Talk:Dan Debicella/Archive3

Most recent edits (April 2009)
The most recent series of edits need some discussion. First off, I did address Orangeman2's effort to order things chronologically by moving the "April 2009" paragraph after the 2008 organizational ratings. However, I think creating a separate section for each year is unnecessary and inconsistent with general Wikipedia formatting rules.

As for the actual substance of the edits... Again, Orangeman2 is favoring their personal version of the facts over what is substantiated by noteworthy third party media outlets. I thought there was a mutual agreement that votes and accomplishments should be covered by reliable media in order to warrant inclusion in this article. Orangeman2's edits omitted information that WAS cited in third party media and added information that WASN'T. If you read the Hartford Courant article pertaining to the same sex marriage bill, it clearly characterizes one of the amendments as a conscientious objector claus for individuals and businesses - this is not MY description, it is the Courant's - just read the article. On the other hand, the paragraph about Debicella receiving an award is cited using only a Senate Republican press release, which is certainly not a third party. Unless the award is covered by neutral media somewhere, it does not warrant inclusion in this article. Several of my past edits were shot down by this same rationale even though I personally felt they were notable enough to be included. We must be as objective and consistent as possible. Let's defer to the sources. 69.37.244.14 (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Two things in response-- first, the winning of the award was a significant accomplishment, as Senator Debicella was the only person in the state who received it. Second, you are incorrect in the facts of the gay marraige vote by your own sources. Please check your link to the CGA website and look at the four amendments offered...none of them are "conscious objector" amendments. These were things the Catholic Church wanted, not things that the Senate actually voted on.

We also agreed not to have separate "Accomplishment" and "Voting Record" sections, so I am removing that. I am fine with your chronological ordering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Where are you getting your information from? I am simply characterizing the bill and the amendments the same way the Hartford Courant did. If you think the Courant is inaccurate in its characterization then please find a media source that is more accurate in your viw. Until then, I will continue to keep the Courant version rather than your version that is seemingly out of thin air.


 * I do not think it is appropriate for votes to be listed under "Accomplishments" - votes are not accomplishments. I believe they were previously listed together under "State Senator" without any sub-headings. But as things become longer, I don't see the problem with splitting the section into "Accomplishments" and "Voting Record" to make things easier to read. This is just simply a formatting change and is in line with other biographies of politicians on Wikipedia. It doesn't change the content of the article; just makes it easier to read. As the article continues to grow, the need for separate sub-sections will only become more apparent. 69.37.244.14 (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, OK, I see what you're saying now. It looks like the Family Institute of Connecticut wanted an amendment with a conscientious objector clause but that no such amendment ever went to a vote. The two amendments that failed were parental notification of in-school discussions of sexuality and marriage, and a different version of the religious institution protection. I will re-work the language... 69.37.244.14 (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A much better written paragraph. Well done. Now, there is a larger issue of what we are including in this article. The last standard we discussed was major debates or votes that Debicella was directly involved in. Now, you are including a vote that he was not really a major part of (not even mentioned in the Courant article). I know these social issues are important to you, but they are really not even the bulk of what Debicella and the State Senate votes on. The "emergency contraception" bill obviously has Debicella at the center of a controversy, and the illegal immigrant debate was one he led in the State Senate-- but the same sex marriage bill did have the same level of involvement from Debicella.

Thus, we have a choice-- we can be more inclusive of votes that Debicella took where he was not at the center, or we can go back to the old standard. If we want to be more inclusive, I have a large number of votes that I want to include in his record (including votes on budgets, health care, education, and other major issues), other notable items like the current budget debate (which he is definitely in the center of), and awards like the NFIB award. Of course you could add more votes you find important as well. If we want to restrict it to those debates and votes that Debicella was at the center of, we should eliminate the gay marriage paragraph and return to the previously agreed-upon version.

