Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyeonvaughan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 02:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 22:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Consistently violates WP:NPA and with a group of likeminded editors, edits all articles related to the City of Vaughan with a PoV political agenda. Has attacked my person numerous times and generally makes editing anything relating to Vaughan a chore.

[edit] Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

On multiple occasions, Eyeonvaughan has attacked me and other editors in our good faith efforts to edit articles related to the City of Vaughan. His own political PoV gets pushed into any article, and anyone who makes an edit he doesn't agree with will automatically get sucked into a revert war, for example, Former Alan Shefman Article most of the history is a revert war between Eyeonvaughan and various other users.

Pages such as the now deleted Elliott Frankl, Yehuda Shahaf, Vaughan Watch and Alan Shefman, in addition to still existing pages such as Susan Kadis, Simon Strelchik, Mario Racco, Vaughan municipal election, 2006. Lately, he's been trading off with User:VaughanWatch and a consistent anon Editor using IP User:70.29.239.249 and User:69.198.130.82. Also of note is the nonstop blanking of his user page, including deleting warning templates. Finally, Eyeonvaughan has resorted to Personal Attacks against my character.

As well, while I don't have any hard proof necessarily, Eyeonvaughan may be guilty of Wikistalking. Every page that I edit that is even remotely related to Vaughan, he and his gang seem to quickly catch up on. No page related to Vaughan is safe from their PoV pushing for very long, and their use of multiple accounts to get across their PoV presents a problem for legitimate users who don't want to violate WP:3RR.

Additional comments by Bearcat: Eyeonvaughan and his coterie also make false allegations of vandalism, 3RR and/or bias against anybody who opposes their edits, regardless of the actual substance or merit of the disagreement. I actually had to prematurely archive and protect an article talk page to end one revert war. This has been going on for over a month — and whenever one username finally stopped being disruptive, whether by choice or by adminblock, a new one suddenly popped up within a few hours to continue making the same disruptive edits all over again. I have no connections whatsoever to the city of Vaughan or its political figures, and yet Eyeonvaughan continually tries to discredit my involvement in the dispute by alleging that I'm in league with pm-shef to use Wikipedia as a POV campaign platform for his father (which would be funny if it weren't for the fact that his father now exists on Wikipedia only as a redirect to the election article anyway, and the fact that you couldn't possibly pay me enough to campaign on behalf of a Liberal in the first place.) I got involved out of an entirely disinterested NPOV respect for Wikipedia rules and processes, but even there they've falsely accused me of selective intervention just because I'm not conforming to their biases. This whole thing has really fried my patience, I must say.

Additonal comments by Thryduulf: I have been looking into the contributions of user:Eyeonvaughan and user:VaughanWatch. I beleive that user:VaughanWatch is a sockpuppet of user:Eyeonvaughan based on their edit histories (the two never overlap, but edit on the same days on the same/related articles. They then don't edit for a few days, but when one isn't editing neither is the other - I have a spreadsheet that shows this but don't know how to get it on Wikipedia), their style of editing and persistent personal attacks against user:Pm shef and user:Bearcat. There are multiple AfDs and at least one deletion review on which they have both voted. I also suspect that User:Hars Alden (note particularly this edit to user talk:Hars Alden where user:VaughanWatch leaves the edit summary "It's my talk page") is another sockpuppet, although I haven't checked in detail. Based on the articles they have contributed to and this personal attack-laden edit accusing user:Bearcat of being the same person as user:Pm shef (which user:Eyeonvaughan frequently does) and of having a sockpuppet, I think User:CasanovaAlive is probably another of the family of sockpuppets. IPs User:70.29.239.249 (which is the account CassanovaAlive alleges is Bearcat's sockpuppet) and User:69.198.130.82 have also been linked (above). I have asked at WP:AN/I for someone else to check this and block if neccessary [1]. I am assuming that user:Eyeonvaughan is the primary account as that is the one that arrived first. Thryduulf 13:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I have now requested that someone with checkuser take a look as well [2]. Thryduulf 14:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Additional comments by Mangojuice: I have been involved in this dispute intermittently for some time; I think it was when I noticed Alan Shefman on AfD and started looking into the questionable behavior of some of the editors. To be totally up front about it, I think pm_shef, who brought this RfC, did make some questionable contributions earlier on, but he has responded well to correction and has become a valuable contributor. On the other hand, Eyeonvaughan, Vaughanwatch, and 70.29.239.249 have been amazingly uniform in their behavior: they all revert edits ignoring other editors concerns, they all accuse good-faith contributions of being vandalism, and they've all really ganged up on pm_shef, bringing up his connections to Alan Shefman repeatedly and continuously, and trying to use that to discredit him. Their suspiciously uniform behavior and treatment of the rules makes me suspicious that some sockpuppetry might be going on. Mangojuice 21:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Additional comments by CambridgeBayWeather: I have also been involved with this and closed the AfD for Alan Shefman, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Shefman (third nomination). I have little to add and agree with Mangojuice's assement of pm_shef and the others. There are other editors who's names should be included as harassing pm_shef and possible sockpuppets. User:UndergroundRailroad claimed that pm_shef made personal attacks against other editors. After being asked several times at User talk:UndergroundRailroad he finally responed here. Other than calling MSJapan a troublemaker (which pm_shef admitted and resolved with MSJapan) the other comments were not against other editors but against the subjects of articles. Bearcat and I attempted to explain what was ment by WP:NPA but I'm not sure that it worked. On the 2nd of March User:Hars Alden contributions falsely reported pm_shef for violation of 3RR here. This was followed on the 17th and 18th of March by User:Hars Aldenn (note double "n") crontibutions and then again on 18th March by User:HarsA contributions. I attemped to explain at User talk:Hars Alden that adding comments was not reverting. Another possible sockpuppet is User:Jazzabelle contributions who reverted pm_shef here while he was making a report on User:CasanovaAlive and again here. The names will be added to Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

