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 february 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 july 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