{{unblock|SimplePilgrim denies making any personal attack or harassement, please see explanations below. User also requests a review of the external website's content, and will not post links to it while the website is being reviewed.}}PLEASE SEE HEADINGS BELOW: "BLOCKED" and "Copy of e-Mail to AnnH re being blocked for the same event as above". Thanks [[User:SimplePilgrim|SimplePilgrim]] 22:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
In case anyone is wondering, I used to be John1838 and J1838
You have been blocked for one month for posting personally identifiable information (or allegedly personal informaiton) onto multiple user pages. Johntex\ talk 00:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Hope that answers your concerns SimplePilgrim 22:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I am very interested in why you have blocked me.
You seem to think that I am involved with John1838 - not a secret. It says so on my user page. Not sure what the offence is here as John1838 is not accused of anything as far as I know.
You also say that I am involved with Trollwatcher in collecting info about editors, and posting links to a website that attacks and identifies editors.
I am not aware of what you can be talking about when you refer to collecting info. I would be interested to hear some specifics of exactly what you are accusing me of and what evidence you have.
There is also a reference to posting links to a website that attacks and identifies editors. I dispute this too. The site to which I assume you refer did not identify anyone when I posted links, and does not do so now. I do not know if it ever did in the interim and cannot see how I can be held responsible if it did. Are you suggesting that we are all responsible for every website we have ever posted a link to? I think not.
As to whether the website attacks editors, I dispute this too. What it does is present evidence that certain editors, including you, are systematically abusing Wikipedia to further your personal beliefs. I believe that it constitutes perfectly fair comment and that posting links to it in its present state cannot be construed as an attack. As you know, at least 8 people including at least one Administrator share my view on this. I will be happy to refer this point for mediation.
I should also point out that there seems to be a conflict of interest here. You are evidently banning me for imaginary offences in the hope of censoring valid debate.
So just to sum up I would be interested to hear your observations on the following:
Best regards, Simple Pilgrim
SimplePilgrim 23:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Reviewed the information above and the pages in question and the answer is no, harassing other users is unacceptable and that is non-negotiable. -- pgk( talk) 07:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
{{unblock|SimplePilgrim denies making any personal attack or harassement, please see explanations below. User also requests a review of the external website's content, and will not post links to it while the website is being reviewed.}}PLEASE SEE HEADINGS BELOW: "BLOCKED" and "Copy of e-Mail to AnnH re being blocked for the same event as above". Thanks [[User:SimplePilgrim|SimplePilgrim]] 22:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
In case anyone is wondering, I used to be John1838 and J1838
You have been blocked for one month for posting personally identifiable information (or allegedly personal informaiton) onto multiple user pages. Johntex\ talk 00:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Hope that answers your concerns SimplePilgrim 22:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I am very interested in why you have blocked me.
You seem to think that I am involved with John1838 - not a secret. It says so on my user page. Not sure what the offence is here as John1838 is not accused of anything as far as I know.
You also say that I am involved with Trollwatcher in collecting info about editors, and posting links to a website that attacks and identifies editors.
I am not aware of what you can be talking about when you refer to collecting info. I would be interested to hear some specifics of exactly what you are accusing me of and what evidence you have.
There is also a reference to posting links to a website that attacks and identifies editors. I dispute this too. The site to which I assume you refer did not identify anyone when I posted links, and does not do so now. I do not know if it ever did in the interim and cannot see how I can be held responsible if it did. Are you suggesting that we are all responsible for every website we have ever posted a link to? I think not.
As to whether the website attacks editors, I dispute this too. What it does is present evidence that certain editors, including you, are systematically abusing Wikipedia to further your personal beliefs. I believe that it constitutes perfectly fair comment and that posting links to it in its present state cannot be construed as an attack. As you know, at least 8 people including at least one Administrator share my view on this. I will be happy to refer this point for mediation.
I should also point out that there seems to be a conflict of interest here. You are evidently banning me for imaginary offences in the hope of censoring valid debate.
So just to sum up I would be interested to hear your observations on the following:
Best regards, Simple Pilgrim
SimplePilgrim 23:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Reviewed the information above and the pages in question and the answer is no, harassing other users is unacceptable and that is non-negotiable. -- pgk( talk) 07:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)