Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NCdave

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: 19:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC).

(NCdave | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute[edit]

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

Description[edit]

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. Coupled with his relentless reiteration, other users lash out at him, which leads me to believe that is part of his intention.

Subsummary[edit]

This is a statement not made by the original creator of this page which has been linked by other signatory users to continued conduct not previously mentioned.

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.

Additional edits in this vein include Talk:Terri Schiavo, Partial Birth Abortion (raised by another user in conjunction with global NCdave conduct), Talk:Partial Birth Abortion (raised by another user in conjunction with global NCdave conduct), and Wikipedia:Wikiquette.

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

POV warning
"We need some kind of consensus"
POV
NCDave's POV Editing
POV Dispute
POV Tag addition talk
adding the tag back most recently
a past edit summing up a rough consensus of NCdave's edits on the article
Instances where NCdave alleges "everyone knows" POV is disputed: [1], [2], [3]
[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)
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]
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]
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]
Michael is "imposing hulk of a man" provided to prove he is a wife beater [11]
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]
Logical argument is "proven" with the conclusion "it sure looks suspicious". Guilty-until-proven-innocent mentality [13]
Pointing out logical inconsistencies in Iyer's affadavit (same inconsistencies that Judge Greer found) is "smearing" Iyer. [14]
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]
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]
Additional act of putting words into mouths (line 1730)
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)
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.
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.
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).
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.
Racist/nationalist/disparaging/tangential comment "That's estranged, probably even by S. African standards." [34]
Personal attack against User:Rhobite "Rhobite doesn't like the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, which says..." [35].
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)
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!"
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"?
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.
"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?
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]
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]
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]
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.
"But you think you know Terri's mind better than the people who know her best?" [54] and he thinks he does?
"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.
"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.
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]
"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]
"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.
"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.
"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.
"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).
"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.
"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.
"(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.
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]
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]
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]
Twice deleted comments from this rfc page without refactoring, referred to refactoring as "trashing".[74][75]
puts in enough vandalization to get 3 reverts on another editor, and then blackmails them with this: "I won't file a 3RR complaint if you'll leave the "neutrality is disputed" and "accuracy is disputed" tags on the article." [76]
NCdave's first addition to the Terri Schiavo page [77] (second contribution ever [78]) results in massive PoVication of article. Next subsequent user contribution further PoVication of same [79].
Deliberate addition of bad information to partial birth abortion page [80]. Justified in edit summary as "Revert anonymous vandalism. Also, I changed the first 2 references to "baby" in the description to "fetus". The other 3 all refer to when the baby is partially born, and so isn't technically a fetus". Defended on talk page with "The other three references refer to when the baby is already partially born, so the term fetus is not technically correct: the dictionary definition of the word fetus is an UNBORN baby, not a partially born baby.[81]" Actual definition of birth is "the emergence and separation of offspring from the body of the mother." [82]. Fetus partially extracted is not (full) emergence and is totally not seperation. Questionably doesn't bother including definition of birth, possibly to justify deliberate PoVication.