[edit] Personal Attacks

  • It is important that these personal attacks be taken in context with the specific PoV of these users, see the section below for more details. Most of his personal attacks centre around the idea that I have some kind of personal vendetta by virtue of my father being a politician. He has accused me numerous times (see links below) in debates, and on my talk page.
  • Another tactic used by these people is accusing legitimate editors of vandalism whenever the edits disagree with their PoV pushing.
  1. Eyeonvaughan [3]
  2. Eyeonvaughan [4]
  3. Eyeonvaughan [5]
  4. Eyeonvaughan [6]
  5. Eyeonvaughan [7]
  6. Eyeonvaughan Blatantly assaulting my character - NEW
  7. 69.198.130.82 [8] Ironically, made on this page.

[edit] PoV Edits and Revert Wars

  • Since coming to Wikipedia, User:Eyeonvaughan and his group have consistently pushed their PoV regarding politics in the city of Vaughan. Their specific PoV involves seeing any candidate affiliated with the Liberal establishment in the city as corrupt (see Susan Kadis, Mario Racco, Michael di Biase and former Alan Shefman. They then promote articles on minor candidates and challenging candidates such as Simon Strelchik, and former Gino Ruffolo, Elliott Frankl and Yehuda Shahaf. None of the articles which they promote meet WP:BIO in any way shape or form, and they will often fabricate information in order to create a page that seems to meet the criteria. (I had proof, but it was on the Elliott Frankl talk page... I'm not sure if there's any way to access that now.....) For example the claimed ad nauseum that Elliott Frankl was a member of the Board of Directors of the IHHF yet a simple visit to the IHHF's website shows that he is in fact not listed as a director.

This POV pushing extends to excluding pertinent facts about their candidates, such as Simon Strelchik when the facts aren't flattering, such as starting an edit war to remove the vote total he received in the last election, as it was only 15%.

Note: The talk page in question is still accessible at Talk:Elliott Frankl.
  • All examples below are by Eyeonvaughan (talk · contribs)
  1. Edit War 1 WP:POINT Violation
  2. Edit War 2 (same edit, different time) WP:POINT Violation
  3. Article Blanking during AfD Debate
  4. Same blanking, 2nd time
  5. Knowingly adding incorrect information
  6. PoV Deleting
  7. PoV exclusion of pertinent facts
  8. Reale Revert War 1
  9. Reale Revert War 2
  10. PoV Unverifiable edits
  11. Reale Revert War 3
  12. Major Reale PoV edit
  13. PoV Edit (arbitrarily decided that the Counsellor was "interim")
  14. PoV edit.
  15. PoV Insisting on putting insignificant facts with agenda against subject
  16. Using Weasel words and PoV

There are more out there, if people want me to, I'll add them here.

[edit] Talk Page Blanking

  1. [9]
  2. [10]
  3. [11]
  4. [12]
  5. [13]

[edit] Sockpuppetry

The following users have been alleged to be sockpuppets or possible sockpuppets of Eyeonvaughan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) at Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser#user:Eyeonvaughan, user:VaughanWatch & others:

Although not mentioned in that particular discussion, another group of users appears connected to the matter as well, making contentious edits on the same series of articles and having much the same habit of making false NPA and 3RR allegations. These may be sockpuppets of Eyeonvaughan, although this has not been investigated; they may also be a connected-but-distinct sockpuppet cluster.

