Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:03, 18 February 2008

Welcome!Last edited: Last edited by:04:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 129.133.124.199 (talk · contribs) Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Misplaced Pages? Create an account! Your IP address, 129.133.124.199, is registered to Wesleyan University and may be shared by multiple users of an educational institution, so you might receive messages on this page that were not intended for you. To have your own user pages, keep track of articles you've edited in a watchlist, and have access to a few other special features, please consider registering an account! It's fast and free. If you are unable to create an account due to your institution's IP address being blocked, follow these instructions. If you are autoblocked repeatedly, contact your network administrator or instructor and request that your school contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on its proxy servers so that blocks will affect only the intended user.Administrators: review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, consider a soft block using {{School block}}. In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation. Educational institution staff and network administrators wishing to monitor this IP address for vandalism can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

_____Original issue, the content.

This began when Pgagnon999 challenged the spelling of the original Algonquin name for Middletown, Connecticut, (and some other related issues). As I said before, (and the whole of which is on the user page for 129.133.124.199), Pgagnon999 did not respond to the issue according to wikipedia policiess and guidelines. He did not seek dispute resolution, he did not begin a discussion. His first words were to politicize the matter with the comment "RE: Fluffs over the part about settlers "purchasing" Native American lands" 05:04, 31 December 2007 Pgagnon999. The 159.247.3.210 user revert edited his tag. He did the same back. Note, he did not provide any content cite for his tag. He was just insistting on a personal opinion, and introducing unbalance. He then did NOT provide a cite or open a discussion; --he made a threat. "(→History: removed tag added; will contact admin for site block.) 20:22, 31 December 2007. Note: he immediately engages in a conflict, he starts a fight.

He then posted this strange accuastion on the 159.247.3.210 user talk page. "Conflict of interest editing With regard to Middletown, Connecticut, your removal of the Neutrality tag constitutes conflict of interest as your IP address is a state website. If you would like to dispute the tag, please open a discussion on the talk page for the article. Otehrwise, you'll end up on the Wiki list of organizations/ agencies that self edit--a pretty embarassing place to be. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC) In other words, Pgagnon999 is already upping the conflict to having 159.247.3.210 listed as a suspect organization? It's a State of Connecticut website. --So Pgagnon999 has made a clear threat to involve the site admins of the 159.247.3.210 user's employer. This is going for the jugular. It puts the 159.247.3.210 user in workplace jeopardy by this aggressive poster.

Where is the discussion page here? Where is assuming good intentions? Where is third opinions? Editor assistance? Informalmediation? Formal mediation? Surveys? Arbitration? How come all these steps are skipped BY HIM and Pgagnon999 moves directly to a personal attack and threats of banning?

Now, I responded to this with "Pgagnon999 is introducing wild speculation to suit his own political ends into this article. He has destroyed previous references. It is a shame that such hate-filled bigotry would spoil an article. Ignorance again rules?" Administrator Edokter classed that as a personal attack, and I disagree. I don't actually accuse him of hate-filled bigotry, I just suggest that to have such a thing spoil an article would be a shame. But I freely admit, after seeing the unbridled attack of Pgagnon999 on the 159.247.3.210 user, (threatening admin involvement, threatening blocks, threatening vague repercussions through the State of Connecticut itself), that I was willing to out him as a loose cannon and an aggressive poster.

I'll say that Pgagnon999 isn't stupid. He posts extremely aggressive material, and then covers those posts with the most tame boilerplate posts to make himself look like the innocent. --By boilerplate posts I mean those standard warnings that one can put on a user page, tags like "WSee also the talk page for the article before over-reacting; be calm, assume the best motives in others, engage discussion, not attacks, and realize that Misplaced Pages articles are a collaborative effort --Pgagnon999 (talk) 01:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)" (talk page for 159.247.3.210) He posts that comment after threatening first with banning and then jeopardizing 159.247.3.210's employment. It was unreal. clearly done only to game the system and cover his actions. You don't have to believe me, the above and below will make the matter clear.

In fact, I freely speculate thatwhat has got him going in this manner was that I pointed out his aggression in the Middletown, Connecticut article. For him to be outed as a confrontational person itself seems to be what is driving his actions here.

