"
So, you first make a claim that I wasn't uncivil on your talk page, but then you support my block for being uncivil, something you didn't think I was, on the grounds that you're no good at reading this kinda thing anyway and that you defer to the judgement of a person who did think I was uncivil.

Then hour and half later, you (hour and a half ago self-admittedly not that good at ""reading passive-aggressiveness or bad-faith"") feel comfortable making a suggestion to the reviewing admin that it's essentially OK to turn down my unblock request without bothering to read more than one sentence. 

May I ask how do you imagine me getting a fair hearing by an untainted set of admin eyes now that you (another admin) suggested that several words ""should be enough for any admin to turn down this request""? Context, order of cause and consequence, who initiated this, the validity of initial accusations... I guess none of that plays a role.  "