Talk:Dan Debicella/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Vanity page

This whole thing is a vanity page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.150.62 (talk) 03:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

In editing to improve this, changes must include references to sources, otherwise any information, including that which comprised the 'vanity' version, will be called into question. JNW (talk) 03:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not that skilled at editing Wikipedia. All I know is that the previous version was pretty much lifted directly from the subject's website, so I feel like my revisions are at least an improvement content-wise. I would appreciate some help with formatting, referencing, etc. I am also frustrated by the fact that someone, most likely the subject themselves, keeps reverting the article to the vanity version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.150.62 (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Any item, be it promotional, objective, or critical, is open to be challenged and reverted without sources. If the information you submit can be supported by either online references or print journalism, include information about those sources here, on the talk page, and another editor can work them into the article properly. Also, take a look at WP:CS, which helps to explain the process. JNW (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but the previous version wasn't referenced either, so at least this one is a bit more unbiased and not completely lifted from the subject's own website. I will post links to my sources on this page for an editor to work into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.150.62 (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to the "Environmental Scorecard" put out by the League of Conservation Voters that shows Debicella with the worst rating in the State Senate: http://www.ctlcv.org/Scorecards/2008%20Scorecard.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.150.62 (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a source for his vote against emergency contraception for rape victims: http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=12895 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.150.62 (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Last thought: Frankly, one is dubious about the need to include information about interpretations of a state senator's records and performance at all, unless such actions have proven truly notable (i.e., through coverage in major media). Both praise from favorable political web sites and criticism from assessment organizations will be challenged--partisanship cuts both ways. Safest sources are major reliable news outlets. Otherwise, assessments of job performance, pro and con, are probably not encyclopedic. JNW (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The League of Conservation Voters is a reputable organizations and Debicella has purported himself to be strong on the environment. I think that's notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.150.62 (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a source for his vote against raising the minimum wage: http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=20094 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.150.62 (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I reverted to last version by User:69.177.150.62 as indeed the original was lifted from Debicella's website, and was not encyclopedic at all. Cleaned up, added links, added the refs presented here and added two more. Equendil Talk 08:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! Thank you.69.177.150.62 (talk) 02:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Opponents editing

Dave Mooney, Chairman of the Stratford Democratic Town Committee, has been editing this page to make Debicella look bad (please see history of edits to find him logged in). There is no evidence that Debicella has been criticized by any of these votes except by David Mooney and his political opponents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.169.18 (talk) 01:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Mr. Mooney has not edited the page in a month. The most recent edits were done by me and I have never met Dave Mooney. I didn't even know who he was until reading your post. And I really don't think you should be talking when Debicella has been reverting edits to this page himself, clearly violating freedom of speech and information. 69.177.150.62 (talk) 02:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'm going to stop playing who is who for a second. As far as I know User:Dmooney made three edits to the article, all three to change "moderate on social issues" to "social conservative", all reverted as was almost *every* single edit to this article in 15 months, including maintenance tags, and this has to stop. The page started as / read like a raw resume from the subject's website, and badly needed cleanup, and it's going to move forward now.

I am not really in favour of including articles on every state senator in the USA, as many are not prominent enough to be the subject of much coverage, but I seem to be in a minority, so the article will most likely stay. So be it. We'll have to stick to basic facts and keep the article short and neutral (which doesn't involve only including material which Debicella deems flattering).

That Debicella has not been criticized apart by those who did doesn't quite work for me, however, there is no reliable source, and it should not be in the passive voice (criticized by who ?) which is a concern, so I'll rephrase. (done, just removed actually).

I suggest Debicella and possible political opponents do not resume edit warring on this article at any point and read the guidelines about conflicts of interest @ WP:COI. At best it'll get you blocked. Conflicts of interest on Wikipedia also draw the attention of the media now and then and you probably don't want your name associated with an example. Equendil Talk 08:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the edit warring had resumed and for the record, the subject of the article has been trying to "own" the article: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive479#Dan Debicella Equendil Talk 22:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Updated

Page updated to reflect the actual debate of the 2008 election. The existing paragraph citing negative aspects of Debicella's record read like it was from his opponent's literature. The paragraph now contains both the attack from his opponent (Janice Andersen) and Debicella's response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.169.18 (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again. More partisan garbage from Debicella and his cronies. Honestly, you could argue that Debicella doesn't even meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. He has only been in office for two years, in a political body that has little public visibility to begin with, and in that time has done little else than vote against things. I don't think the mere fact of being a state senator is necessarily notable. Irregardless, Debicella needs to stop editing this page to his own liking. 69.0.15.44 (talk) 08:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Time to be objective and give both sides of the story here. The previous paragraph matches Janice Andersen's negative mailers exactly, and did not contain Debicella's response. Current language is much more balanced-- keeps his opponents' criticisms while giving his response. Page could also be deleted to give "just the facts" about who Debicella is, rather than go into accomplishments vs. criticisms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.169.18 (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Now that the election is over you seem to think you can go back to using Wikipedia as a personal propaganda tool. The way the article was written is completely legitimate as it simply lists Debicella's voting record, without any kind of commentary on it. This information was gathered from VoteSmart.org, NOT from Andersen's material. Debicella's constituents and other Wikipedia users have a right to know the facts about his record without him and his friends spinning it. Considering this article was originally copied and pasted directly from Debicella's website, and constantly reverted to remain as such, your credibility on how it should be written is pretty much zero. I would be happy to get neutral Wikipedia editors involved once again if you continue to edit the page to your personal and political satisfaction. 64.252.251.75 (talk) 11:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This page has been modified to be parallel with other Connecticut State Senator's pages. These pages do not contain political propaganda (either pro or con the Senator), and simply state biographical facts. I have requested mediation to confirm that this is the right way to go-- otherwise the page will continue to be changed with both pro and anti-Debicella slants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.169.18 (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The page has been completely re-written without any statements that could be considered "pro" or "con" Debicella. Anything that could possibly be considered controversial has been cited using non-partisan websites. The article is basically biographical information, his committee assignments, and his voting record, without any subjective commentary. This is in line with good Wikipedia articles about politicians, and indeed better than most articles that currently exist for state senators. Maybe, hopefully, all of this quibbling will lead to a useful and impartial article. I think the way it is now is closer to that than it ever has been. I welcome anyone to refine what I have done or add to it, impartially and with citations. 64.252.251.75 (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Given that Debicella is a Republican in a Democratic-controlled legislature, most of his legislative record is him voting against things. It would be appreciated if someone could include what, if any, issues Debicella has advocated in Hartford, or any significant committee work he has done, backed up by citations of non-partisan sources of course. 64.252.251.75 (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, this article has been changed by Debicella's opponents to suit their needs-- I have requested mediation on the article, and encourage a "just the facts" approach. The above author continues to select only those votes that were used by Janice Andersen in her negative campaign literature, rather than the accomplishments listed in previous versions. Either this article needs to be made parallel in its basic nature to other Connecticut State Senators, or partisan editing will no doubt continue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.169.18 (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

These ARE the facts! Whether you like it or not, that is how Debicella has voted. In fact, several of those votes were never mentioned in any Andersen literature I saw, and my personal contact with Janice has been very minimal, so stop using that as an excuse. You are trying to cover up valid information. All of these votes are cited using a non-partisan website. Again, as I stated previously, I welcome you and others to include information detailing any of Debicella's accomplishments or issue stances that are notable. You can't delete information just because you don't want people to hear about it. Maybe Andersen ran a negative campaign BECAUSE Debicella's record is so egregious. Ever consider that? Either way, the language used to describe his votes was taken more or less VERBATIM from VoteSmart.org, not from the opinions of myself or Janice Andersen or anyone else. Sorry if the facts don't suit your personal agenda but that's not an acceptable criterion for deleting information from a Wikipedia article. 64.252.251.75 (talk) 03:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

This is an edit war, continued from September. I've asked for help here: [1]. Am actually hoping that neither side will weigh in at administrators' page--they can get the full picture here. JNW (talk) 03:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

JNW, please note that I am making a good faith effort to make this a quality Wikipedia article. All information I included was completely sourced, I tried to keep the language as neutral as possible, and I even asked other editors to add information. This individual is simply deleting anything that reflects poorly on Debicella, even if it's factually accurate. 64.252.251.75 (talk) 03:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected this article for three days. Now, I have two questions:

• What issues of material fact in the article are disputed?
• Is there any third-party (newspaper) coverage of Debicella which give a sense of his positions?