Re-addition of PoV material in Terri Schiavo page [83] to change "life support" to "starved to death", etc.
Re-addition of PoV material in Partial Birth Abortion page [84]; same justification as above.
Additional change to PoV material on Terri Schiavo page; same change from legally correct term of "life support" to "starved to death" [85], justified as "rv wholesale POV vandalism" Continues contention she was not on life support, despite Florida law defining her gastric tube as such. Additional PoV comments in article.
Re-addition of PoV material in Partial Birth Abortion page, same as above, different edit [86] justifies on talk page by accusing User:Ceylon of vandalism [87] with statement "The latest vandal, Ceylon..." and justified with "In fact, the paragraph is NOT biased. There are no inaccuracies. There are no editorializing adjectives." (see above dictionary definition), protested the description being in the Pro-Life section instead of the main body where he wanted it. Commented "In fact, this article does NOT contain contrasting "pro-life position" and "pro-choice position" descriptions of the procedure, because what is listed under "pro-choice position" is a description of an entirely different procedure. The only reason the "pro-life position" info resembles the NPOV description [he is referring to his description] is that they are describing the same procedure (duh!), and both are truthful." to justify inclusion of POV description in main body.
Further PoVication of Terri Schiavo page [88] Members of Terri's family and at least one notable forensic pathologist think it more likely that she was the victim of an assault, presumably by the person with whom she was alone at the time of her collapse: her husband.[89] using weasel words & appeal to authority; added 23 links (out of 29 total) all supporting his PoV
Accuses others, when they remove his 23 links + 1 additional (above), of vandalism and being pro-euthanasia extremists & being liars "Haha, very funny. The pro-euthanasia extremists keep deleting the accurate truthful information and substituting lies, or nothing at all. What do you call deleting 24 reference links, if not vandalism?" [90] (line 235)
Additional PoVication of Terri Schiavo page [91], attempts to claim estrangement, edit summary is: "Do not hide the fact that Michael abandoned his wife long ago" As a matter of fact the Schindlers encouraged Michael to begin dating; they have so stated.
Reverted User:Rhobite's reversion [92] to same as above. Removed Rhobite's attempt at compromise with him "Pro-life groups usually refer to Michael Schiavo as Terri Schiavo's "estranged husband" because he has become involved with another woman since Terri became handicapped. Michael now lives with another woman, with whom he has two children."
Same material as above plus removal of a paragraph [93]
NCdave: "Maybe I shouldn't be surprised that people with such hard hearts that they want to bump off a harmless handicapped woman, also are not above trashing an article to promote their POV. But I am still disappointed."[94] Gross characterization of wikipedia editors who don't support his PoV.
Same PoVication of Terri Schiavo page as above, added 14 links supporting his PoV (as above), new edit [95]
Again, same thing. Removed entire paragraphs (including a paragraph with a link to a definition of PVS) and added 21 POV links [96].
Again, added massive POV to Terri Schiavo article [97] Edit summary: information about domestic violence, etc. Attempts to inject domestic abuse into main body as mentioned previously. Readds links.
Reintroduction of PoV into partial birth abortion article, same as above mentioned, different edit [98]
Same as above, different edit [99]
Same addition of POV as cited above on T. Schiavo article concerning domestic violence, different edit [100]
Additional POV to above edit [101] "and that there is evidence that he abused[102] her even before her collapse" - Statement of speculation as fact.
Same POV as cited above (domestic violence) [103], different edit.
Added comment to the effect that the Vatican had taken the Schindler's side [104] citing this article. The article states that "Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, said: "If Mr. Schiavo succeeds legally in causing the death of his wife, this not only would be tragic in itself, but would be a grave step toward the legal approval of euthanasia in the United States."". This is a single Cardinal, not the Vatican. Mischaracterization to inject POV.
You are accusing a CNA and an RN (then an LPN, not LVN) of lying under oath. On what evidence do you make such an accusation? Why on earth do you think they would do such a thing?? [105] However as cited numerous times in this list has repeatedly accused others of lying under oath. What is his selective basis other than antagonism and POV?
Injection of POV characterization of Judge Greer "Judge Greer responded by denying the congressional motion" changed to "Judge Greer responded by defying the congressional subpoenas"[106]
