schiavo's testimony in the malpractice trial was to cover his spousal abuse [33]. Either one case or the other can be true, not both. Thus in any case (that Michael was truthful during the malpractice trial, that Michael Schiavo was lying during the malpractice trial to cover his abuse, or NCdave is selectively deciding on a totally arbitrary basis what Michael Schiavo was truthful or deceitful about) he is arguing, and thereby forcing others to argue, a position he does not hold.
  26. Racist/nationalist/disparaging/tangential comment "That's estranged, probably even by S. African standards." [34]
  27. Personal attack against User:Rhobite "Rhobite doesn't like the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, which says..." [35].
  28. Deleted User:Rhobite's comment [36](line 376) one minute after saying "Agreed. I don't believe in deleting the "other side's" arguments. -NCdave." [37] and then attempted to possibly cover up his vandalism by rolling the time stamp one minute ahead [38] (Line 403)
  29. Assuming bad faith on part of User:MichelleG re: this discourse. MG: The "Physical Abuse Haunts Michael Schiavo", aside from being obvious propoganda, adds nothing that doesn't appear in the other links. NCD: It isn't propaganda, it is highly pertinant information. Please restore it, or I will. -NCdave MG: WorldNetDaily is a pretty horribly far-right news site, but I left the article in since it's reasonably well written, and to maintain balance. NCD: Well, "horribly far-right" certainly tells us what YOUR pov is. -NCdave[39]
  30. Advances Ann Coulter op-ed as proof that Terri Schiavo was abused by Michael Schiavo: "A few years ago, Judge Greer found that Helene Ball McGee did not have reasonable cause to believe domestic violence was imminent and denied her an order of protection. Two weeks later, Mrs. McGee was stabbed to death by her husband." [40] Fallacies of equivocation and post hoc (re: McGee -- she may very well have lacked cause and the stabbing death been coincidental, or even tangentially provoked by her court appearance) solely for polemic response.
  31. Repeatedly referencing other editors as partisans/vandals [41] (line 235), [42] (also line 235 & 317), many more, see above comment on divorce/spousal abuse/anything, really.
  32. NCdave: "I changed "taken off life support" to "starved to death," to make the opening sentence truthful. Terri is not on life support -- a feeding tube is not "life support."" [43] Actually, it is, and his truth is extremely POV.
  33. NCdave: "Changed: Terri's family contends that she is not in a coma or on life-support. To: She is not in a coma or on life-support. She is certainly not in a coma or on life-support; that is indisputable." [44] See multiple citations of definition of life support.
  34. NCdave: "Removed this outrageous POV sentence, which was inserted by JnB987: "These actions, however, have been dismissed by a court-ordered doctor as reflexes and the family has been accused of exaggerating them for their own exploitation." What "court-ordered doctor," who is accusing, and what does "for [the family's] own exploitation" even mean? Exploit is a transitive verb: who is alleged to have been exploited, and how?" in the same breath as complaining about User:JnB987's POV, utters this: "Her family loves her, unconditionally, and they are trying to protect her from being murdered. If JnB987 thinks that is "exploitation," then I feel very sorry for him." [45] Additionally, for somebody who constantly attempts to add anything ever mentioned in an affidavit "As a matter of public record", NCdave here attempts to obfuscate the fact that a "court-ordered doctor" did not, in any readable way of JnB987's statemen, make such an assertion; it was made in the motion for a guardian ad litem submitted to the court. Follows up with: "Terri's family has doctors who say that her condition could improve substantially with rehabilitative care; when arguing for a big medical malpractice settlement, to cover the cost of that care, Michael agreed. But now that he stands to inherit the money when she dies, he refuses to permit her to receive that rehabilitative care that the money was supposed to pay for. THAT is exploitation!"
  35. NCdave: "Changed: However, her family disputes that, saying that while they were not present during the conversations she had with her husband, Terri is a devout Roman Catholic whom they believe would not wish to violate the Church's teachings on euthanasia and suicide by intentionally starving or dehydrating herself to death. To: However, her family disputes that, saying that Terri is a devout Roman Catholic who would not wish to violate the Church's teachings on euthanasia and suicide by intentionally starving or dehydrating herself to death. When telling what the family says, you should not insert a bunch of waffle words that they never use." immediately writes: "Terri's family also points out that Michael apparently did not recall those conversations immediately after Terri's collapse. It was only several years later, after Terri received more than $1 million in legal settlements to cover the cost of her long term care and rehabilitation, that Michael first claimed to remember conversations in which Terri expressed a wish to die rather than live in the condition in which she now finds herself. If she dies, Michael will inherit whatever remains of that money. The accuracy of that paragraph is undisputed, and important for understanding the case." [46] Why is one instance of a conversation that may have never happened "waffle words" while another is "important for understanding the case"?