There was also a username registered to impersonate a longstanding user — although as far as I know nobody knows who created it, and it was quickly perma-blocked, it coincidentally appeared during one of the flareups in this very dispute, and Skycloud did post a comment on the userpage:

Per Kelly Martin on CheckUser:

All of the following are sockpuppets of VaughanWatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

There may be others that I've missed. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

(all have been blocked)

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. No personal attacks
  2. Neutral point of view
  3. Verifiability
  4. Not a Soapbox
  5. Ownership of Articles
  6. Civility
  7. Consensus- This is a guideline, not policy, but still relevant.
  8. Assume Good Faith- This is a guideline, not policy, but still relevant.
  9. Wikistalking- Possible violation
  10. Sockpuppetry- alleged, check-user request pending

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

(provide diffs and links)

  1. [14] or [15] (Different views of same page) Demonstrate the efforts of myself and Bearcat to resolve a dispute on the Elliot Frankl and Yehuda Shahaf articles.
  2. [16] Shows warnings given by myself and User:Thryduulf to resolve disputes regarding his Talk page blanking and further Frankl disputes.
  3. [17] Effort by User:Bearcat to explain Sockpuppets

[edit] Blocks

Eyeonvaughan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

  1. 17:39, 13 February 2006 SimonP blocked "Eyeonvaughan (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (repeatedly blanking Alan Shefman)
  2. 10:42, 6 April 2006 Samuel Blanning blocked "Eyeonvaughan (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (extremely defamatory personal attacks, revealing personal information, has been warned about personal attacks before.)
  3. 21:57, 8 April 2006 Deckiller blocked "Eyeonvaughan (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (blanking)
  4. 02:20, 15 April 2006 Cyde blocked "Eyeonvaughan (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (Adding fake sockpuppet notices to users' pages.)

Hars Aldenn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

  1. 12:39, 18 March 2006 Freakofnurture blocked "Hars Aldenn (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (sockpuppet used abusively)

Jazzabelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

  1. 01:57, 25 February 2006 Bearcat blocked "Jazzabelle (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (disregarding direct administrator order re: page blanking.)

VaughanWatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

  1. 01:01, 6 April 2006 Thryduulf blocked "VaughanWatch (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Persistent personal attacks despite numerous warnings from numerous users)
  2. 15:01, 11 April 2006 Syrthiss blocked "VaughanWatch (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (removal of other users's edits as "vandalism", running a sock farm, harassing other editors.)

70.29.239.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

  1. 17:05, 2 March 2006 William M. Connolley blocked "70.29.239.249 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 8 hours (3RR on Alan Shefman; disruption)

Poche1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

  1. 05:42, 29 March 2006 Bearcat blocked "Poche1 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (repeatedly reverts other users' edits without discussion; was warned that they would be blocked if they did it again.)
  2. 21:31, 27 March 2006 Stifle blocked "Poche1 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 18 hours (3RR violation on SimonStrelchik)

Leotardo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

  1. 12:52, 27 March 2006 R. Koot blocked "Leotardo (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3rr vio at Simon Strelchik)

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. pm_shef 04:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Bearcat 04:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Thryduulf 10:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Mangojuice 21:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. Elf-friend 12:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Syrthiss 13:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC) (also came here solely from the activity on WP:DRV)
  3. Behaviour on WP:DRV is what caught my attention. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Endorse with respect to bad behavior on AfD debates; I have not followed other aspects of this case. Thatcher131 16:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. I have no stake in the Vaughan articles and have only encountered this rolling flamewar when it pops up on AfD and WP:DRV, but it's very clear there which side the bad behavior comes from. · rodii · 19:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. OhNoitsJamieTalk 20:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. In the same category as Rodii here. JoshuaZ 13:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Agree with Joshua - the sound you hear as you read Eyeonvaughan's contributions is that of a barrow being pushed. Just zis Guy you know? 18:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