Personal attack on editor: "Yes, every word of it. If you read it and still think there is no evidence that she was battered, you have a serious disconnect with reality." [107]
From same edit [108] - "It is not clear just when he got home. All we have is his testimony, and (like so many other things he has said) that is inconsistent. In his July 27, 1992 Deposition for the malpractice trial he said, "I didn’t get in until like 12:30, something like that, 1:00. In his testimony November 5, 1992 at the malpractice trial he was asked, "Do you recall approximately what time you got home that evening?" He replied, "11:30, 12:00." On October 27, 2003, on Larry King Live, he said, "I came home around 2:00 in the morning."" - See prior citation of selective belief and then disbelief over credibility of certain things, e.g.: testimony, for the purposes of being polemic. Puts forward that testimony is no good because over the course of 11 years he couldn't remember exactly where his approximations of when he returned home occured within the span of two hours and thirty minutes renders the testimony incredible. In the same edit states ""Conspiracy theories?" You're the one who is sure that the CNA and RN (then LPN) just made it all up. Your problem is that they witnessed and testified to Terri's non-PVS state and mistreatment. You've got absolutely no evidence at all that they lied, except that their testimony is contrary to your POV. So they must have conspired with Terri's family to mislead us all. Sheesh." One minute testimony is good enough, the next it's bad. (n.b.: there is significant testimony which is referenced in this list that indicates that they did lie, as there is in the legal history of the case, not least of which is a restraining order sought against Michael because of his overdemanding attention for his wife from the nursing home.)
Additional statement as fact that the Schindlers did not know of the existence of the bone scan - extremely speculative POV in main article. [109] In fact according to court records the report was available and in the posession of the Schindlers various attorneys over time and that there was no suggestion that the report was secreted or the information withheld intentionally. (page 2 of 3 pdf)
His position on bias and why they'd be bias change in less than a day "Do you think that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, M.D., is "biased?" What do you think is the source of his supposed bias? How about Reverend Robert Johansen, what do you think is the source of his supposed bias?" [110] but "GAL Wolfson was also obviously biased against Terri, since before he was appointed GAL he was quoted in the local press as saying that he thought that Terri's feeding tube should be removed (though, in spite if this bias, and to his credit, after visiting Terri he nevertheless recommended further testing - which Michael Schiavo & Felos & Greer refused to permit). SO if you're going to divide the list into pro & anti Terri sections, you ought to put the Greer and Wolfson material in the anti-Terri section, at least." [111] - Wolfson & Greer biased, Frist and Rev. Johansen not. Conservatives typically biased in favour of certain things, e.g.: pro-life, conservatism is the source of this bias (as is liberalism for counter-bias), however NCdave says they're not biased. Judicial/medical authorities involved in the case biased, without a source cited by dave for this bias. Inconsistent argument for the sake of polemic.
POV Terri Schiavo article [112] edit summary: mention judicial activism
Additional characterization of editors as "partisans"[113]
Excising one POV statement and replacing it with his own POV statement does not make it NPOV [114]
Additional POV statement in main article, this time re: Michael Schiavo / PET/MRI scans - sufficient cortical damage was shown in CAT, PET/MRI having higher resolution does not make them "more true" [115] Additional revert to previous POV statement cited directly above.
Same POV as above, different edit [116]
Characterization of legal brief page "abtract appeal" as "sympathetic to Michael Schiavo" - no such characterization for his links, however. [117]
Judicial activism again, different edit. [118]
"both houses of the U.S. Congress have sided with Ms. Schiavo's family" mischaracterization of congressional record. Same edit also reintroduces estranged POV [119]
Introduction of 21 POV links and 1 google search (all lacking characterization given to "abstract appeal" site, however, except for the google search: (the St. Petersburg Times consistantly supports Michael Schiavo)) [120]
Reintroduction of judicial activism and erroneous statement about Vatican cited above [121]
Several attacks on editors, claiming all edits are lies, claiming all statements not his POV are from "propaganda machine", veiled reference to Neutrality not being neutral: Neutrality[sic], claiming editors are "out of step with America" - nationalist tone [122]
Implies all other editors are POV, claims his St. Petersburg Times were in the interest of NPOV despite his characterization of the link lacking from the rest he added. I do not object to reasonable editing. What I object to are POV deletions of useful material, insertions of factually incorrect material, representations of opinion as fact, and blatant POV editorializing -- all of which has been rampant here. as cited above, frequently by him [123]
