:You're confused about what actually constitutes a personal attack. Generally, a personal attack is when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when examining another person's claims or comments. Hence, citing Sam Spade's shabby public record of past misdeeds does not constitute a personal attack. By definition then an actual example of personal attack would be the source of this conflict, .  

 :The  suffices to conclude in good faith that Sam intentionally abused and attacked a fellow editor in a manner prohibited by wikipedia policy and intentionally side-stepped policy to get away with it. Both facts he admits . This is a matter of public record, accessible to all. 

 :I am within both convention and policy to publicly demand SS make good on his moral debt created by his personal attack and owed myself, as well of those he owes to others. Failing repeatedly there, my voiced concerns limited to the public record of Sam's past misdeeds does not constitute a personal attack. Indeed, there is an overriding public interest in identifying and dealing with chronically abusive editors like Sam, and I reserve the right to respond to every hypocritical post that misrepresents his history and character. My goal in doing so is therapeutic and pedagogical: It's therapeutic in that eventually Sam will learn from his misdeed; because of my actions I am certain Sam will never send another wikipedia editor an email like . It's pedagogical in that it serves to inform other editors such as yourself who are unaware of Sam's extensive history of abusing fellow editors. As I've said many times before, Sam is only able to continue here abusing other editors because either morally bereft or well-meaning but clueless editors defend or excuse his trollish actions; they are troll enablers. Don't be a troll enabler. To learn the history of this conflict I suggest starting at the top of this page.