I am willing to do either one to avert an edit war again-- but if you are going to start adding stuff that Debicella voted on but was not a major player, I have a lot more I would like to add. Up to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In hindsight, perhaps Debicella's role in this particular bill is not notable enough to warrant inclusion. To be clear, my interest is not just social issues, but any issue that receives widespread media coverage. This was a bill that garnered significant media coverage, even if Debicella's specific role in it did not. I thought it was appropriate to include his position on it just because it's such a well known piece of legislation. I will cut down the language so that it is more succinct, and in the future I would have no problem with a very brief, neutral description of Debicella's positions on SIGNIFICANT legislation being included. I don't think we'd be doing a good job portraying his voting record if we're not including his positions on landmark bills. I think we've perhaps set the bar a tad high. If the budget debate, NFIB awards, health care policy, etc. are receiving significant media coverage then I would not be opposed to including them as long as Debicella's position is presented without bias and with supporting neutral sources. 69.37.244.14 (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, I think the last paragraph of the "Accomplishments" section is pretty fair coverage of the items you raised, at least until some substantive legislation goes to a vote. 69.37.244.14 (talk) 03:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually like the last version you had for the same sex marriage vote-- more accurate. (The bill did not legalize same sex marriage, it simply codified the Supreme Court decision-- your latest vesrion seems to intimate the bill actually legalized it).

The voting record section is now wholly about social issues you care about. I am going to insist we include other items that were voted on, received media attention, but may not have Debicella quoted in articles related to them. This will include the budget (both 2007 vote and current budget debate), NFIB award (which did appear in all local papers, but with no links onlne), healthcare, education, and other major votes the State Senate has taken in the past three years. This will result in a significantly longer article, but a more informative and accurate one. I ask that you not delete any of these items, but rather work with me to make them as fact-based and neutral as possible. Otherwise, I will ask that we go back to the agreed-upon version before the recent edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I have updated the voting record section to reflect more of a cross-range of issues. All are linked back to the actual vote from the General Assembly website, and in many cases a news article (although it may not contain quote from Debicella). I invite edits to make the language more neutral if you feel it is biased. I am not sure if I like this new standard of inclusion in the article-- on the one hand, it does include more information for a reader to understand Debicella's positions. On the other hand, it does get long. I am ok with this version, or going back to the original agreed upon version. But if you are going to include selective "important" votes (like same sex marriage), then we should include others (e.g., budget, transportation, education, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Forget it. Let's just go back to the most recent version without any mention of the same sex marriage bill. This is opening a whole new can of worms that I don't have time or energy to deal with. Now you're just throwing in a whole litany of bills that don't even have any media coverage. It's gradually devolving back into the Debicella fluff piece it was for so long months ago. Sorry, but let's stick with the previously agreed upon version and only add NOTABLE stories that Debicella is at the center of. 69.37.244.14 (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

May 2009
It was agreed that all votes must be cited using respected neutral media sources. The vast majority, if not all, of the bills that Orangeman2 has added are cited using only CGA website archives, not media sources. This is in violation of the terms we agreed to for the article and several articles I've added in the past were removed for the very same reason. Just because I, or Orangeman, or any individual, finds them to be notable does not mean they warrant inclusion in the article. Third party media coverage was established as the standard for inclusion.

Also, it is not standard Wikipedia practice to remove cited links just because they don't work anymore when they clearly worked in the past and the information included in the article was accurate based on the previously working articles. Effort should be made to locate alternate articles or an archived version of the existing article. Simply deleting entire sections of an article at will due to dead links is not in keeping with the policies and spirit of Wikipedia. 69.182.16.126 (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You are violating your own standard above in order to make Debicella look bad. You cannot claim to want media links, then say if there are no more media links it is ok. You are contradicting yourself in order to maintain content negative towards the Senator.

All bad links should be removed from Wikipedia articles. Additionally, I believe that more information on the Senator's voting record is better, as long as it is presented in a neutral way. I think any neutral observer to would that issues such as the state budget, education, transportation, or crime are important. I would welcome disucssion from neutral third parties as to whether they are more important than the obscure votes you cite to make Debicella look like an extremist.

Again, if you are going to insist on updating this page, so I am. There are many things that should be included but are not based on the compromised reached. If you want to stick with the version that has been here for months, fine. If you want to update it, then we are going to have a discussion (no doubt requiring moderation as last time) as to what should be included.

