`{{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)?         `