Hello, VaughanWatch, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
I agree with VaughanWatch and I think his changes should stand. How long does it take for a page to be considered for deletion. Hurry up so we can agree on the changes that need to be made to Alan Shefman's page. 70.29.239.24905:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Moved this here, as this is where people expect it to be.) 70.29: AfDs are typically open for a week, then an admin will close it by examining whether consensus has been reached. Mangojuice05:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
VaughanWatch, please let the (third!) AfD discussion on Alan Shefman run its course, and stop redirecting the article.
While I agree with you that it is in general a good idea not to have articles for every city councillor in Canada (or elsewhere, for that matter) there are certainly some what have sufficiently noteworthy careers or achievements that they should have their own articles.
The AfD discussion will, hopefully, resolve the question of whether or not Shefman is such an individual. Until the AfD is closed, do not remove the AfD tag, do not delete content from the article, and do not redirect the page to the Vaughan city council article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
VaughanWatch, seeing as how the articles of all the other MP's implicated in that article do not have the link on their pages, and more importantly, both consensus and an admin has decided that the article is no longer to be linked to Kadis's article, I'd appreciate it if you didn't relink it. The community has agreed that it is not relevant. pm_shef00:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neither admin nor the community has "reached consensus" or "decided" that the article should no longer be linked. You are the one vandalizing. VaughanWatch00:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bearcatan ADMIN clearly stated that the article should no longer be linked. He stated "(that's enough of this -- the lunch thing does *not* merit special attention here. any further reversions of this will be considered grounds for blocking.)" at 00:04 on March 2nd 2006. Check the version history if you don't believe me. If you still disagree that an Admin decided to exclude this link (even though Bearcat is an admin), please see the Kadis talk page to discuss this issue civily. pm_shef01:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a possible subject of the RfC, you are asked not to modify the "description" section. I'm replacing it now. It doesn't matter what kind of "agreement" you have, the RfC will remain in place, unaltered. If I see you modify that section again, I'm going straight to the admins. Your agreement is commendable, but it can't apply to the RfC, which is a process larger than you. Mangojuice05:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Putting messags for user:Pm shef on my talk page (user talk:Thryduulf) is not a good plan. Firstly there is no guarantee he will actually see them, and secondly I don't tollerate people using my talk page to hold a conversation with someone else. I will be kind and leave these messages there and let Pm shef know about them. I will delete any further messages you leave on my talk page that are not for me. Thryduulf00:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see you left the same message on my talk page. I'm not going to be so kind; I'm removing it. You've been warned enough about personal attacks and civility. STOP NOW. Mangojuice00:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires.. You have been warned many times by many users, now stop. Thryduulf01:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Things which clearly have to be repeated and repeated and repeated
As things currently stand, pm_shef has not broken any rules for which editblocking would be an appropriate action for an administrator to take. The rule against writing about yourself or relatives is not, in and of itself, a blockable offense. It can be an aggravating factor if a person has broken other rules as well, but it is not an offense that an editor can be blocked for by itself. And I did discuss the matter with him, and he responded respectfully, politely and in good faith.
Whereas you guys have repeatedly broken rules such as 3RR, NPA and NPOV, which are blockable offenses. You've ignored good faith attempts to discuss your concerns. And you've been completely uncivil and disruptive about the whole thing. I'm not being arbitrary or biased in the application of rules; these are the rules as they stand. (Oh, and regarding your comment on Thryduulf's talk page about the "administrative assistant" crack, I think you missed the part about how humor is supposed to be funny.) Bearcat01:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have indeed voluntarily decided to, for the most part, stay away from anything related to municipal politics in Vaughan. That being said, if Eyeonvaughan, you and the Leotardo gang continue PoV pushing, I'm precluding myself from stepping in and reverting, but for the most part, I'll try and leave it to other editors. While I'm not going to make a big deal about it either way, you may want to consider a similar tact, considering your conflict of interest on the issue, I believe that Not a soapbox applies just as equally to you (by virtue of your site) as it does to me. pm_shef15:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I won't edit any more Vaughan-related articles, or participate in any Deletion Reviews, AfDs, RfDs and other related administrative procedures. I can't speak for Eyeonvaughan, only to say that it looks like the admins have him by the neck, and he probably can't get away with much. I also dislike the the previous day's vandalism on your page that probably that user arranged.