--Mackensen (talk) 03:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Mackensen, thank you for your attention to this matter. As I mentioned before, the sources I cited were from VoteSmart.org, the Connecticut Secretary of State's office, and the League of Conservation voters, all non-partisan outfits. But I agree with you that newspaper articles would be helpful. I'm looking...I came upon this: http://www.topix.net/forum/source/connecticut-post/TANDQKDKINDHHNRNI. It links to the full article in the Connecticut Post (a well respected, widely circulated newspaper) but that link seems to be dead. However, it is an article, not an op-ed, regarding comments Debicella made regarding the emergency contraception bill mentioned in my version of the article. This was a fairly significant story locally and I actually didn't even mention the controversy itself in the article. I'll continue to look for more newspaper sources to cite... 64.252.251.75 (talk) 03:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Google News suggests articles from the Post, the Stratford Star and the Shelton Weekly, among others. I'm not familiar with the Connecticut newspaper scene but my assumption is that the news items from these are all fairly reliable. I'm reading up on some of these now. Mackensen (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Kovach, John (2008-10-31). "Andersen calls Debicella 'insensitive to rape victims'". Stratford Star. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• Doob, Gabriella (2008-10-31). "Voters, candidates ponder last minute election decisions". Shelton Weekly. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• DeRoma, Tristram (2008-10-24). "Airport committee rolling out out new plan". Stratford Bard. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

The lack of Connecticut Post articles is vexing. I probably have access to it through Lexis but then you're taking my word on what it says ;). Mackensen (talk) 04:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Please look at other Connecticut State Senator entries on wikipedia, including Don Williams and John McKinney (leaders of their respective parties). Neither have the selective use of votes to make them look bad. This page should parallel theirs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.169.18 (talk) 04:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

McKinney's hardly has anything on it and Williams' is poorly written. Just because they happen to be party leaders does not mean their Wikipedia pages should necessarily be used as a template for other state senators. As any Wikipedia administrator knows far better than I, notability of subject and quality of article do not always correlate. McKinney and Williams' articles are not examples of good Wikipedia articles. 64.252.251.75 (talk) 05:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither is the article you have written, 64.252.251.75. You have selected certain votes (that happen to be EXACTLY the same votes used by Janice Andersen in her campaign) to support your opinion that Debicella is a conservative who voted against women, children, and small animals. You do not present a balanced view, and have deleted any attempts to do so. A "just-the-facts" article is the only way to stop this edit war, and I believe the other State Senator websites present a way to do this.

When did I ever say Debicella was against women, children, and small animals? The only opinion I have is that the Wikipedia article about Dan Debicella should be impartial and accurate, which began when I originally discovered it was entirely lifted verbatim from Debicella's own website. Even then, Debicella and friends would constantly revert any changes I made, regardless of content. Again, I am sorry to tell you, but the way I wrote the article is "just the facts", as evidenced by the links cited. Those are his votes. And there is no agenda behind which votes I selected. I went down this page - http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=68394 - and included a handful of what I felt were the most notable. And when you look at the whole picture, you cannot dispute Debicella has a conservative record, which is not necessarily a bad thing depending on one's own views. Again repeating myself, several of these votes I thought were notable (i.e. the trans fat ban, gender identity discrimination) are not issues I recall being raised by Andersen during the campaign. This is the last time I will address your claims directly. 64.252.251.75 (talk) 05:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the pattern suggested by our article is that of a pro-business social conservative (which, to my thinking, is not unusual for a Republican). Is this incorrect? What would a neutral article emphasize? Rather, what is our article not talking about? Mackensen (talk) 11:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The article fails to mention any of Debicella's accomplishments, including his co-sponsorship of bills to increase funding for education, stop toxic waste from being placed next to homes in his district, gain economic development funds for his district, and support tougher penalties for multiple-offending criminals. These were included in previous articles. Additionally, the description of the things he voted against were not accurate. For example, he voted against forcing the Catholic Church to give out emergency birth control, not against all emergency birth control. Debicella is also a moderate on social issues, as he is on record as being pro-choice and pro-stem cell research. The above anonymous user (64.252.251.75) has "selected" those votes and positions he believes are "notable"-- like the trans-fat bill and gender identify bill-- which were covered NO WHERE except in Janice Andersen's campaign. The anonymous user is obviously affiliated with the Andersen campaign and seeks to prolong the campaign on the wikipedia site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.169.18 (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. He voted against requiring hospitals to provide emergency contraception. The bill said nothing about the Catholic Church; Debicella himself injected religion into the debate. In fact, I even acknowledged this by adding "citing religious objections". If you would like to include information about bills he co-sponsored or his supposedly moderate social views, I have absolutely no problem with you including these in the article (as I have already asked someone to do), as long as the language you use is neutral and you cite sources backing it up. 64.252.251.75 (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines suggest that content does not meet notability standards if it has not been covered by reliable sources; see WP:RS. We can agree that certain information provided by politicians' websites, and the contributions made by their partisans, does not satisfy the requirements of objectivity. My question is as it was in September: does the article include the documentation by votesmart, the content of which can be cherrypicked by editors to spin their views? My suggestion is that if such content has not been covered by a reliable media source, accomplishments, votes, and policy stances do not rise to the level of significance here; therefore, much of the analysis of his voting record is not of import. For those who seek detailed documentation, a link can be placed to the votesmart website under references. JNW (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

JNW-- You are correct. The author of the article has cherry-picked votes that he/she deems important, but have never been covered by major news sources. The only place these votes have been covered are in Debicella's opponent's campaign material. Three possible suggestions to the editors how to rectify this: 1) remove the biased paragraph with these cherry-picked votes; 2) Make this page parallel with other Connecticut State Senators (which contain merely basic biographical information); or 3) Add in accomplishments to make for a more balanced picture. I would personally go with #2, as I have stated before, but leave it up to the editors to decide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.169.18 (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to take the three articles I've noted as a basis for the section which discuss his political views. The contraception issue was widely reported (as these things go) and should be discussed, but perhaps in the context of his re-election campaign. Mackensen (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The contraception bill is certainly valid for inclusion. It was one of Debicella's first votes, he was in the minority even in his own party, and the bill itself received considerable media coverage, as did Debicella's stance on it. In fact, Debicella recently made controversial comments regarding his vote that also received media coverage, which I wasn't even going to get into, but if that's the criteria then so be it. As for the other bills, I will search for media coverage on them in order to establish notability. I see your point about needing more than VoteSmart to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia. However, I maintain that the votes I selected were not "cherry-picked", they were examples to establish the irrefutable conservative slant of Debicella's record, which Debicella and his friends have consistently tried to cover up, including reverting any edits to this article. 64.252.251.75 (talk) 05:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for showing your true intentions, 64.252.251.75. You do indeed seek to paint the same picture that Janice Andersen tried to paint in the 2008 elections by cherry-picking certain votes, and ignoring all the accomplishments of the Senator. Now, I actually agree with you on one thing-- the emergency contraception bill is the one bill you mention that does deserve to be in this article, because it was the only one of the bills you mention to get any public attention. But I would include both sides of the story-- both Janice Andersen's accusation and Debicella's response. If you read the article that Mackensen mentions above, Andersen said Debicella made some unspecified comment that was offensive to rape victims, and voted to deny them emergency contraception. Debicella responded that he voted not to force the Catholic Church to give out emergency contraception in violation of the Church's beliefs, but supported over-the-counter emergency contraception. You might agree with one side or the other, but both should be presented. All of your other votes are just lifted from Janice Andersen campaign material. Also, your article fails to mention any of the accomplishments of the Senator (which a previous Wiki editor included in versions from September). Again, the easiest thing is to stick to "just-the-facts", but I leave it to the Wiki editors to ensure this is a balanced article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.169.18 (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