In fact I was very blunt about it. "How you like to insist on delicate points of protocol now! Look, you you acted like a thug, you know it, I know it, and anyone who has read this knows it. When you were first furstrated, you -1. made personal threats, -2. you then made ranting demands to have the page blocked, and then -3. went to administrator Elipongo and tried to interest him in your cause. He didn't believe you and just put up a general tag. Frustrated (and probably raging all the more), you came back the next day and posted garbage with laughable footnotes. You then went to to some more gullible admins and bellyached and ranted to them. You now have admins Edoktor, Rlevse, and Jehochman, stuck defending you when clearly you've been acting like a petulant child the whole time. "

It is true that my comment above was written in a more vigorous style than is usual for wikipedia, but I do not game the system. Some would call it a personal attack, but I am being direct and to the point. I have never tried, for example, to even find what his ISP is, I have not used admins to get him, I haven't even looked up where else Pgagnon999 posts. Getting into all that is a personal attack, not my colorful prose.

_____His citation

He then looked up a 'citation' to back up his opinion. It was from a ridiculous source, some brochure from the architectural heritage commission. (There was also an irrelevant general source that related to New England's colonial past.)

And I deleted it. It was a bogus source, and somewhere in the back and forth a valid source, one of mine was deleted. It was a direct quotation of the Connecticut General Assembly. (If any authority had any power to determine the spelling of a town, it's the government when it creates the town.)

Yet, mea culpa, I did delete his citation. And doing that allowed him to go to an administrator and demand I be banned. He had been gunning for people since this matter began, one of his first comments was to call for banning the 159.247.3.210 user, and I gave him the chance.

Let's review we had both been doing revert edits, we both had deleted cited material. I am no saint. But I also have been posting in wikipedia for about two years, and I know damn well that nothing I had done merited banning. People struggle far worse and far longer on all sorts of pages without anyone being banned.

_____First banning

The first banning was by an administrator named Jehochman, who I still would maintain today could not have read carefully what had happened. It's impossible. I was actually not made upset by the banning, because I hoped after the passage of time, the matter would cool off. Besides, I have other things to do. I did protest the banning through the appropriate appeal process. I do think that Jehochman was swayed by the politics of the case (regarding the fine points of colonial history). It was a wrong call.

However, it seems that having been banned once, the matter did not die, as Pgagnon999 could use one banning as a predicate for another.

Further, I will say that Jehochman, in refusing to defend his action, or to even acknowledge my appeal, lost on the character issue. He need not engage in arguments with a poster as an admin, but he has no royal prerogative to decline to condescend to mere poster's complaints. He could have said it was a mistake; fine, that would have been the end of it. he could have tried to defend or explain it, but he doesn't even do that.

Yet, as I said, I was willing to look at the blocking as a cooling off period, as I believe it was intended, (and certainly not as an admission of guilt).

_____Stalking, part I

The second blocking was in part because I made a charge of stalking. Well, it was during my first banning that I saw signs that Pgagnon999 was stalking me in my absence.

First thing, he archived the talk page for the article on Wesleyan University on 02:49, 17 January 2008. It was an odd thing to do since he had NEVER posted there before. It was also a page that I frequently post to; hell, I wrote half of it. So had the 159.247.3.210 user. Why archive the talk unless you expect there to be point between one phase and the opening of a new one? And why his sudden interest in a page I commonly have posted to in the past?

Second, on 15 January 2008 Pgagnon999 make three adjustments to my user page. The original fifteen day block stared on January 2. Why is he adjusting the record on my page thirteen days into my block? It certainly seems that he's intending to continue this on after the block is over, and he wants to be able to jump in a fight with all his ducks in a row. You think he'd be avoiding me, moving on, assuming good intentions. --But apparently not. It's in the record. Anybody can look it up.

On my user page, on January 20, I wrote "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." --Well, looks like I was absolutely right. But this is only the first half of the stalking case, there's more below.

_____End of the block and Content, content, content.

I on the other hand, get off the block and minded my own business. I didn't even post anything until January 20, and then on my own talk page. I did not even post to the Middletown, Connecticut page until February 7th, more than twice as long as the block. so no one can say I was stalking anyone here.

And then what did I do? Call for admins to block him? Rage through all HIS postings? Do anything to him at all?

I replaced his one ridiculous cite to a pamphlet with TWENTY SIX citations to the proper spelling of Middletown.

