Noted; I will take your comments under consideration.  For the avoidance of doubt, please refrain from any further administrative actions with regard to MickMacNee (or any other party) for the duration of the case.
In the meantime, I would be interested in any further comments you might have on the following issues:
 Given that MickMacNee was already to remain blocked for 72 hours, was immediate escalation of the block length necessary even in the context of a stated intent to resume the conduct in question?  In particular, I'm interested in your thoughts on (a) whether the 72 hour period could instead have been used to reach a more amicable arrangement and (b) whether a removal of the underlying cause for conflict (in this case, Hammersoft's redaction of his original remarks) would have made any such statements of intent moot at the time the block expired.
 A number of editors have suggested that Hammersoft's comments were themselves personal attacks, or may have (intentionally or unintentionally) baited MickMacNee into an aggressive response.  To what degree is this explanation credible; and, if it is, to what degree does it mitigate MickMacNee's culpability?
Thank you in advance for your input.  [talk] ]