User talk:129.133.124.199

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

School IP address Attention:

This IP address, 129.133.124.199, is registered to Wesleyan University and may be shared by multiple users of an educational institution. If the institution uses proxy servers, this IP address may in fact represent many users at many physical computers.

For this reason a message intended for one person may be received by another. Similarly an innocent user may be blocked for another user's vandalism. If you are editing from this address and are frustrated by irrelevant messages, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself. In some cases you may temporarily be unable to create an account due to efforts to fight vandalism; if so, please read our advice on this situation.

Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking - if a block is needed, administrators should consider a soft block with the template {{schoolblock|optional comment}} as the block reason.

Note: In the event of persistent vandalism from this IP address, anonymous editing may be disabled for up to 1 year at a time. Abuse reports may also be forwarded to your school administration for investigation.
School staff who want to monitor vandalism from this IP address can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.


I am currently being stalked by a user, Pgagnon999. I fully expect ANYTHING I post anywhere will be used by Pgagnon999 in an attempt to try to have me blocked-again.

Pgagnon999 lied to a couple administrators to have this ISP blocked before. One administrator, without taking the care to look into the matter responsibly, agreed with Pgagnon999's request, and blocked this ISP.

Subsequently, during the block, Pgagnon999 has stalked, looking to continue a conflict. (This user page was edited by him on January 15, a day before the block was to expire, because Pgagnon999 was still seeking to perpetuate a conflict.)

This hostility by Pgagnon999, unchecked by any adminintrator, makes it impossible for editors to use wikipedia.


For the record, I include the protest of the block. It includes all the detailed evidence necessary to track the earlier, pre-block active aggression of Pgagnon999.

This protest was sent to the administrator list. That Jehochman hasn't shown any effective character in this episode is regrettable.

{ - - - - -

To request unblocking: IP address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:129.133.124.199 Blocking admin: Jehochman Block reason: blanking sourced material, bad faith accusations, WP:POINT Block originally applied to: 129.133.124.199 Your account name (if you have one): An explanation of why your block is unfair: Another user Pgagnon999 started this on 05:04, 31 December 2007 Pgagnon999 by putting an 'unbalanced' tag without explanation in the history section of the article on Middletown, Connecticut, noting "RE: Fluffs over the part about settlers "purchasing" Native American lands." (For the record, Middletown lands were purchased from the indians, although I realize that actual fact has no bearing here.)

His comment was taken out by 159.247.3.210, and things went back and forth quite quickly. Rather than post anything with references for support, he immediately upped the ante with " 20:22, 31 December 2007 Pgagnon999 (Talk | contribs) m (23,545 bytes) ( →History - removed tag added; will contact admin for site block)" Which was not directly threatening, but which 159.247.3.210 took to be very aggressive, and inappropriate. This was in the course of a couple of hours, and he had posted nothing to substantiate his claims, nor had he started anything on the discussion page.

The administrator Elipongo was clearly not moved by Pgagnon999's heated accusations, and just put up a general tag looking for references. 21:37, 31 December 2007 Elipongo (Talk | contribs ) (23,553 bytes) (No fighting, I think this is what the article really needs)

At the same time, Pgagnon999 went after the user 159.247.3.210 on that user page. 20:07, 31 December 2007 Pgagnon999 (Talk | contribs) m (4,859 bytes) (→Conflict of interest editing). At this point, he's 1. making unfounded personal allegations about 159.247.3.210 regarding a supposed conflict of interest, 2. venting on a group ISP user talk page, which can only involve that ISP's sysadmins (and risks possible serious real life repurcussions on the poster), and 3. demanding site blocks from admins.

This is hostile behavior.

Pgagnon999, not satisfied with wikipedia policy of working matters out in the discussion page, posts his version, deleting references and losing quoted material in the process, and using, for example, references from a volunteer pamphlet that support some of his spurious claims. I tried to restore some of what was lost to what I can only consider vandalism by a hostile party.

For Pgagnon999, though, that gave him an opportunity to claim that I had deleted referenced material. He apparently contacted every administrator he could to insist I be blocked.

Jehochman took him up on his request.

Jehochman was wrong. He must not have looked at the history clearly and was mislead by Pgagnon999. Jehochman has blocked me when I was not the uncooperative party, running around and engaging in every hostile threat imaginable. This was not a proper exercise of whatever authority Jehochman has.

There are also political overtones to this, one of Pgagnon999's sources is a controversial author. Jehochman has indicated in the discussion page that he personally likes that author "Rather than arguing about Cronin, who I rather like on a personal level, could you possibly present sources to back up what you are saying? After all, this is an encyclopedia. Jehochman Talk 06:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC) "

That makes Jehochman an unfair arbiter in the first place.

The claim of bad faith accusations is simply wrong. I said Pgagnon999's postings on the 159.247.3.210 user talk page were personal attacks. They are. And they did risk more serious real life repurcussions than any wikipedia poster should have to face.

