Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Atsme

Response to Atsme and her response to the concerns of this RFCU
Regarding the Alf.laylah.wa.laylah diffs, an RFC was opened to settle the dispute. It was opened on Atsme's behalf by me. Those were response by me when Alf.laylah.wa.laylah asked why I closed that RFC. Atsme Kept making accusations of bad faith on the part of me and other editors and plenty more. Here's the archive Talk:Investigative_Project_on_Terrorism/Archive_1. I closed the RFC after Atsme suggest multiple times that she was going to take it elsewhere if she didn't get her way. There's no point in holding the article hostage. If you want to take it somewhere else then take it there. Don't waste the communities time.

Regarding The Islamophobia Template discussion. You will notice I started the discussion. My response was combative but then hers was combative in the first place and my response came after her racist comments.

Regarding The Primitive fishes template. First I commented on that template discussion before Atsme did and second that post was made in support of her.

Regarding regarding the discrimination sidebar. Atsme is there to canvass other users into the IPT discussion.

Regarding Djrun talk page. Atsme was there to canvass this user to her sandbox to discuss changes to the IPT page or to create a POVfork.

Regarding Roscelese talk page. That was a response to

Regarding the Village Pump. This is a discussion about IPT.

Regarding Regarding atsme's talk page. The first was in response to Atsme canvassing to make an end run around consensus. The second diff, opening a neutral RFC to advertise a merge proposal is not forumshopping. The third, she is trying to discuss a content dispute while I am trying to have an actual discussion about her conduct.

Regarding DocumentError, uninvolved editors are generally less involved. This is DocumentError canvassing Atsme to an ANI that didn't actually involve her. Seems to me to be a little more like, "I'll Scratch your back   then I'll scratch yours.

Regarding The legal threat. Binksternet is the one that actually mentioned that here. While viewed alone alone it doesn't seem like much. Viewed with the rest of her behavior it does seem to be alot. This type of message does not need to become a standard for Atsme. If it does then it is a real issue and should be dealt with by what ever means necessary to get her to cease that type of behavior.

Regarding the 1st BLPN. It was handled on the basis of the discussion.

Regarding the 1st ANI. This was an attempt by Atsme to forum shop the content dispute over to ANI. Regarding the 2nd ANI. This was an attempt by Atsme to forum shop the content dispute over to ANI. Regarding the 3rd ANI. This was an attempt by Atsme to forum shop the content dispute over to ANI.

Regarding the 3RR ANI. We were both warned because we had both done the same behavior. Atsme sure tried like hell to avoid discussion of her own behavior.

I notice in Atsmes wall o'text that she's try shop the content here.

Regarding the 5 diffs that show my and Roscelese POV. 1) Now let's look at who this IP is accusing of 'vandalism by user with a political agenda' . It's not Roscelese. And that users tells the ip to take it to the talk page so it can be discussed.

2) The user offered no real justification and the matter was under discussion on the talk page.

3) Oh no, Roscelese reverted Atsme. There was a conversation including an RFC going on about this on the talk page. Looks a little like Atsme was edit warring.

4) This one takes place after the one posted in number 1 above. Take it to the talk page.

5) Oh no again someone should take it to the talk page and get a consensus.

9 Diffs of Canvassing 1) Canvassing 2) take it or leave it. Atsme is trying to bring someone that she feels will be favorable to her into a dispute. 3)Canvassing 4)Canvassing 5)Canvassing 6)Canvassing and there's that whole part about doing it on her sandbox instead of the targeted article. 7) Oh I'm sorry I missed your response on AFD. Come to BLPN and discuss this matter. The scale was one editor. Seem alot like an attempt at vote stacking. 8) WP:Votestacking 9) The BLPN resulted in a consensus to remove to remove the template. They didn't take part in that BLPN. They did remove the template in July . Why did you randomly choose these two?

My Civility Yes I absolutely admit that I've been uncivil at some points. When faced with a tendentious and uncivil editor I like to think that anyone would become uncivil. This is not to justify my incivility. Two wrongs still don't make a right.

My intent for Atsme This was is response to atsme saying, "A quick review of your User contributions show the number of edits you performed on my user talk page vs the number of edits you performed on your own talk page which in itself is enough to raise question about your intent and purpose where I'm concerned."