For the millionth time, I already ASKED (see above) for someone to add any NOTABLE accomplishments using neutral language and citing sources. When the article becomes unprotected, I welcome you to do so. And once again, your accusation that I am some kind of shill for Janice Andersen is straight up B.S. Yes, I voted for her, but I had very little contact with her and I have been editing this article more out of being troubled by what you and Debicella were doing to it rather than explicitly trying to help Janice Andersen in some way. I think the fact that I continue to work on it after the election is pretty good evidence of that. Also, I don't remember her ever bringing up the transgendered bill or the trans fat bill or the tuition for immigrants bill, etc. Maybe she did, but not to my knowledge. In fact, from what I recall, she made quite a big deal about him voting against expanding HUSKY and requiring insurance policies to cover hearing aids for children, neither of which I even mentioned. Did you ever consider that maybe there are constituents who are troubled by Debicella's record who don't necessarily work for Andersen? 64.252.251.75 (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Your extensive knowledge of Janice Andersen's campaign proves you were a part of it. All I look for is balance in this article, and right now your article as it stands is just a campaign piece from Andersen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.169.18 (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Sheez. Unless either of you can conclusively prove a conflict of interest on the part of the other, it would be infinitely preferable to talk only about content, and stop prodding each other with a stick. You've both made your points. It would probably do no great harm for you both to withdraw for a bit, and allow uninvolved parties a chance to contribute. JNW (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm willing to scale back the section on his voting record since much of it is not backed up by media coverage. However, I'm afraid that Debicella & friends will go back to hijacking the article and replace it all with embellished biographical mush from his website. I hope I'm wrong but I have no reason to expect otherwise. 64.252.251.75 (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's stick with your first sentence, because it's the one that displays good faith. In the event of partisanship in any direction, one can always seek administrative help. But right now we are seeking consensus, or at least something in the neighborhood. JNW (talk) 04:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Admins, I suspect you will be joining us again soon due to the edit war that continues, sadly. I assure you that I am, in spite of my personal leanings (not affiliaitons), making a good faith effort to make this a suitable Wikipedia article that presents information in a logical, neutral, properly cited manner. I have tried to work to an agreeable resolution with 76.23.169.18 but at this point I have lost any faith in their ability to edit this article objectively. I am sure it is either the Senator himself or someone closely connected to him doing a cover job for him. Please note that this is exactly what was going on before I ever even touched the article. I would be happy with leaving the article as it stands as of my most recent edit, having myself and 76.23.169.18 take a step back, and having truly neutral editors come in and clean it up. Outside of that I don't see how this article moves forward. 64.252.251.75 (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

State senator

Okay, I'd like to try re-writing the state senator section. From reviewing the items on votesmart and the newspaper articles, my sense of Debicella (I say this as a resident of Michigan with no dog in this fight) is that on questions of fiscal policy he votes with his Republican colleagues but on social issues he's more conservative than most (the gender identity bill and contraception bills are the obvious examples which set him apart). Now, we have information about his committee memberships, but the article needs to discuss his legislative accomplishments/initiatives/earmarks/whatever got him re-elected ;). Mackensen (talk) 04:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you think about the League of Conservation Voters rating? The LCV is a credible non-partisan organization. I think the fact that he ranked dead last is significant, especially because he serves on the Environment committee. 64.252.251.75 (talk) 04:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

A good start-- a few suggestions. 1) I would just put in Debicella's full response in the controversy section. In the Connecticut Post article (not cited currently), Debicella did state he favors emergency contraception for all women, but did not want to force any religion to do something against their beliefs. The article currently does not lay out that argument. 2) For further accomplishments, see previous versions of the article (e.g., he also wrote legislation to stop dumping of toxic materials next to people's homes, which has been extensively covered by the media). 3) You should include other rating's besides LCV's, which is the only one cited by the Andersen campaign. Include CBIA (Connecticut Business & Industry Association) and others non-partisan organizations that rate. If you show one rating, you should show them all. 4) If you really think the transgender bill is worthy of mention here, go ahead. But I would say you need to find at least one article mentioning it and Debicella to say it is truly an important issue to understand his record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.169.18 (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

1. The "not wanting to force the Catholic church" argument was the argument he made in defense of his vote on the bill, not in defense of the controversial comment he made over a year after his vote. In the paragraph about his record it says "citing religious objections", which I think is an appropriate acknowledgment of that position. It's not directly related to the comment he made, his comment said nothing about religion or the Catholic church.

2. I haven't found any media coverage of the other accomplishments listed in previous versions of the article. As it is, the current accomplishment listed is cited using a Senate Republicans press release, which doesn't seem ideal, but I think we can trust it insofar as to verify the accuracy of the claim in its current limited phrasing.

3. We could go on and on going back and forth citing organizational ratings. You put up the CBIA and I'll put up AFL-CIO. I think the fact that LCV has established credibility, the scorecard is bipartisan and recognizes several Republicans as "heroes", and Debicella is on the Environment committee, it bears mentioning. I'm not saying the CBIA isn't credible but its credibility isn't widely established like the LCV's is.

4. Probably a fair point. But it is a legitimate example of Debicella's social conservatism. I'll try to find media coverage on it. It's a shame that the newspapers don't cover the votes of state legislators very well. I mean, if the local State Senator is in a minority of four on a bill regarding a fairly controversial subject, I would think that warrants a mention. But I digress. 64.252.251.75 (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, your comments show a bias to try and make this article a negative one about the Senator. 1) You should include both sides of the story here. If you are going to talk about a "controversy" than you need to be balanced about it. 2) Incorrect-- there is substantial coverage of numerous accomplishments, which can be found in any of the local papers online (Stratford Star, Huntington Herald) 3) Put them all up. I am simply against cherry-picking the same issues that Janice Andersen used in her campaign 4) We are agreed-- take this out. Calling Debicella a "social conservative" when he is on record being pro-choice and pro-stem cell research is bit a of stretch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.169.18 (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It is both sides of the story. Debicella made a comment. Andersen called it insensitive. Debicella said Andersen was using an emotional issue for political gain. That's the story. It's all covered here.

Post links to articles about his accomplishments here and I will be happy to work them into the article.64.252.251.75 (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely-- fair offer. Here are several accomplishments and links.

1) Wrote Bill to Stop Toxic Waste Dumping in Stratford: http://www.zwire.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=19677567&BRD=1637&PAG=461&dept_id=9180&rfi=8

or

http://www.zwire.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=20087918&BRD=1637&PAG=461&dept_id=9180&rfi=8

or

http://www.zwire.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=19846434&BRD=1637&PAG=461&dept_id=9180&rfi=8

2) Wrote Bill to Keep Sikorsky Memorial Airport in Stratford's Control: http://www.zwire.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=19791493&BRD=1637&PAG=461&dept_id=9180&rfi=8

3) Co-Sponsoring Home Heating Fuel Bill: http://www.zwire.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=20097889&BRD=1637&PAG=461&dept_id=9180&rfi=8

4) Getting Bonding Money for Stratford Water Treatment Plant: http://www.zwire.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=19657333&BRD=1637&PAG=461&dept_id=9180&rfi=8

5) Healthy Living Tax Proposal (just a proposal, never passed): http://www.zwire.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=19393688&BRD=1637&PAG=461&dept_id=9180&rfi=8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.169.18 (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I added the toxic waste bill and the Healthy Living Tax proposal, since it is clear from the sources that Debicella played a key role in them. However, on the other three, it doesn't say anything about him writing or co-sponsoring them, just voting for them, unless I missed something. I'm not saying he didn't but if he did, it's not covered by these sources. 64.252.251.75 (talk) 04:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

---

So this article is getting close. I believe that it is almost fair and balanced, and hopefully 64.252.251.75 agrees so we will not continue a silly edit war. I think there are just two changes that need to be made-- the inclusion of some of the above accomplishments/links, and ensuring that Debicella's real position on the emergency contraception issue is stated from the CT Post article (that he supports emergency contraception over-the-counter for all women, but would not force any religion to act against its beliefs). With these two changes, I will be satisfied that both pro and con viewpoints on the Senator are represented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.169.18 (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Article is now balanced, although I am sure 64.252.251.75 will change it again to try to add in Andersen campaign material. I actually applaud much of what he did-- the article reads much better. I have made three significant edits to what he did:

1) Re-wrote the "emergency contraception" controversy to show both sides of the story. 64.252.251.75 insists on writing this as if Debicella were a monster, rather than showing two candidates had disagreeing positions. I have added citations with direct quotes from Debicella stating his position.