[edit] Response by 69.198.130.82

  • Thrduulf: I suggest you get back on your little spreadsheet and figure out some more scenarios before you go spreading lies. I used to be User:70.29.239.249, then my IP changed to User:69.198.130.82. How are these addresses in anyway connected to Bearcat. I have no connection to Vaughan. I don't like in Vaughan. However, I have done some good research on pages such as the Vaughan 2006 election page and the Michael Di Biase page. I also like to proofread some of pm_shef's changes. He is the son of a Vaughan councillor. All of his edits reflect this very clearly. According to him though, he isn't breaking any rules. In any case, it doesn't matter. He can dedicate 24 hours a day to making sure he gets his way. I, on the other hand, cannot sit at my desk and monitor what he says. That is apparently the job of administrators. I don't know if these admins have to pass a test to get this job, but it certainly doesn't seem to be the case. So please, take some initative and ban pm_shef, because he is making all of the admins involved in this issue look like fools. Hopefully, you'll see it my way. Although, I'm sure I will somehow get banned for this. 69.198.130.82 08:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Mangojuice: And I can't believe I am calling another adult "mangojuice," please read my above statement. It was intended for Thrduulf, but it applies to you as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.198.130.82 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Response by JohnnyCanuck

I am not involved in this dispute but its always the same user that is making these false claims, pm_shef should be banned from making any edits. I count at least 9 differnt users that disputed pm_shefs politically motivated edits yet hes trying to say they are all one and same sockpuppets, get real. I am not associcated with any of the other users and I am not a sockpuppet of any other user. After reviewing eyeonvaughans edits I don't see any wrong doing that was not insitigated by pm_shef first. This is anotther personal attack against me from pm_shef by even suggesting it--JohnnyCanuck 23:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --JohnnyCanuck 23:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response by <username>

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

[edit] Outside view of 69.198.130.82

It is my opinion after reviewing the edit histories that 69.198.130.82 (formerly 70.29.239.249) are not sockpuppets of Eyeonvaughan and should be removed from this RFC unless the Checkuser evidence shows otherwise.

Although 69.198.130.82 (talk · contribs) edits the same articles as Eyeonvaughan (talk · contribs) and VaughanWatch (talk · contribs), the edit patterns and behavior are very different. With one notable exception, 69.198.130.82 has been civil, and seems to have been far more interested in adhering to NPOV than Vaughanwatch or Eyeonvaughan. 69.198.130.82's edits often consist of adding unfavorable information about Vaughan's political figures, or removing information that is flattering but not necessarily encyclopedic. This brings him into conflict with Pm_shef (talk · contribs), who is apparently the son of Alan Shefman. On March 1, 69.198.130.82 (at his former address 70.29.239.249) and Pm_shef got into a revert war on Alan Shefman, consisting of alternately blanking and restoring a paragraph about Shefman's outside involvement in community affairs [18]. 69.198.130.82 was blocked for violating 3RR but Pm_shef was not, even though it was a content dispute and not simple vandalism, and neither one had discussed the changes on the talk page. Most strange, Pm_shef has never, as far as I can tell, been counseled to avoid editing articles to which he is personally connected.

Recently 69.198.130.82 has become somewhat uncivil on a few talk pages and this RfC, probably out of frustration at being labeled a sockpuppet by Pm_shef every time he edits Vaughan-related articles. However the only thing resembling a personal attack is this [19] which he acknowledges and agrees to stop [20].

69.198.130.82 almost never uses edit summaries, which may contribute to the appearance of making disruptive edits. 69.198.130.82 should be counseled to always use edit summaries and discuss edits on talk pages. I also recommend that he register for a named account, and that he avoid Vaughan-related articles for a few days. Other than that, his inclusion in this RfC is not warranted.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. I wrote it and endorse it Thatcher131 17:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Good work, Thatcher. Hopefully checkuser will confirm. I'd like to add, though, that pm_shef is aware of conflict of interest issues (see his contributions on my talk page, for instance), even if he has never been specifically warned (except, I suppose, by Eyeonvaughan). Mangojuice 17:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. I can endorse this as well, with the above caveat from Mangojuice. --Syrthiss 18:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. I endorse this as well. To my mind 60. is developing as an editor and Wikipedian whereas Eyeonvaughn/VaughnWatch do(es) not appear to be - making it less and less likely they are the same person. I look forward to checkuser confirming this. Thryduulf 18:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. pm_shef has been advised by me to avoid editing articles to which he is personally connected. So I can't endorse that portion of this comment. Otherwise, however, this is a good assessment of the anon IP situation. The other editors being RFCed here have actually accused AnonIP of being pm_shef's sockpuppet or mine, which to my mind mitigates against AnonIP being his puppet. Bearcat 19:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Agree as per Bearcat. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. I don't know if I'm allowed to endorse this, sine I'm the nominator of the RfC, but if I am, I support this summary. It makes sense, and you'll also notice that I've apologized to the IPuser at his new username account, he seems to be more interested in editing than fighting, he just may have got caught up in this whole nonsense. pm_shef 06:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.