As far as that intent and purpose goes, This RFC stands to accomplish that. Atsme can stop trying to canvass other editors into the content dispute. Atsme can stop trying to make an end run around consensus. Atsme can stop being tendentious. Atsme can stop being uncivil. The problem is gone. I nor anyone else will have to take this matter to ARBCOM when she pursues this or related behavior in an Islam or Islamophobia related article if she simply no longer pursues this behavior. Pretty much this is a get out of jail free card.-Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Atsme's response to meritless allegations
Regarding the Alf.laylah.wa.laylah diffs, an RFC was opened... You violated BLP with your template. It was removed as a result of a recent BLPN. End of story.

Regarding The Islamophobia Template discussion. Irrelevant. You violated BLP every time you reverted the removal of the template. You created major disruptions at the project. The template has been removed - end of story.

Regarding The Primitive fishes template. I created that template, and I was in discussion with a biologist who opposed its inclusion. We collaborated on a couple of articles after that discussion, and those articles made GA. You have never contributed to anything fish related except for that one time. WP:Hounding read the policy.

Regarding regarding the discrimination sidebar. You canvassed, you WP:HOUND, launch personal attacks, are an uncivil bad faith editor, and a BLP violator. Your excuses are tired.

Regarding Djrun talk page.
 * You are lying. You canvass, hound, launch personal attacks, are an uncivil bad faith editor, and a BLP violator. Your meritless allegations and personal attacks will catch up to you.  All it's going to take is an attentive admin.

Regarding Roscelese talk page.
 * You canvassed, hound, launch personal attacks, are an uncivil bad faith editor, and a BLP violator.

Regarding the Village Pump. This is a discussion about IPT.
 * I never mentioned IPT when I started that discussion. You were trolling my post.  IPT wasn't even brought up until much later in the discussion.  None of the editors knew it was IPT until after you showed up.  You are stalking my posts and WP:Hounding.

Regarding Regarding atsme's talk page.
 * You were trolling my talk page, WP:Hounding, violating WP:NPA, and you violated WP:BLP each time you reverted the removal of the Islamophobia template on IPT. You made false allegations on my Talk page as part of your stated goal to stop me.

Regarding DocumentError, uninvolved editors are generally less involved.
 * I posted a warning on your Talk page about your personal attacks against other editors. You need to stop this obsessive behavior, your lies, the twisted truths, and the false allegations about me and other editors.  You are out of line.

Regarding The legal threat. Binksternet is the one that actually mentioned that here.
 * Binksternet is here to support you like you've supported him in the past. He knows full well there was no legal threat.  You and Binks are clearly on a mission. The meritless ANI you filed proved there was no issue or legal threat.  You are trying to make into one.  You game the system.   Shall I post all of those diffs, too?  There was nothing even remotely close to a legal threat.  You are wasting the valuable time of GF editors with your obsession.

Regarding the 1st BLPN. It was handled on the basis of the discussion.
 * Only part of the BLP violation statement was removed. There is more work to be done, but you keep disrupting the project with your meritless allegations like what you are doing here.

Regarding the 1st ANI. This was an attempt by Atsme to forum shop the content dispute over to ANI.
 * You are lying, WP:Hounding, violating WP:NPA, and you violated WP:BLP each time you reverted the removal of the Islamophobia template on IPT.

Regarding the 2nd ANI. This was an attempt by Atsme to forum shop the content dispute over to ANI.
 * You are lying again, WP:Hounding, violating WP:NPA, and you violated WP:BLP each time you reverted the removal of the Islamophobia template on IPT.

Regarding the 3rd ANI. This was an attempt by Atsme to forum shop the content dispute over to ANI.
 * More lies, relentless WP:Hounding, violating WP:NPA, and you violated WP:BLP each time you reverted the removal of the Islamophobia template on IPT.

Regarding the 3RR ANI. We were both warned because we had both done the same behavior. Atsme sure tried like hell to avoid discussion of her own behavior.
 * You were edit warring. If the reviewers knew the full extent of your behavior, you would have been blocked.

I notice in Atsmes wall o'text that she's try shop the content here.
 * You are showing signs of mental instability with these relentless claims of forum shopping. You are WP:Hounding, violating WP:NPA, and you violated WP:BLP each time you reverted the removal of the Islamophobia template on IPT.  Each time you post these ridiculous statements further substantiates your obsession.  It is frightening.

Regarding the 5 diffs that show my and Roscelese POV.
 * More lies. You violated WP:BLP - the template was removed - end of story.

9 Diffs of Canvassing
 * You need to read the canvassing policy. You clearly don't understand it.

My Civility Yes I absolutely admit that I've been uncivil at some points.
 * You have gone beyond incivility. I am not a tendentious editor.  I am a conscientious editor who follows policy.  You are the tendentious editor because you don't write prose - you revert what other editors write, and do nothing to improve an article.  You are a talk page troll who pretends to know policy.  All you know is how to start an RfC or ANI in order to feed your obsession.  You are a gamer.

