and indeed your only direct one for why you act the way you do was predicated on the idea that A) this user is not who he claims to be (which you have just admitted you are wrong about), and B) his complaints are a carefully orchestrated falsehood as an attack on and provocation of you specifically.

No, I told you the grounding of my moderation philosophy. The specific case here is that he did violate Rule 2 by insinuating that killing FBI agents was necessary. Therefore, he got banned.

The rest of what he's doing is intentionally trying to cause drama to drive me out.

The problem I have with this is that your definition of a subversion campaign includes, apparently, complaints about your actions.

Well, duh. I'm in a position of (minimal) authority. Wherefore every subversive action needs to target me in order to undermine that authority and seize power for itself.

I'm not saying that any complaint is inherently subversive. It's that subversion requires me to be attacked in one way or another.