Jump to content

User talk:ED209

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Redvers (talk | contribs) at 19:28, 7 August 2006 (→Blocked: Unblock request declined again after wikilawyering and alledging bad faith). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Number of times this page has been vandalized: 4,329

pm_shef personal attacks

We've gone through this before with User talk:Pm shef#UndergroundRailroad. Personal attacks refer to other Wikipedia editors and not the subjects of the articles. However, the remarks made by pm_shef were not a good idea. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks for more information. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet thing

  • I'd just like to apologize for the whole sockpuppet issue. After reading Thatcher's comments at the RfC, I realized that I was probably mistaken. So you have my sincere apologizes for labelling you as a sockpuppet. It's clear our edit don't always agree with each other, but it was not fair of me to label you a sockpuppet so prematurely. I hope once this whole rediculousness is over, we can work constructively together. pm_shef 04:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Di Biase

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -- JamesTeterenko 02:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This all started a few days ago when pm_shef removed my content from this page. He did not prove to me nor did we hold any kind of vote when he reverted the traffic ticket story. I am not backing down to him in this case because I know his agenda. He is not acting in good faith as he claims. His father and Mr. Di Biase are political allies. Many people around Vaughan are skeptical of Mr. Di Biase because of this incident. The very fact that something Vaughan-related makes the Toronto Star is a big deal. Considering that nobody eles seems to have anything to contribute to this page, I believe that a story like this is relevant. I am sick and tired of arguing this, especially with an impending world war outbreaking in the Middle East. In the end, if the traffic story is not left on Di Biase's page, I propose we delete the entire article. What's the point of having this entry if we are not going to include this relevant fact.
  • To further support my opinion, I direct everybody to Hazel McCallion, who is the mayor of nearby Mississauga. Under personal it states: "In May 2006 she had an accident and crashed her car into a sign post. She claimed that she was distracted by her cell phone and has agreed to hire a driver. If she does, she will be the only mayor in the Greater Toronto Area municipalities to have a personal driver." ED209 05:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on July 18 2006 (UTC) to Michael Di Biase

 You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
The duration of the block is 8 hours. William M. Connolley 18:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VW