"Preisler, you complained that I only put POV alert on the pro-Terri links, but that just isn't so. I put one on the Barbara Weller article, too."[124] His POV alert was "by Attorney Barbara Weller (a lawyer for the Schindler family)" which is stated in the second and third sentence of the Barbara Weller link (I had been visiting Terri throughout the morning with her family and her priest. As part of the legal team working throughout the previous days and nights to save Terri from a horrific fate, I was very hopeful.). This is quite different from "(the St. Petersburg Times consistantly supports Michael Schiavo)"[125] (actually the link he provided consists of several articles from either side, it is more than likely he put this in because it contained any support of Michael Schiavo) & "(sympathetic to Michael Schiavo)"[126]. (if one goes to abstract appeal or about abstract appeal they will find very little sympathy for either Mr. Schiavo or the Schindlers mostly just commentary and explanations on legal matters by a member of the Florida Bar; NCdave's warning is questionable, may be just due to the fact that it isn't an anti-Michael Schiavo site.) Additionally neglects the rest of his links which all lack POV alerts even if Weller link does, and to the degree of St. Pete / Abstract Appeal.
Accusations that others censor him or remove evidence. Definition of evidence by NCdave does not meet actual legal definition of evidence by which he means it; ie: admissible in a court of law (circumstantial evidence must be backed up with hard evidence, it is only corroborative)[127] [128]
Accusing other editors of being partisans (again)[129]
Reintroduction of judicial activism; reintroduction of mischaracterization of one Cardinal as Vatican; reintroduction of "estranged" [130]
Reintroduction of estranged; reintroduction of links [131]
Characterization and speculation of Michael Schiavo's motives, uses LKL rush transcript to "prove" Michael Schiavo lied about Terri's wishes (see here and here [132]
Massive POV edits to main page purporting Michael Schiavo battered Terri [133]
Removed statements critical about Dr. Hammesfahr including factually correct Nobel nomination invalidity, replaced with massive POV criticisms of Michael Schiavo's doctors. Changed tone beyond removing Nobel nomination invalidity to claim criticism was invalid (ie: Hammesfahr exonerated) [134]
Reintroduction of judicial activism pejorative; reintroduction of Vatican falsehood cited above; massive POV edits to support speculation of spousal abuse [135]
Speculation of PVS diagnosis as fact based on people believing she was attempting to form words. [136]
Advances on talk page that his opinions are facts: Terri wasn't drinking a gallon of ice tea in the middle of the night. Why not? Is there a time of day you can drink it? She was going to divorce him not presented as hearsay that it is (see above citations); "evidence" of abuse (evidence of trauma =/= evidence of abuse) [137]
Reverts article to reflect his POV, in doing so reintroduces Vatican nonsense, abuse nonsense, just about everything cited above multiple times [138]
Unnecessary baiting, personal attack by loaded question "Do you think it is okay to kill six month olds?" (user had commented on Terri's apparent vocalizations and understanding of concise english by pointing out even her parents admit that that is impossible as she has the faculties of a six month old) [139]
Ooooooh my, please don't threaten me any more. <shiver> I had originally questioned his URL's to a non-journalistic website which contained no information as to who was running the site (zimp.org). NCdave's response is "It is a trustworthy source. ... run by a friend of the Schindler family." [140]. I point out the obvious conflict of interest [141] NCdave twists my words into troll bait "any friend of the Schindlers is untrustworthy" [142], I tell him I never said that, I questioned the neutrality of zimp.org [143] and he responds like its a game [144]. I summarize what just happened, he drops down into his hole and never retracts his statements [145]
refers to the current (as of 16 April) state of the Terri Schiavo article as a "massivly biased propaganda piece". [146] No specific pieces of propaganda are pointed out. Appears to be solely an argument for keeping "POV" flags on the article forever.
NCDave has previously posted from IP address 69.134.182.251. That IP address just attempted to put the NPOV tag back in and modify the article to state that Terri was NOT PVS. latest modification from IP address all contributions from IP address 69.134.182.251
continues to insert the NPOV tag on the article [147] and again [148].
nearly two months after RFC is filed, is still inserting NPOV tag on Terri Schiavo article. [149]
refers to the entire article as a "pro-death propaganda piece". [150]
Talk:Terri Schiavo/archive25, created 8 June 2005 by Proto, modified by NCdave four times on June 23, 2005 [151]
Talk:Terri Schiavo/archive24, created 24 May 2005 by Proto, modified twice by NCdave on 3 June [152]

