"{{Unblock|I'll make a renewed effort not to give personal attacks. But of course I do have some questions about this unwarranted blockage, as you might well imagine:

1. Why is it that IP editors tend to get the raw ends of the deal: that you ""admins"" tend to lean towards the side of someone who's editing with an account over someone who's editing without one, especially in the area of what you label as ""personal attacks"" or ""harassment"" when given by the IP-editor but not so much when the named editor does the same thing?

2. For exampleand this is... yep, maybe you guessed it... question 2: Why is it supposedly ""okay"" (according to you) for someone with a name... like, say... escape orbit... to dish out a personal attack, but not for me to give him one back because I'm just a lowly IP-editor? Specifically, why is it supposedly ""okay"" for him to give me a personal attack by putting false stuff on my keyboard by making the ludicrous claim that my reason for wanting the old style of ""ebaY"" logo to go next to the current one, ""ebay,"" in the lead, is ""because I wanted it in there,"" even though that is a total lie; but it's supposedly ""not okay"" for me to call that kind of slander stupid?

3. Here's another one: Why is it supposedly ""okay"" for him and ""smiley girl"" there to falsely accuse my edits of being ""vandalism"" just because they differed from what these guys preferred, but then when I say their reversions are vandalism, I get in trouble for it as if it were a ""personal attack"" just because I'm an IP-only editor?

4. Ready for one more? Then why is it fine for any of you named editors to give one of us IP-editors a warning template, but when I, as an IPer do the same thing to a named editor like I did to partially smiley girl, I get dinged with ""Oh, you can't do that 'cause that's a 'personal attack',"" or ""Oh, that's bad because that's 'harassment' ""?

5. Oh yeah, here's one more! Remember the rule about edit-warring (just in general, meaning that it doesn't even have to be breaking 3RR) that says that "" 'but I was right, so I was not edit-warring' is no defense""? Well then doesn't that apply to meeting some so-called ""consensus"" too (since some things aren't cases of concrete correctness but are just based more on whether they match what that so-called ""consensus"" wanted the thing to say)? Well then why is it that just because your named friend smiley there does some edit-warring against me to put the thing back to what your exclusive (partial) ""consensus"" wants it to say, AND since my editing had already been established as NOT vandalism even though it disagrees, you ignore that above-mentioned edit-warring rule and give her/him a pass anyway, but when I, an IP-only editor who's against your exclusive ""consensus,"" do the same thing, it's ""edit-warring"" even though it was the same thing as what smiley's doing (remember the ""being-right/matching-consensus-is-no-defense"" rule)?

75.162.211.81  

"