` *Funny, I didn't even know about the first block. It was only after seeing your heading that I scrolled through and found it. Sorry, I missed it. That an admin who persistently ignores the grossest incivility from his buddy  while using repeated blocks for imagined thought crimes, only provides further evidence that the process is fundamentally failing, and that the problem of admins applying Wikipedia policy arbitrarily in inconsistent fashion, the same problem we chronically see at CfD, is very much alive and well. Per Wikipedia:Blocking policy, ``Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users``, yet this appears solely intended to be as punitive as possible. I will have ample time to work on preparing to pursue administrative measures to address the clearest possible misconduct on your part in applying a block on multiple occasions, despite rather clear violations of conflict of interest with the apparent WP:POINT-violating intention of disrupting Wikipedia by attempting to silencing an opponent who has successfully exposed the deep-seated problems at CfD. There have been a few dozen articles I hadn't gotten around to creating, and I'll use the time to write those articles; Meanwhile, I will sit back and enjoy, watching how Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 28#Category:Knuckleball pitchers  in which consensus is clear that the close was in clear violation of Wikipedia policy  will be a first step towards ending the reign of error at CfD.   `