Talk:2006 Vaughan municipal election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please note this article is in an active content dispute. Please discuss ANY potentially controversial changes before you make them. Thanks! --mboverload@ 23:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Main Issues[edit]

Regarding the list of issues: 

   * Gun-related crime and violence.
   * Transparency and tendering process.
   * Largest city in Canada without a Hospital within city boundaries.
   * Integrity in city council and closed-door council meetings.
   * Lawsuits against city.
   * Civic Centre construction and contracts.
   * Property taxes.
   * Public transportation and construction of subway extension.

I think the "transperancy and tendering...." and "integrity in city council..." can probably be combined into one, as they are sufficiently similar. something like; "Transperancy and Integrity in City Council" or something similar... Thoughts? pm_shef 21:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listed under the main issues, "transperancy and tendering" and "integrity in city council" is some what differnt meanings, you could put "transperancy and intergrity in city council" in one line and then have "tendering process" in another line. But I don't see the differnce unless you are attempting to get rid of some of the main issues. Also, please have a look at Toronto municipal election, 2006 I set the vaughan page up the same way. I am reverting some of your changes that you made that does not conform to this set up.--Eyeonvaughan 05:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for Mario Racco I think an explanation is needed why he withdrawn, do you know it as a fact that he nominated and withdrawn to draw funds out of his municipal campaign fund? With no explanation, should we just not list him, as he is not a candidate?--Eyeonvaughan 05:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only names listed should be officially nominated candidates. On the top portion names of people that are rumored to be running should only be listed with a reference as well as other relevant info should have a reference. Jackson should be mentioned, as there is a reference; Marrese should not because there is no reference (at this time).--Eyeonvaughan 06:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alright, it looks fine as it is now. As for Racco, he's listed on the Vaughan official site, so he'll be listed here. Unofficially, yes, that is why he nominated himself - however, it's obviously not on record. pm_shef 16:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Individual Pages[edit]

Pm_shef, All three candidates that you mentioned should stay as individual articles and should be expanded. I don’t know enough about Raffolo but Frankl and Shahaf are both prominent enough to have articles based on past accomplishments alone. But again I have to say your requests are politically motivated and in fact hypocritical in nature as two of the three are running against your father and the other one is running against someone that is endorsing your father and vice versa. You try to say candidates should be deleted but you have no problem with Donna Upson’s (a white supremacist that received contributions from the KKK) article as a former candidate for mayor of Ottawa. Yet at the same time you attempt to delete very reputable prominent articles of people that don’t support your father like Strelchik and you expand on articles of people that do support your father like kadis. Please stop your politically motivated requests. If the candidates don’t deserve articles then your father doesn’t deserve one either. Basicly, theirs two choices, either all councillors and candidates articles are deleted or all kept. No in betweens. --Eyeonvaughan 06:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kadis holds elected office. Strelchik does not. Candidates do not deserve articles unless they're notable for more than being candidates. WP:BIO is already clear about this, and pm_shef has never once proposed anything in contravention of this fact. Donna Upson was not kept because she was a mayoral candidate; she was kept because her mayoral candidacy attracted national media attention as a result of her KKK links. You'd do well to keep the difference between those two points in mind; if she hadn't had national media coverage, she wouldn't merit an article. Bearcat 07:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to bring to your attention that John Greer a candidate for councillor in Toronto posted his own article in Jan. (which he admitted in the talk page). Soon after he posted it someone put it up for deletion. Even though he posted it himself it won the debate to stay an article since he is a current candidate for councillor in the 2006 municipal election. With all do respect to Greer he really has not accomplished enough in the past to be an article and is pretty non-notable compared to Ruffolo, Frankl and Shahaf, and his article stayed up. --Eyeonvaughan 08:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody ever nominated John Greer for deletion. Somebody suggested that it should be, but nobody ever followed through on it. (For one thing, there would be a record of the deletion debate, which there isn't. For another, there would be an {{oldafdfull}} on the John Greer talk page, which there isn't.) Bearcat 09:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't up for deletion? whats this then? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Greer&oldid=36682359 I looked through the history and found a "speedy deletion" then the speedy deletion message was taken down--Eyeonvaughan 09:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy is not the same process as AFD, and one does not resolve the other. The list of speedy deletion criteria is so narrow that even an obvious deletion doesn't necessarily qualify as a speedy deletion. The notice can be removed without debate, and that doesn't constitute a keep endorsement — it only means that it doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria. Bearcat 17:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eyeonvaughan, how you can possibly objectively think that my edits and contributions are politically motivated is beyond me. Look at this objectively, Strelchik, Shahaf, Ruffolo and Frankl do not meet WP:BIO. None have significant media coverage, etc, etc. Shefman was a senior manager at the OHRC and the National Director of the largest Jewish Organization in Canada. Regarding Susan, she's the MP, of course I'm going to expand her article. If strelchik was an MP, I would expand his article, for goodness sakes I AM more noteable than Strelchik is. But regardless, all you do on here is throw around unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks, it's really not helpful. pm_shef 16:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are the son of Alan Shefman. Game, set, match. That is why your contributions in anything related to Vaughan is politically motivated. Judging by your profile, you'd like to take a similar career path as your father. Another good reason. 70.29.239.249 16:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the last time, we've established that I'm his son, move on. Being associated with him does not make me politically motivated. I'd like you to point out one edit that I've made that does not conform to WP policy. You won't find one. pm_shef 16:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your his son and you are a political science student. You have aspirations to be the Prime Minister, so their is no denying you have strong political interests. If George W. Bush makes changes to George Bush Sr.'s wikipage, we would all suspect a politically motivated change. 70.29.239.249 16:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again: you are to cease and desist with the ad hominem attacks at once. If you want to assert that pm_shef has made biased edits, you will point out specific edits he's made and discuss why you think they're biased. Stating that an edit he's made is biased because of who he is is a logical fallacy. Bearcat 17:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, and if you look back in the talk pages/afd's far enough, you'll see that when i created the page, i was a new user and did not know that creating articles for family members was frowned upon. I apologized for the mistake then, and Two AfD's later, WP agreed that he was noteable. You've still yet to point out even one edit that i've made that is politically motivated and not conforming to WP guidelines. I'd really like to see one if you're going to continue making these allegations. pm_shef 17:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs of candidates[edit]