2) Eliminated a reference to a 2006 article about Jack Finn filing complaints against Debicella. No complaints were filed, according to the article. Rather, it was just a Democratic alderman criticizing Debicella for his campaign commercials. Not newsworthy.

3) Eliminated votes that were only referenced in Andersen campaign material, including the "trans-gender" vote and other obscure social-issue votes and Andersen and her allies are obsessed with, but were never covered in the media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.169.18 (talk) 03:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you think my characterization of Debicella's comment makes him sound like a monster reflects more on Debicella than on me as an editor. Unfortunately, the way I wrote it is completely fair and accurate, especially after I repeated his stance regarding the Catholic church. Now you are simply rewriting history so it makes Debicella looks better. The controversy was NOT about the candidates' positions - it was about Debicella's comment! Even if the controversy was created by Andersen in your view, it still received significant media coverage. The sooner you accept that, the sooner we can come to an agreeable resolution on this issue.

Actually, the transgendered nondiscrimination bill did receive significant media coverage, just not Debicella's vote on it. What other "obscure social-issue votes" are you referring to?

And why do you feel compelled to delete trivial details such as Debicella's full name, college activities, religion, or the number of children he has? This is all public information that is typically included in Wikipedia articles of this type. 64.252.251.75 (talk) 04:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Your points relfect why I have edited this article: 1) You need to show BOTH sides of a controversy if you want to cover it fairly, not just the side you agree with. Look at the source articles (which do show both sides), and you will see how real journalists covered the issue. (They did not select quotes to make Debicella look bad). I am fine with this being in here, because as you say there are a lot of articles on it if you google it. But you cannot use wikipedia for political purposes, so let's make sure this is balanced. 2) Transgendered bill-- you may be right, but if Debicella is not mentioned in an article, than it has no place here. You are just putting your own agenda into the article rather than what has transpired in the real world. 3) I was just cleaning it up. Children and religion are already mentioned in the text box to the right, college activities are silly.

How can you say I am selecting quotes to make Debicella look bad?? There are TWO quotes in the section: one is THE quote that started the controversy and the other was Debicella's primary response. They're both from Debicella himself! How can you say I'm making him look bad? I really do believe I have written this section fairly and will stand by that.

Transgendered bill is going out, OK?

I seem to remember at one point you deleted his religion from the infobox on the right...and now all these other little things...curious. And when a politician had was very active in political organizations in college, I think that bears a brief mention. 64.252.251.75 (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

76.23.169.18, I ask you to do me a simple favor. Please go back and read "your" version of the article you posted earlier. Then read the current version. Can you honestly say that your version reads more neutral and balanced than the current one? If so, then I'm sorry, but you are delusionally partisan. But I don't think you are, you seem to have common sense, and I think you see the difference. I'm not saying the way I've written it is perfect but I think it's a lot fairer than the way you edited it to be. Not that I really blame you, since it seems you are more invested in to one side...despite what you think, I don't have any significant relationships with Democrats in Debicella's district. But that's beside the point...I just hope you see what I'm trying to get at and consider that maybe, just maybe, you are trying a little too hard to clean this thing up for Dan. If you continue to make any major edits to the article as is, without good cause and sources, I will continue to revert those edits, which will inevitably lead to it being locked and administrators having to babysit us again. Let's try to avoid that, shall we? 64.252.251.75 (talk) 05:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

We will have to agree to disagree. Honestly, I believe you are a member of Janice Andersen's campaign with little interest in anything other than making the Senator look bad. I believe I have balanced out your article and ensured his side is told. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.169.18 (talk) 07:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Then I guess you are in fact delusionally partisan. Looks like we'll need babysitters again, because the edits you keep making are the same kind of crap that plagued this article in the first place and I will not stand for it. It's about time you grow up and accept that not every aspect of Debicella's record (or any politician's for that matter) smells of roses. Who's cherry-picking now? 64.252.251.75 (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You are in a matter of fact! You are the one changing the article to include additional information that is covered no where in the press related to Debicella, but rather are parts of Janice Andersen's campaign. I have kept in Andersen's attacks on Debicella that were in the press, because those are obviously part of the public record. Again, you have cherry picked 1-2 votes and put your partisan spin on them (e.g., picking one vote out of a thousand where disgraced Senator Lou DeLuca and Debicella voted the same way and putting it in the article, when your link shows nothing about Debicella in it). Your continued partisanship is obvious, whether you are Dave Mooney, Mike Brown, or another of Andersen's cronies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.169.18 (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Haha. I don't even know who Mike Brown and Dave Mooney are. I honestly did not even know DeLuca was "disgraced" until reading his article after I already linked to it. I know you probably don't believe me but I really had no idea. I just thought if he was one of two Senators to vote against a bill, the identity of the other Nay vote was relevant. Frankly, the fact that you seem so desperate to cover up details that I actually considered to be fairly minor when writing this articles is just more proof that this is information that SHOULD be included. 64.252.251.75 (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

And despite what you say, every single last bill I have listed is referenced using non-partisan media sources. For example, this is from the Hartford Courant: "The fifth vote came Thursday. The count was 33-2, with Republican senators Louis DeLuca of Woodbury and Dan Debicella of Shelton the only ones voting against it." That is where I got my information about the clean contracting bill. From the Hartford Courant. Not from Andersen, not from her cronies, from the Hartford Courant. And it was the Courant that included DeLuca's name, I did not simply add that to the Wikipedia article for political flair. You can go ahead and do that with any one of the bills I've included...the language and tone I used in the Wikipedia article is the same as the language and tone used in the corresponding media article. Take your blinders off. 64.252.251.75 (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Protected again

Protected again. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 02:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to note that I have accepted the vast majority of the changes proposed by the Andersen campaign. However, there are three changes that should be made to this article:

1) Elimination of the list of obscure votes chosen to make Debicella look bad. 2) Elimination of the Democratic attack during the 2006 campaign, again chosen to make Debicella look bad. 3) Fair coverage of the 2008 emergency contraception vote.