I welcome any additional votes or information you believe is relevant-- and please be specific as to which votes I have included in the "voting record" section that you believe are unimportant. More than willing to discuss specifics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No. I am adding information as it appears in media. And I find it really odd/funny that every time I add a vote to the article you say it makes Debicella "look bad". You apparently think A LOT of Debicella makes him look bad... I wonder why you've tried so hard to censor the article. Until you find media coverage for the votes you added, they don't belong in the article, period. 69.182.16.126 (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

But you are the one who wants to take away properly cited material, and add in material where the links are bad. Why would you want less about his voting record in here? Isn't more better? I am willing to include any votes you want, no matter how obscure. You do not even adhere to your own standard-- your votes are not linked to articles. Additionally, the ones that are mention Debicella as merely voting on a matter, not taking lead on it-- thus being exactly the same as linking directly to the vote itself!

Let's not get in an edit war on this. I offer three acceptable choices: get mediation immediately, revert to the old agreed upon article, or just keep the biographical information in the article so it remains "just the facts" and not open to interpretation (in other words eliminate both the "accomplishments" and "voting record" sections)

Going back and forth in an edit war is just a waste of everyone's time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The only one of your suggestions that is acceptable to me is seeking mediation. Beyond that, you are asking me to choose between a static article and a low quality article. I would not be happy with either. The article should evolve as Debicella's career evolves. If Debicella does something that is notable enough to be covered by neutral media, then it should be notable enough for this Wikipedia article, which is something I thought we already agreed to previously, after I had included information that didn't have supporting media coverage. I agreed to take those items down to be in line with that standard. Linking to an article covering a vote of Debicella's is NOT the same as linking to the record of the vote on the CGA website - the difference is that in the case of the former, a neutral party has deemed the vote to be NOTABLE. We can't make our own editorial decisions as to what votes are notable enough; that is the media's role. If you're unhappy with the way the senator is portrayed in the media, that's not my problem. This is a far more useful article with the "Accomplishments" and "Voting record" sections being included and I would strongly object to any attempt to remove them. Again, I think this is pretty straight-forward: If it doesn't have media coverage, don't include it, if it does, succinctly present it in the article using a tone and characterization similar to that in the source article, without injecting partisan spin. It's the media's job to paint a picture of Debicella, not yours or mine. Our job is to collect the information and present it in a way that is consistent with Wikipedia guidelines - nothing more, nothing less. 69.182.16.126 (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Your standards only serve yourself-- first, you do not follow them; second, they are not "Wikipedia" standards but something you made up (see discussion above). I have included numerous links to media articles that you continue to revert (in addition to some direct links to votes). Your links do not link to media sources, but rather are bad links.

As I said, MORE information is better than the CENSORSHIP that you seek by eliminating information that you do not like. But I agree, let's allow a mediator to decide. If someone objective says that votes on the budget, education, transportation, and other key issues are NOT important, then we will not include them. But I do not see how you can just cherry-pick votes and put a negative spin on Debicella and somehow claim "objectivity". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I am trying to include information that appears in neutral media. You are trying to include information that has no media coverage in an attempt to "balance out" the inclusion of information that you deem harmful to Debicella's reputation, which I don't even think most objective readers would take it to be. Your obsession with controlling Debicella's image is exhibit A of you being Debicella himself, in addition to the edit history of your alternate handles. I previously removed SEVERAL items myself after YOUR objections to me not having media sources to back them up. I only ask that you uphold your own standard, which is coincidentally Wikipedia policy, not just when it benefits you. I would strongly suggest that you familiarize yourself better with Wikipedia policy as it applies to both notability guidelines and dead links. 69.182.16.126 (talk) 21:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