As far as I can tell, all of these candidates (with the exception of Michael Di Biase [1]) fail the following WP:BIO criteria: (1)Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature; (2) Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage. OhNoitsJamieTalk 19:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Which is what i've been trying to say for two days now. Maybe they'll listen to you. pm_shef 19:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, I just found an article about the Vaughan Municipal election in the Lo Specchio (Italian newspaper written in Italian language) http://www.lospecchio.com/giornale/dallaprima.htm They don’t consider Ruffolo as a bonafide candidate; they didn’t even mention his name. They mention Jackson as a possible mayors candidate and Frankl and Shahaf as strong candidates in ward 5--Eyeonvaughan 02:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ummmm, doesn't that prove my point? Regardless, if someone can help with the merges..... i can't seem to figure out how to do a redirect. pm_shef 03:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the municipal election, I don't know about Ruffolo but Frankl and Shahaf both deserves articles based on their past accomplishments, both have very impressive backgrounds. But all the articles are now deleted so in all fairness I will leave it at that, as I mentioned before there is two options either all have articles or all articles deleted, you guys chose all deleted which is ok with me. Anyway this ward 5 race will be something to keep an eye on, should be interesting.--Eyeonvaughan 04:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just discovered that all the articles are being redirect except Alan Shefman's article how do you redirect?--Eyeonvaughan 04:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think merging these city councillors was a very good idea. There is fairly strong agreement that city councillors deserve articles, for instance we have 81 articles on Toronto councillors. - SimonP 04:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What agreement? I don't see how they fulfill the requirements of WP:BIO. While there are other bio articles that don't meet those requirements, I don't think that should be an argument to add more articles that don't meet those criteria. OhNoitsJamieTalk 05:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Eyeonvaughan, regarding the Ward 5 election, it'll be just as interesting as the federal election was in thornhill. Not at all. If either Shahaf of Frankl get over 10% of the vote each, I will never post on Wiki again. More germane, how exactly do you see Shahaf and Frankl meeting WP:BIO while the former National Director of the largest Jewish organization in Canada doesn't merit one?
Regarding my lack of redirect on the Shefman article, Wiki policy forbids blanking pages (which happens when you redirect a page) while an AfD debate is ongoing. To User:SimonP, I very much agree with you, but there are people on here who will never be satisfied until their political agenda is completed, this was the only way to avoid endless edit wars. pm_shef 05:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did we not agree that all Candidates were to be redirects to this page rather than Articles themselves???? Why do Shahaf and Frankl have articles again? -- pm_shef 04:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Pay Cuts[edit]

