Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Atsme

To remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 22:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 21:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC).

Atsme (talk · contribs · logs)

The following discussion is an archived record of an user conduct request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

.

Hello, Requests for comment. The RFC/USER discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Requests for comment has been closed.

The outcome was: Closed due to lack of progress. Atsme has indicated on the talk page that she no longer wishes to take part.

-- -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone is welcome to endorse any view, but do not change other people's views. Under normal circumstances, a user should not write more than one view.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct and have previously attempted and failed to resolve the dispute. Only users who certify this request should edit the "Statement of the dispute" section. Other users may present their views in the other sections below.

Cause of concern

Atsme has been displaying battleground behavior since returning to wikipedia this year. She is here to Right the great wrongs [1]. To be on the receiving end of her incivility all it requires is for you to have a differing view than her after an edit of hers is reverted. Alternatively if she views you as being on her side you will be showered with flattery and there is a likelihood that she will misquote something you've said to make her case[2][3]. She displays classic signs of ownership behavior.Her willingness to canvass other editors but make little in the way of an honest effort in achieving a consensus is also concerning. Moving to merge and delete the article[4] while planning to recreate it[5]. Fighting [6] to keep a Merge request open that was opened on her behalf[7], a request that was opened during her attempt at merging, deleting, and recreating the article[8]. This merge request opened on her behalf was opened during a AfD that she opened[9]. After this AfD was closed Atsme joined a BLPN post and attempted to forumshop the notability discussion over to it.[10] Behavior like this substantially disrupts any effort to get a consensus.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme is a valuable contributor in other areas but the issue of Islamophobia brings out the worst in her. She pushes her point of view that Islamists are a danger to the Western world, and she works very hard to diminish the work of scholars who have written about the topic in a manner she does not agree with. Scholars such as Deepa Kumar are derided by Atsme as non-neutral lovers of Islam. For instance, Atsme dismisses the scholars Mina Ivanova, Deepa Kumar, George Michael, Melva Underbakke, Pedro Ruz Gutierrez and Marieke de Goede by writing "The 'reliable' sources you cited above are not neutral, particularly Deepa Kumar." Atsme continues by saying that scholar Daniel Pipes is "more neutral", rather than saying he comes to different conclusions. (Kumar is a respected scholar. Kumar's "Framing Islam: The Resurgence of Orientalism During the Bush II Era" was published in the Journal of Communication Inquiry in 2010. Kumar also wrote the 2012 Haymarket book Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, and she published "Islam and Islamophobia" in the International Socialist Reviewin 2007. Kumar's book was reviewed recently in Critical Studies on Terrorism, in Soundings: A journal of politics and culture in 2014, and also in 2014 in The International Journal of Press/Politics, giving it a solid scholarly foundation.)
Atsme has long been trying to remove the word Islamophobia from Wikipedia, for instance in this discussion which asserted that "Islamophobia Labels Are Reverse Discrimination", and another comment where she says Islamophobia is "blatantly discriminatory, judgmental, and POV, and should not be used at all". Many, many more such instances can be found, as this is the primary aim of Atsme across a variety of politico-religious articles. Failing in this endeavor, Atsme resorts to a legal threat with a chilling effect against Serialjoepsycho, telling him that if there is a civil lawsuit about the Wikipedia dispute, "guess who will be subpoenaed?", continuing this thought by telling Serialjoepsycho that Wikipedia will not support his legal expenses. I think Atsme cannot continue to discuss Islamophobia without creating disruption. Binksternet (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Serialjoepsycho and Binksternet will probably follow up with their own diffs here, but I've been very keen on dealing with Atsme in ways other than templating even after s/he had already established that s/he was a disruptive editor. It's not as though my warning of Atsme was my first interaction with the user! See for instance here/here, where I try to explain to Atsme why his/her poor sources are unacceptable. Also here: "Atsme, I've often been in your position of unsuccessfully trying to delete an article because it seemed non-notable or because it seemed largely to overlap with another article. But since the consensus was not to merge this article, we all must work with the article as it stands, rather than refusing to discuss the issues because the discussion didn't go the way we wanted it to. Please don't attempt to derail a discussion of sources. Serialjoepsycho, if you wish to continue engaging, I suggest doing so in a new section or on a user talk page, so that we can continue discussing sources for the CAP report here." Oh, and pinging User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: I think your hostile responses in this RFC/U are demonstrating, rather than refuting, your battleground behavior. Please consider how you're acting. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is discussion on the talk page.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable policies and guidelines

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct.