Applicable policies[edit]

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

Talk:Terri Schiavo (and its various archives)
User talk:NCdave
Wikipedia talk:Wikiquette

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

~~#Mike H 11:00, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)~~

See GhostFreeman's response under "other users who endorse this summary." I no longer endorse this as it was not what I originally drafted, and has since degenerated into little more than a lynch mob. People are siding with NCdave based on some contributors' bile-spewing behavior, and at this juncture, I don't blame them. Mike H 17:00, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

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) I am probationarily removing my endorsement from this RFC, as NCdave is making some effort to cooperate. Additional effort may be needed, but for now I will assume a good faith on his part.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I must withdraw my support from this RFC. The additions by Professor Ninja and Astanhope have effectively turned this into a witch-hunt against those holding differing views, even those who are good editors. I do believe that action should be taken against NCdave, and I still support the original RFC. See my comments on User_talk:Professor_Ninja. --Gmaxwell 16:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment: See my reply here, on User_talk:Gmaxwell and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/NCdave. When somebody endorses a summary written by a user who's been here 3 days that claims he's being railroaded, and himself has said both internally on the Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/NCdave and externally at Blogs for Terri that we are "anti-Terri guys" and has refused to apologize for it, I take issue with it. I also take issue with the rather slanted characterization. Bovlb was the first user to bring that blog to our attention, and Tony Sidaway was the first to comment on the 3 days issue. Not me. Additionally, Wjbean and Guettarda take issue with that. Claiming I've turned it into a witch hunt when I bring to the attention of people who may read that that there just might be a slight conflict of interest there is pretty sickening. You can also take into account Gmaxwell's withdrawing from the request for comment because I wouldn't behave how he commanded: I am greatly disappointed that you appear to be using the NCdave RFC as a pulpit to make negative comments about JdavidB's intentions and if you continue to do so, I am going to have to withdraw my support on the NCdave RFC. Charming. That pulpit pounding? In case you don't feel like scrolling to the bottom of the page: "Additionally, Jdavidb advances a ~~huge~~ potential bias when he refers to us as "anti-Terri" both on this page's talk page (originally this page prior to refactoring) and on Wikipedia has a negative slant on Terri Schiavo (http://www.blogsforterri.com/archives/2005/04/wikipedia_has_n.php)" Firey. Professor Ninja 18:16, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
Reply: Jdavidb isn't the subject of this RFC and the fact that you keep attempting to go to war against him here is a perfect example of the sort of behavior that made me withdraw my support. That you are only able to find him saying something potentially unnice on some outside forum (where he was addressing a bunch of rabid POV pushers in training, and would likely have been ripped apart if he had not spoken their language), implies something about the quality of his usual edits on wikipedia. As far as I can tell Jdavidb is a good editor who understands NPOV. He dislikes the actions of NCdave. By attacking him here you make us all look bad. --Gmaxwell 04:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Nor are other people the subject of this RFC, yet you seem perfectly willing to allow him to impugn all of our motives with statements like 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.) and 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. & 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.(you may do well to remember that these are not external sites), but straight from this RFC page. If he was speaking to an audience, he can't speak to them in a better tone? Is not the alternative "Not all of them are anti-Terri guys, they just may not be aware of the facts" so drastically sickening to use? By the way, what attack do you speak of, and why does it seem to just fall on my head? Why not Wjbean or Bovlb or Guettarda, for that matter? What, is it because of all the people who took issue with his characterization I actually provided a diff to demonstrate its falsity? Do you feel that because you cooperated with him it somehow calls your edit into question? Do you feel that I'm necessarily rejecting out of hand all the edits he makes? Can you, in fact, provide any cogent argument as to why of all the users here who've taken issue, my referenced reply is the worst breach? I'm not above retracting my comment about Jdavidb, but I'd like an apology from him for his characterization both outside wikipedia and, although you keep forgetting to mention it, inside it as well. No justification for the reference, no apologism, just "I made a generalization, and it was unfair." Boom, done. Professor Ninja 13:13, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
"Can you, in fact, provide any cogent argument as to why of all the users here who've taken issue, my referenced reply is the worst breach?" Perhaps not, but more importantly I don't have to... Discussing this with you has become exactly like discussing NPOV with NCDave on Terri Schiavo. I am not going to waste any more of my time, so bugger off. --Gmaxwell 17:53, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ah, nothing like a personal attack. Well, so long as we're clear that you withdrew support out of spite for me, and not any logical or valid reason. Most importantly of all, however, is much like your lack of need to back up your petty little grudge, is my lack of need to bugger off. Professor Ninja 22:16, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
Replied at Professor Ninja's talk page --Gmaxwell 23:35, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
Comment: Agreed. Several of NCdave's edits have been helpful. However his documented personal attacks, provocation, insinuation, and psychic hotline attitude towards Michael Schiavo's motives are not excusable. He has provoked many users into responding (myself included), not the other way around as Patsw contends. Any attempt to point out to NCdave (or Patsw, but that's another story) that his logic and insinuation works both ways has resulted in FuelWagon's brilliant term, the "whack-a-mole" logic game. The pejoratives, insinuation, and paranoia increase dramatically on the talk page and article history whenever NCdave is present. Professor Ninja 22:58, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
This is very much a shame. On the one hand, it's good to have passionate editors. On the other hand, it's good to have cooperation. I can't stomach NCDave's theories about a vast judicial or medical conspiracy (I think the assume good faith policy applies to more than just Wikipedia editors, so I don't find "almost everybody involved in the case lied" to be a credible explaination). Editing archives is bad; if one wants to make discussion active again, they should move the section back to the main talk page. This is not about argument but about collaborative debate. We should all seek to understand every POV, and edit accordingly. I think Wikipedia should have some faith in the courts as finders of fact, although obviously the courts don't have a monopoly on truth. --L33tminion | (talk) 07:39, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

