"

Reply
Are you being facetious? if not, you would have relayed the same message to Jza and MRSC as my words were no more stern than theres. If you would like evidence for any of the claims made on the talk, then I will only be too glad to provide. You also failed to provide diffs in your message to me, in regards to which words you're claiming are offesive, perhaps WP:Assume good faith.

The two users constantly harass and follow me to articles making disruptive edits in violation of numerous Wikipedia guidelines (WP:HARASS is just one). For example the removal of third party references from articles which don't suit their POV, without entering an edit summary (considered by Wikipedia guidelines as bad faith and a violation of WP:BLANK). The violation of WP:NEO by adding derogatory neologisms to the articles of organisations who they do not personally agree with, despite being made aware of the policy, despite not having any reference to the said organisation being described with said neologislm and despite the community majority constantly removing the derogatory term.  The same ""tag team"" practise can be shown to be used against numerous other editors who edit articles on British culture and trad counties, not just against me. Again, if you would like evidence just ask.

It would seem however, looking at the messages on your talkpage above, especially the lovely intertude under ""UK mediation"" section, that Jza messaged you (somebody he seems very familiar with) in violation of WP:CANVAS. Specifically the section on Wikipedia:CANVAS#Campaigning may interest you. If you're going to be an admin, may I suggest you please make yourself familiar with the policies and guidelines I have referenced in this message. Rather than accusing me, a user who is being cyberstalked, of ""personal attacks"". Systematic bias is not acceptable, you're here to make sure that our policies are upheld not to chip in for the sake of a friend. Thanks. -   "