My intent for Atsme This was is response to atsme saying, "A quick review of your User contributions show the number of edits you performed on my user talk page vs the number of edits you performed on your own talk page which in itself is enough to raise question about your intent and purpose where I'm concerned."


 * Your excuses are worn out and irrelevant. Your actions are what count, and you have followed through with your intent to push your POV, and stop others from providing productive input.  You are doing it here and now.

As far as that intent and purpose goes, This RFC stands to accomplish that. Atsme can stop trying to canvass other editors into the content dispute. Atsme can stop trying to make an end run around consensus. Atsme can stop being tendentious. Atsme can stop being uncivil. The problem is gone. I nor anyone else will have to take this matter to ARBCOM when she pursues this or related behavior in an Islam or Islamophobia related article if she simply no longer pursues this behavior. Pretty much this is a get out of jail free card.-Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You are the tendentious editor - the BLP violator - the hounder - the personal attacker - not me. I've been busy creating and expanding articles to GA, trying to help at DYK, and collaborating with other editors.  YOU are the problem, not me.  You are relentless.  You are obsessed.  You just don't get it. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  04:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Response to Outside view by User:Robert McClenon
This is the ANI that Roscelese opened in regards to Atsme. The result of which was that Atsme was virtually a new editor and they would seek the appropriate measure to learn wikipedia norms(teahouse, adopt a user, and ect). I'm having trouble finding the archived version of the whole thing. There was plenty of an attempt early on to discuss the content. There was RFC early on. There's a total of five ANI's. Atsme linked a few. I can link you to the archives of those if you would like.

A topic ban on Islam related articles would be what I would propose. While the thick of this is about Islamophobia, Her comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Discrimination and her efforts on the Anjem Choudary suggest an overall bias for Islam related topics.

An interaction ban doesn't seem necessary. Let me show you these articles Atsme followed me to Save for one comment by Atsme discussion was civil and content related.

I'm not opposed to an interaction ban. It just doesn't seem to be necessary. Issues I particularly have had with civility in relation to Atsme are tied directly to Atsmes own incivility and tendentious behavior. This is an RFCU. Blocks, bans, sanctions and ect here are voluntary it seems. I could only agree to an interaction ban if Atsme agreed to a voluntary topic ban of Islam related articles and ect.-Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Response to Serialjoepsycho
The fact that I don't agree with your POV is what this whole RFC/U is about, and now you are using this platform to launch a personal attack against an uninvolved editor. You should be ashamed of yourself, Joe. didn't do anything wrong, yet you're accusing him of misconduct. Are you showing bias toward him because he's Iranian? Sorry, Joe, but unlike you, we follow policy. Between the personal attacks and racial allegations you've thrown at me, and now your false allegations against DocumentError, your behavior is more like an obsessed person than a responsible editor. It has become downright frightening, Joe.

All I did was try to expand IPT, and attempted to correct misstatements and misinformation in Steven Emerson, and Anjem Choudary. I haven't done anything worthy of a topic ban, but you certainly have. You even admitted you've been uncivil, and that you don't care about the articles, so what are you focused on, Joe? Me? It's looking more and more like predatory behavior. What were you doing at Anjem Choudary, Joe? You don't edit prose, so why were you there? Is that when you actually started hawking me? It appears to be by the discussions you've had with. He and I may have had our differences in the beginning, but we worked through them like two responsible adults. Alf actually helped mentor me. But not you, Joe. You've taken a turn for the worst. You're the one who obsessively follows the Islamophobia template as a self-appointed guardian. If anything, you are the one who needs to be topic banned, or possibly something more stringent.

The fact that you're bringing up events that occurred over 8 months ago so you can twist the truth and use them against me is obsessive behavior. You have denigrated me, accused me of bias and racism, flat-out lied about me and the events that took place, and now you are accusing an innocent GF editor of violating policy because of what, Joe? Because you want to continue ignoring BLP violations and keep pushing your POV?