  • regarding "Another Vaughan Citizen [2] article, indicates Ruffolo promises to take a 20 percent paycut if he is elected." It seems that this is just a campaign promise... if we're going to include candidate platforms (which I don't think we should) then we should include what all the candidates plan to do, not just one. Alternatively, if you honestly feel that salaries are that important an issue, add it to the "Main Issues" section of the article. -- pm_shef 20:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not my responsbility to find out campaign promises from everybody. Ask your father for his and update that one. This is quite a big announcement and in light of the Globe and Mail article, it is relevant. You argued for other members to beef up the other councillor pages, so argue the same thing here, and leave that information on. If you do not I will report you. 70.29.239.249 20:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment wasn't for "you" to find out their promises, it was pointing out that if you plan on leaving Ruffolo's promises in, then you can't complain if I add other people's promises. Oh, and if you want to warn me, you need to use the official WP template, otherwise it is not considered valid. pm_shef 21:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does everything have to come down to regulations and warnings. You know you are in the wrong in deleting this. Feel free to add major announcements from other candidates. I haven't heard from any of the other candidates or the mayor as of yet or else I would have made additions to the page. 70.29.239.249 21:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I don't feel I was in the wrong, on the same token, this is 100% not worth a fight. pm_shef 21:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mario G. Racco[edit]

  • I say we delete his name off the candidates list. Let's be honest, everybody knows Racco has no intention to run and probably can't based on the fact that he's an MPP. I wonder what the laws are in putting your name for nomination while holding other office? Can we all agree to remove his name from here? 70.29.239.249 23:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strongly against taking his name off. He registered and then withdrew his registration for a very particular reason. More importantly, our list should mirror the City's list. pm_shef 23:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with pm_shef, (lets celebrate, we agree on something!) Mario Racco’s name should stay up on here, the fact of the matter is he filed nomination papers and then withdrawn. I would like to put up an explanation why he did this but we do need some reference. It is speculative why he did this although I again agree with pm_shef when he made the assumption it was to draw funds out of his municipal campaign fund, which seems like a reasonable reason to me. I don’t know what the laws are on putting your name in for nomination while holding other office. But this now seems to be a common practice here in Vaughan for example, Alan Shefman put his name in to run municipally in 2004 by-election (Councillor) while still holding another municipally elected position (school trustee), Susan Kadis did a similar thing in 2004 as well, running federally while still holding municipal office and Racco also did it in 2003 when he ran provincially while still holding municipal office. I do have to say this practice may be legal but I see it as unethical. The most ethical way for candidates to deal with this situation is what Oliva Chow did (in Toronto), she actually resigned her municipal councillor position prior to running for federal office.--Eyeonvaughan 08:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ya, the distinction is that it is illegal to hold two seperate offices at the same time, but to be nominated for one while holding the other is acceptable, so Racco is fine that way. The issue, as you say Eyeonvaughan, is with campaign funds. pm_shef 18:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incumbency[edit]

I'm not gonna get into an edit war here, but I suggest we have a civil discussion on whether or not to include incumbent status on the candidates in question. I believe it is, as it is germane to the discussion, an alternative perhaps is to wikilink the incumbents, which will redirect to the vaughan council page. pm_shef 04:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a previous post you said the following “our list should mirror the City's list” which could be found on this page above. The City took the incumbent status off of there page. What is the reason you think our page should NOW be different than the City’s? Oh, wait let me guess why! --Eyeonvaughan 21:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, perhaps you missed the part about a civil discussion. Also, you may want to refamiliarize yourself with Assume Good Faith. Anyways, I thought that since this is an encyclopedia, it would be helpful to readers to know who is an incumbent, as that is fairly topical information, however, you'll notice that I haven't changed ED's edits, and I really don't care either way, it's not that big a deal. pm_shef 21:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Corporate donations[edit]