  36. NCdave: ""Michael could legally cede guardianship to Terri's parents, but refuses to do so, claiming he is doing what is best for her. Her parents want to bring her home; they maintain that, with therapy, their daughter can be helped." There's no disputing the accuracy of that sentence, and it is necessary to answer the obvious question of where SHOULD she be, if not in hospice." [47] Why should she be there? NCdave is attempting to enforce POV of where the "obvious" answer to "where she should be" is by editing the article to reflect as such.
  37. "As for the PVS/not in a coma claim, can we just settle the impossible argument we're having by saying "The Court has repeatedly found that Terri is in a PVS, a finding her family still disputes." -JnB987" NCdave: "So, JNB987, you would like to mention a series of court rulings that were so transparently dishonest, and so outrageous to basic decency, and so infuriating to the public at large, that a special session of the legislature -- called solely for the purpose of reversing the court's misbehavior -- passed a special law just to protect this poor woman from the abuse of those courts -- and your "neutral" way of summarizing that astonishing indictment of those rulings is to say, "a finding her family still disputes"? You are outrageous! The only NPOV way to handle the argument over whether she is or is not in a PVS is to contrast the medical definition to her actual symptoms, and let the reader decide who's right. Deleting those simple facts does NOT make the article NPOV, it makes it incomplete. However, as you say, it is true that the courts have ruled that she is in a PVS (so far, anyhow), so I've added that fact to the (de-vandalized) article, for completeness. NCdave 06:34, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)" [48]. Characterizes the court rulings. Why does the reasonable phrasing "The Court has repeatedly found that Terri is in a PVS, a finding her family still disputes" make him outrageous? If it "so transparently dishonest, and so outrageous to basic decency, and so infuriating to the public" what is the harm in offering it? It, like NCdave's previous edit [49], is the undisputable truth, and like his previous assertions to attaining NPOV balance is characterized by "both POVs" -- why does this user deserve a personal attack and why is NCdave so against it?
  38. Another personal attack: "I can see that you don't like facts, JnB987, but they are stubborn things, and they just won't go away because there are too many of them for your taste." [50]
  39. Another personal attack: "What utter, rediculous nonsense. Exploitation is the use of another person for SELFISH purposes. Terri's family is doing NOTHING for their own benefit. They have sacrificed extraordinarily, with NEVER a hope for gain for themselves. They are doing it ALL from love for their daughter/sister. They ask only to be allowed to care for her. Have you never loved anyone like that? Do you truly not understand that kind of love at all?" [51]
  40. Continued and fairly grievous personal attack, and attempting to characterize the beliefs of Terri Schiavo, which are still speculated upon: "Of COURSE it is possible to know Terri's stance on an issue on which the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are crystal clear. There is no dispute over the fact that Terri is a devout Roman Catholic Christian. But you don't know what the word "devout" MEANS, do you? Her stance is obedience, because she is a devout Catholic, and devotion to Christ requires obedience. Read that last sentence twice. Christ said, "If you love me, you will obey what I command." -John 14:15. So there literally can be NO DOUBT what she would say her views are on such a matter, if she could express them. I can see that you would not understand that. Yet you think you know Terri's mind better than the people who share her faith?" [52]
  41. NCdave: "Michael Schiavo's credibility is zilch, too. He's a bigamist with a common law second wife" [53] for somebody who complains about facts and likes to flaunt the meaning of words, he ought to look up bigamy and the statutes for common law marriage.
  42. "But you think you know Terri's mind better than the people who know her best?" [54] and he thinks he does?
  43. "The fact is that those videotapes and photographs of Terri convey the Truth about her condition. Do you also think that photos of the NAZI's victims are likewise "outrageously exploitive" because they tug at your heartstrings?" [55] The fact is those videotapes were edited down to a few minutes from hours of footage that the Schindlers refuse to release, and additional footage has come up showing total non-responsive behaviour. The Nazi pejorative is grossly unfounded.
