`53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)  == Note ==  Marcus, you're a useful and productive contributor. But you have to be more careful with what you say to people.  A good way to judge whether (X) counts as a ``personal attack`` is to consider how you would react if (X) had been said to you, rather than by you. Also, realize that ``personal attack``, like ``insult``, is as much in the mind of the listener as in the mind of the speaker. You may not have intended (X) to be a personal attack, but (X) can certainly be perceived as one just the same. No one will count coup on you if you apologize.  I realize that it can be very frustrating to bear the brunt of disciplinary measures, but if we-the-administrators do not impose some form of order, the project as a whole risks degenerating into even more of an anarchy than it already is.  Take the time to relax, and when your block expires, you're welcome to resume editing. Okay?     :I understand what you're saying, but this is not a disciplinary measure, it is further offence as an admin not only attacks my WQA response, but then conceals their attack by turning my behaviour into hyperbole to reduce their guilty. I don't apologise to people with such motives, or who serve protect themselves. The project only risks degenerating when sysop is left in the hands of people who abuse it. I maintain that the block is a front, a pretext. If reviewing admins are failing to take time to determine that and recognise the integrity of my claim, instead of taking Fram's for granted, which is contrary to ``we're all equals on wiki``, then I will have no choice but to raise the matter elsewhere, such as RfC or ArbCom. This isn't about discipline, at my age I don't consider ``you can't login`` as anything like you suggest, because it's not like losing wages. It's the principle of the matter. My contribs to WQA were meticulously used as spin against me, instead of the AGF everyone else saw them as. I don't intend to let Fram sit on a high horse any longer. Either they apologise first and withdraw their false assertions, or they'll have to explain them to RfC or ArbCom. Which I'm sure is much more complex and time consuming and stressful than admitting to any wrong-doing, but so be it, I stand for what I believe in and always have. I won't be bullied by someone like that. So really, the ball is in their court. If no one is counting coup, that applies to the admin who attacked me in an undignified manner, and continues to do so by maintaining their position – though now shielding themselves behind a wall of admins instead of facing up to the fact they erred. COI is clearly affecting their actions, or unwillingness to show face. They can either opt-in and admit they were wrong for their attack, or wait until a higher channel, one that even exceeds their stance, asks why they attacked my contribs and synthesised a despicable ``bad faith`` conclusion. The consequences this dispute have yet to be determined.  [ • RFF] 21:`