I would like an editor (someone other than the Andersen campaign person editing this site) to explain why any of the above three are incorrect. If I have an objective person convince me based on source material, I will stop editing the site. If not, then I will continue to edit to make this a fair article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.169.18 (talk) 02:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with the Andersen campaign and until you have evidence to prove I do I would appreciate if you stopped labeling me as such. I included votes that received media coverage, whether they reflect on the Senator positively or not. If a neutral editor decides that certain votes do not rise to the level of notability to warrant inclusion in the article, then so be it, but I do not think either you or I are really in a position to make that decision at this point. So to be on the safe side I included and cited more rather than less. In fact, I already deleted a paragraph on my own that you probably felt made the subject look bad, because I did not feel it was necessary for the article. I actually didn't know anything about the 2006 incident but I found news coverage of it while doing research for this article, so I included it. I think I have been consistent. And I still stand by my assertion that the paragraph on Debicella's comments are completely fair and accurate, certainly moreso than the version you are advocating. 64.252.251.75 (talk) 03:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, we certainly agree that a neutral party needs to look at the article and see what areas should be included vs. not. I have found plenty more material to include on a host of different issues that Debicella has dealt with from a simple google search (Moses Wheeler Bridge, Sikorsky Airport, Home Heating Assistance), but did not include them because this article would be about 10 pages long-- and let's face it, this guy is just a State Senator and not President! Sorry to insinuate you are part of the Andersen campaign, but I think that you have just selected items that are "coincidentally" those covered by the Andersen campaign. But rather than you and I continuing to go back and forth, let's wait to hear for an editor to weigh in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.169.18 (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the apology and agree with you. 64.252.251.75 (talk) 04:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, when I was doing my research, I didn't come across anything about Moses Wheeler bridge. The only thing I saw about home heating assistance was in Debicella/GOP press releases. And I did find an article about Sikorsky but it didn't mention what Debicella's role was so I didn't really have anything to add to the article. You probably found better sources than I did, maybe we can work them in in the future. But my point is that I did not intentionally omit those things from the article, I just didn't find them or didn't find enough in them to warrant inclusion. 64.252.251.75 (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I just found this: http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20204740&BRD=1637&PAG=461&dept_id=9166&rfi=6 (home heating assistance) - just published yesterday. I think it should definitely be mentioned in future versions since Debicella seems to have played a key role. 64.252.251.75 (talk) 04:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the link-- and you asked for proof of who you are before, and you have provided it for the editors. The article you posted contains your IP address in a comment on the article from Michael V Brown, who was directly involved with the Andersen campaign. He wrote letters to the editor against Debicella, saying he was a former friend of Debicella's with a vendetta against him. You have now carried this into this article, while claiming to be impartial. I encourage the editors to look at this link, the comment, and the IP address for the comment. You will see that this article is being edited by someone with a vendetta against Debicella and should be prohibited from future edits. Sorry, Mike. But you can no longer be considered an objective partner in writing this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.169.18 (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ummmm... No. Where are you seeing this IP address? What the hell are you talking about? 64.252.251.75 (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

In other news, is it true that Debicella was one of 50 co-sponsors? If that's the case then I take back what I said about it being notable. 64.252.251.75 (talk) 08:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

---

IP address is at the bottom of the page, Mike. Mike Brown and Tessa Marquis are former employer's of Debicella's wife, who wrote letters to the editor against him, and created websites slamming him during the Andersen campaign. Editors should take note that Mike Brown/64.252.251.75 has a personal vendetta against Debicella, as you can tell from the insanely extensive debate in this discussion. While likely sore from losing the election, he is trying to take consolation in writing a negative article about Debicella.

The most recent edit is an improvement, but my three main points above have yet to be addressed. The language written by Mike Brown is inherently negative towards Debicella. For example, the emergency contraception language still does not include his full position. If you read the source material, the best way to put this is: "Debicella said he supported over-the-counter access to emergency contraception for all women, but would not force any religion to act against their beliefs." Debicella obviously is not against emergency contraception for rape victims, just against forcing the Catholic Church to distribute it. Mike Brown wants to distort this record to make it seem like Debicella is against rape victims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.169.18 (talk) 12:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what to say other than you are laughably wrong. I maintain that I have no formal relationship with Andersen or her campaign, I do not know who Mike Brown is, and I am certainly not Mike Brown. And I still don't see where that post is supposedly linked to my IP address... Are you delusional or just making stuff up? 64.252.251.75 (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as the emergency contraception bill, your argument is just fundamentally incorrect. The bill said absolutely nothing what-so-ever about the Catholic Church. You make it sound like the bill required condoms to be handed out during communion. The scope of the bill was restricted to medical facilities, i.e. hospitals, including those affiliated with the Catholic Church. Debicella opposed forcing Catholic hospitals to distribute emergency contraception in violation of their mission. This position is clearly addressed both in the paragraph about his voting record and the one about this controversial comment, but it is 100% factually accurate to state that he voted against a bill that requires hospitals to provide emergency contraception to victims of sexual assault; that's exactly what the bill was. You are the one who is in fact trying to sensationalize the issue by injecting religion into it, much like Debicella himself did. I am tempted to stoop to your level and start calling you "Dan" since I seem to suddenly be "Mike" but I won't if for no other reason than I would hate to think my State Senator is pathetic enough to spend this much time editing a Wikipedia article about themselves. 64.252.251.75 (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If you are unfamiliar with the wording of the bill, I'll kindly refer you to the summary provided by Project Vote Smart, a non-partisan organization: http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=12895&can_id=68394. 64.252.251.75 (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Ouch—hit a nerve there, huh? Look Mike, it’s no big deal you outted who you are. You have every right to edit this site like everyone else. You have a partisan agenda, and that is ok. (Who else but someone with a partisan agenda would spend so much time on this?) I admit that I am a supporter of the Senator’s, and just want to make sure this article is fair—both the good and the bad reflected, but factually and based on what the media has covered about him—not what you and Janice Andersen put in your campaign literature.

You are right about one thing—we are both completely pathetic for spending so much time on this. We will never convince each other, so let’s agree to end this edit war by letting the editors decide. By “editors” I mean Mackensen, JNW, trojanpony, or one of the other people lurking around here. I will agree to stop editing this site if you will, if one or more of these folks will make a ruling on the three outstanding issues with this article right now (I am fine with 95% of it, just three partisan things remain).

Let me make a “closing argument” about each:

1) Emergency Contraception. The wiki article reads like Debicella does not support emergency contraception for rape victims, but the source cited (#19 in footnotes) clearly shows the opposite. To quote Debicella from the article #19:

“I fully support access to emergency contraception for all women, and especially for rape victims. However, I do not believe that the Catholic Church should be forced to give out emergency contraception in violation of their beliefs. I oppose any effort for the state to dictate to any religion what they must do, but I will continue to support full access for over-the-counter emergency contraception.”

This position should be clearly spelled out in the article, not the line you currently have, which is literally copied from Andersen campaign mailers.

2) Voting Record. This paragraph is poorly written and cherry-picks votes to make Debicella look bad. First, the lines are written to imply judgment that Debicella made the wrong vote (e.g., “Yale said had the potential to save 170 lives a year in the state”, “led to the scandal of former Governor John Rowland”) without presenting why Debicella may have voted against it. It is written in a partisan way. Second, your sources for these are lobbying groups opposed to Debicella’s position. Third, you have selected four very obscure votes that were not covered extensively, presumably because Debicella was one of only a few senators on each to vote the way he did. Why? To prove he is an extremist like you said in the campaign? Why not include others of the hundreds of votes he made that had more impact (e.g., budget votes, etc.) rather than Westport shellfish bills? Finally, there is no need to mention the emergency contraception again here, as it is covered extensively a few paragraphs down.

I would eliminate this entire paragraph, but at the very least it should be re-written by someone objective taking the above considerations into account.

3) 2006 Election Controversy. I just question whether a complaint by Alderman Jack Finn about Debicella’s campaign commercials really rises to the level of “controversy” or even newsworthiness. It was a political attack from one campaign to another, not really a debate about issues (unlike the 2008 election controversy, which I think is very relevant).

Issue #1 is a factual issue, and I believe the article covers this issue in a slanted, partisan way. I think reading the source materials, an objective third party would agree. #2 and #3 are honestly judgment calls—do you believe these are really relevant/important enough parts of Debicella’s records to include in the article. I leave to the editors to decide.

You ok with standing by their decision? I’d rather not go back to reverting each others’ edits for the next month. I won't be posting here again until we hear their decisions, but you should feel free to make your case to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.169.18 (talk) 05:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not Mike Brown. Prove that I am. There is no IP address associated with the post on that website. I am not Mike Brown. 64.252.251.75 (talk) 06:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The only reason those interest group websites are used is because they contain the original articles from reputable news sources, e.g. The Hartford Courant. Unfortunately, the original sources either no longer exist or you need to pay to access them. But the content is the same; they are articles by neutral journalists, not members of the organization hosting it. But I can understand the confusion.

