` ===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  (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  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 response. *I pointed out that other users/administrators have not followed the ``diffs.`` to ``previous`` and ``next`` in the link given by Orderinchaos and fail to see the errors in Orderinchaos's unwarranted ``suspicions`` leading to his/her false claims of ``canvassing`` of me by Ecoleetage, which, even if it had occurred, was not my behavior, but Ecoleetage's.  I did not perceive that I was being ``canvassed``; I perceived only courteous alerts from Ecoleetage to problems in some articles that needed work or that he had been nominated in a RfA. *Orderinchaos's suspicions are not backed up by facts in ``diffs.`` that verify what he claims.  They are false accusations made apparently inadvertently; mistakes.  I have not attacked Orderinchaos or anyone else for making them; I have pointed out that they are mistakes, however, and that I should not be attacked on the basis of such false claims. *After posting the Sept. 5th AN/I, apparently Orderinchaos took a ``Wikibreak``. *I have had no contact with or from  since mid-July 2008, the day he unblocked me and signed off on the adoption by Ecoleetage and explained that there was no condition or requirement re: archiving in JC's closing of the July block (see approx. July 15 in archive page 21). *The context for ``humane compassion`` is the full ``N.B.`` as it existed at the time of the link placed and as it exists now. I did not use the word ``inhumane``; that is Gnan/garra's choice of words.  It illustrates why statements in one place should not be quoted out of context and used as the basis for a ``block`` or ``sanctions`` against another editor of Wikipedia. *It is a punitive block for something that did not even occur.     `