  • How do you know "for a fact"? Beyond his username being the same as PD's website (circumstantial evidence, I know), CheckUser, his contribution history and his own admission all prove him to be PD. In terms of where the admission was made, I don't remember exactly, but I'm pretty sure it was somewhere during the discussion of our proposed "truce" agreement where we would both refrain from editing selected articles - pm_shef 22:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok well, "pretty sure it was somewhere" doesn't mean a whole lot. I agree the fact he goes under the name VaughanWatch makes it look like there is a connection. However, I think that more people are watching Vaughan now than ever, and the name is simply a coincidence. ED209 22:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, more people are watching Vaughan now. But they're watching the articles because of the edit wars that his 52 sockpuppets instigated, not just out of some random coincidence. His account was created before the conflict. And in terms of where the admission was, I could look for it, but I know its there, and I'm fairly busy for the next few weeks, so don't really have time to go digging. - pm_shef 22:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. - pm_shef 23:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm glad you know the rules. One more edit today by you on the Michael Di Biase page or the Vaughan Election page and you will have broken this rule. ED209 23:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On what? The 3RR or the content dispute? Cause I'm clearly right on the content dispute, as evidenced by the fact that all objective editors seem to agree with me. - pm_shef 23:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give up on the content side of it. You need to make a strong argument, not just a few editors who see things the same way you do. To have some councillors receiving 96 or 97% in corporate funds (mainly from developers) makes this an issue. ED209 00:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The piece you're missing though is that the maximum corporate donation is $750, meaning that they have little to no effect on the outcome of the election or the politics of the candidate. In the world of electoral politics $750 is small change, enough to buy a couple lawn signs, thats about it. Receiving 96% of donations (not sure where you got that number from) from corporations doesn't mean much, cause it's all coming from different corporations. To compare it to lobby politics in the States (which is essentially what you're doing) simply doesn't make sense. Not to mention that the majority of editors agree with me. - pm_shef 00:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • $750 from each individual of a corporation could lead to thousands and thousands of dollars. I suggest you check the books. ED209 00:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • And it takes thousands and thousands of dollars to run a campaign, so exactly what's your point? Has there actually been some evidence of wrongdoing on anyone's part? Bearcat 00:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia rules, for the record, are that in an edit dispute, the information under discussion stays out of the article pending consensus, not vice versa. You are not to add this again unless and until a consensus develops in favour of putting it back in; the onus is not the other way around. Bearcat 00:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bearcat, you are a disgrace. Why is it that you take such an active role in helping pm_shef and antagonize my every move. As far as I'm concerned, there is no discussion. This IS an issue for resident taxpapers at the City of Vaughan. I happen to be one. Plus, when a Vaughan-related story makes the Toronto Star, it is significant. Municipal issues usually revolve around money issues. This qualifies. If you were a fair admin, you would take this to a vote at the very least. However, you seem content to discredit me and side with pm_shef. ED209 01:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass what you think of me. Wikipedia does not have a "voting" process; talk page discussion is the correct process to follow in an editing dispute. I'm here to ensure that the rules are followed, not to take sides, and said rules are:
  1. Discuss on talk page to reach a consensus.
  2. Any disputed information stays out of the article until a consensus is reached.
  3. Reliable sources, verifiability, neutral point of view.
So, to review: you must provide an actual verifiable media source specifically showing that Vaughan voters have actually determined corporate donations to be one of the key issues in the campaign; "I live here and I know" is not a valid Wikipedia source. You must provide a media source specifically showing that it's a uniquely Vaughan-related issue, and not just a general phenomenon that could be just as legitimately applied to every single Wikipedia article on any city's municipal elections.
I don't know how many times I'm have to explain this to you: I have no political affiliations to anyone involved in Vaughan politics, I don't live in Vaughan, and I really don't care which side likes me more in this dispute. I'm not interested in either helping pm_shef or antagonizing you for the sake of it — my only interest in this matter is ensuring that the rules are followed, and at this moment you're the one who happens to be on the wrong side of them. So take your "disgrace" and blow it out your nostril. Bearcat 01:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also: you do not have a right to remove text formatting (bold, italics, etc.) or wikilinks (square brackets around words) from an article; if you make any further edits whose final result is an article that doesn't contain a single link to any other article in its body text, you will be blocked for vandalism. Finally, the three-revert rule applies just as much to you as to pm_shef; it is not a license for you to revert three times just to try to push somebody else into a 3RR violation, or to calculate it so that your version is left standing when your opponent hits three. You will accordingly also be editblocked if I ever see you post another edit summary in which you're keeping a running tally of how many reverts another editor has left. Bearcat 02:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are a bully user:Bearcat. I have no idea what you are talking about as regards to the removal of text formatting or wikilinks. Anything I may have did was unintentional, because I am not clear when I did these things. Again, it seems like you pick on me a lot more. user:pm_shef always reminds me and other users how many reverts we've made, yet you do not say anything to him. I see this is a lost cause now. It is difficult to find any election issue that is unique to a municipality. All I can tell you is people have been talking about it. We already provided a Vaughan Citizen and Toronto Star link to stories discussing the issue in Vaughan. ED209 04:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding text formatting, I'm talking about this version of Michael Di Biase, which you reverted to more than once. And who's this "we" in the final line of your comment? Bearcat 14:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPA

  • Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Namecalling, including calling people a "bully" is considered unacceptable under Wikipedia policy. - pm_shef 19:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assume Good Faith

do not remove warnings

Do not remove warnings from your talk page. And do not remove sourced info fro articles, as you are doing to the ironically named Michael Di Biase. Please read WP:OWN, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Circeus 04:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of a large scale dispute, beyond the fact that the two of are butting heads all over the place over apparently minor local political issues. I would seriously advise the botj of you to seek mediation. I do not care about either of you two's outside conections. I care about an encyclopedia. And your quabbling (on both sides) is not helping. Circeus 04:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vaughan Election Page