Of course you would like to remove the paragraph about his voting record, because overall it reflects somewhat unfavorably on the senator, but I don't see you complaining about the Accomplishments section which overall reflects favorably on the senator. For every bill you don't think is notable I could name an accomplishment where Debicella's role is being overstated. But I'd rather just keep both in to present the whole picture. Debicella was one of three Nay votes on the contraception bill, one of two Nay votes on a clean contracting bill, etc. - these votes were notable enough for the media to cover them so I think they warrant inclusion here. On the other side of the coin, his filibuster of the immigration tuition bill garnered media coverage and that is covered as well. I think there is consistency. It's just anything you think is positive that Debicella trumpets in his own press releases should be included in your view, while anything that is negative and was used in opposition campaign material should not be included. Rather, I think we should be using media coverage as a guideline, instead of claims made by partisans, and I think this article does that. I didn't make any of this stuff up...check the articles...it's all right there.

This is the last time I will address the emergency contraception issue. I don't know what more to tell you. The article currently states "Debicella reiterated his position that the bill forces Catholic hospitals to go against their mission". Explain to me how that's not a fair characterization of his stance??

I am more than happy to have neutral editors come in and clean up the article as they see fit. All I want is for this to be a respectable article, but I've wasted all this time fighting back against your attempts to make this a pro-Debicella fluff piece. You are so far in his camp that you make me look like an anti-Debicella extremist, which is simply not the case. I think I have been pretty fair to both sides despite my personal leanings and have been more than willing to incorporate "pro-Debicella" content into the article. I have not seen the same good faith exhibited on your part unfortunately. But yes, I would be happy to let neutral editors make the final call. 66.159.181.120 (talk) 06:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

---

I have made small changes that I believe address my issues. See if you agree:

1) Emergency Contraception-- Included Debicella quote stating his position. Did not delete Andersen's critique of him, and in fact added the fact she held a rally against him.

2) Voting Record-- Added the fact that Debicella stood alone on the issues that follow (They are obviously not his complete voting record), and added in his rationale from the Senate Transcripts.

3) Finn Controversy -- Did not touch this, pending a neutral editor saying whether it should be in or not. (It is written fine, just want an objective judgment if it is worth including). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.169.18 (talk) 13:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is the way you have written the paragraph on Andersen's criticism is just not the facts. What she called "insensitive" was a specific comment by Debicella. You have deleted this comment entirely and simply stated Debicella's position, which is not what Andersen called "insensitive". 66.159.181.120 (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding his voting record, I have removed the references to Louis DeLuca, the claims of the Yale scientists, etc. to make it more neutral, but I have also deleted the rationales you provided for each of the votes. I'm not saying they're wrong but you need to cite them. 66.159.181.120 (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, please note that I have FURTHER clarified his position in the paragraph about his controversial comment, adding that he supports access to emergency contraception. This should assuage any concerns you had about the Senator's position not being accurately presented. 66.159.181.120 (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Mike-- glad to see that New Standard Institute has multiple IP addresses. You are incorrect in your above edits. Andersen held a rally to protest Debicella's entire position on the issue. You are insisting on putting verbatim what was in one of Andersen's mailers. I will continue to edit this out until someone objective looks at the source material cited to determine what quotes should be included and which should not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.169.18 (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Got the day off Dan? Absolutely none of the edits I have made have been based on Andersen mailers. What Andersen called "insensitive" was the very comment that you continue to delete. If you had never made this comment, there never would have been a rally. Sincerely, Not Mike Brown. 66.159.181.120 (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Mike, I know you are very bitter about the election and are editing this site out of spite-- which is your right. As I have stated before, I am obviously a supporter of Debicella's and will continue to edit out your personal vendetta against him until someone objective comes along and gives a rationale for why your edits are valid or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.169.18 (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Dan, you are editing out legitimate, non-partisan, fully-cited information about aspects of your record that you feel reflect poorly on you. The general public has a right to this information, Wikipedia is not a platform for politicking, your conduct in this matter is extremely immature and frankly, un-American. 66.159.181.120 (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention it represents a clear conflict of interest and violation of Wikipedia policy for you to be editing this article yourself. 66.159.181.120 (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Mike, I am sorry you outted yourself on the article you cited by having your IP address next to your name. That is your issue. But now you have decided to take your partisanship to the next level and try to smear the Senator personally in this discussion board-- much as you have tried to do in the article by trying to sound "non-partisan" while in fact just using the same material you put in the Andersen campaign literature. I hope objective editors will see the tone of your message and realize how this is personal for you, not about the facts.

You mean just like they'll realize that you are the subject of the article and have no business what-so-ever editing it?? 66.159.181.120 (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

As a constituent of yours (whose name is not Mike Brown) I am extremely upset that the man who is supposed to be representing the interests of myself and my neighbors in the state capital would spend so much of his time frivolously doctoring an encyclopedia article about himself. It is deeply distressing. I mean, I thought I just disagreed with you on some issues, but I had no idea you were so immature and narcissistic. It's very shameful to everyone you represent. 66.159.181.120 (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok Mike-- you again show you have a personal vendetta against Debicella. I will not engage you here anymore, as you are just throwing personal insults at the Senator. I actually wonder if he has seen this site yet-- he would no doubt find it amusing that the 2008 campaign is playing itself over and over again here. Objective editors will hopefully soon stop you, and you can direct your personal rage elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.169.18 (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You are running away with your tail between your legs because you have been revealed. Considering that past edits have come from IP addresses registered to PepsiCo, this conduct has no doubt been going on for quite some time. Time for you to go back to serving the people you represent rather than yourself. Thank you. 66.159.181.120 (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Much like your comments in the article, you do not have any sources to back up your attacks. Sorry Mike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.169.18 (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Dan, if you look in the edit history of this article you will see edits made by an IP address registered to Pepsi and you will also see that all of the information I have added to this article has been cited using media sources, while none of your additions have. Nice try though. 66.159.181.120 (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

None the the addresses are registered to Pepsi. You are just lashing out because you were outted as Mike Brown by posting your IP on a comment in an article you cited. That is fine-- again, your right to say what you want.

---

Back to the issues. Waiting for someone objective to deal with these three partisan attacks in the article:

Let me make a “closing argument” about each:

1) Emergency Contraception. The wiki article reads like Debicella does not support emergency contraception for rape victims, but the source cited (#19 in footnotes) clearly shows the opposite. To quote Debicella from the article #19:

“I fully support access to emergency contraception for all women, and especially for rape victims. However, I do not believe that the Catholic Church should be forced to give out emergency contraception in violation of their beliefs. I oppose any effort for the state to dictate to any religion what they must do, but I will continue to support full access for over-the-counter emergency contraception.”

This position should be clearly spelled out in the article, not the line you currently have, which is literally copied from Andersen campaign mailers.

2) Voting Record. This paragraph is poorly written and cherry-picks votes to make Debicella look bad. First, the lines are written to imply judgment that Debicella made the wrong vote (e.g., “Yale said had the potential to save 170 lives a year in the state”, “led to the scandal of former Governor John Rowland”) without presenting why Debicella may have voted against it. It is written in a partisan way. Second, your sources for these are lobbying groups opposed to Debicella’s position. Third, you have selected four very obscure votes that were not covered extensively, presumably because Debicella was one of only a few senators on each to vote the way he did. Why? To prove he is an extremist like you said in the campaign? Why not include others of the hundreds of votes he made that had more impact (e.g., budget votes, etc.) rather than Westport shellfish bills? Finally, there is no need to mention the emergency contraception again here, as it is covered extensively a few paragraphs down.

I would eliminate this entire paragraph, but at the very least it should be re-written by someone objective taking the above considerations into account.