The corporate donations issue on the Vaughan election page was originally posted by an unidentified user, who pm_shef and CJCurrie claimed to be a banned user (VaughanWatch) (although it has not been proven that it was him and I am confident that it isn’t him). Pm_shef and CJCurrie proceeded to revert these changes based on that it was made by a banned user making it an invalid edit. Therefore if a user permitted to conduct edits posted this then it would have been alright. The corporate donations to members of council is a major issue in Vaughan (I personally know and spoke with many people living in Vaughan although I don’t live there myself As this is major issue it should be put in the article as an issue and as a user that is permitted to conduct edits I will post this as an issue with two sources one from the Toronto Star and one from York Region.--JohnnyCanuck 10:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • In fact, CheckUser has confirmed that IP (and another one) to have been VaughanWatch. Thanks for coming out though. - pm_shef 00:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can anyone argue that corporate donations is not an issue? I would argue that it is relevant for the entire GTA as well. You have companies providing 85-95% of campaign budgets for nearly every Vaughan councillor. David Miller (who somehow makes less than Michael Di Biase) recieved significantly less than this. I think somewhere between 40-60%. ED209 22:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Corporate donations to municipal politicians are a standard issue everywhere; it's not an issue unique to Vaughan. I'd also like to see some evidence that it's actually been publicly presented in the media as a primary defining issue of the campaign...and I'm sorry, but VaughanWatch does not count as "in the media". Bearcat 22:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check pm_shef's talkpage. Local media outlets are considering a story on this issue and wikipedia's impact on it. I'd say this qualifies. ED209 23:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the VaughanCitizen is writing a story on the electronic aspect of the campaign, not corporate donations. I'm close to 3RR, could someone please revert? - pm_shef 23:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How on earth do you figure Wikipedia has had any impact on the issue of corporate donations in Vaughan municipal politics? 'Splain, Lucy. Bearcat 23:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I meant to say was the focus of the story is about pm_shef's edits to the campaign issue page. Specificially, his edit to the corporate donations entry. You can see this from the questions the report asks him. ED209 23:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A reporter being interested in my edits make me notable, not the content of the edits. And for the last time, unless you can come up with more than just yourself who believes the content should be included, it won't be. -pm_shef 23:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • JohnnyCanuck and myself. I'm still looking for your huge army of supporters on this issue. ED209 23:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, so far we have James Teterenko, CJCurrie, Bearcat and possibly Deckiller. Not to mention myself. Thus making it at least 4 - 2, though I could get more with no problem whatsoever if you insist on dragging this out. - pm_shef 00:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a matter of making a strong argument, which you've yet to make. You keep saying "it's not an issue." ED209 00:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, the fact that all these people agree with me before I even explain my argument proves my point. But anyways, 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. -pm_shef 00:18, 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)[reply]
  • You still have yet to provide any evidence that this has actually been cited in the media as a central issue in the campaign, or that this is somehow a bigger issue in Vaughan than in any other city having elections this fall. Bearcat 00:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Corporate donations is an issue per the July 23rd edition of the Vaughan Citizen. ED209 21:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donations[edit]

  • For the record Di Biase, Rosati, Ferri and Meffe all recieved over 90%. Meffe recieved 97% from corporate donations. Many of these donations are from developer/construction companies. Council has the ultimate say over which companies recieve contracts, so conflicts of interest may come into play. I don't want to come to any conclusions here for libel issues, but I suggest everybody look at the public documents which outline these corporate donations. Plus, this doesn't mention the numbered companies which donate to these candidates. Some Vaughan politicians recieved money from more numbered companies than I have fingers, to give you an idea of the extent of it. Finally, I always find it amusing when politicians say (such as Shefman in the July 23rd Vaughan Citizen article) they don't need the money. Why go out and collect it, if you don't need it? ED209 20:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, your point is? The article did not say that corporate donations is an issue, it said that the campaign has gone online. - pm_shef

Main issues[edit]

  • For the record, the Toronto election page contains a 'main issues' section. There is no references on that page, however, there seems to be no argument over them. The same is true with the recently deleted 'main issues' section of this article. ED209 02:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So then delete the ones on the Toronto page unless someone provides references for them. It's really not that complicated. - pm_shef 02:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Were the main issues deleted because of lack of references? If so, there is in fact references currently on the Vaughan election page (although not cited by the issue) for some of the main issues “Lawsuits against city” (Vaughan citizen articles citing Mayoral candidates Jackson and Ruffolo law suits against city which are unrelated to each other) and “Mayoral and councillor salaries” (Globe and Mail article citing that vaughan salieries are one of the highest in the country and Vaughan citzen citing Ruffolos promise to cut salaries by 20% to make them more in line with other GTA salaries) some of the other issues like “Largest city in Canada without a Hospital within city boundaries” are easy to find references.--67.70.149.126 04:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I made the change (I forgot to log in when I did) and included issues which are brought up in the references already cited. ED209 05:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linda D. Jackson's website[edit]

