Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Eyeonvaughan

message: *I am not a sockpuppet.  Check out my IP.  It is not from York Region. 69.198.130.82 08:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *pm_shef posted this on my talkpage - "As has been told to your various pupeteers, WP:NPA covers attacks against editors not subjects of articles - pm_shef 17:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I am proven NOT to be a sockpuppet.  I consider this to be a personal attack.  But since it is from pm_shef, it will probably be thrown out because of some sort of technically.  This place is so irritating.  I hate to break it to pm_shef, but eligable voters in Vaughan don't read wikipedia for their news.  I wonder what your daddy would think about all the time you waste on this site. 69.198.130.82 08:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Horse Manure

message: *OK, I have been warned about personal attacks so I will stop them.  Hopefully, admins won't ignore the ones that users such as pm_shef direct toward me.  Ie. the quote a few lines above.  Anyway, the only evidence you guys have is that you think I am a sockpuppet.  I am not aware about what the resolution to this investigation will be, however, I hope this nonsense stops. 69.198.130.82 16:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal Attacks

message: I am concerned about the appearance of favoritsim.  On March 1,  and  got into a revert war on Alan Shefman, consisting of alternately blanking and restoring a paragraph about Shefman's outside involvement in community affairs . 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.  I can not see any reason to not also block Pm_shef in this case, except that one is was a short-time anon and the other a long-time user.  Does being a long-time user grant one immunity from normal rules? Thatcher131 18:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I should answer this, because that 3RR block was largely due to me.  This was before I got to know the various positions of people; I didn't have the whole picture.  I found out about the edit war when I participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Shefman (third nomination) and I noticed this edit  by pm_shef complaining that the page was being blanked repeatedly.  I looked into it, noticed that an anon user was repeatedly blanking out a section without any edit summary, and had done so enough times to be breaking WP:3RR, and that pm_shef had already made a warning about that at User talk:70.29.239.249, so I made an official warning and when things continued I reported it at the noticeboard for 3RR.  However, I also warned pm_shef that he was reverting lots of times too and therefore violating the rule ; as soon as I did this, he stopped reverting. (My warning was at 04:19, his last revert was some 2 hours earlier, and he left this message: .)  If someone feels that he should be blocked for it, I wouldn't object: he did break the rule.  But my warning was effective enough that he did stop, so it seems unnecessary now.  I reported the anon and not him partly because of it being an anon partial-blanking a page repeatedly with no explanation, but also because he was warned and continued, and I didn't report pm_shef because he responded to my warning and I viewed the blanking as vandalism, which makes it a 3RR exception.  This was all exacerbated by the fact that the article was already undergoing an AfD debate at the time.  On closer inspection (now), I can see I was wrong: this was an edit war, not vandalistic blanking.  This is why 70.29.239.249 was reported for 3RR and not pm_shef by me (despite 70.29.239.249 asking me to ).  Pm_shef was reported by User:Hars Alden a couple of hours later but there was a problem with that report: it cited diffs on the talk page Talk:Alan Shefman (in addition to it suspiciously coming from a brand new user); apparently the poster wasn't completely clear on the 3RR rule.  Hope that clears things up.  I apologize for not looking at the talk page in this dispute; if I had, I probably would have reported pm_shef too. Mangojuice 19:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After I posted the above, I Iooked at the archives of AN/3RR and I also noticed that the complaint about pm_shef was discounted because it was brought by a new user, so that at least partly explains it. Thatcher131 19:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not discount the original report because it was a new user. I discounted it because the report provided no evidence of 3RR. If you look at User talk:Hars Alden you can see the 6 edits that were reported as 3RR and the original report of the 3RR is here. These all refer to pm_shef adding comments to Talk:Alan Shefman and there is no evidence of reversion in those edits. I did discount the same report by  User:HarsA as a sockpuppet of Hars Alden. I would have also discounted the report by User:Hars Aldenn for the same reason. Of course the report by Hars Alden was a bit suspicous because it was their first edit to Wikipedia but I did review the edits in question by pm_shef before replying to him. I admit that I should have checked the article page but as the report was about the talk page I never thought of it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't expect admins to sort through every detail; maybe a quick look if no diffs are given, but if the wrong diffs are given it I don't think you should be held responsible for not finding the right ones.  Sorry about the suspicion of favoritism. Thatcher131 21:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appearance of favoritism? 

message: *Leotardo, our agreement doesn't mean that the problems inherent in these pages, problems that are brought up in this RfC do not exist. Yes, hopefully they will end, but also please be aware that Eyeonvaughan is not party to our agreement, plus the evidence that you deleted is germane to the RfC. We agreed not to edit Vaughan articles, that doesn't mean that all of a sudden all the problems we've had in the past few months have magically disappeared - pm_shef 01:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *pm_shef is quite right here.  But even if he agreed with the others, it would be inappropriate for this content to be removed by someone described as a related party in this RfC.  The second blanking, by VaughanWatch, is CLEAR vandalism and very typical.  Enough already.  Mangojuice 05:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agreement/Blanking