My participation in discussions at template talk pages is certainly not grounds for a topic ban. That isn't a policy violation, Joe. It's the reason we have discussions at project talk pages. It's good for editors to share different views, yet you've made it an ugly thing. You cannot topic ban every editor who disagrees with you. The only article that you and I have disputed over is IPT and Steven Emerson because YOU are the POV pusher and not an editor. I tried to correct the mistakes, you reverted them. The Islamophobia template that was attached to IPT was a BLP violation - consensus confirmed it. The template is gone, Joe. You ignored the BLP violation and attacked me in an attempt to keep it, and now you're trying to make it appear that I was the one being disruptive. It didn't belong there - end of story. Atsme &#9775;  Consult  22:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Just read over your diffs - almost all point to the BLP violating Islamophobia template at IPT. REMINDER: The template was a BLP violation. My actions were not disruptive because I was following BLP policy. You and Rosc were being disruptive by reverting my removal of the template, therefore you violated BLP policy. It's downright shameful. As for Binks - major disappointment. I thought he was a better person than what I'm seeing in him now. Oh what a tangled web we weave.... Atsme &#9775;  Consult  00:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that you don't agree with my POV? You mean the one where you should get a consensus? You are are the one saying that Document is neutral and uninvolved. The fact is this ANI you were invited to was about another users behavior Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive858. Two of the other invited users were favorable to DocumentError as well. He asked you to come to his ANI and he goes to yours when he finds your in one. His involvement seems like a case of Quid pro quo. That may or may not be misconduct but what I'm accusing him of is not being neutral or uninvolved. Why would I be showing bias to him because he's Iranian? Is he Iranian? If you are going to make accusations could you withhold the ones that you randomly make up on the spot and that you have no evidence of.


 * Correcting misstatements? It looks more like WP:POINTy. Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive829 You'll notice after the responses here on the 16th you move over to Anjem Choudary. This British born individual is British. Your "prose" suggests otherwise. Actually I can't see the misstatements that you were trying to fix. Perhaps it was because of all of the misstatements you were adding. When you take this matter to the talk page you try to paint an Editor Bencherlite as bias by quoting comments they made on Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive829. Upon review though  is the one that made those comments. This was the first time you misquoted Binksternet to make a case. This wasn't the last time you misquoted an editor to try to win a debate. I think Binksternet can point out a few times where you have misquoted them.


 * I'm also looking at misstatements you were trying to fix at Steven Emerson. Merge, Delete, and recreate. You don't delete if there's notability. If you delete you don't recreate. I don't think it's possible that you could make a more convoluted and pedantic argument. Your sources do not support your argument. IPT is a nonprofit. IPT was founded in 1995. The article even discusses that it didn't become a non-profit until 2006. This is not a controversial matter. IPTs website is a reliable source under wikipedia guidelines. This is just a further indication of your tendentious behavior.


 * Yes I admit that was uncivil at certain points. What's the point in denying it? There are plenty of diffs to show it. There are plenty of diffs to show your incivility as well. Why deny it?


 * Your right. Your comments at at a template talk page aren't enough for a topic ban, but those comments don't stand alone. They stand together with all of your tendentious behavior. While your arguments don't stay consistent, your behavior has. Of course again sanctions are voluntary in an RFC/U. For a topic ban you would have to agree to it. If you don't agree that is fine. But there's no way I would agree to a interaction ban without that.


 * This RFCU. This is for behavior. If you would like to discuss BLP issues they have a noticeboard for that.


 * As far being right about the template goes, a consensus that it was a BLP issue does not absolve your tendentious behavior. I'll remind you that it was closed twice. When it was reopened the first time I hadn't asked the reviewer to reopen it. I asked the reviewer to review their close. I could have challenged their reopening. I could have challenged the second closers close as well. You achieved a concensus in a BLPN that I opened. The close does not absolve of your tendentious behavior. It does not absolve you trying to forumshop the AfD over to that BLP. It doesn't absolve you of canvassing two editors after that BLP closed. It doesn't absolve your prior efforts to do anything but an honest effort to achieve a consensus.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Btw the name is Serialjoepsycho.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP HOUNDING ME. Bencherlite and Parrot of doom both attacked me right out of the box, and Parrot of doom was actually blocked for his racial slurs against me, so don't even go there. You were also rude toward me, too, but not as bad as Parrot of doom. I simply defended myself against them like I'm having to do with you now. The whole Anjem Choudary fiasco was not a good experience because of the personal attacks and racist slurs by Parrot of doom. No editor deserves to be treated with such disrespect. You keep bringing up ancient history because you have absolutely NOTHING to say, and are counting on those records to be too difficult to access. We are all new editors at one point, Joe, and most of us have made mistakes in the beginning. Some of us learn from our mistakes, but you obviously did not. You joined the Parrot of doom lynch mob in denigrating me simply because I tried to improve the Choudary article. It's a familiar pattern for you. Once the stupid personal attacks quieted down, the following discussion took place - and again, I was correct in what I was tried to accomplish. Leave it alone, Joe - it's ancient history. What you're doing is WP:HOUNDING, and it is as much a violation here as it is anywhere else. Stop the lying and frightening obsessive behavior. Atsme &#9775;  Consult  18:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Now I'm hounding you by posting in a RFCU. This RFCU is voluntary. You do not have to take part. Do you wish to stop taking part in this RFC?