WP:BATTLEGROUND

[11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]

WP:CANVASS

[28], [29],[30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]

WP:OWN

[37][38]

WP:LISTEN

[39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]

Desired outcome

I would like to see Atsme drop her battleground behavior. I would like to see that Atsme understands that canvassing is a major pitfall to consensus building and that they will take that into account in the future. I would like to see that Atsme understands that she doesn't own any article on Wikipedia. I would like to ask Atsme to voluntarily cease editing Islam and Islamophobia related articles, a subject to which she's shown unquestionable bias.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition it would benice if Atsme chose not to quote other users when debating content as she has miscontrued other's words to make her case in past debates.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme has been unable to approach the topic of Islamophobia neutrally, so I think if she does not voluntarily avoid the topic then she will eventually be topic banned from all discussion of the issue of Islamophobia. Binksternet (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.

Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Binksternet (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.
RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.

Questions to certifiers

Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.

Q. What effort has there been to discuss Atsme's editorial behavior with her other than templates, warnings, and a request for arbitration? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A.I didn't see this question when I responded on the talk page to your response below but I think I've answered your question there.-Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Q.Roscelese You took Atsme to ANI[52]. Could you offer more information or insight into this?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A. As best I remember, the report was directly prompted by repeated BLP violations from Atsme (describing the author of a source as having terrorist affiliations in order to discredit the source), but this was part of a broader range of disruptive remarks in which s/he promoted conspiracy theories both about things taking place off-wiki and about wiki editors s/he perceived as secretly coordinating against hir, made lengthy rants, and demonstrated a significant lack of understanding of sourcing and neutrality policies - a lack of understanding which could have been amended had Atsme been willing to set aside the pro-IPT and anti-Islam learnings and learn about policy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Q.@Roscelese: That ANI ended with Atsme agreeing to seek help thru one of the mentorship programs, How do you feel that Atsme has changed since that ANI?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A. I'm aware that Atsme has done work on topics unrelated to Islam and I haven't heard of any problems in those topics, but hir editing of IPT remains unchanged. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Q.@Binksternet: Atsme has indicated on the talk page that you are only here to pay back some favor to me because I have helped you in the past somewhere. Is that why you are here?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A. No, I don't owe you a favor. I am here because Atsme was so irrationally insistent that the word "Islamophobia" should be struck from the encyclopedia. From the moment she started working in that vein, I thought that she should be topic-banned. (The word is used calmly by many scholars; it is not the screaming BLP violation that Atsme indicates.) Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Q.

A.

Response

{This section is reserved for the opinions and views of the user whose conduct is disputed. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but only the person named in the dispute should change or edit the view in this section. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.}

Response to concerns

If civil discussion about BLP, NOR, NPOV issues on project talk pages makes one biased, then the majority of editors on WP are biased because we have simply stated our interpretation of policy. These claims against me are ludicrous, and I am weary of being called a biased editor simply because I have diligently followed BLP policy. His claims of "canvassing" are skewed as well, as are all the other claims he has fabricated in the relentless pursuit of his stated goal.