  44. "Your argument is with the facts, not with me, Tcassedy. The FACT is that when Michael Schiavo had Terri's feeding tube removed last time, HE SIMULTANEOUSLY PROHIBITED HER FAMILY FROM FEEDING HER BY MOUTH. His purpose was simply to starve and deyhdrate her to death (a particularly nasty death, BTW). The statement that he seeks her death by starvation is indisputable. For someone to charge that such a simple, clear statement of an indisputable fact, utterly unembellished by adjectives, is "inflammatory," seems proof to me that you have no clue what the difference is between POV-bias and NPOV." [56] additional personal attack, questionable waving of NPOV flag after series of highly POV statements.
  45. Admits he compared User:Tcassedy to a holocaust denier: "I compared YOUR complaint (about the heartwarming videos and photos which show Terri smiling and kissing) to the complaints of those who don't want to be accept the reality of the NAZI's crimes" [57]
  46. "You're right, "estranged" is too mild. It should say something like, "Her abusive bigamist husband, who has lived with a different common law wife for years..."" Odd for somebody just complaining so much about NPOV [58]
  47. "Rather, Michael Schiavo's hand-picked euthanasia activist doctors agree with it. Most doctors who are familiar with her status do NOT believe it, and the family's doctors certainly disagree with it." [59] Pejorative characterization. Actually of all the doctors actually familiar, not "in knowledge of" with the case, only two, both Schindlers' doctors, disagree.
  48. "It was awarded for Terri's care and rehabilitation but Michael refused to allow it to be used for that purpose. He has refused to allow ANY rehabilitative therapy for her, AT ALL. He wouldn't even pay for proper dental care for her -- and, as a result, she has lost five teeth due to dental neglect, while in his "care"[sic]. Instead of spending the money as it was intended to be spent, for HER, he spent much of the money on himself, and much more of it to fight to have her killed, presumably so that he could inherit the remainder. Terri's family are the ones who've sacrificed. They have NO financial motive for this fight, unlike her estranged husband." [60] This is again a made up fact and unnecessary characterization for the sake of POV. Michael Schiavo, in cooperation with the Schindlers, tried aggressive, experimental, and radical rehabilitation therapy on Terri. And as stated above, the Schindlers had an equal financial stake as Michael. If Michael divorced, they inherited Terri's estate upon her death. If Michael remarried, he inherited the estate. The speculate that solely one and not the other is attempting to inject POV and is disruptive.
  49. "I prefer laws to be made with the consent of the governed. Every American should. If you do not, then you have rejected the single most foundational principle of our system of government, and you should go and live somewhere else." [61] Unnecessary personal attack.
  50. "Yet the notoriously activist Judge Baird and the infamously activist all-Democrat/all-leftist FL Supreme Court" & "Compare that to the folks supporting her death: the far-left ACLU, and Michael's euthanasia-advocate lawyer, Felos. Period." [62] Polemic characterization of "lefists" or liberals/Democrats and their stance on this case (in point of fact many Republicans felt that J. and G. W. Bush exceeded their authority and several Democrats agreed with their stance for Terri).
  51. "He has also been utterly neglectful of her basic health needs. Any woman can tell you how painful a UTI is. But when Terri had one, he wouldn't even permit THAT to be treated. And how about bad teeth? She's lost five teeth so far due to dental neglect, under Michael's care." [63] Contrary to facts; as was pointed out the original care facility where Terri was lodged at attempted to get a restraining order against Michael Schiavo as he demanded too much care for his wife.
  52. "You REALLY don't see the connection between the use of sympathy-invoking photos of helpless Terri, who is about to be killed by starvation, and the sympathy-invoking photos of emancipated concentration camp inmates, who the NAZIs nearly killed by starvation? SERIOUSLY?" [64] again with the damn Nazis.
  53. "(In other words, the court lied.)" [65] Post fact editing of a previous comment of his own to attempt to continuously revert the article in question to support his POV.
  54. I quote newspaper about Cheshire diagnosis and bias [66], NCdave takes it as an attack on all christians [67]. I say its about Cheshire's bias [68] NCdave turns that into an "attack on all conservative christians" and that my words "trashes an entire religion" [69]
  55. NCdave quotes Dr. Boyle as "host of the award-winning CodeBlueBlog web site" [70]. Boyle's complete bias is shown [71]. NCdave dismisses Boyle's bias, saying we disagree with him because "his expert medical opinion differs from that of Judge Greer." [72]
  56. Enters text on talk page with title "FuelWagon slights Christians" after being told repeatedly that I was quoting a newspaper on Cheshire's background.[73]