 * Racial slurs? Do you understand what that phrase means? Parrot of Doom calling you a racist is not a racial slur. Parrot Parrot of Doom actually got blocked for Edit warring. That block was reversed with in hours. That block was reversed completely with out restriction. Parrot of Doom actually kept calling you racist during that unblock request. What's interesting though was who came to defend you there. Demiurge1000 the last editor you canvassed.


 * It's not ancient history, it's apart of your overall tendentious behavior. Here's your first ANI. You went from WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS to WP:POINTy behavior at Anjem Choudary. Look at your first attempt at discussing the matter .  You misquote a comment made by Binksternet in an ANI as being from Bencherlite. You use this quote to suggest that Bencherlite is bias. Binksternet wasn't involved with this article. You go off on some tirade about being a magazine publisher and professional writer. As if that offers any thing to discuss. You also mention the amount of time that you've been on wikipedia as if it's relevant. You start out inflammatory and you maintain that all the way thru.  This especially suggest this is WP:POINTy. You say, " It appears rather obvious that bias has played a role in some of the articles written about Islamism, particularly when extremism is at play. It is quite evident in Pamela Geller, and how she was portrayed VS the bios of notable Islamist extremists."


 * Yes in the beginning some editors make mistakes and those mistakes should be let go. But that's if they take action to alleviate those mistakes. You've not done so. It would be great if you could learn from your mistakes but you can't even own up to them.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I consult you to practice what you preach and stop making meritless claims against GF editors. You still have not established misconduct on my part, rather you have provided your POV, and dredged up ancient discussions that simply represent an editor expressing her views on talk pages. The fact that my views differ from yours which is the point of talk page discussions.  There was nothing combative, or what could be considered bias in the views I've expressed.  However, your advocacy of the Islamophobia template and the term is indeed a conduct issue because your responses to my views exhibit combative behavior and civility violations.  You compounded the problem by WP:Hounding.  Your advocacy is clear as demonstrated here: .  I have already provided the diff that establishes your intent and purpose to stop me on the project page.  Your response here further validate my concerns.  You have exhibited total disregard for the BLP violation.  You can spend the rest of your days advocating for the template, but it only serves to further validate that you are indeed a combative editor.  If you truly believe the template is not a BLP violation, then why didn't you include it on Steven Emerson?  IPT and Emerson are inextricably linked.  Also, if an organization is not a living person, how can it exhibit human characteristics such as Islamophobia?   The template points to the person(s) running the organization or group, that's how.  End of story.  I refer you to WP:DONTGETIT.  Amend your behavior, and start writing prose in an effort improve/expand articles instead of pushing your POV on GF editors, and disrupting the project.  Stop wasting your time WP:Hounding me, and reverting GF edits to push your POV.  Stop skewing the truth and lying in an effort to create something that simply isn't there.  Classic example - the 1st closure of the BLPN.  The editor who first closed it didn't even understand WP:BLPGROUPS.  He closed the discussion after less than two days, declaring it a non-violation because IPT wasn't a living person.  He reopened it upon request, and I hope he realized his mistake.  His initial conclusion confirms the existence of a problem on WP if there are experienced editors who don't fully understand WP:BLPGROUPS.  Your obsession and relentless attempts to topic ban me is WP:Hounding and your labeling of me as a biased editor is a violation of WP:CIVILITY. I will deal with those issues at a later date if your behavior doesn't change. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  16:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't actually going to respond to this. It's kind of pointless. Look at her clear evidence of advocacy on my part, . You can view that out of context as Atsme would like or you can look at the entire RFC and view it in context. The RFC was over and that was my view of the consensus. I posted it in a new subtopic so that could be discussed. It wasn't formally closed until a month later. I showed a disregard for her views on the subject of the BLP because of her absolute failure to get to the point. The point that the template maybe a BLP violation wasn't clearly brought up until a member of the arbitration committee mentioned it. I was the one that eventually took it to BLPN. Now the reason I actually decided to respond, He closed the BLP after two days because the forumshopping.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It really is sad that you always resort to lying when things don't go your way. Sad, sad, sad.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  16:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Atsme's Response to Outside view by User:Robert McClenon
I want to begin by thanking you for your input. I am sorry that you have the wrong impression of me, but I certainly understand how it might have happened. It is a difficult pill to swallow knowing the extent of damage Joe has caused me with his false claims of racism and bias. When others tell a lie about you long enough it becomes truth if left undisputed which is why I've been so insistent on setting the record straight. I have no bias toward anyone, and I have no issues with Islam. Of course, defending myself against such claims makes me appear to be combative, so I can't win for losing. My participation on the talk pages of the Islamophobia and Discrimination templates do not have any bearing whatsoever on my religious beliefs because I am totally neutral in that department. My only concern was that the template did not belong on IPT with its inextricable link to Steven Emerson. It's no secret that the template is being abused. Editors just got tired of fighting it. The template was a clear violation of WP:BLPGROUPS on IPT as confirmed by a recent consensus at BLPN. I was correct, therefore I have no regrets over my insistence to have it removed. Joe's obsession has quadrupled now that the template has been removed, and that's why he is so adamant about a topic ban. It's a get even with Atsme campaign, and he's grasping at straws to justify it. Going back 8 months to try and dig up dirt on me? Seriously?