The claim of blanking sourced material is technically true but so distorted in context as to be meaningless. I did delete what I considered sketchy or third-rate references in the middle of a barrage of attacks by an irresponsible poster. Things could have been handled better, but I do not apologize for it.

Jehochman's blocking of 129.133.124.199 was not based on a full understanding of the matter, and was an abuse of the system. It was irresponsible and at least potentially tainted.

- - - - }

Contents

[edit] Outside opinion

After reviewing the issue here, I just have to say a few things. Frankly, comments like: "I know it galls your sanctimonious self-image to have to face your own hostility, but that isn't my problem", "...clearly you've been acting like a petulant child..." "Stunning. I mean, if you had no ethical pretensions whatever, then your bitter unscrupulousness would be expected" are completely out of line. I suggest that if you don't get along with other editors, you just leave them alone and move on. There's a whole boatload of irony in you trying to convince anyone you're the one receiving personal attacks with diatribes like that. No amount of petty insults, no matter how eloquently worded, will get you any praise around here. If you have a problem, I suggest a getting a Third Opinion, or request for comment. I assure you any further accusations against any other user will not be looked upon lightly. You don't have to like the other editors but you will treat them with civility on here. If you have any issues with what User:Pgagnon999 has said that is clearly a personal attack (e.g. specifically mentioning you, and not your edits, in a clearly insulting manner), please post a link to them here and I will most definitely take a look, but I have yet to see any at all from my digging. Sasquatch t|c 08:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not the one being stalked. I am not the one with problems 'leaving them alone and moving on'. I am not the one making threats and demanding people be banned. I'm not the one posting garbage in articles. You may not like my tone, (I could comment on yours), but my tone is not the problem here. My tone doesn't do anything to people here. Starting attacks, involving admins in cases via misrepresentations, making threats, and stalking ARE problems. I don't have to pretend to be some defenseless lamb here, just to suit someone else's ego. ---If you can't seperate your personal reactions to tone, and respond to what people actually do, then I don't know why you put yourself in a position as an admin in the first place. I don't have to be liked by you to be right, and I suspect you can't tell the difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.124.199 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Move on

If you don't find a way to depersonalize things, and if you continue harassing and attacking other users, this IP will be blocked again. Comment on content, not the contributor. MastCell Talk 23:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Middletown, Connecticut. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 1)If you would like to argue the inclusion of sourced material over other sourced material, you may discuss doing so in the talk page of the article with the aim to achieve community concensus, but please do not delete previously sourced material regardless of your personal opinion of it. Doing so is contrary to the spirit and policy of Wikipedia. 2) If you choose to discuss, discussion will only occur if you can maintain WP:Civility in your actions and rhetoric. Hostile rhetoric and arguments will be summarily ignored and may result in the blocking of your IPs yet again. Pgagnon999 (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I do not know if Sfahey is a sock puppet of yours or not, it really does not matter. You have deleted cited reference material. Frankly, you're far more destructive in that manner than I, since you did in about 22 cites. I knew you couldn't resist responding with hostile activity, since you've been stalking ISP addresses 129.133.124.199 and 159.247.3.210 since the first of the year. If you can't curb your aggression, why don't you consider therapy? Your content is wrong, and the game you are playing is borderline psychotic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.124.199 (talk • contribs)

  • No one is "stalking" you as is clear from my edit history; it is rhetoric and claims such as this that have resulted in your previous block and the page protection of Theta Nu Epsilon for your central role in the edit wars there. You may continue to behave in the same way and hope for different results, but I wouldn't bank on it.
  • User:Sfahey and I are completely unrelated & have nver interacted before; if you have reason to suspect otherwise, feel free to file a report (see WP:Sockpuppet). Also, in light of the sockpuppeting accusation, your claim that 129.133.124.199 and 159.247.3.210 are both your IP's is ironic. In your arguement at the top of this page you are suggesting the exact opposite.
  • Sfahey was right in reverting your edit; you may not delete cited material by replacing it with other cited material just because you don't like the previous material. See my warning to you, above. As I have indicated in the warning, it is against Wikipedia policy to do so; clever attempts to game the system will not be tolerated.
  • This is the last time I will try to reason with you; any further disruption, edit warrning, 3RR violations, or bad faith accusations to Middletown, Connecticut, Wesleyan University, Theta Nu Epsilon, or to the user pages of other editors will be reported. If you find such a warning "threatening", I suggest you modify your behavior and so avert the "threat." If you can refrain from WP:Incivility, and would like to talk about changes to Middletown, Connecticut in a civil manner, I welcome such an exchange. Thank you.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Middletown, Connecticut, without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. User:Polaron has reverted your revert. If you persist in editing warring, you will be blocked. Thank you. Pgagnon999 (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for severe incivility and personal attacks; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive365#129.133.124.199 - Continued hostility and incivil behaiviour. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Sandstein (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page vandalism

Do not vandalize your talk page or you will be prevented from editing it. Momusufan (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You may also be reported to the IT department of Wesleyan University as well for your inexcusable actions on this IP and 129.133.124.203. Momusufan (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)