For the millionth time, I am not Debicella, but I am a supporter. I'll take you at your word you are not Mike Brown (despite clear evidence you are-- see above), but you are obviously a political opponent of the Senator's. Name calling gets us no where. I agree with you on one thing-- we should get mediation on this, as it was successful last time. You want to include "new" information, and so do I. I am willing to include all new information that has working links that rise to notability standards. Again, if someone objective says that the budget, education, transportation and other major issues that politicians deal with do NOT belong in the article I will take them out. But I believe your intention is to censor, not to clarify, Debicella's record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You apparently do not comprehend the concept of MEDIA-SOURCED information. I added something that appeared in the NEWS MEDIA. You then added a bunch of stuff that appears NOWHERE in the news media, AFTER we agreed long ago that such items are unsuitable for inclusion (i.e. the trangendered nondiscrimination bill). I am not censoring one side or the other - I barely even read the changes you made - it is the fact that they are not sourced. Going by your method, every single one of Debicella's votes could be included in the article, quickly rendering it unreadable. You seem to have selective amnesia as to the fact we agreed something must have a media source. Again, if you don't like the way the media covers Debicella, NOT MY PROBLEM. But that is the threshold for Wikipedia - not whatever you want to see in or out of the article! 69.182.16.126 (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

June 2009
I am trying to work your edits into my version of the article. Please make constructive edits within the version I've started. I'm not done yet, please don't revert prematurely. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I actually like some of the stuff you are doing, please look at my edits and how I have structured them. Here is what I believe we should do:

1) Add in any votes that the other person wants-- more information on Debicella is better as long as it is cited. 2) Agree to use neutral langauge, neither pro or con. If you think something is too positive, I will remove it. If I think something is too negative, you will remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You will note my version includes many of the votes you wish to include, but phrased in a more neutral way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. Can you let me finish editing and then make your edits tomorrow? I would really appreciate that. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 03:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure. But I would ask that you try to make your edits more neutral. You seem to want to link Debicella to corrupt politicians and imply he votes the way he does because of his employer. These are clearly political attacks, and I will just go back to reverting if you are not going to make a good-faith effort at this. Will check back tomorrow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have built on your edits, and included several votes I did not have in my version. However, there are two major changes you will note:

1) You had too many categories, and this made for a choppy article. You almost had a header and then one sentence.  I have grouped them into larger headers. 2) You had numerous places where you use derogatory language or tone. I have removed those.

Please let me know what specifically I left out that you would like to include, or if you believe there is language that is too rosy about Debicella. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Annonymous Debicella opponent-- you continue to make partisan attacks in your article. I am trying to avoid an edit war again by using neutral language, but including everything you want. Please let me know if I am failing to do this to your satisfaction rather than just reverting the article. Also, your structure is too cumbersome for Wikipedia standards (ten sub-sections with one line each is not readable). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Please list here what you consider to be "political attacks" in the article as it reads now. Thanks. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, please provide sources for his pro-choice stance and votes against raising the minimum wage. I'm taking you at your word and leaving them in for now, but they do need sources. Thanks. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm walking away from the article for a little bit. Please work within the framework I've worked on, which I incorporated many of your ideas and edits into, rather than summarily reverting. I have made a good faith effort to create a comprehensive, just-the-facts article. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your good faith effort-- it is a better article for it. I believe including more information, rather than less, is probably best for anyone reading this and wanted to learn about the Senator. I have edited within your framework, and have not deleted anything-- but have reworded and moved some things. My changes are:

1) Recreated Accomplishments area and moved material back there. I thought this was good to call out the things that Debicella actually did, rather than what he merely voted on.

2) Put in compromise language around Janice Andersen attack from previous article. I notice you reverted this to your version, which I do interpret as partisan.  The language from Aleksyfy is fine with me, and is back in.

3) Reworded some phrases that I consider politically charged, such as "voting with the insurance industry" or "led to the fall of John Rowland". I actually deleted more of the phrases, just leaving the facts without the commentary.  You can read this for yourself, and let me know if I have put in any language that you feel is politically charged.  If I changed any language you feel is actually neutral, please let me know why.

4) Removed the pro-choice reference, as I cannot find an online supporting source.

5) Added back some of my langauge around education and transportation. Again, let me know if you feel anything is not neutral.

Much as I spent some time working through your edits, would appreciate no summary reverting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please be aware of errant whitespace. You often add more line breaks than are necessary. Just a small formatting thing.