On July 5th, Serialjoepsycho (Joe) made public his intent and purpose for me and he hasn't disappointed: My intent and purpose for you? I have none other than to stop your POV pushing agenda to accomplish your previously stated goal of whitewashing wikipedia of all mention of Islamophobia. Quit POV Pushing and I don't see an issue. I'm unsure of my most edited page. I rather don't care. Grief? To whom? You? It's justifiable. Like the "grief" I give you for removing the Islamophobia template when there is a consensus to keep it. Why would I put more energy in Roku achieving GA status? It has the same completion date as any other article. Eventually. Of course it's telling to you. You literally have grasp at straws to have anything to say. You know little of Wikimedian philosophy. [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metapedianism Metapedianism] for instance. We've actually discussed that. [53]

What he refers to as my POV pushing is actually BLP policy pushing. Joe is unable to distinguish the difference. Joe, Roscelese (Ros) and Binksternet (Binks) have consistently refused to acknowledge the BLP violations that occurred because Steven Emerson and IPT are inextricably linked. They refuse to acknowledge same in other situations where the term Islamophobia and the Islamophobia template are used incorrectly, particularly an article about a legal person, a small group or organization such as IPT. My concerns were validated in a recent BLPN consensus that determined the Islamophobia template on IPT was indeed a BLP violation which explains why the actions of the 3 POV pushing template guardians have ramped up, and here we are today. [54]

The Islamophobia template was removed from IPT per WP:BLPGROUPS, a policy which appears to be a segment of the BLP policy that is frequently overlooked by editors who incorrectly assume a BLP violation is only applicable when it's about a living person, not a group or organization. I will gladly admit that I acted boldly in situations of blatant BLP violations, and/or NPOV and undue weight, but that is not incivility, battleground behavior, or ownership. As editors, we are required to exercise strict adherence to BLP policy. My only fault is that I wasn't bold enough or experienced enough 8 months ago to realize there are bad faith editors who game the system, and push their POV while accusing others.

In the following diff, Joe admits to his incivility: But please by all means topic ban me from IPT. You have cause under civility guidelines. [55]

The block logs of both Ros and Binks are an indication of their tendentious editing history. Furthermore, Roscelese made false allegations when she called me a SPA back in March, and tried to get me topic banned. [56]. Binksternet also made false claims about me in a recent ARB request that was denied, and he is doing it again here. Joe trolls talk pages and noticeboards, rarely edits prose, but a quick look at his edit history will confirm that he has been trolling my talk page and edits. His edits on my talk page are second only to his own. The talk pages of Ros and Bink are 3rd and 4th. [57]

There was absolutely no legal threat made during my discussion with Serialjoe on my Talk page,[58], a fact that was already determined by the ANI Serialjoe frivolously initiated in his relentless hounding actions. [59].

Joe and Ros have clearly established a behavioral pattern of Islamophobia template advocacy and POV pushing at IPT: [60] [61] [62] [63] [64]

Binksternet has also made disruptive edits at IPT, but his were more along the line of content dispute, so I won't include them.

Serialjoe clearly doesn't understand WP:Canvassing so will someone please explain it to him? He refuses to listen to me because he is too busy pursuing his "intent and purpose" for me. He listed 9 diffs of which only 3 even resemble canvassing - 30, 31, 32 - back in June, but it was never an issue. The other 6 diffs he listed are not canvassing, not even close. I have a much better understanding of the canvassing guidelines, and know what mistakes I made when posting 3 invitations during a merge request. The reviewer who closed the merge July 24 stated the following: On the topic of canvassing, in my opinion the messages were indeed non-neutral, but none of the editors joined the discussion here so it did not affect the outcome. [65]

WP:HOUNDING - Joe has been and still is trolling my edits, posting disparaging comments about me, and talking about me to other editors:

User Alf.laylah.wa.laylah - March 2014 [66] [67] [68]

Islamophobia template discussion - May 22, 2014 [69] [70]

Primitive fishes template - May 27, 2014 - yes, he showed up at a primitive fishes discussion [71]

Discrimination sidebar - July 29, 2014 [72] [73] [74] [75]

User:Djrun talk page Sept 17 (asked if he'd collaborate with me on IPTF which was still in my sandbox): [76]

User:Roscelese Sept. 19 [77]

Village Pump (discussion I started on Sept 22) [78]

On my Talk page: July, 2014 [79] [80] October 5, 2014 [81]

His behavior was noticed by uninvolved editor, User:DocumentError, who dropped by my Talk page regarding another topic and saw Serialjoe's post: [82]