The reason I like court documents is that they are much easier to find and cite. Wjbean 03:17, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

Proto 11:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
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)
I maintain what I have written about the "wikifilibuster" aspect, but also aknoweldge that the debate on this page as had a very low quality lately. Rama 17:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
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)
Correction. I am withdrawing on the grounds this is no longer a serious debate, but a witch hunt that I feel is is testing the very grounds of NPOV. NCdave needs to be dealt with, yes, but not by trolling him out of Wikipedia. Ghost Freeman | Talk 16:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment: A witchhunt implies a total lack of evidence. I do not see a total lack of evidence. What I do see is a disturbing amount of evidence of repeated, constant behaviour. That he has engaged in that much questionable behaviour does not mean we are persecuting him. That he has engaged in that much questionable behaviour does mean it needs to be dealt with, and with immediacy. I don't care if NCdave gets a stern talking to and comes back fresh, ready to cooperate. Frankly if he was willing to do that, I'd be overjoyed. It's better to get people to apologize than to get them hateful of you. If you care to demonstrate a witch hunt, I'd be more than receptive, as it is claiming looking for evidence everywhere is quite different from finding evidence everywhere. Professor Ninja 18:04, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
--Bishonen|talk 21:21, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
john k 22:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
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 [153] and FuelWagon [154] reveal that virtually all of their edits are Terri Schiavo-related. ElBenevolente 20:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
1. 1. Comment on the comment: I can't speak for FuelWagon, but I've become caught up in the Terri Schiavo page expressly because of NCdave; I'll be damned if I'll give into the childish mentality of "if I scream long enough, I'll get my way." I've gone off to edit other pages occasionally, but I doubt if I'll take a vacation from Terri Schiavo until this situation is sorted out. My edits, additionally, do not display the "axe to grind" that Calton expresses in NCdave. Professor Ninja 23:04, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  2. I don't fault NCdave for only working on the Terri Schiavo article. If I had more time, I'd probably work on some more articles, myself, but this is about all I can handle right now. FuelWagon 00:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Jayjg ^(talk) 03:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response[edit]

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 ~~~~):

Tropix 19:58, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
Ann Heneghan 22:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
patsw 02:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
NCdave 23:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
--GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 22:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC) (please see below for brief comments)[reply]

Well, I went back and reviewed a lot of the history of Dave, and I come to the conclusion that he is sometimes long-winded, a little repetitive, and sometimes wants to place an item in a place where it doesn't quite fit. For example: Once, I think he suggested that when Mike Schiavo is introduced as guardian that Dave wanted Mike be described as an unfaithful husband. (I forget which diff; Sorry.) I have no problem with this edit, but I think it can safely be placed in the disputed items sections (of one reason Mike's appointment as guardian was disputed). However, Dave is very dedicated to fairness and quite smart also. Therefore, I am of the opinion that "NCdave is being railroaded," as indicated above. Respectfully submitted, --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 22:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)

(This section has been commented on extensively; for the sake of alleviating clutter I've moved the rebuttals to the talk page Professor Ninja 22:34, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Taken from NCdave's mid-evidence list edit: POV Warning

What is your complaint about what I wrote there? Here's what I wrote:

The only way to make a NPOV article about a controversial topic is to include factual information supporting all the POVs. If information that is cited by adherents to one POV as supportive of their POV is systematically deleted from the article, then the article becomes biased. That is why I have consistently ADDED missing information to the article, rather than deleting information that other people have contributed. Several of those here who support killing Terri take the opposite approach: they just DELETE the information that is inconsistent with their bias. NCdave 12:32, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with that? NCdave 10:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whatever, read the whole thing. Anybody but NCdave will get the point. I think I already mentioned this edit before, farther down the list. I'm considering redoing the evidence list completely by going through every single one of dave's diffs from his contributor page and finding disputed behaviour. It's lengthy because he does provide good edits or typo/spelling fixes, only about 1/3 of his edits are seriously objectionable on any level. But some of them are just doozies. Professor Ninja 11:22, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Here's the whole thing: [155]. The only other part of it that I wrote is this:

Agreed that "world renowned" reflects POV; I've deleted it. The evidence for battery, however, is compelling. I've added much of it, with lots of supporting links. NCdave 12:32, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One of the doctors supporting the Schindlers was described in the article as "world renowned." (I don't think that language came from me, though.) In the above comment I noted the evidence that Terri had been battered, and I agreed with Fox1 that describing a Schindler doctor as "world renowned" reflected POV, and told him (Fox1) I had deleted that phrase from the article, because it was POV-biased in favor of the Schindler family. Do you object to that?

Actually, I do believe that that language originated with you, in one of your edits. If you didn't type it, I'm pretty sure you copy'n'pasted it. I could be wrong, I'd have to check. Regardless of that, you're also (this is extremely typical of you) glossing over what you did wrong and trying to play the victim. You accused other editors of supporting killing Terri and therefore deleting "compelling" evidence (that didn't pass muster in several courts which applied the most rigorous burden of proof available in civil cases). Your defence of that behaviour? Well, you agreed with Fox1 that "world renowned" (language I'm pretty sure you added) could go. Whoopee. So what if I shot the 7-11 clerk? I paid for the Slushie. My advice, dave, is when you're making a defence of your actions, do not take the same approach as you did on the talk and article pages. You've deleted my comments on this page (as you did to Rhobite on the talk pages) and you're beginning to skate dangerously close to both your outright lies and your attempt at deflecting the subject. You're essentially up for a type of review because of these tactics, you'll do yourself no good repeating them ad nauseum. I know you are not that stupid. Professor Ninja 14:26, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Note: this is just my comments about complaint #1 (out of 110). I think that the rest are just as rediculous, though I confess that I've not read all of them. It appears that CustomOfLife, Ninja & FuelWagon are just throwing a lot of stuff against the wall, to see if any of it will stick. NCdave 12:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. I've been extremely careful in going through the diffs from both the T:TS and your contributions page and selecting evidence of disputable behaviour. If it didn't pass the muster, it didn't go in. In fact, I made a point of always attempting to assume good faith on your part if the evidence could be found questionable as to whether or not it was actually disputable behaviour; if I felt there was suffient assumption of good faith, I wouldn't include it (despite my knee jerk telling me otherwise). There are probably duplicate instances in there; those you can remove (I'll be checking, so don't cheat). In fact I think I'm just going to go through your submissions page completely, and reconstruct the evidence entirely, to remove any possibility of duplicate complaints. I've also been not really conforming to a single standard; I've occasionally cited two seperate instances in the same edit as two pieces of evidence (for the sake of thoroughness, much as a man who robs a store and shoots the owner gets two seperate indictments); and for the sake of brevity (when I realised the sheer amount of behaviour you've displayed) began to just toss up multiple summaries for single edits cited as a single piece. I think we'll need to come to a consensus as to what the basic format for this should be (unless there already is one to which I am not aware.) I assure you that none of that is made up. Furthermore, most of those edits (the gross majority) are mine; they do not directly pertain to me, however, they do remain evidence of your disputed behaviour. Other users have added evidence, they are in the minority. Do your research before you spout off. You will note that not only do I not include your good edits, I openly acknowledge them (in toto) on this page; for example, your contributions to the Partial Birth Abortion page were for the most part POV, however you were 100% indisputably correct in saying the summary that was then provided by Planned Parenthood was not the same as what is known as Partial Birth Abortion, and you were 100% indisputably correct in demanding that it be changed. That does not mitigate your other behaviour. Professor Ninja 12:55, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I think item #56 sticks pretty damn well. [156] I've not combed the history like the Professor because you're just not worth it to me. FuelWagon 13:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And item #111 with your "Ooooooh my, please don't threaten me any more. <shiver>" shows the very definition of a troll. You have no interest in working with editors to make the article better, you get off getting a rise out of people. It turns you on and makes you <shiver>. FuelWagon 15:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Outside view[edit]

