>As to know what you should know about our confidential administrative procedures. Simple, they are confidential, and they should remain like that. Then, you started asking me, once again, after emails and such, to ban a member or to take procedures like that. Then, you sent something about non satisfaction and as to know if I did it. Then, I told you this is not to be discuss. So, you sent me another request that you wanted to know. So, I told you again that this should not be discussed with other members. Then, as if this wasn't enough, you continued harrassing me telling me that you were just not another member, as if you have something that gives you that privilege of knowing confidential administrative procedures that all other members are not allowed to. Sorry, but this came in as a terrible insult for all our members. I know some of the things you did in the past were in good intentions, but this will never justify having someone to come up with such a punchline to me.

This reply is necessary, because I am incorrectly accused here.

My own report of our PM exchange was very correct. Yours isn't. First, you suggest I asked for a ban. The fact is that I explicitly suggested NOT to ban. Instead I suggested you'd contact Jim and ask him to stop. The next PMs (no email was ever sent here) were attempts to find out whether or not you had taken action.

I felt forced to refer to the contents of the PMs, because it sheds light on the how and why of my position and opinion. I was aware of what you wrote about disclosure of PM content.
Here you write about quoting. Although I'm of opinion that people should always be aware that even private content can become public and that law does not prohibit that in all cases, I decided to not quote. Instead I decided to stick to the essence in the best neutral way. Nonetheless you take offense. It is up to the others to choose side here. Either they decide to believe your words, or mine. Feel free to disclose the PMs, either here or in private emails.