"
Support for unblock request
See Shell's response to this block, made directly to Gnan/garra: via  Diffs..
Users like me are not permitted to edit archives of project pages like AN/I.  The request asked me to do something that it would have been a violation of Wikipedia editing policy/guidelines for me to do.
Please follow the ""previous"" and ""next"" edits in the above link to ""Diffs."" just provided. The block, even the reason given for it, just illustrates (in my view) additional piling on of already-unwarranted accusations.
Shell points out the unfair nature of this block: see ""Diffs."" linked above (move through to ""previous"" and ""next""; all of the material has been deleted from Gnan/garra's current talk page.
Why is the administrator not following the same requirements re: ""archiving"" of current discussions that s/he thinks was required of me by User:John Carter (though JC says it was not).  There was no ""condition"" or ""requirement"" in the closing administrator (JC)'s closing summary/conclusion.  I voluntarily added the archiving bot (which is or was malfunctioning apparently, as I have alerted both Shell and Gnan/garra.
My reasonable and logical presentation of my own perspective on the AN/I was posted before not after the ""request"" by Gnan/garrait had  in it and was edited out in the past day but I put it back in so Shell and Gnan/garra could refer to it more easily.
Labeling my comments as a ""rant"" or a ""screed"" is likewise still unwarranted and even (in my view) a violation of Wikipedia:Etiquette, as I have said in the Sept. 5 now-archived AN/I.
Shell has already indicated that this block should be removed (unblocked) and why she thinks so.
My list of comments above was posted prior to Gnan/Garra's archive 25 post (which is misplaced and which I myself restored in #request above; see the date/time stamps.
I did not make (and do not make) any personal attacks (""PA"") against anyone and I have not ""reiterated"" any such ""PA""; the word ""inhumane"" is not my word; that is Gnan/garra's word (paraphrase), after quoting me from a now-archived AN/I also out of context.
Again: please provide ""diffs.""  Paraphrasing and using words like ""inhumane"" which I myself did not use does not substantiate any claim of my engaging in any such ""PA"" (personal attack).  I did not engage in any such thing.
I did not ""accuse"" anyone of anything and certainly did not use uncivil or offensive language, though others did so in that AN/I (see the editing summary, which contains improper expletive language by another user); I said that a user repeatedly seems to lack humane compassion and linked to (earlier version of) my current ""N.B."" (scroll up); I observed that earlier in the July 2008 AN/I, and still feel that way.  I am being attacked, while I have not attacked anyone (the policy is WP:NPA.  There was no claim of ""personal attacks"" leveled at me in what Orderinchaos filed on September 5, 2008; all his/her claims have been proved to be incorrect and false.
I have engaged in no blockable ""behavior"" from July 15 until now; and I still question the block initiated in July; nevertheless, I accepted the terms of that block and immediately accepted an offer of adoption.
I was not the one who ""canceled"" the adoption by Ecoleetage.  The adopter (Ecoleetage) canceled it on his own after seeing what he says he considered no reason to continue it.
I thought he had or would have contacted User:John Carter to inform him of that, but, apparently, he did not.  That was Ecoleetage's action, not mine.
There was no ""collusion"" with Ecoleetage on either my part or his part, as Orderinchaos mistakenly claims there was (in the Sept. 5 AN/I statements at top of it).(See I wonder above, Shell's response, and my reply to that.
I have not stated that Orderinchaos engaged in anything but possibly-inadvertent misstatements; nonetheless, they are misstatements and false accusations, which led to further misstatements about my alleged ""behavior"" from July 15 to September 5, 2008.  Any reply I made was later maligned as if it were a ""rant"" or a ""screed"" and not accorded the respect that it deserved and deserves as a good-faith