The same is demanded from you, Pm_shef. No article related to anything political in Vaughan, no AfDs, RfDs, Deletion Reviews, talk page editing and vandalism, endless article edits and reverts.
Right now my trust level in you is not especially high. I will not be tolerant towards mistakes... at least not now. I have a thorough RfD, Deletion Reviews, 3RR violations, article re-introduction because of lack of consensus, and new articles that I've written, all lined up, all ready to be posted if you betray your word. I will follow the above to the letter, and I expect you to do the same. I don't think I will repeat such an agreement again... it's one strike, one out. This compromise, if you agree to it, will come into effect 10 hours after this was written. Awaiting your response. VaughanWatch10:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me (wow! we agree on something :D!) Seriously though, alright, so no Municipal politics in Vaughan. That being said, I did sponsor an RfC that is currently ongoing (with eyeonvaughan and it would not make sense for me to just withdraw it now, especially with the incessant vandalism that's been taking place to my page the last two days. But the rest of it is fine, nothing about municipal politics in Vaughan, no city council, no municipal election, no Vaughan main page, etc, etc. I do plan on getting more involved in House of Commons editing, so I'm going to say that improving Susan's article is still fair game. All that work for you? pm_shef15:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good, but I have to say I'm a bit uncomfortable with any editing of any political figures in Vaughan. So I'll tell you what. Take the next 10 hours to improve the Susan Kadis article, adding any information that the admins see fit, but after that 10 hours expires, please no more contributions to any political figure operating in Vaughan. Agreed? VaughanWatch18:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly, for my sanity, yes, agreed. I'm assuming good faith here that Eyeonvaughan, and the Leotardo gang won't take advantage of this... should they demonstrate bad faith and take advantage of my absence, i'll have to re-evaluate this. Just to make sure you got it, I am going to continue my RfC on Eyeonvaughan, but everything else we'll leave to others. pm_shef21:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will agree to this agreement. But Pm_shef, if Eyeonvaughan shows bad faith, which he may unless he agrees to this idea, and does his bad deeds, you'll have to trust that the admins will take care of it. Ya can't be involved at all... otherwise this will blow up again. I think VaughanWatch would agree? Leotardo00:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing. As a condition to this agreement, I'm going to exclude some info from the RfD which I don't think belongs there. My username particularly. I'm not going to sit back while I'm being disrespected or especially being labelled as a sockpuppet of Eyeonvaughan. That's the only thing I can't handle. Otherwise, I'm golden. Leotardo00:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this works, we'll be making a lot of users really happy. Anyways, Leotardo, you can't simply delete things from the RfC. You can make a "Comment in Response" but you can't delete stuff that's already there (im gonna post this on your talk page too) - pm_shef00:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So support the changes. Also I edited the sockpuppet notice. It's not the ideal, but I'm content with the way things are now. Leave it alone and we'll be cool. Leotardo00:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pm_shef, this is a second attempt to try to resolve the NPOV issues already mentioned. As stated the first time, "no (editing) of an article related to anything political in Vaughan, no AfDs, RfDs, Deletion Reviews, talk page editing and vandalism, endless article edits and reverts" are to be allowed.
There are no exceptions. Anything that you are involved in on Wikipedia that has to do with something or someone in Vaughan should stop totally. That includes the RfD. That doesn't mean you have to remove it, but just leave it alone. Trust the admins.
Leotardo, I thank you for agreeing with this proposal in principle. I'm glad you are willing to participate in the process. I agree with your ends. So to Pm_shef: you must agree to concede the two concerns Leotardo has, in the spirit of co-operation.
