I agree that it's a contentious statement, but don't you see that it's equally contentious to assert that I "clearly" acted in ways which were at best likely to mislead others? I'm under no obligation (that I'm aware of) to explicitly call out that the various IP addresses I use are all being used by me. That said, I've also never denied it. Frankly, no one has seemed to have a problem figuring it out, so I'm not sure anyone's been seriously mislead to begin with. I'm not hiding my writing style or anything.
E.g. 
My use of wikipedia being my *reading* use, as is made clear by the statement "those orange banners are annoying." I didn't evade the block until such point when I thought it had been communicated that editing under a different IP wouldn't be considered evasion. As User:Dennis Brown pointed out to me, IP addresses aren't humans; they're more akin to telephone numbers. It follows that a block applied to a telephone number applies to that telephone number. If the intention was to stop me, personally, from editing Wikipedia, shouldn't it have been a ban? (Also, you must be aware that statements like "to twist logic in your defense" fail to AGF.)
At this point, I'm pretty sure that everyone has taken it as granted that I'm being deceptive simply by choosing not to register for an account. If that's the case, this really doesn't seem like the encyclopedia that anyone is encouraged to edit boldly. Also, you're misconstruing what I admitted (see above.)
Lastly, (and this relates to all of your points in general), you yourself said that it was reasonable to invoke IAR (above) in order to improve Wikipedia, despite the block. If that was the case for calling attention to a bad edit, why not a bad policy?
24.177.122.31