What is the problem with linking to Linda D. Jackson's website? -- JamesTeterenko 20:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no discussion, I am restoring the link. -- JamesTeterenko 18:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't you restore the rest of the links as well then? I deleted quite a few of them that did not appear on the official voting site. In my view, you are appearing a little biased in favour of this candidate. ED209 21:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there are official web sites of other candidates, then I believe that they should be included. -- JamesTeterenko 21:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go include them then. ED209 22:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll include them. To start with, I'll restore Jackson's web site. I'll include any others that I find. -- JamesTeterenko 18:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Labeling incumbents[edit]

The incumbent labels were just removed with the comment, "incumbents are not supposed to be indicated, this does not even show up on the ballot". This is encyclopedia, not an election web site. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information. When discussing an election, the fact about who is the incumbent is important information. In most Wikipedia election articles, this is noted. Some examples are:

I will restore the information, as it is clearly in line with Wikipedia practice on election articles. -- JamesTeterenko 21:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding the labelling of Jackson as "Current Regional Councillor" and Shefman as "via by-election" I would ask why this is supposedly relevant to the intent of the "incumbent" notation. The point of labelling incumbents is simply to give a record of who is currently holding the seat in question, it's not a matter of advantage or disadvantage. By adding these two extra labels (unlike the Toronto page, which is more or less the standard) you are simply promoting the well-known PoV and bias of the VW group. Do you have any reason why this information must be included above and beyond the "incument" listing? -- pm_shef 19:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am so tired of this garbage. This is an encyclopedia, not an election web site. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information. When discussing an upcoming election, these facts are worthwhile. People can log on and see that a Regional Councillor is running for the Mayor's spot. They can also see that one particular candidate won his seat at council via by-election. No PoV. No bias. These are facts. If you don't like it, don't post on an user-build encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. Maybe you should start your own encylopedia and decide what information you would like to filter. I am not affliated with either of these candidates so I am fairly unbiased in this respect. As for yourself, I obviously struck a cord with you personally (seeing as how you are the seed of one of the candidates in question) when I included that Mr. Shefman was elected via by-election. This is just solid background information that according to many admins such as user:JamesTeterenko should be noted. ED209 00:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You claim you're not affiliated them, yet your edits consistently lead us to believe that you are. However, unlike you, I will assume good faith and assume that what you say is true. Regardless, I don't feel that either fact is relevant to the page, as we see at the Toronto election page, where as you know, a current Councillor is running for Mayor, yet the contributors there do not feel that it is relevant. -- pm_shef 00:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they would argue if I added those facts to the Toronto page, however, I do not care enough to do this. As for who I am affliated with. You have known me on here for quite some time. Who do you think I am or am affliated with? ED209 00:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • FYI, I just checked the Toronto page and it actually indicates incumbant politicians who are running for the mayor's post. So, I guess you were either lying or didn't do your research. ED209 00:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or, as usual, you're distorting the truth. The notation was made to Pitfield's name by JohnnyCanuck [3] after this latest content dispute began. -- pm_shef 00:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another edit by another user made the change to incumbent. I will keep posted and see if the Councillor's sons on that page get mad and remove it. ED209 00:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, it was before. 10:32 on August 5 was the JohnnyCanuck change. You brought up the issue at 19:29 on August 5. ED209 00:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Sex Scandal"[edit]

  • I would very much like to know how this relates at all to the Election? Simply the fact that she is running as a candidate does not mean that a confidentially settled lawsuit is germane to the election especially since (unless i'm mistaken) the article that is referenced doesn't even mention that Ruffolo is running for Council. Furthermore, if you actually read the newspaper article, she was suing for wrongful dismissal. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a news source. -- pm_shef 21:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added info. about a Toronto Star report that the City of Vaughan made an out of court settlement with Ward 1 candidate Mary Ruffolo who was a victim in a sex scandal lawsuit and unlawful dismissal lawsuit against the city. Pm_shef reverted this my edit to include this. So now lets discuss if this major sex scandal (involving two candidates who were victims) should be mentioned inthis article.--JohnnyCanuck 21:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for answering my questions *rolls eyes*.
  1. The lawsuit was for wrongful dismissal, not "sex scandal", the content of the article confirms this.
  2. It's not major at all. This is the first time it has been mentioned in the media, and it was one article at the back of one paper.
  3. Only one candidate (Mary) was involved in the suit, the other one just happens to be her husband.