Serialjoe started a meritless "Legal Threat?" discussion at ANI after reading my Oct 5 reply: [83]

The IPT Talk Page: [84] [85] [86] [87] I asked him to stop off-topic comments on IPT Talk (Oct 17) [88] And his usual taunting behavior, he told me to take it to ANI [89]

And finally, the noticeboard discussions, and an ARB request that was the catalyst for this RFC/U:

BLPN - July 1 - UNRESOLVED (a partial edit was made, but did not fully correct the problem) [90]

ANI - BLP ISSUES ON IPT - July 9 - UNRESOLVED [91]

Comment by Serialjoe groundlessly maligning me: Your work speaks for itself. The writing is on wall clearly in black and white. You are a POVpusher. You already announced your soapbox. It doesn't get more simple than that. You're unquestionably bias. [92]

ANI - Violations of WP:Civility, WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:BLPGroup by User:Serialjoepsycho - July 30 - UNRESOLVED [93] [94]

ANI - And The Hounding Continues -Sept 21 - UNRESOLVED [95]

3RR - ANI - Sept 23 - We were both warned. [96]

Arb request - October 4, 2014 - Request denied (which is why he filed this RFC/U) [97]

ANI - "Legal Threat?" Oct 5, 2014 [98]

There are numerous other diffs, but I will save them for the Q&A session. Atsme☯^Consult 16:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roscelese, you stated...I think your hostile responses in this RFC/U are demonstrating, rather than refuting, your battleground behavior. Please consider how you're acting. Interesting because I consider your comments to be hostile and battleground. Please add diffs or quotes that demonstrate what you consider to be hostile and battleground behavior. You accused me of being a SPA when you filed an ANI against me trying to get me blocked and topic banned because of the BLP violating Islamophobia template you advocate in a very bold and aggressive manner. I don't mean to sound hostile or battlegroundish, but you lied. I'm not a SPA. You claimed I violated BLP in that same ANI when in fact, you were the one violating BLP as an advocate of the Islamophobia template. Now you are here certifying false allegations made by another hostile editor who has been hounding me for 8 months, launched personal attacks against me, called me a biased editor (and also a racist), has dug up ancient history and skewed the truth, has violated WP:Civility, and advocated for the Islamophobia template on IPT despite it being a BLP violation. Yet, you say I am the one who is demonstrating hostile and battleground behavior. Include the quotes so I'll know exactly what you're referring to, and if I owe anyone an apology, I will gladly apologize. In the interim, what exactly do you expect me to admit to as a result of this RFC/U...that you and Serialjoepsycho were both right for advocating the Islamophobia template on IPT, and that I was wrong? Sorry, but there's only one response you will get from me - the template was a BLP violation, therefore my actions in getting it removed were justified according to BLP policy. Now then, tell me again why you're here and what you're trying to establish on a foundation that consists of lies and misinformation? Atsme☯^Consult 21:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet please try to maintain some sense of civility, and refrain from further personal attacks. Your responses resemble those of Serialjoepsycho's in violation of WP:Civility. It appears all three of you WP:DONTGETIT. Your responses and comments here were not made in good faith, and the diffs I've provided prove it. The lies you've told to further your cause as advocates of the Islamophobia template are shameful. It's time for all of you to stop the groundless personal attacks against me. In fact, it's long overdue. The BLPN was closed by a reviewer who is well-versed in BLP policy, and he validated the consensus that the template is a BLP violation on IPT per WP:BLPGROUPS. END OF STORY. You cannot include my attempts to delete a BLP violation as tendentious editing, or POV pushing, or any of the other false allegations you've made against me as a result of your advocacy for the template. You should have learned why the template and term were considered BLP violations instead of continuing to attack me over it like you're doing now. Binksternet's propagandized reply to Serialjoe was ad nauseam considering the term and template have been a contentious topic on WP with equally divided views since inception. In fact, I've wikilinked an article that proves it - Islamophobia. How many of those editors have you teamed up on to get them topic banned? It also proves how long Binksternet has been advocating the topic with more of the same tendentious editing as he exhibited on IPT by reverting anything and everything he considers detrimental to his cause. [99] [100] [101]. In summary, the block records of the two certifying editors confirm they are tendentious editors. Serialjoepsycho's user contributions and his numerous personal attacks against me confirm that he is obsessed with fulfilling his stated goal to stop me from expressing my views and following BLP policy as a GF editor. They also prove that he doesn't edit articles, rather he trolls talk pages/noticeboards, and disrupts the work of GF editors who are simply trying to improve and expand an article. He has already made an appearance at IPT today, and reverted important clean-up templates. The behavior of all three editors have demonstrated to what extent they will go as advocates of the template which far outweighs anything they've accused me of doing. It's pretty clear that they are the ones who need to be topic banned. Atsme☯^Consult 19:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme's Summary