3) 2006 Election Controversy. I just question whether a complaint by Alderman Jack Finn about Debicella’s campaign commercials really rises to the level of “controversy” or even newsworthiness. It was a political attack from one campaign to another, not really a debate about issues (unlike the 2008 election controversy, which I think is very relevant). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.169.18 (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Dan, sorry to tell you but you were a little sloppy when you decided to edit from work, at this IP: User_talk:204.136.112.10. And you continue to fabricate the notion that the Stratford Star lists users' IP addresses with their posts, which they clearly do not as anyone can tell by looking at the article's comment section with their naked eye. Mike Brown left a comment, his IP address is not listed, and it's not mine. I think it's amusing, but sad, how in your head anyone trying to edit this article MUST be a partisan hack with a vendetta against you. Sorry to disappoint you Mr. Debicella, but I'm just an average constituent who has been increasingly disgusted by you as this ordeal has carried on. You are an embarrassment to yourself and your district. 66.159.181.120 (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

While that is an IP address for Pepsi, it appears no where in the history of this article. Further, it is not me-- if Debicella did edit this article that is up to him. But I don't see that anywhere in this history of this article. Stick to the facts, Mike-- I know you are losing on them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.169.18 (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on September 26, you reverted edits to the article from that IP, your reversion was undone, and the following day you once again reverted the article from the IP that you continue to edit from. The logs don't lie, Mr. Debicella. 66.159.181.120 (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Live in your own fantasy world Mike. Again, I will wait until someone objective deals with this page and will stand by their judgment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.169.18 (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should have done that months ago when people were trying to edit the version lifted from your website. We would have never been in this situation. Did it take you this long to realize what Wikipedia is all about? Or have you finally conceded you can't bully around people who disagree with you? 66.159.181.120 (talk) 16:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Partisan edits & PepsiCO

Since there seems to be denial going on: The present article *has* been edited from User:204.136.112.10 (contribs), an IP address that belongs to PepsiCo as can be seen from the talk page and easily confirmed by a WHOIS [2]. Two sections that were not flattering to Pepsi were removed from the Pepsi article [3] [4], a fact that has not gone unnoticed as it has been mentioned in various places including the New York Times [5] as part of stories relating partisan corporate edits to Wikipedia. What the New York Times might not know however, is that the same IP has been since used to edit this present article [6] about a certain Dan Debicella, a U.S state senator who happens to be Director of Strategy for PepsiCo and happens to have had his article on Wikipedia systematically reverted by a serie of IP addresses from Connecticut, preventing any change to the article for 15 months until it was brought to the attention of other editors and admins. Personally I see a pattern here. See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive479#Dan Debicella for details. Equendil Talk 23:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Protection, redux

I've protected this article for a week due to edit waring. Hash out the dispute on the talk page, not the article. lifebaka++ 17:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I would encourage both sides in this edit war to look at the current version. The Pro-Debicella editor eliminates content that might be seen as negative on Debicella, while the Anti-Debicella editor puts a clear negative spin on every issue and source cited. Neither is objective. I have tried to take what I consider to be the best of each to paint a more objective picture. I doubt either side will agree to it, but hopefully it is a "middle of the road" that stops this edit war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBard2 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

TheBard2, your help is appreciated, but please understand the full context of the situation before oversimplifying things. I have been monitoring this article for several months after discovering that Debicella and his supporters were removing valid, sourced information and replacing it with copy lifted directly from his website. Once they realized they could not get away with that any longer, they started just deleting any and all information that they felt reflected negatively on the Senator. Granted, I am not really a supporter of Debicella's, but I don't accept the label of being "anti-Debicella". I don't have any strong feelings against him personally or politically (at least I didn't before this whole imbroglio), and I barely know him (or any of his opponents for that matter), but I am certainly "anti-Debicella and friends doctoring his own Wikipedia page". I think what is going on here is unethical and immature conduct for a State Senator to be involved in. And while the editors will deny Debicella has ever edited this article, if you look in the logs, there are edits originating from a PepsiCo-based IP addresses, Debicella's former employer. Coincidence? I think not.

As for the substance of your edits, I simply believe you are mischaracterizing Andersen's criticisms the same way the "pro-Debicella" editors are. She criticized a SPECIFIC COMMENT he made, THAT is what she called "insensitive", not just his overall position. I strongly contend that it would be an inaccurate portrayal of the controversy to not include Debicella's quote that started it. But I really do appreciate your presence, and now the presence of admins, because the constant babysitting gets really tiring. 69.0.31.233 (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

TheBard2-- thank you for stepping in. As you can see from the comments above, the Anti-Debicella editor is obsessed with making him look bad. He has accused me of being Debicella (which I am not, although it is true I am a supporter), and wants to slander him in any way he can-- using his "footnoted citations" as an excuse. He misquotes citations, and refuses to give Debicella's viewpoint (as in the case of the Andsersen campaign attacks around Debicella hating rape victims). His edits are basically repeat of the negative attacks from the Andersen campaign in 2008, and refuses to put Debicella's response quote in (which you have in your edits).

As for my edits you changed, I simply do not believe that votes on shellfish beds and transfats are the key to Senator Debicella's record. They were minor episodes that only appeared in one place-- Janice Andersen's campaign to make Debicella look like an extremist. They really are not that important in the big scheme of things. Debicella is actually very moderate on social issues (pro-choice, pro-stem cell research), and I will add a citation for that if you wish.

All that being said, I too am getting tired of the vandalism by Janice Andersen's campaign that refuses to accept they lost-- or any edits to their smears on this page. I will accept your third-party edits if they do. But if not I will continue to remove their vandalism of this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice try Dan, but the facts don't support you. From what little I've seen of Andersen campaign literature, many issues Ms. Andersen raised are not addressed in this article, and I have added information that I am not aware she ever referred to. I have consistently and accurately presented Debicella's point-of-view whenever possible. To take the emergency contraception controversy as an example, I included Debicella's comment, followed by the reaction, followed by Debicella's response to the reaction. How is that not fair? You have repeatedly edited the article so that only Debicella's point-of-view is presented and then, on top of it all, mischaracterize the content of the actual bill. The difference between me and you is that I am actually trying to produce a credible article that fairly presents BOTH sides, both the accomplishments AND the criticisms of the Senator. In fact, the vast majority of research for the "Accomplishments" section was done by me. You, on the other hand, are just an obstructionist and worse still, a propagandist. You couldn't care less about the quality of article; just what shows up when someone Googles your name. If you had things your way, this would still be the vanity page it used to be. It's time to grow up and accept that people are allowed to be aware of areas of your record that you may not be particularly proud of. You are a public figure and this is a public forum, not your personal website. 69.0.31.233 (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Notice the nasty, personal nature of the comment above. This person obviously has a personal vendetta against Debicella (and seems to want to smear him even in this discussion board by saying I am him). I will not engage any more in this discussion with this immature individual. I will accept The Bard's neutral third-party version, and will continue to revert Janice Andersen campaign's vandalism if the above partisan continues editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This is unbelievable! TheBard2 actually is Debicella!! Look at their edit history: a high concentration of edits to pages about State Senators and then, most tellingly, an edit to Ivanka Trump's page. Seems like kind of an odd edit for Debicella to make, right? Well, yes, until you realize that the edit was to add that Ms. Trump's father (Donald Trump) was an alumnus of the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania, exactly where Debicella himself went! Are we supposed to believe this is all a coincidence?? 69.0.31.233 (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, there are very specific edits about Senator Hartley losing her chairmanship of the Higher Education Committee, which Debicella serves on. 69.0.31.233 (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow...now The Bard is Debicella too? Very paranoid. Your desire to slander the Senator even extends to insulting the other editors. I encourage the neutral editors to see through this ruse to slander Debicella on the main page and on this talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah? Who else would edit an article related to the Wharton School of Business, make specific edits about State Senators and the Higher Education Committee, and pose as a neutral editor to this article?? Paranoia or common sense? 69.0.31.233 (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that the above user is likely Dave Mooney, Chairman of the Stratford Democratic Town Committee. User DMooney started editing this article on August 29, 2008 (please check history)-- and then "mysteriously" switched over to an anonymous IP address. Mooney was a key member of Janice Andersen's campaign. Other possibility is noted in above discussion by other editors is that this person is Michael Brown, whose IP address appeared in one of the links this editor is using. Michael Brown wrote letters to the editor against Debicella throughout the 2008 campaign. Either way, these people are out to smear Debicella any way they can-- even accusing myself and neutral editors of being Debicella! As I have said, I am a supporter of Debicella's and will not allow a smear article to be written here. It is very sad that political campaigns are being waged on wikipedia, and I hope the neutral editors will see through it and revert to my article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Orangeman2: Are you seriously trying to pretend that you and 76.23.169.18 are not the same person?? You said "other editors" accused me of being Mike Brown...that was you! You're not fooling anyone. I am not Mike Brown and I am not Dave Mooney. In fact, I have never met Mr. Brown or Mr. Mooney. I know who Mooney is but that's about it, and I never knew who Brown was until you raised his name, citing some phantom IP address that you still haven't explained the existence of. I already had my suspicions you were Debicella and when you insisted I was someone I am not, I didn't really care anymore if I was wrong or not. I'm not 100% positive or not whether or not you are Debicella himself or just a henchman, but I AM certain that TheBard2 is definitely Debicella and edits were made to this article from PepsiCo, so either way Debicella HAS edited this article and is aware of what is going on here. The thing is, I have evidence to back up my claims, while you do not. Dave Mooney clearly edited this article at some point (and, not surprisingly, had his edits reverted) but that was more than a month before my first edit. You seem to have an interesting habit of reflection...whenever someone accuses you of something you just turn around and accuse them of the same thing instead of defending the accusations. That's usually a pretty strong indicator of guilt. 69.0.31.233 (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Just like your article, you just spin whatever you feel like to justify your position. First I am Debicella, then TheBard is Debicella. Maybe you are Debicella too? But now I am someone else too. You really sound paranoid. Honestly, I do not care who you are. I care that you have a clear vendetta against my State Senator, and will not stop spreading the same lies you spread during the 2008 campaign. No doubt you will continue to reply to whatever I right with claims of "You are Debicella!" so I will stop responding to them. Best of luck in your smear campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There you go again with the reflecting. You obviously DO care who I am since you keep trying to identify me as someone involved with Andersen's campaign. Guess what, he's MY State Senator too, and the fact that he and his friends would go to such an extent to cover up legitimate information is frankly DISGUSTING. This kind of behavior has been going on as long as this article has existed, well before I came on the scene, and I will not stand for it. I will continue to expose and fight against your cover job until you come to your senses and realize that this is a public encyclopedia, not your campaign website. If Debicella made a controversial comment that garnered significant news coverage, the comment merits inclusion in this article, whether you like it or not. I made lots of compromises and concessions to your concerns, and have done far more constructive editing to the article than you, but the line is drawn in the sand. I will not engage you any further until your approach changes dramatically. 69.0.31.233 (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Discuss the article, not each other. lifebaka++ 05:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion requested