So, you have yet to explain how the above information is relevant to the election as a whole or at all for that matter. -- pm_shef 21:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • It directly relates to the election because it directly involves two candidates (the victims Mary and Gino Ruffolo) inaddition it also mentions a third candidate in the article (current Mayor Michael Di Biase who failed to stop the actions that took place)--JohnnyCanuck 21:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not involve Gino Ruffolo beyond the fact that it's her husband. Furthermore, the mayor is not responsible for hiring/firing, the Department Head and City Manager is. Finally, simply because the candidate is involved does not make it relevant to the election. The incident itself happened, and was resolved, before the election and the two events are not related in any way. Furthermore, and most importantly the article does not even mention the word election. At no point does the article talk about the election or the fact that she is a candidate. -- pm_shef 21:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it doesn’t relate to the election article how about this idea. I suggest making a new page City of Vaughan Scandals. The City of Vaughan has been riddled with scandals over the past few years be it the sex scandal, many unlawful dismissal lawsuits, lawsuit from the estate of former Mayor Lorna Jackson, corporate donations and corporate influence on council decisions, how Shefman was elected in the 2004 by-election, tendering process of the new city hall, missing traffic tickets from the mayor, Mayor Michael Di Biase nearing killing the former police commissioner in a auto accident……. I could go on and on. This article could be huge!--JohnnyCanuck 22:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • First, the vast majority of those supposed "scandals" are unverifiable. Second those that were covered by the media were mentioned only in local news sources and only once (except for the tickets), and thus would fail to meet Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. - pm_shef 22:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop deleting information which are relevant to the main issues we have established. ED209 22:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm hello? The whole point is that we haven't established it. That's what this discussion is all about. You cannot simply add information without being able to back it up, as you have demonstrated in this case you are unable to do. -- pm_shef 23:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its established as a main issue. There have been more in the past and more awaiting to go before the courts. The fact that three candidates (Jackson, Ruffolo, and Donofrio) have or had lawsuits make it significant. ED209 23:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added another candidate with a lawsuit that was mentioned in the Toronto Star on March 26, 2004. ED209 23:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simply you saying that its established does not make it true. You have yet to address the fact that these lawsuits have nothing to do with the election, and the article in question does not even mention the fact that these people are candidates. You cannot add this information simply because you say its valid. I have brought valid concerns (which JohnnyCanuck even was unable to address) and until you address them, you have no right to continue adding this nonsense -- pm_shef 23:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three candidates with lawsuits that are ongoing or settled are running, which is significant. Also, the large number of lawsuits at the city (there are quite a few in recent memory that can be named) established it as a campaign issue. Therefore, after we established this a several months ago, coupled with the story the biggest newspaper in our country, I believe this warrants an inclusion. I believe much more work will be done to this page to make it one of the most comprehensive upcoming election pages around. Every I wrote is fairly written and unbiased in its language and content. If you find any lawsuits in which the city either lose or win in court, we can include them. Also, any other news relating to the main issues section is welcome. Please help to make this page better. ED209 23:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have yet to address the fact that this is an issue relating to the City, not to the election. NO ONE has mentioned lawsuits as an issue besides you and Johnny. NO NEWSPAPER has mentioned lawsuits as an issue. Every article, besides the one in the Citizen, doesn't even mention the fact that the complainants are candidates. If you are not prepared to address this concern, then the information should be removed and kept only on the Vaughan page. -- pm_shef 23:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been addressed. It has been sitting on the MAIN ISSUES section for months and months. On the local TV newscasts, they did a man-on-the-street style interview with residents who all believe the manner in which lawsuits have sprung up and been dealt with represents a violation of taxpayer's money. Plus, and please read this part because you have fail to address it, THREE candidates are running who have had or have recently settled lawsuits. This is a significant and interesting. This is why people get into writing articles here on wikipedia. To document noteworthy occurances such as this. ED209 23:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's something that could go into an "interesting facts" section. But to claim that it is a "main issue" and dedicating a full paragraph to it in the introduction is grossly misleading when you consider that your main source, the Star, has not seen necessary to mention the fact that the complainants are candidates, and even the Citizen, while mentioning it, at no point cites it as a main, or even an issue at all! This fact especially shows this that it is not relevant to the election and is simply NOT being discussed as an issue. -- pm_shef 00:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, you are saying that if the Toronto Star prints an article mentioning some of these candidates in the election and there lawsuits, you would be convinced? ED209 00:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I would agree for a simple line, in an "interesting facts" section such as; "A number of candidates are or were involved with lawsuits against the city". However, to continue to characterize it as a "main issue" is nothing short of completely false. -- pm_shef 00:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why have you only brought this up now? I mean, the lawsuits entry has been there for several months. You have made at least 50 to 100 changes to this particular page without removing that point. Only now, when it has exploded into an even larger issue, have you taken exception to its inclusion. ED209 00:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because I didn't notice it, plus that extra paragraph wasn't added until now. That, however, is not the point at all. The point is

