}}

Evidence
Admin  was admonished in the  WebEx and Min_Zhu arbcom case "not to use his administrative tools or give warnings in content disputes in which he is involved."   This is evidence of recent involvement in a content dispute, where FM reinserted a WP:BLP—WP:OR—WP:ATT violation (edit summary rv guettarda was correct) without participation in talk. (Furthermore, he  continued this behaviour against another editor in an unrelated issue, which Wales said was not warranted and worthy of a bigger discussion).  He is also  blocking outside the scope of the arbcom decision, even if one incorrectly asserts that I am party to it, including blocking (17 February 2007)  for contributing to (not voting!) a  deletion discussion; this was not an article, and participation is not disallowed.  FM then removed evidence that showed he was acting inappropriately.  He also made a previous block on 20 July 2006, incorrectly citing the arbcom decision of 'associated articles', while first providing no evidence, then false evidence (diff he provided was not to Ken Ham), to justify his accusation and inappropriate block.  (Note that KillerChihuahua removed evidence from that page, claiming that it was posted by a banned user, while no one in that decision was banned from Wikipedia; therefore, the removal was inappropriate.)  

 The reason and contest of the block is obviously that the blocking admin acted inappropriately by placing a block against someone on the 'other side' of a content dispute (and removing evidence by deleting a post that was not his own) in the first place. 

You don't ask a homeowner whose television has been stolen to justify why his house has so many windows.