Now he is making a ridiculous claim of hounding in an attempt to derail his own RFC/U. Simple truth - I participated in an RfC - I didn't know he was involved with that particular article - he doesn't edit prose, he trolls talk pages so what was he doing there? I commented in the RfC, and left. I received a NEUTRAL invitation to participate in the other RfC, so I participated and contributed a tiny bit to the prose to help out. Joe disrupted my edit. *lol* Read his diffs and you will see that it's all BS. Even if it wasn't a coincidence, (believe me, it was), there was no hounding violation. It's like everything else he listed in this RFC/U - either blown out of proportion, or straight out lies. I did learn something about maintaining neutrality in my posts when inviting other editors for input in a merge request - only 3 of the 9 canvassing diffs he listed were even remotely close to canvassing, and it was dismissed by an ANRfC reviewer so why does he keep dredging it up? Someone really needs to explain the canvassing and hounding policies to him so he'll stop this nonsense. More distractions - that's what he does. If he would spend half as much time creating and expanding articles as he does creating disruption on talk pages and noticeboards, we'd all be much further ahead. Atsme &#9775;  Consult  00:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess this can be closed and archived
Atsme has indicated that she does not wish to take part any longer .-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If this RFC/U results in stopping your WP:Hounding, WP:Civility, and WP:BLP violations, then it actually did serve a useful purpose. As for me, I will not subject myself to your further abuse when I know full well your stated goal and pattern of behavior. You keep dredging up events that took place 8 mos. ago, which is clearly obsessive behavior.  Let it go, Serialjoepsycho.  Your motivations are as transparent as the reason you initiated this RFC/U.  It is all part of your systematic gaming strategy in fulfilling your stated intent and purpose for me.  Your goal is to get me topic banned so you can continue advocating the template while ignoring BLP violations that may result from its inclusion.  Hopefully you have learned something about WP:BLPGROUPS, and now realize the err of your tendentious reverts.  Furthermore, your relentless personal attacks against me for the past 8 months, and groundless accusations of bias, WP:Canvas, and WP:FORUMSHOP are a violation of WP:Civility, and I consult you to stop that behavior immediately.  Your attack here against User:DocumentError, an uninvolved editor, is further evidence of your incivility.  I was not forum shopping rather I was following WP procedures to stop your incivility, BLP violations, and relentless disruptions.  My strict adherence to WP:BLP policy is neither bias nor disruptive, and I will not allow your attempts to get me topic banned to derail me from being a GF editor.  Spend some time reading WP:Hounding, WP:Civility, WP:Canvass, and WP:FORUMSHOP, and stop accusing GF editors of not following guidelines and policy when it is you who is exhibiting such behavior.  What I find most troublesome is how your behavior has escalated from being an annoyance to becoming downright frightening.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  19:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't been hounding you. I'm unaware of any bad faith BLP issues. The template for instance was removed after you got a rough consensus in BLPN. This was from the second closer. The first closer gave consensus that there was no consensus. It was only you asked them to reopen. I could have challenged that. I could have challenged that being reopened. I could have challenged the final close. You offered forumshopping to that BLPN. I opened that BLPN. ARBCOM suggested that matter be taken to BLPN. I gave you time after that Arbcom to do so. You've tried everything in that article but trying to get a consensus. That BLPN ends and you move to canvass two other users to the article. My goal is to get you topic banned? You can't be topic banned in an RFCU. If you stop your tendentious behavior there will be no reason to. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not an attack on DocumentError. That's my view ln them in this situation and I've provided diffs that lead me to that view. An attack would be like when you accused Parrot of Doom of racial slurs and try to write them off in that situation because they got banned for it. However if anyone bothers to look they will find that Parrot of Doom got banned for edit warring. They will find that Parrot of Doom was unblocked within hours. They were unblocked without restriction. They did not launch any racial slurs against you. They called you racist. That isn't a racial slur. I don't know if that is creative writing or a failure to understand the phrase 'Racial Slur'. That is actually highly offensive for you to suggest that.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC/Us are a voluntary process, so if you no longer wish to participate, Atsme, there isn't really anything we can do. However, I hope, despite appearances to the contrary, that you're taking this seriously and will amend your behavior in the future to avoid further, involuntary, processes. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 07:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You keep saying I have to amend my behavior, but you have failed to establish why my behavior needs to be amended. Having a different view from yours is not cause to amend one's behavior.  I have asked for the diffs and you have not provided them.  Serialjoepsycho with his obsessive WP:Hounding dredged up events that date back to Feb/March, and he still hasn't established anything that gives cause to amend my behavior.  