that they should not be there, and you have yet to provide a valid reason otherwise. -- pm_shef 00:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • We will continue this discussion after another article relating to this appears in the Star. I have made plenty of valid points, which you brush aside and ignore. The city is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in an election year to fight lawsuit after lawsuit, and you don't believe it is an important issue. This is irresponsible goverment, and it is notable to this election. Anytime a Vaughan-related story, involving a candidate, makes an appearance in the main section of the Toronto Star, I take notice. ED209 00:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Toronto Star article was wrong. The Vaughan City Solicitor has issued a letter to The Star demanding a correction. There were no allegations of any sexual misconduct or harrassment in the actual case. However, whoever leaked the story to The Star (there was a confidentiality agreement in place), decided to "spice" it up a bit. There is also a complaint being forwarded to the Ontario Press Council about this and other mis-statements by The Star. One should be careful in using the Star, or any media outlet, as their personal political rumour mill.

  • We are not going to believe an IP address who fails to source information instead of the biggest newspaper in Canada. I doubt you'll see a correction, and unless you can prove otherwise, I doubt the city has asked for a correction. ED209 17:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion[edit]

Arguing about whether or not an issue is important to the election is somewhat pointless. If you can't agree, the argument can't be resolved. Remember that the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If you want to make conclusions about the important issues in the election, you will have to find something written in an independent, reliable source, that describes the given issue as an important issue in the election. You can't (even logically) have the article conclude that the issue is important: that's a new analysis or synthesis of ideas. This means, unfortunately, that Wikipedia can't always cover things in a timely manner. But it's really the only appropriate way for an encyclopedia to be written. Mangojuicetalk 17:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Star archive search[edit]

  • user:pm_shef expressed his inability to find certain archival documents from The Toronto Star. This page allows you to find the leads and dates of all Vaughan-related lawsuit articles: [[4]]. ED209 23:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"With lawsuits established as a main election issue"[edit]

Lawsuits have *not* been established as a main election issue, and ED209 should stop pretending otherwise.

Perhaps if evidence is provided as to the significance of lawsuits to the current campaign, the information could be returned. Otherwise, this smacks of more partisan axe-grinding. CJCurrie 00:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I expect more articles about this issue to hit the Toronto Star in the near future, so I have no doubt this issue will arise again. ED209 00:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your certainty does not constitute proof. CJCurrie 00:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't quite understand what you mean by that last statement, however, I am fine with the current entry. However, if this issue is further mentioned in the Toronto Star, as I anticipate it to be, we will resume this discussion. ED209 00:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm glad this has been resolved properly. -- pm_shef 00:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CJCurrie - here is your proof. From the linked Feb 9 2006 article in the Vaughan Citizen:

"Vaughan Mayor Michael Di Biase wasn't far behind, throwing his name into the ring Jan. 10.