My reply, copied from my talk page - Ckatz
I might ask you what your reason is for persisting in this, frankly, rather pathetic edit war. You've already been taken to task by an admin for ignoring established Wiki procedure, and it was quite a scolding at that. Pm shef obviously has an agenda too, he really should clearly state his personal and professional connections to the Vaughan political process, and he's certainly not without fault in this matter. However, and this is an important point, he at least appears to be doing something on Wikipedia other than arguing endlessly about a municipal election. I mean, really, get a life already. This is an encyclopedia project with a global audience. Absolutely no-one in their right mind cares about this, unless they're from Vaughan. (I'd wager that there are probably a lot of Vaughan residents who would cringe if they knew what sort of presence their (town?city?district?) now has on the Web.) To be perfectly honest, I didn't even know where Vaughan was before I happened to stumble across this dispute, and after watching it for quite some time, I'm even less impressed. If you want to add a controversial point, take it to the talk page and hammer out a compromise. If you aren't satisfied with the results, then there are other avenues to explore in terms of expanding input into a difference of opinion. Why this article exists is beyond me -- it would make more sense to just Afd the thing and hope it goes away. --Ckatz 04:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article exists because of user:pm_shef. I would nominate it for deletion if I wasn't sure that user:pm_shef would gather up all of his wikifriends to vote for a keep. Why not just ban both of his from touching Vaughan articles. Also, if you look through my history, I have contributed to other pages. ED209 04:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The bulk of your main space edits (with the exception of four edits to Miami Vice to add two links and one edit to William Russ to mention that he was in Miami Vice, seem to deal with politics in Vaughan. Is this not correct? --Ckatz 05:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you go farther back there was other edits. But, sure, recently I have been interested in Vaughan and Miami Vice. Look at pm_shef's history and you'll notice the same thing. His interests are very narrow and they deal with Vaughan or politicians in formerly in Vaughan. ED209 05:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppetry

I have not accused you of anything, and I freely admitted I had no real insight in it. It is obvious, though, that users making biased edits in Vaughan articles are subject to suspicions of being related to user:VaughanWatch, just as users making highly biased edits to freemasonry articles are subject to suspicions of user:Lightbringer sockpuppetry. Circeus 05:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This whole edit war thing

Hey -- I don't know if you remember me, but I was involved as an independent party in the whole Vaughan politics thing before, and I saw the fighting had broken out again, and I'm here to help. What I'd like you to do, first of all, is to not place any warnings on pm_shef's talk page (I'm asking the same of pm_shef), not just for now, but indefinitely. Both of you know the rules on here, it's just a way of you two to attack each other, so the warnings serve no purpose anymore. I want to remind you to assume good faith in pm_shef; thanks to VW we all know about his father, but he is willing to compromise and he believes in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Second, do not call any of pm_shef's edits vandalism. You may strongly disagree with them, but vandalism means something different, and it's inflaming the situation, which is good for nobody. Third, in your edit summaries, stick to describing your edits in a simple way. Back-and-forth discussions in edit summaries are a bad thing; go to the talk page when you want to have one.

To turn to the actual edit conflict that spawned the latest round of nastiness, I have some comments on Talk:Michael Di Biase that I'll be adding in a few minutes. Mangojuicetalk 05:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sure, I realize that. But in looking at the exchange back and forth, it's clear there's animosity between you two, but it's also clear you aren't even working very well on the actual dispute. You have to stop fighting about the community rules and work on the issues in the articles. Mangojuicetalk 13:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vaughan municipal election, 2006

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for violating the three-revert rule on Vaughan municipal election, 2006.  Your block will expire in 48 hours. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems a bit unfair to have the other party involved with only a 24-hour block. Plus, I never actually broke the 3RR. I was involved in two seperate disputes. The "controversy" section and the "main issues" section. I never exceeded the limit on either individually. ED209 00:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linda D. Jackson's website

