User talk:SimplePilgrim

{{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

Thank you for giving me that website. I do find it very interesting!! And, it seems to ring true based on my limited experiences so far. HK30 23:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

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)[reply]

I am very interested in why you have blocked me.

In particular you say that I have posted personally identifiable information (or allegedly personal informaiton) onto multiple user pages. I dispute this and ask if you can point me at an example.

I gather from other sources that what you may have meant is that I provided links to a site which contained such information. If so, I dispute this too. There is only one site that you could be referring to. When I posted links to it the site contained no personal information other than that available on Wikipedia. I do not know if such information was added subsequently, but if it was I do not see that I could be held responsible for it.

I notice that other users have also been blocked for doing the same thing. As far as I can tell, no one was warned about the Wikipedia rule concerning personal information and the website in question says that no attempt was made to contact it. This seems extraordinary. Why would you and AnnH seek to punish people for a first offence (people who could well not have known about the rule) but make no effort to have the offending material removed. This of course is a secondary question since, as I mentioned, in my case no offence was commited anyway - the links provided being perfectly acceptable when they were posted)

For the sake of clarity, I am happy to confirm that I have no intention of either mentioning or providing links to personal information in the future and in the circumstances I would be grateful if you would lift your unwarranted ban immediately SimplePilgrim 21:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just received your e-mail. I will begin reviewing your situation and then I will make a more substantive reply to you here. Johntex\^talk 18:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a more complete explanation of why you were blocked:

You were blocked for a post you made at 23:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC) to User_talk:HK30. That post has been deleted now, so it does not appear in your user contributions. It is visible to administrators if the go to HK30's talk history and view deleted edits. The content of your post was to point HK30 to an external website.
HK30 then spread that information further around Wikipedia.
The content of that website regurgitated the same content that previously made up the user page of User:John1838 and User:J1838.
The content from those user pages was deemed to be a personal attack, so it was deleted from those pages.
You have admitted that you are the same user as User:John1838 and User:J1838.
Given that this external website incorporates information off your old user pages, and pushes the same POV you have pushed here (which is your view that there is some sort of Christian cabal controlling edits to specific articles), it is highly likely you are directly affiliated with the external site.
Moving deleted content off to an external site in an attempt to circumvent the deletion of it here is simply not acceptable. By itself this would be a blockable offense because you are trying to use a back door to reintroduce these personal attacks. You are doing so with full knowledge of the policy you are violating because you went through the whole proceedure when it was deleted off your user page.
The external website also reveals personal information about some Wikipedia contributors. This is a violation of WP:HA. Harrassment of editors is such a serious offense that it merits no prior warning. I will block on site for harrassment based around distributing people's personal information.

In conclusion - you did post a link to an external site. That site does provide personal information about Wikipedia editors. Such posting of information is considered harassement. The site is also being used an an attempt at an end-run to reintroduce content that was deleted off your Wikipedia user page. In the context of that deletion - you have been suitably warned already. Therefore, I see no reason to remove or shorten the block.

For clarity, short blocks override long blocks, therefore, your block will expire in a little less than a month.

I am also making a new post to WP:ANI to show other administrators that you have contested your block, and that I have replied to you declining to remove or shorten the block. This will give other admins a chance to review my decision.

Be warned, however, that the community is just as likely to decide to lenghten the block (perhaps permenantly) as they are to reduce it. Johntex\^talk 20:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for this. I'd like to emphasise the following:

The web site in question cannot possibly be regarded as an attack site. It is a considered assessment of a specific example of the widely acknowled weakness in the Wikipedia policy on concesus. To the best of my knowledge it does not contain any information not already publically available on Wikipedia. It may be right or wrong, but it certainly presents a case to answer, and at least eight different editors including an Administrator have stated that they agree with it. If you're an administrator please take a look if have the url yourself. Happy to e-mail it if you don't.

The external website is not the same as my deleted page. Since a number of editors agree with its contents it is not reasonable to make the assumption that i am responsible for it. I am of course not denying that I agree with it, nor that I'm happy to see the issue being aired again.

The facts do not square with malicious behaviour on my part. Why would I post a link to a website knowing that I was likely to be banned for it, when I could have strolled down to a cyber cafe and posted the link anonymously ? Also why would I admit to being J1838 when I didn't need to (having a new IP address). It simply dosen't add up.

I am prepared to undertake not to post any further links to this website until some sort of arbitration has taken place to determine whether or not it qualifies as an attack site, and if it does then I'll undertake not to post links at all.

Hope that answers your concerns SimplePilgrim 22:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of e-Mail to AnnH re being blocked for the same event as above

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:

What is wrong with being associated with John1838 ?
What is the nature of this association with Trollwatcher and why is it an offence ?
What do you mean about collecting information, and what evidence do you have ?
From your records you will be able to see that my links were posted at a time when a number of people saw them without noting any personal information. Am I being held responsible for what happened on the website subsequently ?
If you genuinely thought (however mistakenly) that I had posted a link to a site containing personal information, why did you not assume that I was unaware of the Wikipedia policy and act accordingly ?
Given that I am happy to confirm that I have no intention of providing information of any sort that could identify any editor, are you now prepared to lift your ban ?
Would you care to comment on the practise of Administrators banning users whom they have an obvious personal interest in censoring.

Best regards, Simple Pilgrim

 SimplePilgrim 23:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the first time User:Musical Linguist has abused her admin rights to further her many, strong ideological biases. I'm sorry you were affected. Alienus 20:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of the editors John1838 was collecting data on earlier this year. I was a "case history" for persecution which disappeared when it became obvious that I was working quite cheerfully with the people who were supposed to be "after" me. I am unaware of any edit made by SimplePilgrim/John1838/J1838 that was adding content to a wikipedia article. Look up the bible verse the name is based on - this guy has an agenda that has nothing to do with improving the encyclopedia and looks to my non-admin eyes like stalking. I was the one who flagged the website links, unconnected admins blocked this user and User:HK30 (check out this "new" users edit history) to stop the postings and reverts of my attempts to delete the references. All Ann has been doing is clearing up the mess by removing the link from the edit histories as requested by the user who's personal information was disclosed. Why is it that people who have no interest in building an encyclopedia can take up so much of everyones time? Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 21:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia. Thanks for your attention. You were indeed cited on a Wikipedia page some months ago. Are you suggesting that you were misquoted ? And what is the significance of the inverted commas in the phrase who were supposed to be "after" me. It is not a quotation from anything I have ever said. All I did was quote you when you expressed the same sentiments as me. You wrote "welcome to the world of people with POV's who know the rules. By the way - I'm under the sock puppet cloud too for daring to question consensus - seems the only reason for anyone to disagree with the cozy christian mainstream view is if they're out to fiddle the system." SOPHIA 00:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC). You were quoted because I was making exactly the same case that there is a cozy club with mainstream christian POV's who manipulate the rules and make false accusations of sock puppetry against anyone daring to question their consensus. Appologies if I got the wrong end of the stick. As I recall the case study you refered to was removed as soon as you made pals with the cozy club.

You seem to know a lot about me - for example the origin of my name and my gender. Is this what you call stalking? It's certainly more than I've ever presumed to do, which is to quote what people say about themselves on Wikipedia. Is there something wrong with that ? As far as I can tell your only real accusation is that I havn't made many edits. Pretty serious I agree, but enough to support me being banned indefinitely? SimplePilgrim 21:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unblock request

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)[reply]