But unlike Ms Sherban, Mr. Di Biase is already facing a challenger -- community activist Gino Ruffolo, whose wife is suing the city for wrongful dismissal. "

http://www.yorkregion.com/yr/yr4/YR_News/Newscentre/Citizen/story/3309939p-3831989c.html Mangerno 01:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not proof that lawsuits are a prominent campaign issue. CJCurrie 02:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Levy[edit]

What's the problem with his name being listed? Am I missing something? Joe Levy 900 Steeles Ave W #316 Thornhill, Ontario L4J 8C2 Date Filed: August 24, 2006 http://www.city.vaughan.on.ca/vaughan/council/election/candidates.cfm —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmadilloFromHell (talk • contribs)

  • I don't think James realized that Levy was listed on the Vaughan page. I have corrected the error. In the future, please bring discussion to the talk page first and try to avoid edit wars. -- pm_shef 03:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am reverting all the edits of a sockpuppet of a permanently banned user. -- JamesTeterenko 03:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Joe Levy is against the corruption in Vaughan and is running against Vernon Hendrickson who is part of the corrution and is being endorsed by Pm_shefs father. Users Pm_shef and JamesTeteterenko should both be banned from Wiki for non stop vandalism --64.231.242.137 03:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The IP that made that edit is clearly a sockpuppet of indefinitely banned user VaughanWatch/JohnnyCanuck. As per the Banning policy, "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorised to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users. Users that nonetheless reinstate such edits take responsibility for their content by so doing." -- JamesTeterenko 03:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh for goodness sakes. Will you PLEASE give it a rest VW/JC/EF!? First of all, my father has not endorsed anyone in the Ward 4 race, so to claim that he has endorsed Vernon Hendrickson is simply a bald-faced lie. He has not endorsed anyone. Second of all, your random assertion that "Vernon Hendrickson and pm_shefs father" are "part of the corruption" is nothing short of blatant defamation, something explicitly not allowed under Wikipedia policy. -- pm_shef 04:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please give it a rest Corey and stop using Wikipedia for your fathers campaign! Why don't you just admit your father is endorsing Hendrickson and will do ANYTHING to sabatosh Levy's campaign.

  • My dad doesn't even know who Levy is, keep trying though. -- pm_shef 13:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noticed the edit war intitated by user:JamesTeterenko. Methinks he should stay out of Vaughan-related edits until he gets more informed of what is going on. ED209 01:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In all fairness to James, he was going on the "revert all edits by banned users" rule. Either way, not a huge deal - it's fixed now. -- pm_shef 04:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I'll quote oficial policy, "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorised to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion." Removing edits by a banned user is not an edit war, regardless of the merits of the edits. See Wikipedia:Banning policy#Enforcement by reverting edits. -- JamesTeterenko 04:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In any case, you have now again deleted factual information. I don't think it is very hard to verify these changes, they appear on the linked Vaughan Votes site at the bottom of the page. I had the heads-up on the Craig move, so I did it last night, but other then that, every change comes appears on the Vaughan Votes page. The job of an admin is not simply to enforce bans. You should be making positive edits as well. ED209 16:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Update[edit]

I just updated the page as it hasn't been updated in a while, I also added the notations of 2nd incumbents to the appropriate candidates. 2nd incumbent is a proper term to use for former incumbents. --67.70.148.253 01:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article makes the Sun[edit]

http://torontosun.com/News/TorontoAndGTA/2006/10/08/1978342-sun.html -- Zanimum 15:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate names should ALWAYS be listed alphabetically[edit]

It is really, really sad that some people here think listing their preferred candidate's name first on this one stupid page is somehow going to equal a whole bunch of votes and their candidate being elected. Please - it is time to grow up and stop making these meaningless edits.

Candidate names are always listed in the non-partisan alphabetical manner. That is how it's done on every other Wikipedia page ... and, more importantly, that is how it's done by EVERY SINGLE MUNICIPALITY (including Vaughan) on the actual ballots for the very reason that it is the fairest, most non-partisan way to do it. Anybody here pretending that they somehow know better is just acting ridiculous.

Please don't bother moving names around any more because it'll just be reversed. Wolfchild 04:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result Descriptions[edit]

  • ED, I see you removed the descriptions of the results. Which parts exactly do you feel are PoV? It seemed to me to be neutral and informative, why don't we try and clean it up if you have problems with it. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 02:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe the ward races warrent writeups and some of the language used is better suited to newspapers, rather than an encyclopedia. ED209 18:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would the purpose of this page be if not to describe the outcome of the election? Would you be willing to give us an example of what you have a problem with? -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 21:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_Vaughan_municipal_election&oldid=1196489731"