Bottomline - the template was removed from IPT because it was a BLP violation. During the months prior, I had to endure the relentless disruptions, personal attacks, and/or hounding from the three template advocates, Serialjoepsycho, Binksternet and Roscelese, all of whom either prevented its removal from IPT by reverting edits, attacking me, or disrupting the project in some other way. They are doing it here now. They want to get me topic banned, and are using intimidation and hounding tactics to accomplish their goal - the goal Serialjoepsycho stated as his only intent and purpose for me. Their reason for wanting me topic banned is transparent. They think that by eliminating me from doing my job as a GF editor, they can fulfill their advocacy goals, and continue their indiscriminate placement and reverts of BLP violations caused by the template just like they did at IPT. Unfortunately, all three still WP:DONTGETIT. Atsme☯^Consult 14:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I almost forgot to add the diff (and there are more if needed) proving Roscelese's response to Serialjoe above is a lie regarding the ANI she filed against me back in March. I did not violate BLP. I tried to respond cooperatively as a new user who didn't understand why I was being attacked by her, but in retrospect, it is all very clear to me now. Like what is happening here, it is another one of Roscelese's false allegations without a diff to back up her claim. [102] Atsme☯^Consult 16:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And also need to remind all three of you...RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary. Repetitive, burdensome, or unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the dispute resolution process. [103] Atsme☯^Consult 16:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable policies and guidelines

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.

Users endorsing this response

RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.

Questions to Atsme

Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.