 * Again, we must stick to the sources. For example, putting the "clean contracting" bill in the context of the Rowland scandals is in keeping with how the source article is written, and clarifies an otherwise nebulous bill. Your "defense" of Debicella's position "saying it would stop privatization efforts" is even more nebulous, I have no idea what that means and it's not in the source. This is just one example of areas where you have added specific information that is not written anywhere in the sources cited, at least not anywhere I can see. I will remove these unsourced editorials until you find a source for them.


 * I actually found a source for him being "pro-choice", nonetheless in a letter to the editor by "me/my friend" Mike Brown. So that can stay in.


 * I actually MUCH prefer the layout I came up with which incorporates his accomplishments and voting records together, issue by issue. I think this is more neutral and reads more naturally. In my view, a stand-alone "Accomplishments" section is ripe for the kind of grandstanding that has plagued this article in the past.


 * Why did you remove that he supports a constitutional convention? That is sourced. Why did you changed "voted against" U.S. Senate elections to "opposes" when he in fact voted against it? Debicella is NOT listed as a co-sponsor of the probate court bill in the source I've provided, nor is his reasoning behind it given. Where are you getting these reasons from?? If it's a source, then please cite it. If it's from personal knowledge, then perhaps it is a conflict of interest for you to be editing this article. "Taking a hard-line stance on crime issues" is strictly editorial and is in fact contradicted by his vote on the firearms notification/tougher sentencing bill. Saying he "supports the death penalty" and "voted against abolishing it" is redundant in my view. What is the point of changing "co-sponsored multiple bills" to "co-sponsored bills in 2007 and 2008"... I am trying to clean up language here, simply so the article reads better, in fact I think "multiple bills" actually sounds a little "better" for Debicella. Why did you remove the fact that the firearms bill imposed tougher penalties on trafficking? "Debicella’s voting record has reflected a bias for smaller government, free-market policies, and decentralization of government power to the local level" is complete editorializing without any source what-so-ever.


 * What exactly did you "add" that wasn't already in "my" version? From what I can tell, you just embellished some of Debicella's accomplishments, added unsourced commentary to votes, and removed a few things you felt were harmful to Debicella's image. Honestly, please tell me what you added of substance, maybe I missed something. I thought I already worked in most, if not all, of the votes/accomplishments you added previously. Things do get confusing in the back-and-forth though. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I put back in Debicella's quote about Andersen "using an emotional issue for political gain." Re: The insurance language, I think it is just a reality that most politicians tend to vote in favor of the uninsured/underinsured or in favor of the insurance industry. Debicella's record is clearly skewed towards the latter and I don't see what's wrong with characterizing his record that way - his votes support it. However, since I have criticized your inclusion of unscourced commentary, I will remove this characterization in kind. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

OK-- here is the test of whether you are truly interested in compromising. I am reincluding the language you already agreed to on Andersen's attack on Debicella. You agreed with the compromise in the last version with Aleksyfy, now insist on including your version (which is a political attack). Will you reverse the compromise language to your version? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, the only real difference between the two versions is the quote of Debicella himself. In fact, I think the coverage of his "attackers" is slightly less than the "compromise" version. What's the attack? Debicella's own words? You have expressed an interest in including MORE information, which I have decided to go along with after some resistance. Had we stuck to the compromise version with stricter standards for inclusion, I would have left the language the way it was. But now that we are elaborating on things, I think it is plenty appropriate to elaborate on this controversy, which in fact received more media coverage than most of the rest of the article, by simply including the quote that created the controversy in the first place. What is it exactly about "my" version that you consider to be a "political attack"? 69.37.244.16 (talk) 05:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And if all of the time I put in to re-working the article, including both MY and YOUR edits, isn't proof enough that I'm legitimately trying to make a good article, not just get jabs in at Debicella, then I don't know what more to do or say. If I really wanted this to be a Dan Debicella smear piece I wouldn't have bothered going through the trouble of properly citing, formatting, etc. your edits, the vast majority of which are favorable to Debicella. I would say the way this article reads as of now, on the whole, is very fair to Debicella, at the very least neutral, skewing towards favorable. It is certainly comprehensive, and fairly balanced. I don't think anyone would read the article the way it is now and think to themselves "Debicella vanity page" or "rehash of Andersen campaign literature". I think it also gives the reader a pretty good idea of what his record and views are like. That's all I've really wanted from the get-go. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, anyone seeing the above yearlong discussion on this article can see that you are an anti-Debicella partisan and I am a pro-Debicella partisan. Any claims by either of us to the contrary is ridiculous. The best we can do is hope to create a balanced article-- and hopefully we will do so.

