Because apparently I can read what is happening out of your own screenshots, rather than read into them my preconceived biases?

Your very screenshot here begins with "at this point no decision is made on how we continue in terms of federation. this is not something i'm going to decide on my own without sufficient discussion in the team", and it then immediately in the next paragraph continues with "the original defederation happened..."

These words mean that the topic under discussion in that screenshot is NOT the original defederation, but rather whether AN (&dbzer0) should be re-federated, which ended up happening. So for one thing the context to the part highlighted refers to that newly current discussion, and for another it (i.e. the lack of proof) also refers to the sentence immediately prior to it, about the names targeting people rather than the ideology. In this new context those words take on entirely new meaning, but do not negate every single fact that came before - especially MrKaplan is unlikely to have forgotten the original reason for defederation.

You also shared this screenshot:

I don't want to edit your image so instead I'll type out rather than highlight the relevant part, since you don't want to read it all again:

MrKaplan: "in the end this is however not a decision i will be doing alone, nor was the defederation a decision that wasn't supported by others, despite their misrepresentation of this being me taking total power to fuck over others." (emphasis added)

However, I feel the goalposts keep shifting here, b/c to quote my own words:

I suppose you are calling MrKaplan a liar since your own screenshot mentions that it was discussed internally and not made solely by one person. It seems his word against yours, with no evidence currently presented either way.

(again, emphasis added here) To reiterate yet again, I was discussing whether the defederation had happened by MrKaplan entirely alone, vs. him consulting others, and I had indicated the word "evidence" meaning that the decision was made without consulting others. You responded with whether he had evidence to defederate the instance or not - but that is not the same topic.

Well, I suppose the topic can bring forth strong emotions. Though that is precisely what you are accusing MrKaplan of - acting on emotion rather than logic?

Anyway the communication of all of this by the LW team was definitely done exceedingly poorly - we can agree on that much, and the rest will have to wait until another day, as the decision to re-federate was already made. You've won: enjoy it:-D.