"

{{unblock|reason=Block serves no purpose. Given that my so-called PAs were limited to AN/I, and that I am preparing a case for RfC/U then I am hardly likely to persist. Further to the point that remarks on AN/I that are not related to content disputes are not disruptive, and therefore the block is not preventative, as there are, and have been, no concerns regarding disruption or vandalise to encyclopedic articles. My argument stands that this block is a WP:COATRACK with my ""personal attacks"" being highlighted to mask the uncivil remarks and assertions on AN/I. Those assertions, based on undue lack of AGF, over my response to a WQA are based on straw man arguments, with no evidence to support the claims, and in fact run on a parallel track to the discussion at AN/I, but have in fact been misrepresented through synthesis to create an attack on my contribs, and cannot be reasonably analysed as a ""bad faith"" WQA response. However, this is the tone that has been used by an admin who refused to get involved in the WQA, but did not hesitate to question my ability to respond to the WQA, which was also, notably, my first WQA response, which was concluded and closed by supporting editors. Therefore the attack on my response, which was made prematurely, perhaps an uncivil approach in itself, was unfounded. Since the close, the admin has refused to recognise their critique as a bad faith attack, nor have they refactored it recognise the conclusion of the WQA. They have, instead, used my earlier uncivil remarks, which I should not pre-dated the AN/I topic by 3 days and therefore the admins right to question my WQA response was somewhat presumptious given that the two events are unrelated, and casting doubts on an editors ability to contribute to X-area of wiki because they had a dispute in Y-area of wiki is not a logical conclusion, it is a straw man argument; i.e. ""Because MB was uncivil to editor-A on AN/I, he should be kept away from WQA"". This flaw being, that every article, user, project and content page on wiki has a discussion page, therefore why not argue ""If MB is uncivil on AN/I, he could be uncivil anywhere""? Having dismissed the admins argument as flawed, based in this discrepancy, plus the fact they were assuming I would respond to WQA, but it had been my first and there is no evidence to suggest I was going to make a career out of it, the admin drew conclusion based on a false premis. Those conclusions were used detrimentally and matter-of-fact, despite being opinions, theories and at most, concerns. At no time did the admin attempt to address those concerns on my talk page, as would be proper. Instead they made uncivil remarks, questioning the faith of my response and promoting a damning claim, using quotes out of context and lacking correct interpretation. I maintain that the intentions of the admin were uncivil, and that by addressing me ""potentially uncivil"" the admin was making proactive disdainful remarks, based on one solitary WQA, rather than a reactive proposal based on sufficient history, behaviour patterns or evidence to support the theory. To make matters worse, when I confronted the admin with this they adopted a defensive stance, dismissing my anger at their assertions as uncivil, and convoluted the matter further by placing my angry response above their own behaviour, whilst casting judgement, thus clouding the issue, i.e. the WP:COATRACK counter-measure. I consider this an attack on my integrity, as my response to WQA was rejected and questioned before it was even resolved, which is a clear example of attacking the faith of an editor. Because the admin continued to accelerate their case against me with condescending remarks, and refusal to accept their straw man claim as unreasonable or irrelevant to the discussion, i.e. a fork. Their persistence to use those comments can only be observed as advocating. For any admin of that experience to be unable to recognise their own bad faith, illogical attempt to predict an editor, and close-minded approach, there has to be a underlying motive, in my belief, for them to persist, to the degree of blocking me and refusing to allow their behaviour to be questioned is paramount to enacting COI.  So, though my responses may be considered uncivil, they are in reaction to what I perceive as irresponsible admin attitude, and pessimistic misuse of my response at WQA. That is not a PA, or uncivil, it is a legit observation with regards my POV which was made to look warped due to the late-interjection with straw man based propositions, casting aspersions on my ability to handle WQA. Unless there has been a direct complaint or issue pertaining to a page, or discussion, it is not appropriate for an admin to imply anything, and therefore my one-off role at WQA is