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
  2. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum
  3. Wikiquette: Concede points, argue facts not personalities, assume good faith, recognize your own biases, etc.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Talk:Terri Schiavo (and its various archives)
  2. User talk:NCdave
  3. Wikipedia talk:Wikiquette

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Mike H 11:00, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Resolving the dispute with NCdave has gone from simply assuming good faith and correcting him to what User:FuelWagon has summarised as a game of "Whack-a-Mole" logic. Professor Ninja 11:54, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  3. It's clear that NCdave has quite the axe to grind over this issue. The Talk:Terri Schiavo page can pretty much be summed up as "NCdave vs. the rest of the editors". POV insertion in this article has come mostly from NCdave and a couple of anon users. Firebug 12:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. It would be helpful if NCdave could take a brief wikivaction and simply study the NPOV policy. I get the sense that he's only here to force his opinions on the Terri Schiavo page as he doesn't seem to do much else. --Viriditas | Talk 12:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. I haven't been active on Schiavo for some time but looking at recent history tells me not much has changed since I wrote the POV warning and "we need some kind of consensus" posts listed in the evidence. Preisler 15:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. NCdave holds his beliefs of the Terri Schiavo situation as "truth" and generally demands that contributers prove his version of truth to be wrong (guilty until proven innocent). When any particular "truth" is shown to be wrong or unsubstantiated, he often jumps to a completely different "truth" on a completely unrelated topic (logical whack-a-mole). He seems incapable of sticking to reporting the history of facts and instead wishes only to jump to his conconclusion that Michael was a wife beater and murdered his wife to silence her and get her malpractice money, and that there is a grand conspiracy of doctors, judges, nursing home staff, police, and others who are all in on this conspiracy to murder Terri. Overall, his "guilty until proven innocent" attitude and his logical whack-a-mole approach often occurs as trolling or baiting. Dealing with his stuff definitely takes up a lot of everyone else's time, because he basically demands that you engage him or he'll take your silence to mean you agree with him. It's a "I get to hold this as true unless you prove me wrong" kind of attitude. In comparison, there are other people who have made major contributions to the article (Professor Ninja and Viriditas for example) whom I've interacted with almost not at all because they're focused on contributing to the article, they understand the difference between the facts of history and their interpretations, and they generally don't demand that other contributers engage with them. I don't have to spend time explaining to them (Professor Ninja, Viridita, et al) logical fallacies, or that the burden of proof is on the person making the assertion, or the difference between innocent till proven guilty and guilty until proven innocent, or the difference between quoting a newspaper and quoting a blog. I think NCdave holds his beliefs sincerely, but his approach that basically demands that others engage with him occurs as trolling or baiting. FuelWagon 15:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. NCdave's constant edit warring, POV pushing, and lack of willingness to participate in a rational discussion to reach consensus has soured me to contributing in any article where he has decided to push his POV. I come here to contribute, not to do battle.Gmaxwell 15:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  8. Pretty much everyone above has stated the problem. NCdave constantly put POV in the Terry Schiavo article, then flamed anyone who reverted him. He's worse than a troll, because at least trolls don't honestly believe what they're doing is good for wikipedia. He got TCOL blocked (luckily only for a few minutes) for reverting his POV-filled edits four times, but only because TCOL threatened to report NCdave for 3RR violation. The guy's most likely not going to change his behavior no matter how much dialogue there is. I would have helped start the RfC myself if not for the personal attack I made on him. AngryParsley 22:35, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  9. This is more than a shame. NCDave has made some valuable contributions. Unfortunately only roughly half of those contributions are un-biased. The other half are hearsay, inflammatory, or simply ignore the facts. In some instances the talk page has been used to make veiled accusations of murder. In others speculation as to motive (on both sides) has been put forth as fact. On a personal note I think it’s horrible