Having different views are not a violation of policy or guidelines.  I have voluntarily responded to this RFC/U, answered all the ridiculous questions that were asked of me, and in light of the relentless personal attacks against me, I no longer wish to engage in this facade.  Your attempts to twist intelligent discussion into claims of incivility, bad behavior, and/or disruptive editing are ludicrous.  You cannot stop other editors from expressing their views simply because you disagree and advocate a different position, as you did with the Islamophobia template.  As it turned out, I was correct, therefore the only behavior that needs amending is yours and Serialjoe's considering you were in violation of BLP policy each time you reverted removal of the template.  This RFC/U isn't about my conduct as an editor, it's about the fact I drew attention to the BLP violation on IPT, and that is the disruption to which you are speaking. I've made it difficult for you to advocate the template, therefore you feel its future may be threatened.  Perhaps you should start acting like a responsible editor and focus on correcting any other BLP violations that result from the Islamophobia template.  I don't have anymore time to waste here.  My time is much better spent editing, and right now I have several articles that need my attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs)
 * I'm not sure there's really much more I can say here. I've warned you that your hostility and obsessive behavior here is only proving the certifiers' point, and I've advised you to voluntarily change now so that you're not compelled to change later on. I wish you the best of luck. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said, you didn't provide any diffs that demonstrate my hostile or obsessive behavior. Where are they?   I think perhaps you're confusing me with Serialjoepsycho, or possibly Binksternet.  By the way, I posted a warning to your talk page a while back asking you to please stop placing meritless warning notices on my talk page.  I think you were going through a possible block for tendentious editing.  Apparently you managed to escape that block.  Regardless, what you're doing with your meritless warning messages on my talk page is WP:Hounding.  I suppose it's a joint effort with Serialjoepsycho.  I am not the one going after you for a topic ban.  The three of you are attacking me for that purpose.  I simply responded in defense of your attacks against me, like I'm doing right now.  Sadly, you have been after me since March when you falsely accused me of being a SPA.  All I've done is edit one article that happened to include the Islamophobia template on IPT.  I discovered the template was a BLP violation, and then you showed up calling my behavior hostile and obsessive.  Show me the diffs.   Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  20:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So this can be closed and archived as Atsme said below she is no longer willing to participate.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I have more questions but
There's plenty more questions to ask but Atsme has avoided the ones I've already posed. It would be a waste of time to ask any further.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What questions have I "avoided"? I've answered all of your questions. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  12:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure you did.... Oh but the rest of your 4th question response isn't posted on this RFCU. Here I'll post the diff so everyone can see.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your response doesn't even make sense which is not unlike everything else you've brought to this RFC/U. This forum does not excuse your incivility toward me.  You have launched personal attacks by calling me bias, and accusing another editor of not following guidelines when that isn't remotely the case.  You have assumed a battleground posture after your questions have been answered, apparently not to your liking but true nonetheless.  Doing so only adds to your WP:Civility violations.  You've made known your pattern of behavior for all editors to see - you start by making a meritless claim against me, I respond in defense, you attack me again with yet another meritless claim, and proceed to denigrate me, malign me as a biased editor, and dig up more meritless claims from 8 months ago.  Are you practicing Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals?  I have endured your insults and incivility long enough.  I posted a warning to your talk page.  I consult you to heed the warning instead of removing it as insignificant. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  14:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's no problem Atsme. I didn't actually expect you to answer those questions. Calling you bias is not an insult. I'm sorry but you'll have to attempt be more clear in the future, It's not apparent which user other than you that implying I have accused of guideline violations here. If you are talking about DocumentError, anyone can see that I've not accused them of violating any guideline. I've said that they are not a neutral uninvolved editor. Yes 8 months ago when you started this. You don't have to worry about my incivility any longer. I'm not going to be returning your behavior any longer. This is the RFCU that arbcom requested be done before they would take the case. This is it. This RFCU is the request that you stop your tendentious behavior, that you stop trying to make an end run around consensus, that you cease forum shopping, That you stop canvassing, and that you drop your uncivil behavior.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