I am hopeful that a neutral editor with no dog in the fight will take a long hard look at this article and make an executive decision as to what version should be used and/or what should be included or excluded. I will agree to their decision even if it's not the outcome I would like to see. More than anything I just want to this resolved once and for all. 69.0.13.202 (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Third party editors: Please see this for a background on the situation. 69.0.13.202 (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree. Please look at the version I put up, which I believe is superior in actually reflecting what the sources say (not making up quotes that are not in source articles). However, I am also willing to accept The Bard's version (which I have reverted to), even though this contains a number of votes that were only ever mentioned in Debicella's opponents material. But I too am willing to abide by third party editors. The problem is that the last time a third party editor (The Bard) intervened, the above anonymous user attacked him because he did not like what he had to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

TheBard2 is Debicella himself, not a third-party editor. Their edit history speaks for itself - edits related to the Wharton School of Business, very specific information about State Senators, etc. 69.0.13.202 (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is the last time I am writing on this page. I am not Debicella, but I am involved with Connecticut state politics (and if you look I edited a number of Senators' profiles). I stick by my edits as the most neutral version, but am really shocked at the immature nature of the discourse here. You can accuse me or anyone else of being someone we are not, but it does nothing to make this article better. The content of my version contains many of your edits, yet you seek to attack me and anyone else who does not agree with 100% of your edits. I will not be editing this page again-- good luck with your edit war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBard2 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Or you realize you've been exposed and you wish to not further incriminate yourself. But don't worry Mr. Debicella, Orangeman2/76.23.169.18 is doing a fine job holding down the fort for you. And actually, revealing the true identities of editors DOES help the article by allowing admins to address breaches of Wikipedia's Conflict-of-Interest policy, namely the subject of an article editing it themselves. 69.0.13.202 (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Discuss the article, not editors. lifebaka++ 02:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

But wait, I thought I was Debicella! Mike Brown-- your continued accusations are repugnant. You were outted (see above) as a Janice Andersen campaign worker who has a vendetta against Debicella. Now you are accusing everyone-- including me and other editors -- of being Debicella to further your agenda. Is Lifebaka Debicella too? I imagine everyone who disagrees with you must be the Senator editing your slander.

Why is it slander? The article you wrote uses quotes that DO NOT APPEAR IN THE SOURCES YOU SITE. You seem to want to say Debicella said he is against giving contraception to rape victims-- yet the article YOU site doesn't say that anywhere. The only place that quote appeared is JANICE ANDERSEN CAMPAIGN LITERATURE.

Mike, you are just out to continue your vendetta against Debicella on this website and I and other neutral editors will not let it happen. Anyone who reads this will surely see through you and your lies. This is not your "Janice Andersen 2010" campaign website.

Lifebaka, my apologies for this, but this entire edit war is about a personal vendetta being carried our over Wikipedia. You can look at my version to see what I believe is accurate, or even The Bard's version which contains of of Mike Brown's negative accusations. But do not let this guy turn this into his campaign website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Following Lifebaka's advice, I will only address the article itself from here on out. With a little bit of effort, anyone can discern the motivations of the parties involved, as an admin named Equendil discovered a few months back. If a truly neutral, third-party editor, with an established history of contributions that have nothing to do with Connecticut politics, looks at "my" version of the article and determines it reads as a "Janice Andersen 2010 campaign website", I will accept any and all edits they make, and make no attempt to revert them or anything. I am confident that this will not be the case. 69.0.13.202 (talk) 02:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Improving the Article

Re: Sources. From what I can tell, all information currently in the article is reflected in the corresponding articles cited. In the "controversy" section, the comment Debicella made itself does not appear in the cited article, but it clearly states that the controversy started with a remark made by Debicella, and the comment itself can be found in this article - http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=CTPB&p_theme=ctpb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=1242643AA2A3F350&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM - which can be added when the article is unprotected. I assure you I did not just make up some quote to make Debicella look bad; those were his actual words, verbatim, as the Connecticut Post article shows. Hopefully including that second source will resolve any verifiability problems with the Controversies section. 69.0.13.202 (talk) 03:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You are indeed making up quotes to make Debicella look bad, just as Janice Andersen did in her campaign. The quote in my version is directly from the article cited, not from her campaign literature. You also cite votes in the "Voting Record" section that Janice Andersen used to try to make Debicella look like an extremist. You do not cite media records there, but rather the votes themselves-- because the media did not cover them. Only you and your campaign did. Why not just footnote Janice Andersen's campaign literature here?

But I could waste my breath all day-- your personal vendetta will never stop. Even if a second neutral editor changes your article, you will continue to revert it. Maybe you will even accuse them of being Debicella too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

All sources cited in the "Voting Record" section are from respected media sources: the Hartford Courant (emergency contraception, clean contracting) and the Connecticut Post (shellfish bed, trans fat). Please explain which of Debicella's votes are not backed up by media sources. There were some at one point but I removed them several months ago when I couldn't find working links to media coverage of them, only records of the vote itself. Whether or not Debicella's record is "extreme" is a judgment for the reader of this article to make, based on the facts presented. I do not attempt to make any such assertions in the article. 69.0.13.202 (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, in the future, please kindly place one or more colons (:) before your comment to indent it, and sign your posts with four tildes (~) so that things are easier to read. It would be very much appreciated. Thanks. 69.0.13.202 (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2