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 ~~~~):

Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Minaflorida 13:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
See more detailed comments below. Bovlb 14:02, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
john k 23:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Gamaliel 20:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Mia-Cle 20:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wjbean 15:41, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Outside view 2[edit]

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 ~~~~):

Bovlb 13:49, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
→Vik Reykja 14:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
JYolkowski 20:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
CVaneg 21:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
ElBenevolente 22:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

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 ~~~~):

Jdavidb 13:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
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.
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. (To qualify my endorsement, I would like to state that I don't believe the bias is as great as Jdavidb suggests, and I don't believe that any of the people who have commented below as of 14:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) are actively trying to introduce bias. JYolkowski 14:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC))

(regarding: "there is a bit of a pro-Michael Schiavo bias") Probably, but when I started working on it, the article was very general, not very specific, and had sections that were sometimes blatant pro-Michael, and other sections that were blatant pro-Schindler. I just recently refactored a section that had told about the Valentine's Day fight completely based on quotes from the Schindlers. completely POV. I just replaced it with text from a court report, which is more NPOV. I started a timeline article. The names of all the doctors who examined and diagnosed Terri weren't even all listed. I even added in Dr. Cheshire because of NCdave's complaints. But when I quoted Cheshires background from a newspaper, NCdave took it as an attack on all christianity. There were sections that spoke of 33 physicians who said Terri was not PVS and could benefit from therapy. But once I dug into it, I found out that these doctors had never examined Terri and had based their comments off of video made by the parents. That information wasn't even mentioned in teh article. Totally skews the diagnosis to the Schindler pov. So, if it's slightly pro-michael now, that's way better than when it was severely pro-schindler in some spots and severely pro-michael in other spots. It is an incremental approach. There's probably still stuff that is pro-michael, and probably stuff that's pro-schindler, and it all needs to be cleaned out. The thing of it is that NCdave hasn't actually done one iota of work to contribute to that effort. His edits generally take more time to respond to and clean up than he puts into them, which means he occurs as an obstruction to the article. All he does now is put the NPOV and ACCURACY tags in the article, without mentioning anything in the discussion page that would fix it, and throw wild accusations around on the discussion page about murder and conspiracies. FuelWagon 01:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment: This summary contains several falsehoods. This edit [157] (one of mine), for example, shows that we aren't all POV flag bearers for Michael Schiavo. Simply because NCdave advances a pro-Schindler POV does not mean that anybody who opposes that is anti-Schindler or pro-Michael Schiavo. That is a hugely false dichotomy. The fact of the matter is that the majority (probably 99%) of the vandalism to the article is from distinctly pro-Schindler vandals. There is simply nobody involved advancing that the Schindlers absolutely stood to profit by Terri's death (even though they did, it is insinuation that doesn't belong, same as the insinuation of profit as Michael's motive), etc. That there is a large majority in the middle ground opposed by virtually nobody to one side and to an extremely vocal minority on the other side does not imply that therefore the middle ground is actually between the majority and the vocal minority. Additionally, Jdavidb advances a ~~huge~~ potential bias when he refers to us as "anti-Terri" both on this page's talk page (originally this page prior to refactoring) and on Wikipedia has a negative slant on Terri Schiavo. Professor Ninja 00:59, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I applaud your effort to show that Jdavidb's position above isn't perfect, though I wish you'd cited more edits (I know there were several instances where I reverted something that smelled of pov on the other side), but I'm dissapointed that you speak badily of Jdavidb overall, because as far as I can tell he really does understand what it takes to be a good editor and has been a great example of good-faith. Please see what I wrote on your talk page --Gmaxwell 02:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Redacted. I leave it as potential bias, you're right in that Jdavidb has been reasonable. I still contend that he at least reveals somewhat of a bias. I also piped your wiki link to my talk page, which I'm pretty sure was your intent. I've similarly replied on your talk page. Professor Ninja 02:55, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

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