that such a young vital woman as Terri Shaivo suffered so much for so long. But I find it equally horrible that her wishes were completely ignored for as long as they were. All for the purpose of promoting another person's agenda. Right to life or right to death issues should be personal, private, and arrived at & executed with dignity and respect. Wjbean 19:29, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Proto 11:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. NCdave is representative of a bad-faith tactic of stalling the talk page with long rants and counter-rants without substance, and trying to discredit whole articles by dropping the NPOV tag without seriously identifying valid POV points (not even speaking of resolving them). Rama 12:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. He's letting his own personal opinions get the better...wait, he wants his personal opinions to get the better of him. I believe he knows the policy here, and he is exploiting it to get his means, which is a horrifically biased article, and a lot of bad blood between Wikipedians. Ghost Freeman 12:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. I thought, perhaps, that after Schiavo died that NCDave would fade away and let the rest of us who seem to be able to work together productively stick to the facts. I was wrong. It is as if he has some incredible personal stake in his side of this story. NPOV shouldn't be this hard. AStanhope 13:44, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. I have actively watched the Terri Schiavo talk page (even more so than the article itself) since it started and there have been users for and against various issues. But NCdave takes the cake. He has continuously tried to insert his POV and attempted (quite successfully) to engage debate on matters irrelevent to the article. He has edited wikiquette to support his arguments and has only "contributed" to articles related to Terri (and some to partial-birth abortion). But the most damning fact is he cannot be reasoned. No amount of truth will sway his opinion and he keeps disrupting the project to have it his way. →Vik Reykja 15:35, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. I too have been watching the T. Schiavo talk page far more than the actual article (in order to see how the debates over the issues have been framed and argued). However, NCDave is notorious for the endless repetition of a few pat catch-phrases from a specific point of view. The attempts to point out the inaccuracies, illogic, misrepresentation of his "argument" are unsuccessful and it only sets off another dead-end round of tangential (at best) argument. The endless focusing on the minutiae bogs down persons with a genuine interest in producing a neutral, clear article.Mia-Cle 17:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. Like several others, I have mostly watched the Terri Schiavo article and talk page, and while he was not the worst one there, his intransigence and unwillingness to compromise made him a disruptive editor. In addition, his behaviour on the Talk page was trollish - he raised the same arguments repeatedly and insisted that other editors disprove the points he raised. The length to which he went made the talk page difficult to follow. His alteration of Wikipedia:Wikiquette to support his arguments could be dismissed as a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works, but the fact that he continued to do this after having this explained showed him to be a disruptive editor. Guettarda 20:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  8. Like the others in this section, I have only made minor edits to the Terri Schiavo page. However, I was curious to see the edit history and talk page. Consistently in both, NCdave has overwhelmingly resorted to belligerence and vague insinuation(against both Wikipedians and players in the underlying topic), while adding essentially zero meaningful content or clarification on any matter. He has done so in great volume. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  9. --Bishonen|talk 21:21, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  10. john k 22:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  11. A quick look at NCdave's article contribution history shows that the vast majority of his edits are to Terri Schiavo, with almost all the rest either Partial-birth abortion or Terri Schiavo-related (for example, see edit comment for this edit of Persistent vegetative state - 3 corrections: Schiavo is not in PVS...) It all adds up to a portrait of a man on a mission, an obsessive axe-grinder hell-bent on getting his way on a single issue. --Calton | Talk 00:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Comment: Several users who have endorsed the summary have similar editing habits. A cursory examination of the contributions of Professor Ninja [74] and FuelWagon [75] reveal that virtually all of their edits are Terri Schiavo-related. ElBenevolente 20:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