Unfortunately, the article does not yet read objectively—not so much for the content, as because the specific word choices you make cast Debicella in a negative light. We need neutral language here, not either of us editorializing. I have tried to remove any biased language I have in there as well.

You cannot go back on agreements with AlekseyFy (who mediated this article), and claim you are writing this in good faith. I am going to ask him to come back and enforce the language we agreed upon. We had neutral language that you now seem to be reverting to the Andersen campaign piece language.

Here are the specific changes I have made to the article—everything else is how you left it. Please respond directly to each point if you are truly acting in good faith:

1) Accomplishments – We agreed upon this in previous versions, and I have included it again. Why would you change something we agreed upon?  Additionally, it just makes sense to separate out the things Debicella was directly responsible for rather than things he just voted on.

2) Emergency Contraception – I have included the language we agreed upon. You continue to want to include misquotes from the Andersen campaign to make Debicella look bad.  Stick to the AlekseyFy language.

3) Economic Issues – I have added back the votes on the 2007 budget you keep deleting (how come?). I have also added more health care votes from this year, and expanded introductory language to reflect your sentences (the votes you list are not just about mandates, but about opposing government-run healthcare).  Additionally, I am removing language that is editorializing, such as “indicating an anti-labor voting record” as that is just your opinion.  Let people interpret the facts for themselves.

4) Social Issues – Removing reference to being pro-choice. Although this is true, we need a citation for it (and I cannot find one—can you? More than glad to include it if we can). Moved after Quality of Life section.

5) Quality of Life Issues – Structure here was a little haphazard. I have grouped the same language you have into paragraphs on education, crime, and healthcare.  Tried to use as neutral language as possible.

6) Governance Issues – Removing negative attacks somehow trying to tie Debicella in with John Rowland (while the two were never in office at the same time!)

Again, please let me know if you feel my language is biased anywhere. I have not removed anything you want to include, just ensuring language is neutral. Hopefully AlekseyFy will agree to mediate again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You are more than a "pro-Debicella partisan" and a "supporter". You are Catherine Sarault, press aide to Senator Debicella and a paid employee of the Connecticut Senate Republicans. You can deny it, but I know it to be the case. You are paid, in part, to protect the image of Debicella and other Republicans in the Connecticut State Senate, and have been repeatedly skewing this article to that end for quite some time now. I'm done with your games and I'm done trying to compromise with you. There's no point. Your job presents an inherent conflict of interest for you to be editing this article and I frankly think you should be banned from doing so. If you were honestly just a regular citizen and a Debicella supporter, I would continue working on the article with you. But now I know who you really are, I'm really not interested. It's like trying to co-author a book about evolution with the Pope. No thank you. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, you completely disregarded some of the remarks I made above, and clearly ignored some of them too, since you just asked questions that I already answered. Why even bother responding to you? I made a full-hearted effort to include the information you added in previous versions and how do you return the favor? By wantonly deleting and adding information to your liking and posting half-baked justifications on this discussion page. You are feigning a minimum amount of "good faith" to keep Wikipedia administrators off your back when in reality, your good faith is ZERO. No wonder you work for State Senators - you're a professional B.S. artist. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 03:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Name-calling is the last resort of those who lose the argument. You have accused me of being Debieclla himself, his campaign manager, his press secretary-- anyone else you want to claim I am? A little paranoid, no? So you have started an edit war....very mature. You have failed to address any of the legitimate issues I brought up, so it is obvious to me you simply want to smear the Senator with negative attacks from the Andersen campaign disguised as "fact". You agree to language, now you want to change it to suit your own political agenda. So be it-- I acted in good faith, and you have not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You are not Debicella, but he HAS edited this article in the past. You ARE his press aide, Catherine Sarault. There's clear evidence supporting the fact that I would be happy to present to any admin who's interested. As far as your "good faith", I don't even really need to say anything - your edits speak for themselves. Stop with the reflecting and go edit an article that's not about your boss. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