All meritless claims based on lies and skewed truths except in the way they apply to you. WP:DONTGETIT But by all means, please proceed with whatever you intend to do to fulfill your intent and purpose for me. I want this situation to be resolved once and for all so I can return to editing GAs, DYKs, and FAs, and you can return to trolling talk pages and noticeboards. Please, regardless of whatever else you decide to do, just stop hounding me. Atsme &#9775;  Consult  16:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It's everyone else...
If you read above you will see Atsme blame a situation on Parrot of Doom. She even says that he was banned for racial slurs against her. He was banned for edit warring against her and within hours he was unbanned without restriction. There were no racial slurs.

alf.laylah.wa.laylah was the problem early on in the IPT article.

Roscelese became the problem when she opened an ANI.

I was the helpful mentor in that ANI you will see there but then halfway thru I became the problem.

Cyclopia became the problem when they pointed out Atsme's canvassing.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

No, Serialjoepsycho, it's you harassing me with diffs that date back to March

 * Parrot of Doom launched a personal attack against me FIRST, and called me a racist within hours after I attempted my first edit.[] [] The fact that you keep dredging up incidents that took place 8 months ago is harassment.


 * Alf.laylah.wa.laylah became one of my mentors, and helped me write and publish my first article and DYK. We had our differences in the beginning, but we worked through them as one would expect of GF editors.  Ancient history - WP:HARASSMENT


 * Roscelese has been hostile toward me from day one, and has a remarkable block record as a tendentious editor. Your diffs only serve to validate my position rather than prove your claim.  Your diffs are ancient history - WP:HARASSMENT


 * Please stop bringing up the canvassing issue, Serialjoe, it's ancient history as I've pointed out numerous times. My 3 posts were dismissed by the reviewer as inconsequential. Read the policy, for Pete's sake.  The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. Do not send notices to too many users, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them.  It involved 3 posts, and was determined to be inconsequential.  Jiminy Cricket, let it go. This is WP:HARASSMENT


 * As for you being the "helpful mentor" at an ANI - oh, wow...maybe the truth is finally coming out. Are you upset with me because Alf became my mentor instead of you?  Unbelievable.  Give it up, Serialjoepsycho.  Your diffs are ancient history, and you are only digging yourself deeper into the WP:HARASSMENT, WP:HOUNDING, and WP:CIVILITY violations. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  22:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * How did Parrot of Doom attack you first? By posting a revision that your edit was hardly an improvement? Your edit was bad. Your first post was pure battleground . Yes 8 months ago when you begun this. 8 months ago when you opened an ANI and you fail to accomplish your goal and move on to Anjem Choudary. 8 months ago when you got WP:POINTy. Because the Gellar article is this way the Choudary article should be that way. There's also.


 * The differences ended when Alf.laylah.wa.laylah backed you up in the ANI.


 * Roscelese block log shows that she was blocked the first time and then quickly there after unblocked because that block was a bad call. Roscelese second block was in 2011. Roscelese third block was overturned because she hadn't violated 1RR. Roscelese Fourth block was a year after the second one. Roscelese 6th block was a year after that. Roscelese 7th was a year after that. Your first block was bogus. Your second block was this year. You took me to 3RR for the same editing behavior you were doing at the time. You provide diffs that weren't even my reverts. You involved yourself in an ANI/3rr about Roscelese  in hopes of getting her blocked after it became clear this RFCU would be opened.


 * It's not ancient history at all. You kept canvassing after that. What you fail to understand in misquoting the closer is that your canvassing was inconsequential because it failed to involve the users you canvassed. It had no effect on the proceedings. That's what was inconsequential. What is consequential is your failure to understand the canvassing policy or your utter disregard for it. Which ever the case may be.


 * And look you rushed to comment. If you had read that Diff you would find that you were the one that called me your mentor. You could have scrolled down and saw where I told you that I wasn't your mentor. Consider taking the time and reading what is said before you rush so hurriedly to respond.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * More of the same WP:HOUNDING, WP:HARASSMENT, WP:DONTGETIT. I'm tired of reading your lies.  This RFC/U is over.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  03:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)