NCdave is being railroaded.

The Terri Schiavo article is not unbiased, and the POV tag should be left in place. Perhaps indefinitely. NCdave has frequently attempted to place the tag, but it is always instantly removed. The tag is an embarrassment to the article, but so be it. The article is largely controlled by a clique. Browsing the history shows a small number of editors are extremely active, constantly making changes, removing information they personally characterize as irrelevant, quickly reverting contributions, and even removing links to unbiased source documents when they do not like the sites. Slanted paraphrases are sometimes substituted for source material. There appears an attitude that the courts create the facts, rather than merely make final, formal decisions for action based on their interpretion of facts. Reality is that facts themselves never go away, and always remain for further consideration. The pots are calling the kettles black. The problem comes from the large number of pots here.

NCdave has not been abusive or made personal attacks. He presents arguments and information that would seem worthy of inclusion in an unbiased article. There is nothing wrong with his arguing his points on the discussion page, that's what it is for. Certainly that is more polite than the wholesale revisions and reversions other editors do in the article itself. In fact, recent history shows that NCdave has been one of the least active editors, which may reveal his discouragement and which makes this attack on him appear biased.

As long as a few editors, even transient visitors, feel that the article has a disputed point of view the tag should stay. Everyone's reward is when the article is unbiased enough to suit all, then the tag goes away. NCdave deserves more respect.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Tropix 19:58, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
  2. Ann Heneghan 22:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. patsw 02:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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)

It's evident on its face by comparing any balanced account of the story of Terri Schiavo that appears in a professionally edited source such as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, etc. that this article is full of bias in favor of the petitions of Michael Schiavo and since he prevailed in court, the findings of Judge George Greer. It fundamentally is not fair to the Schindler family's side. To which some might reply And that's a good thing. Because of a small editing cabal and in particular their seemingly inexhaustible supply of time to judge, add, and delete as if it were their own property. NCdave's efforts and my own are challenged, nitpicked, and deleted. The intimidation is sometimes subtle and sometimes not, like when another editor gloats at the amount of text they have deleted and mocking the idea that one could challenge the neutrality of the article with the POV tag. It's bait and I'm not taking it. NCdave took the bait and returned some of these personal attacks and the result is this page. It's the utter predictability of the deletions and the hostility of the cabal and their failure to be frank about their criteria for deleting material. Some of the biggest deleters are not ever explaining their actions on the talk page. Who is blowing the wikiwhistle on that abuse?