Pm_shef mentioned the Susan Kadis article that he wanted to research for; but though the 10 hour time expired, there are still no such edits. I'm sure it doesn't mean that he isn't taking this process seriously.
So Pm_shef and Leotardo, and myself, we have 10 hours before all the editing noted above will totally cease. Pm_shef is to add his objective Kadis research, and Leotardo will have his two edits added, before the 10 hours expires. I will go and do that now. So again, in 10 hours, if you agree, all such editing is to stop. VaughanWatch05:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to just leave the Kadis article alone, better than creating more controversy. But I'm sorry, since I nominated the RFC (it's rfC, not D), it would not be in good faith for me to not comment on it, especially after the extreme personal attacks that User:Eyeonvaughan made against me the past two days. Everything else I can agree to, but since I started the RfC, I can't just leave it. However, rest assured that I don't plan on editing vaughan articles anymore, and in fact, I haven't (except for a former eyeonvaughan sock) since we made the agreement, even though the 10 hrs wasn't up. But ya, anyways, I'm going to continue on the RfC (and both of you are welcome to contribute your thoughts to it as well), but the rest we can all agree is off limits. As a sidenote, I did inform you beforehand that they would get mad if you edited the summary of the RfC... - pm_shef05:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pm_shef, do I therefore understand, that you're not able or willing to stop immediately all your present participation in Vaughan-related issues on Wikipedia? That, as you stated earlier, you will add on important information that has been removed from controversial pages? And that you may in fact participate in anything to do with Vaughan on Wikipedia "should they demonstrate bad faith and take advantage of my absence"? VaughanWatch07:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removing other people's comments from talk and other discussion pages is considered vandalism - doing so on an RfC in which you are invovled, particularly after you have been warned, is especially (sp?) bad. If you continue then you will be blocked for disruption. Thryduulf14:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Based on your actions to remove the list of known and blocked sockpuppets of yours from your RFC, and your placing a defamation template on Mangojuice's page (not to mention having that huge sockfarm in the first place) you are blocked for 48 hours. I don't care about any "agreements" you have with pm_shef, your actions are disruptive to Wikipedia. You are welcome to contest this block by placing {{unblock}} on this page and writing an explanation for your actions, but otherwise we'll see you in 48 hours. --Syrthiss15:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That first edit was when I reverted to Leotardo's version. After I was immediately reverted, I noticed the sockpuppet addition and added them to my second edit. If I was trying to get rid of the mention of the sockpuppets, I would have deleted it all on my second edit.
My edit was also discussed on the talk page, and it should have been clear what was intended. If you're going to block me, do it for what I've done, not what I haven't done. VaughanWatch00:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You were blocked for removing other people's comments, which is exactly what those edits show you did. If you disagree with anything in the RfC then you should explain what and why in your response section, but you should not remove the comments of other people. This is explained in policies relating to talk pages and RfCs (I don't have links in my head, sorry) which you may or may not have read, however it has been pointed out to you at least twice on this page so you cannot claim ignorance. Thryduulf00:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. I've taken on a new attitude of 'only getting involved when my involvement will lead to a productive and positive result.' I couldnt see myself being able to contribute anything to the discussion. In other news, our agreement seems to be working out pretty well. pm_shef19:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
VaughanWatch, I wanted to let you know that Pm_shef is editing in Vaughan-related things, and has broken your agreement. See this edit. Leotardo17:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please, will you just onceassume good faith? I was defending myself from malicious attacks by you, Leotardo, and not making any substantive edits on a Vaughan topic. You'll notice that I did NOT vote in that AfD. - pm_shef20:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you are currently unable to edit. This is almost certainly the result of a sockpuppet operated from your IP being blocked, which autoblocks the IP address. The most likely candidate is Leotardo (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). If you can find anyone who cares and is willing to unblock that address, you need to notify them of the address itself. Just zis Guy you know?08:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