Hello, please discuss your removal of Linda D. Jackson's website on the election article talk page. Thanks. -- JamesTeterenko 20:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's University

  • ED, you may not have noticed, but there is an ongoing content dispute/revert war at Queen's University. While I happen to agree with you that that phrase does not belong in the article, you'll notice that I left it, but tagged the article as POV. Rather than reverting, it would have ben far moe helpful if you had weighed in on the discussion on the talk page. - pm_shef 21:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's there to discuss? It's like if I indicated that my alma mater is "the best ever," without any credible sources. ED209 21:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right but when a valid claim exists (Queen's does in fact have among the best reputations in the country), then a discussion should be had to see if any citations can be found. That being said though, as I mentioned before, I do agree that it shouldn't be in, but two or three people have been reverting nonstop the last few days, so its more just a matter of calming them down. - pm_shef 00:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

I've given you a brief time out. Do not vandalize articles. It's that simple. And no, "that guy on TV told me to do it" won't count as an excuse. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 15:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who should be banned?

Please read my user page. --JohnnyCanuck 22:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser

  • If you want to make a CheckUser request investigating me, go ahead, but do so at WP:RCU where you can create a seperate Case page. The case page you posted on is only for suspected socks of VW. Hope this helps. -- pm_shef 01:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to get into an editwar with you at CheckUser, but perhaps you didn't hear me. Every accused puppeteer has their own case page which you make at WP:RCU, you cannot simply add me, or any other user onto a different users case page. -- pm_shef 01:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this User:Johnny Canuck is a sockpuppet of User:pm_shef and is trying to impersonate this User:JohnnyCanuck who has a similar name --64.228.148.12 02:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: This edit. Please see Wikipedia:No legal threats - under no circumstances are such comments allowed, and further occurance will result in blocking. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


pm_shef's Sockpuppet's

Hey I think pm_shef set up a sockpuppet User:Johnny Canuck to impersonate me. --JohnnyCanuck 18:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You are blocked for one week for your death legal threat on The M62Manchester's Talk page, for your violation of WP:POINT on RFCU, and for general all-around being a nuisance. Please play nice when you come back. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ED209 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I didn't make a legal threat so I have no reason to feel guilty. Also, another user broke WP:POINT on RFCU and he hasn't been banned or warned about this. It's a double standard. That same user should have been banned a few months ago when I was for breaking the 3RR. The third reason for my ban was that I am an asshole. This is a fairly harsh comment and a personal attack. I don't care about upsetting the admin who said I made a death threat and called me an asshole.

Decline reason:

Life isn't fair in general, so complaints about the fairness of decisions rarely get a hearing. I asked you (implicitly) to display some contrition in order to earn forgiveness. Your response is further allegations of bad faith and a smattering of wikilawyering. So this fourth block stays in place. Learn from it. See what you've done to put the community's collective back up, analyse yourself for what drives you to do so, then make an effort to drop that trait from your editing. Then you will never be blocked again. You have to change for Wikipedia; Wikipedia will not change for you. It's not fair, but it is the facts. Enjoy your enforced wikibreak and come back as an editor who avoids such troubles in the future. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

.

ED203

My appologies for jumping the gun there. It was just really weird to have someone with such a similar username suddenly jump in on the same dispute, and then start hitting the userpages and articles that prompted that dispute.

You may want to talk to ED203 and say he's doing more harm than good, because these kinds of edit patterns are what people hunting sockpuppets look for.--Rosicrucian 22:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't have to prove anything and I can make those accusations if I want to. You have no authority to tell me what to do. You broke WP:POINT in your efforts to tell me that I was breaking it. Just like a few months back when you broke the 3RR rule, but the administrator only banned me. Another admin later said we both should have been banned, because even if you are making constructive reverts or posts, you can break the rules. You made two irrelevant posts on the RFCU and thus you should have been banned. Irrelevant meaning that you didn't provide any evidence. ED209 18:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Libel

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ED209&oldid=68247152"