Q.Have you read WP:CANVAS?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A.Yes, I know the policy well, and you have blown this out of proportion as always. Out of the 9 diffs you listed as canvassing, only 3 were questionable, and that issue was resolved in June. Atsme☯^Consult 16:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Q.Can you explain how you found yourself involved in articles and discussion I was involved in recently? At 2014 military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and 2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq? Seems abit like hounding.-Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A. I have extended family members who are Iraqi and live in Baghdad, and friends and family who live in Iran, so I have an interest in what goes on in those countries, particularly military intervention that involves the U.S. I participated in an RfC at one article, and was invited to participate in the other by the article's creator.[104] Didn't even realize you were there. I don't troll talk pages like you do. If you don't know what hounding involves, just look up your own trail of posts where you've been denigrating and taunting me for the past 7 months. They are textbook hounding. Atsme☯^Consult 20:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Q.Why do you misquote other editors to make your case in debates? For example[105] you attribute comments here that were made by Binksternet to Bencherlite. You will find of course Bencherlite didn't take part in the ANI you quote and Binksternet didn't take part in editing Anjem Choudary. This but one example. If you would like we can discuss you misquoting Binksternet in the IPT AfD where you try to argue with Binksternet about what they really mean. Or we could go to where you misquote me to make a case against Alf.laylah.wa.laylah early on at IPT.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A. I simply confused the two names, Joe, and corrected it as soon as it was brought to my attention. [106] You are losing credibility by the minute. Stop dredging up insignificant mistakes from the past that have long since been corrected. Go ahead and bring up the Binksternet claim of misquote. I want to get that resolved once and for all because there was no misquote. Start right here: [107] The lies and twisted truths you've been telling are catching up to you quickly. Atsme☯^Consult 18:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Q.Lies and twists? Well you've done it so often I shouldn't expect you to remember every case. [108]You argue something I said here made your case and that there is no further need to discuss anything. You also try to argue from authority here suggesting that if an Admin acting as an editor should get some kind of special deference. Though of course I'm not an Admin and Admin do not get any deference for acts as editors. [109] Through no fault my own? You are mischaracterizing my words to make a case against alf laylah wa laylah. [110] You quote Sunrise to make your case. However Sunrise doesn't make your case. Sunrise was indicating that the claims of NOR were not evaluated and to take them somewhere else. [111] Here you quote Mendaliv to make a case. You must have missed the part where they have said "lead section". These are simply from the IPT talk page.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A. I'm through with this BS, Joe. You're just using this RFC/U to WP:HOUND me thinking you can do it without repercussions. Grow up, and stop hounding me. Nothing you are doing is going to make a difference because YOU are the problem, and until you clean up your own behavior, nothing will change. Go away so I can get back to editing, and being a productive contributor on WP. Atsme☯^Consult 03:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Q. Will you voluntarily stop editing the IPT/Emerson articles and talk pages? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A.There is no reason for me to stop editing IPT/Emerson, especially considering that you and Serialjoepsycho violated BLP policy with your advocacy of the Islamophobia template while dragging me through the cactus for trying to correct the violation. It's pretty obvious who needs to stop editing IPT/Emerson and talk pages. I've edited over 58% of the IPT article in a collaborative effort with Alf.laylah.wa.laylah. We took it from stub to starter. There's a great deal more work that needs to be done now that the BLP violation has finally been resolved. I listed IPT as an article that needs clean-up just prior to the BLPN initiated by Serialjoepsycho. It temporarily derailed the clean-up effort, but I can always re-list it. I much prefer collaborating with editors who aren't pushing a POV, and don't have an agenda or anything to advocate. Atsme☯^Consult 19:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Q.Why did you involve yourself in this[112] Edit warring noticeboard discussion? It seems like retaliation because you already knew at the time a RFCU was going to be opened against you.[113]-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A.Because I felt my comment would be useful in the determination. The obvious question is why did YOU get involved, Serialjoepsycho? Were you concerned over the possibility of losing your certifier for this RFC/U? [114] [115] [116] — Preceding unsigned comment added by atsme (talk • contribs)

A.I got involved because I looked at the case and it was frivolous. And no worries about losing a certifier. She could have certified it when she came back.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Q.

A.

Additional views

This section is for summaries and opinions written by users who are not directly involved with the dispute, but who would like to share their views of the dispute. Anyone is welcome to endorse any view on this page, but you should not change other people's views.

Outside view by User:Robert McClenon

I have a few comments. First, I see from the evidence entered that Atsme is a combative editor, and that Atsme appears to have a dislike of Islam. Second, I have seen in the past, and see from the evidence here, that Serialjoepsycho is a combative editor. Third, I don't see any evidence in this RFC/U of an effort by the certifiers to discuss Atsme's battleground behavior with her other than templates, warnings, and a request for arbitration. Fourth, it appears from the evidence here that Serialjoepsycho is inappropriately antagonistic toward Atsme. Because Wikipedia has too many guidelines and essays about antagonism between editors, it is hard for me to say whether he is harassing, hounding, or stalking her, or what, but he seems to be taking out his antagonism toward her. Fifth, the certifiers refer to the possibility of a topic-ban. What do they propose Atsme be topic-banned from, Islamophobia, which is a narrow topic and a questionable category, or Islam in general?

Interaction bans are an unpleasant sanction that are difficult to administer. I would suggest a two-way interaction ban between Serialjoepsycho and Atsme, except that interaction bans are difficult to administer. Atsme should be cautioned that her hostility to Islam makes NPOV editing difficult, and that maybe she should edit other topics where she can be more neutral. I will say that both Atsme and Serialjoepsycho should be strongly warned about their combative behavior.

Users who endorse this summary:

As author Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Proposed solutions

This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute. This section is not a vote and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties.

Template 1

1)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template 2

2)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template 3

3)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.