"
I know that I used vulgar language, yet Wikipedia policy doesn't consider vulgar language itself to be uncivil. I still maintain that:
There was no true consensus
I did not make any personal attacks
The other editors made claims that, in hindsight, were either rescinded, or admittedly false
My dialogue was in the interest of achieving neutrality, which as you can see is still a difficult undertaking
Nothing is achieved by an admin who chooses sides
I still maintain that the block was enacted without a valid rationale. It is not my intention to engage in ""further instances of disruptive behavior,"" so why bring it up?   "