So, lets' focus on content, eh? 26 citations showing that the original name of the town is Mattabeseck. That's content, that's citation. More references than probably any other single fact in all of wikipedia.

Look, I know the original name of the town. It's simple. It's elementary. It seems wikipedia should be able to handle the fact. Apparently it cannot.

And the very first thing Pgagnon999 does is revert edit me.

Because, of course, he didn't give a damn about the name of the town in the first place. He's just playing his conflict scenarios out. He's looking for a fight, and he's looking to have people banned. After all, that's the very first thing he tries to do is get an admin to ban me for deleting his lousy cite.

So I get banned again. This time by an admin Sandstein.

Again, I think Sandstein is completely wrong. Certainly he didn't look into the matter. No warning, no discussion, nothing.

What about wikipedia policies? Again, where is the discussion page here? Where is assuming good intentions? Where is third opinions? Editor assistance? Informalmediation? Formal mediation? Surveys? Arbitration? For a second time, all these steps are skipped BY HIM and Pgagnon999 moves directly to banning?

And Sandstein is completely wrong to ban me without resorting to those methods first.

If the admins want to have arbitrary rule, fine, go ahead, but please delete all the policy statements first because they only raise expectations.

_____Stalking, part 2.

I claimed, and do claim that Pgagnon has been stalking me through wikipedia. He has said that this is a baseless claim, but it's obvious to anyone who looks at the record. If you had any doubt above that he was stalking me, one of his own postings says that he'd been stalking. "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." well, sure, that was a threat, but I ask anyone,...

how does he know where I am likely to post, unless he's been stalking me?

How does he know where I am likely to post, unless he's been stalking me??

How does he know where I am likely to post, unless he's been stalking me??? Anybody can try to answer this question??? There's only one answer.

He's taken a conflict over one article and is starting to follow me with it wherever I post in wikipedia ---that's stalking!! What else does he have to do??? How could it be more obvious?

Well, actually, he does make it more obvious.

He took this dispute to an entirely different article, one that I regularly posted to in the past, (although one I hadn't posted to since October 2007), and put in this "One of the contributers, editing here under 159.247.3.210 and 129.133.124.199 has just been blocked for one month for severe incivility for edits to several articles; see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive365#129.133.124.199 - Continued hostility and incivil behaiviour. At this time only the Wesleyan U. IP 199 is blocked; should they act similarly here in the future using the Middletown 210 IP or another related IP before their block expires, please report them for block evasion; do not respond in kind as it just makes your own positions less defensible."

(Note he also claims I am 159.247.3.210. He also claims I denied it once then admitted it, which is untrue and an irrelevant side issue. I made the same mistake, thinking he was a user sfahey.)

So he took this conflict and took it to a different article, pursuing his aggression toward me in a new venue. That's stalking. If there's anything else he could do to be a stalker, I can't think of it.

It's a personal attack, it's stalking, hell, it's a campaign to try to destroy if not me than at least my credibility. A campaign to destroy, mind you, HOW IS THAT CONSISTENT WITH WIKIPEDIA POLICY?

The 159.247.3.210 user cannot post in wikipedia anymore because the site allows stalkers free reign. I don't know if I can use this isp anymore because of the same reason.

Pgagnon999 is stalking. He's making this a personal conflict through wikipedia. He doesn't follow wikipedia policies and procedures for conflict resolution. He's misled adminsitrators, and he has caused two unjustified blockings of me. I don't know what more damage one poster can do to another in wikipedia.

A couple of admins have been misled by half-truths, (one or two did see through the "misrepresentations" by Pgagnon999. They should have checked better first, and their initial response, I think, SHOULD have been to insist on wikipedia policies and procedures, not block first and allow no questions later.

What should be done?

1. If there is some notice on Misplaced Pages:Administrators'noticeboard/IncidentArchive365#129.133.124.199, then my name should be cleared.

2. The correct spelling of Mattabeseck should be restored.

3. Block the guy who is stalking, who is pursuing fights across wikipedia, who won't let issues die.

Note--I have referred this to the arbitration committee since it seems nearly everyone is acting outside the policy guidelines at this point. And because it seems that a user has taken this to a whole different level of conflict. Above is a slightly modified version of what they have so far.