==

Repeating my specific content changes and rationale for a moderator, rather than the name-calling:

1) Accomplishments – Both pro-Debicella and anti-Debicella partisans agreed upon this in previous versions, and I have included it again. Why would we change something we agreed upon? Additionally, it just makes sense to separate out the things Debicella was directly responsible for rather than things he just voted on.

2) Emergency Contraception – I have included the language both pro-Debicella and anti-Debicella agreed upon. Anti-Debicella partisan continues to want to include misquotes from the Andersen campaign to make Debicella look bad. We should stick to the language by moderator AlekseyFy.

3) Economic Issues – I have added back the votes on the 2007 budget. I have also added more health care votes from this year, and expanded introductory language to reflect your sentences (the votes you list are not just about mandates, but about opposing government-run healthcare). Additionally, I am removing language that is editorializing, such as “indicating an anti-labor voting record” as that is just your opinion. Let people interpret the facts for themselves.

4) Social Issues – Removing reference to being pro-choice. Although this is true, we need a citation for it (and I cannot find one, but more than glad to include it if we can). Moved after Quality of Life section.

5) Quality of Life Issues – Structure here was a little haphazard. I have grouped the same language you have into paragraphs on education, crime, and transportation. Tried to use as neutral language as possible.

6) Governance Issues – Removing negative attacks somehow trying to tie Debicella in with John Rowland (while the two were never in office at the same time!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, we had separate "Accomplishments" and "Voting record" sections BEFORE you started bloating the article with tons of votes after I wanted to add just one or two articles. Now that the article has reached the length it has, with so much information for each "issue category", I think it reads MUCH better to include the accomplishments with the votes BY ISSUE, as it is in "my" version. Also, as I said before, I think an "Accomplishments" section is much more susceptible to the kind of grandstanding and embellishment that has plagued this article in the past.


 * Again, the "rape bill" language was agreed upon before you yourself advocated to expand the article and include MORE information. I think the way it is written in "my" version is very even on both sides. If I really wanted to make Debicella look bad, I could put back in the stuff about Deborah Heinrich, a rape victim herself, calling him "criminal", etc. The bottom line is you don't want the quote in the article - that's the only real difference between the two versions. Well, the quote is what the controversy was ABOUT and it was Debicella's own words, so I don't see what's so bad about including with, ALONG WITH Debicella's own words in defense of it, AND his rebuttal of the Andersen campaign.


 * I will look at your budget votes and health care language and see what is not accurately or sufficiently covered in my version.


 * It says "indicating a GENERALLY opposed to the interests of labor unions" which is EXACTLY what 29% out of 100% means! You are misquoting the language in the article, as you do A LOT, and it's not editorializing to say "generally" when he is CLEARLY on one side or the other of the 50% mark. And there are these kinds of INDICATIONS that are "positive" to Debicella - such as the CBIA endorsement "indicating" a pro-business record.


 * For the third time, I added a source saying he is pro-choice. Click the cited source. It's an editorial by an opponent, Mike Brown (who you have accused me of being in the past), saying that Debicella is pro-choice.


 * What about the Quality of Life section was "haphazard"? Everything was organized in paragraphs by issue, the same way you've done it.


 * If you read it more closely, there is no attempt at all to link Debicella and Rowland. The Rowland reference is simply to establish what the PURPOSE of the bill was, which would be unclear to the average reader otherwise. Rowland was not just injected into the article - if you read the source article, that is exactly how the bill is put into context. It was a bill in direct response to the Rowland scandal. There's nothing in here about a Debicella-Rowland link. Is saying John Rowland's name in the article offensive to you? He was the Governor of Connecticut for many years after all.


