"

Please stop accusing me of what you do to me, and read this: ""However, there is an endemic problem on Wikipedia of giving ""harassment"" a much broader and inaccurate meaning which encompasses."" Also, please stop dragging me back into your Rehash and Battleground arena, every time I go away to avoid it.   

Stop your Battleground antics and allow this unbiased admin to objectively assess your conduct today. I have left all the ""glory"" of editing that article to you and your email pal long ago. Also, changing your edit after I had responded as you have done more than once, and like you did now  is inconsistent with policy.  This is a verifiable fact.  Don't label it an attack.  Finally, you and your email pal should read WP:ADMINSHOP as it is inconsistent with policy, and you should not bite a WP:NEWCOMER just because they made an observation of your conduct.  Have a good night and enjoy life.   

 is not an unbiased ""peacemaker"" in this.  He is 's email pal. As I stated above, this is always the case.  They come as a ""tag team"" and a lynch mob to drag me to their WP:BATTLEGROUND rather than communicate as individual editors. This is why I have decided to walk away from any and all edit conflict to avoid a potential WP:EW with them not even revert their edits even though they always confront my ""minimal"" number of well sourced edits.  It is just not worth it. I don't have the time to list all incidents of his conduct that is inconsistent with policy, but I don't need to.  This unbiased admin, PBS, has seen through the cloud screens, and has stated facts about the ""unjustified"" RFC for which, in my opinion, Technophant has canvassed in bad faith and in sheer violation of policy WP:CANVASS. Also, his larger than life diagram here and accusations, to me, sound like a personal attack.  I did not call him or P123ct1 names.  Enough WP:REHASH and vindictiveness already. I have shown a lot of restraint today adhering to policy even after 's false accusation and personal attack as stated above and as can be seen here  (without naming me).  They should not be allowed to push me.   

 You are not telling the truth.  If I am going to be sanctioned for telling the verifiable truth, so be it.  Also, you don't need to scream at me with bold letters. I stopped using bold letters when I realized how it affected other editors. You are still doing it. The RFC/U was unwarranted and was done in complete bad faith.  It was biased and there was nothing kind about it.  It was a lynch mob and a bad faith pretext to call me all sort of names by a (very) small number of editors on the RFC Talk page and no one was ever sanctioned.  You wanted your own ""local""  club and your (very) small consensus playground in the article. You did all you could to push me away. Well, you succeeded, and I have completely stayed away from the article even though I have exceptional knowledge in it, because of you and her.  You both seem to have a pattern of systematically violating policy and then say sorry and ""I regret"", the most recent being this edit  that you made today for some self-serving agenda, when the closing admin expressly stated ""No further edits should be made to this page"".  This is unjust, selective, as it is inconsistent with policy and other closed RFCs that are not edited at will by non-admins, and it has gotten way too old. I don't have time for this but I am sure that time, and other editors, will expose all. Have a good night and try to enjoy life and let others enjoy theirs.   

 Yes, PC123ct1, I remember, and I remember how a biased someone, who I will not include now because he has backed off, wound you up, enabled you, and put you against me. In any case, I am out of here. Have a good night the both of you. Enjoy life!...   

QUESTION 3: Can you point out which one of my sentences specifically amount to WP:NPA and/or WP:HA? Once I understand it and verify the specific polic