User:RobertMfromLI/Depicted

Notes

Engages community in attempt to remove images based on Foundation resolution[1]
Very next post, claims (in edit summary) "the astonishment is general, not a function or religion"[2] yet the only known objection is religious beliefs.
One justification repeatedly trumped out is "[...]and since none of the images of the prophet presented on the page are factual[...]"[3] (one of many diffs) - yet refuses to believe that such would apply to pictures of Euro-Jesus - while admitting it is because people aren't (religiously) offended by such.[4] thus indicating (again and again) the real issue is one of religious offense and not whether the images are "factual".
Earlier admits his motivations are religious in nature[5] - continues to do so, such as[6]
VERY early on, starts accusing those who he disagrees with of having a prejudicial tone[7] - they cite policy and it's uniform use, he calls their tone "prejudicial"
He suggests an RfC[8], which gets given actual attention and yet two days later tries end runs around an RfC that obviously won't remove every image of Muhammad by attempting to remove one editor using WQA[9], and an attempted an end run at ArbCom hinting at our behavior (with diffs) while claiming that isn't part of it[10] (diff to final post on proposed ArbCom case so entire thread can be viewed). During this ArbCom end run attempt, he tries pointing out a "deep ideological divide in the community" by pointing out a Village Pump proposal that shows the exact opposite.[11]
(Also) DURING the attempt to formulate an RfC to address such concerns, those with opposing viewpoints and vastly different understanding of policy than him are labeled (by him) as showing or having a bias, not AGF, incivility, anti-Muslim sentiments, personal attacks (against him), etc,[12][13][14]
Advises he will continue [15] to bring up what amounts to policy changes in the wrong venue. Advised he should go to the right venue[16]. Obviously refuses by actions (see talk page) and again repeats (after being told by multiple editors that it's getting tendentious (and disruptive))[17][18][19]^{(and plenty more)} that he will continue to do so anyway, even after acknowledging the correct venue (and even responding with "tenacious" once in response to claims of his "tendentious"ness) [20][21]