Thinking of presenting some fact the presents balance in the Schindler's account of events? Face the gatekeepers: Where's the URL? Is that relevant? That's bloat. You can't use primary text, you have to use the faithful paraphrase oops, so sorry, the article just became too long with your last edit, and so on. But none of the these tests get applied to material supporting the Michael Schiavo version of events. NCdave is reacting to an incredible and intense level of provocation. Let everyone who's applied more than 10 edits per day for 10 days take a wikivacation. It's become an unhealthy obsession. What's being produced line by line is spin showing Michael Schiavo's version of events (i.e. the phony Neutral Point of View) and basically useless for understanding why public interest in this case was so great or how anyone could ever come to doubt the motives of Michael Schiavo and marginalizing the Schindler?s and perhaps that is the intended result. patsw 02:42, 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[76] 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. [77] Iyer's affadavit requires a conspiracy theory to be logically true: [78] 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)

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

A certain amount of baggage in the form of personal opinion is to be expected on the talk page of an article on a controversial subject. NCdave's comments went beyond this and he used the talk page as a pulpit from which to denounce Michael Schiavo and others involved in the case.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Minaflorida 13:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. See more detailed comments below. Bovlb 14:02, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
  4. john k 23:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Gamaliel 20:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Outside view 2

  • NCdave undoubtedy has a strong POV on the Schiavo case.
  • NCdave's contributions to the article and talk page have been largely, but not exclusively, pushing that POV.
  • NCdave appears to have significant trouble with the concept of NPOV.
  • NCdave does not acknowledge refutation on the talk page, and does little to incorporate it in subsequent article edits.
  • NCdave does not stand entirely alone in some of the points he raises.
  • Other editors have allowed their irritation with NCdave to boil over into uncivil talk contributions and edit summaries. Some have notably failed to be the "bigger person".
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
  1. Bovlb 13:49, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
  2. →Vik Reykja 14:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. JYolkowski 20:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. CVaneg 21:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. ElBenevolente 22:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment

  • I do not know whether what I will have to say would be considered "outside view," or what. I personally have not observed enough of NCdave's behavior to draw a conclusion (I've tried to just busy myself with working to better the article), but based on the reactions he gets, I have my suspicions. What I want to say is that there is a valid point that this article is not NPOV. For example, rather than stating that Terri Schiavo was in a PVS, the article should state something along the lines of, "The majority of medical practicioners agreed Terri Schiavo was in a Persistent Vegetative State, but the Schindlers produced medical experts that disputed that finding." That is simple, textbook NPOV. Unfortunately, NCdave wants the article to state definitively that Schiavo was NOT in a PVS. That is not NPOV. But neither is stating definitively that Schiavo WAS in a PVS. There are far too many people trying to decide the merits of the case and draw conclusions in the article, when Wikipedia should do nothing of the sort. Whenever anyone tries to NPOV-ize to make the article a little less damning toward the Schindler POV (which is a major POV reported all over the media, but minimized here), excuses are immediately thrown out about "article bloat," and other things that appear to only matter when it is a pro-Schiavo supporter editing the article. (When a piece of evidence supports the Michael Schiavo side, it is inserted without question; when a piece of evidence supports the Schindler side, suddenly we have to dig deep into its qualifications.) There is a clear double standard being applied by most of the article editors. I think the problem is that there has been too much high-strung editing (and reverting). The fact that some user might have failed to understand NPOV and necessitated emergency measures against that one user in order to protect the article is not an excuse for stooping to that user's level. I hope that we can move on and work to truly make this article NPOV.
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
  1. Jdavidb 13:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Bill 17:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) The article mentions many events and viewpoints in various sections, but each section, in most instances, then concludes firmly on the Michael Schiavo side (as might be expected, since that became the majority side), and in such a way as to be outright dismissive of the Schindler family side. It therefore reads as a sort of propaganda tract in which pro-Schindler material is brought up merely to be refuted; and as such, Dave's insistence on the disputed/POV tag is quite reasonable.
  3. JYolkowski 19:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) Certainly doesn't excuse NCdave's behaviour, but it is worth noting that there is a bit of a pro-Michael Schiavo bias to the article.

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/NCdave&oldid=12273889"