I had already been told why they weren't vandalism?  The reasoning offered was insufficient.  I quoted from the rules.  I showed where he broke the rules.  That was never refuted.  
I warned a vandal.  He reverted the warning more than once.  He never replaced it with one that he felt was more appropriate.  How can I not assume you are biased in this matter?  You are carrying on a very fascinating conversation with him on your talk page about groking or whatever, and I get blocked?  I make one comment you deem inappropriate and denounce it as "scathing"?  
Let's look at the wrong behavior Daedalus engaged in on WP:ANI just now:
"I knew he wouldn't really notice the block..."  That's false.  I noticed the block.
I'm done assuming good faith with you.  WP:AGF  blatant.
...you're trolling for some kind of response."  False, and fails to assume good faith.
"You have so far been nothing but disruptive." False, and basically the same kind of comment I just got a one week block for.
"...the way you warned those IPs is classified as a personal attack." False, and false statements about other editors are not allowed under the civility rules.
"You've been nothing but rude since you got here..."  False, as his statement contains an absolute.  Even using the most liberal definition of rude, I have not been "nothing but rude..."
"...the user claimed that I was ready to resign..."  False, and that represents a serious misrepresentation of my comment.
"this information that he claimed to have had(but of course, did not) about me resigning..."  False, as I never claimed to have information about him resigning.  Patently false.
"...that was a twinkle edit summery, an edit summery that is created automatically by the script when in use..."  Using automation isn't a defense to bad edits or edit summaries.
"I removed your message from my review..."  He concedes to vandalism.
"...you might be something else..."  Obvious failure to assume good faith.
"Are you sure you read that entire page?"  Sarcasm during a heated debate is quite clearly incivility.
As a side note, I see Redvers has accused me of calling established editors "vandals" on Wikipedia.  As far as I remember, that too is false.  I said Daedalus969 committed vandalism, and I said he was on the side of vandals, but I never called him a vandal.  Keep in mind also that what Redvers just did, by the rules, was incorrect.   
Yet, for my one alleged mistake, I get a one week block.  Daedalus, on the other hand, gets not so much as even one warning?  This is a mockery.  How I am I supposed to think, given the evidence, that you weren't doing anything other than looking for one mistake on my part, whether real or imagined, to hit me with a block?  You're having a friendly conversation with this guy while he's committing vandalism, incivility, personal attacks, page blanking, false statements, and bad edit summaries, and I get toasted for one arguable slip?  No, no, no, "scathing" slip.  Please.  
Note also that many of his bad moves such as this have absolutely no merit.  Please tell me, how much of his nonsense was I supposed to be able to endure?  The deck was stacked.  He's breaking the rules while making accusations against me, and I'm expected to turn the other cheek how many times?  I guess since I said I was done in my last WP:ANI post, it might have seemed like the last chance to hit me with a block, rather legitimate or not.  
This is a disgrace.  I'm personally embarrassed on behalf of anyone who thinks what has gone down is acceptable.