As the dog returneth to his own vomit... .

Brief history: On my return from holiday, last week, I discovered that another editor,  had posted a  which criticises my conduct and alleges that I am part of a concert-party aimed at articles substantially edited by him. During May 26h., I tried to add comments to the page and then had a discussion with him, above, which closed the matter between us.The following day, I posted links on the Talk pages of the other alleged conspirators, one of whom is . The entire correspondence with him reads as follows:

==Discussion involving you==You might be interested in the discussion on my 'Talk Page', here, which indirectly involves you. It is disappointing that the author has not notified you himself.  (talk) Seen all that. Out of context, of course, in every sense. In addition its dredged up from some time back when we were all wrapped over the knuckles then. It seems he wants people perpetually punished for not agreeing with him or for voting on the same pages. I'd hate to list all the AfD and other pages he and Vintagekits collaborate on. But thats all right. Regards,  :Yes; the image of a dog licking its own balls comes to mind. (talk) 

The metaphor is supposed to represent a self-indulgent act which gives great pleasure to the participant but which others view as embarrassing and repulsive.

The next thing I know is that some random Admin has popped up, blocked me, and disappeared again, reappearing on the Administrator's Noticeboard waving my scalp around. The diff link on the Noticeboard refers to the last post only, and a number of commentators on the Noticeboard immediately agree with the view that it is a WP:NPA.

I pause here to point out that either the Admin herself, or I (before I was blocked), could have blanked the comment, perhaps with a warning on this Talk page. I would have been perfectly happy to have done so myself, because I like to think of myself as reasonable and because the post was not intended as an attack; had I wished to criticise  I would have done so on my own Talk page discussion with him. (As it is,  had the sense to blank the discussion in any case.)

Anyway, that said, I reply as follows to those who have posted comments here:

' I hope that I have demonstrated that we're at cross-purposes. Frankly, however, you've made no attempt to engage with either myself or  or to resolve the dispute between us. You might just as well have blocked one of us at random.

' Thank you for yours. You're the dog's bollocks!

' Point taken, for what it's worth (I had initially understood 's complaint to be with the vulgarity of the metaphor rather than her seeing it as an attack). !vote discussions increasingly resemble a mass outbreak of Tourette's syndrome.

' Thank you for yours. I note you seem to have had rather an unpleasant discussion with  yourself on the subject, and I should like to thank you for your interest and understanding. I have also had a look at your User page, which I found very interesting and would like to comment further on your Talk page in due course. To answer your point, I did see how to request an unblock, but as the block was only for 24 hours, and the ground had anyway been cut from under my feet by 's posting on the Administrator's Noticeboard which had garnered approval for the block. I also dislike complaining to Admins about other people's behaviour; it just seems a bit wet to me (and I don't do it myself).

'''' Firstly; thank you for the link, which I would otherwise have missed. Secondly, an apology for this post of mine (on the Administrator's Noticeboard): Giano - Sympathy is limited. The contentious nature of the page in question was twice pointed out to you by me and I also requested that you calm down; there's no need to post the same thoughts across 3 different forums. Nobody appointed you Arbuthnot-finder