 * Finally, you are neglecting to mention the MANY edits to the article that you have stripped from it that you don't have a defense for. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, Re: The 2007 budget vote- Do you have a source characterizing the budget in the way you have? The source you provided simply establishes that Debicella voted for the budget itself, nothing more. It doesn't specify the details of the bill or Debicella's specific motivations for voting in favor of it. Your edit implies those were the REASONS Debicella voted for it, and while that may be the case, we need a source characterizing his vote that way, or at least characterizing the Rebpublican stance on the budget that way. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You just reverted again without responding to what I posted above. I'm not surprised, but I figured after requesting third party moderation you would at least do a better job of feigning good faith. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 02:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I am waiting for Aleksyfy's guidance. Talking past each other is getting us no where.


 * Hahaha... You criticize me for "name-calling" and not addressing the article's content (as if you're any less guilty of that) and then when I actually address the article's content you suddenly ignore me? Very interesting. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 03:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Your continued name calling and violation of Wikipedia policy on civility, outing, and political bias has invalidated you as an editor in my mind. I am more than willing to address them in the context of mediation with Aleksyfy, but until then I consider any edits from you vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Right back at ya! 69.37.244.16 (talk) 03:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The bottom line
The bottom line is, Orangeman2, that you have impeded ANY AND ALL revisions to this article at EVERY step of the way. From before I even started editing it back in September, up until right now. That might be understandable if I really was some anti-Debicella vandal on nothing more than a smear campaign. But the reality is that I have made A LOT of fair, constructive edits to this article and even those have been fought by you. I have even gone so far as to take YOUR edits, most of which reflect favorably on Debicella, and work them in alongside my own. You have never exhibited that same kind of attitude. There is no moral equivalency here. You have a track record of trying to monopolize the article and control its content. Only when you realize I won't back down on something or an administrator steps in do you make any attempt to compromise. And then once that compromise is over, you go back to your same old games. That's the bottom line. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 03:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The bottom line is the only reason you care about this article and have edited it for over a year is that you want to smear Senator Debicella. The only reason I continue to take out your biased language is that otherwise this would be a Janice Andersen campaign piece (because this all started in the campaign). I have included ALL the votes you want in my version, just without your biased language trying to make the Senator look corrupt, pro-rape, and hateful. I have also included ALL the compromise language we agreed to-- but you continue to take it out in favor of your original biased language. I am more than willing to let Aleksyfy take a detatched view at the specifics here, but until he does I will not allow your politically biased language to prevail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyone who looks at my edit history would realize that pretty much everything you just said is a bald-faced lie. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And it is not true that you include "all" of my edits. You remove some and most of the others you add little explanations that apparently only you are privy to since they aren't anywhere in media sources. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * AlekseyFy, if you think any of the language in "my" version makes Debicella look "corrupt, pro-rape, and hateful", please let me know. I would love to know where that's coming from. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 03:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, it's nowhere near election season, so any accusations of my edits being "Andersen campaign attacks" ring pretty hollow. But I guess you're just going for dramatic effect. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 03:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I love how someone who has no business even editing this article due to conflict of interest issues accuses ME of making "politically motivated" edits. What delicious irony! 69.37.244.16 (talk) 03:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

First off, please do not delete my comments from the discussion page. Second off, please do not say I have no business here just because you have accused me of being someone I am not. That is the bad faith you are showing.

I accept the compromise that we agreed to before, and accept adding in ANY new material you want. However, it needs to be phrased in a neutral, non-leading way in line with Wikipedia standards. Your article does not do that for all the reasons listed above, and you are not willing to listen to my reasoning. Therefore, I will not engage you any more here until Aleksyfy weighs in with moderation. But I will continue to revert your edits until that time because they are not in line with Wikipedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You're just trying to score brownie points with admins by pretending to know what "Wikipedia standards" are. A cursory look at "your" version reveals your grasp of "Wikipedia standards" is pretty weak. "Accepting new material only if it's worded the way I like it" is not the same as "accepting any new material". You consistently act as if you have sole editorial control over the article's content. Again, this goes back to before I even stumbled upon the article when you were blindly reverting all edits. Not much has changed since then sadly. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 03:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)