"

Oh hi. Long story short so I won't be ""ranting"" (or what not) this time:

So Sjones is wikihounding me constantly for nearly a year now, and his pal Bridies is also obsessed with me to the point of where the great most of his entire activity here on Wikipedia in the 5 months was all about how to rid of me (while I've substantionally adited hundreds of different articles during the same period, over 5,000 in total since March 2012). That's just not normal. Btw, right now I'm blocked because I referred to this wikihounding by ""stalking"" (which is just semantics really, apparently they call it ""cyberbullying"" now outside the Wikipedia).

Now, GAs. Basically what The Devil's Advocate wrote in his comment - and this example of the so-called ""additional evidence"" (as it was called by Sjones in his wikihounding thread) is indeed a good example of ""evidence"", as it shows what is actually this ""problem"" with me - and it's that I actually know (and obey) all the policies, rules and guidelines (including but not limited to everything regarding GAs and their reviewing process), while many reviewers don't know, and even when they're informed about the rules and guidelines (the proper ones, because in this case the reviewer was misinformed by some other apparently uninformed users, strangely including at least 1 admin) they might even flatly and completely refuse to acknowledge and use them (here, the reviewer's invoking ""ignore all rules"" instead of admitting the wrong). I'm all for proper reviewing, instead of incorrect/arbitrary, which is why I've opened this thread recently (aftter this very debacle, precisely) because the scale of this problem (various types of bad reviewing) is pretty alarming, and some reviewers' blatant refusal to play by rules after they're being informed about them is just absolutely unacceptable (that's my opinion, at least, but I can't see how could I be any wrong with being right).

  "