Lesson of the day, calling an admin's (but probably not a regular user's) behavior disingenuous is a 'personal attack.'
Here's the direct quote which snowspinner deliberately looked for and blocked me for out of spite: "In any case, I just love how the admins here are trying their absolute best to disengenuously change the process in order to ensure their continued status."
That was from a discussion on the RfA talk page about whether or not blank oppose votes (And other oppose votes decided to be invalid for whatever reason) shouldn't be counted in votes for new admins.
Talk about a act of bad faith and an attempt to disrupt wikipedia to make a point!
I propose a question: what's the politically correct version of suggesting that someone's intentions are not honest? "I think that maybe, it seems to me (and correct me if I'm wrong), that this idea may be promoted, by some admins, as a less-than-honest method of trying to keep themselves in power. Again, I apologize if I'm wrong and will make a goat sacrifice if I have hurt anyone's feelings in saying this."
Maybe I should start keeping a list of all the "personal attacks" that admins use, but then that list itself might be seen as a "personal attack" using this warped bizzaro-logic.
Oh I should add that I didn't actually know this second block was in place until I tried editing my own user page and it was auto-reset, so yeah, it's kind of hard to argue it's not a bug.
---------------------------------------------- Nathan J. Yoder http://www.gummibears.nu/ http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key ----------------------------------------------