"
I'll show you the relevance of them,
WP:AN3#User:Geoeg reported by User:dicklyon (Result: Both blocked for 6 hours) dicklyon and Geoeg have been disagreeing about an article where WP:COI is a concern. Since dicklyon reported Geoeg for 3RR, he/she is focusing negative attention on Geoeg. Why is this not harassment?
WP:AN/I#SPA Milto LOL pia pointed out a concern about a WP:SPA editor, also focusing negative attention on them. Why is this not harassment?
WP:COIN#SPAs and socks pushing POV, PR, and advertising on the Chapman_University_School_of_Law Page This also focuses negative attention, not totally unlike what I said Justanother has done. Why is this not harassment?

You seem to buy into Bishonen's belief that I am out to get Justanother and thereby assume anything I bring up must be part of that campaign. You are wrong, in this case he was being disruptive while other editors were genuinely trying to resolve a dispute. If this isn't being disruptive, all that needs to be done is give a brief explanation why answers like this are acceptable:
Q:Using reliable sources, should this article have a section discussing Hubbard's personality?  
A:Rephrase:' Should a one-sided, POV analysis of Hubbard's ""personality"" based on a small number of critical sources and bordering on WP:OR synthesis be posted in the article as a ""work in progress"" or should a balanced, NPOV, and non-OR piece be developed in a sandbox by interested parties from all sides of the issue. Which one benefits the project? There, that is a more accurate statement of the issue.  

Please put your assumptions about what you think I'm doing and ask yourself if the arbcom meant to give Justanother a free pass from having to abide by any rules that I happen to point out? For crying out loud by your logic I couldn't report ANY violation of policy by him whether it's valid or not. Does that really make sense to you?  "