Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Scholarlyarticles

To remain listed at 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 &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 21:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



''Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.''

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

I usually keep an eye on the Help Desk and so when |this this Jan. 23 post appeared, I put Jimmy Henchman on my watchlist as a BLP to monitor. Note the post almost a month later by Scholarlyarticles asking for the article to be reverted back to her preferred version - this is a common theme.

Over the next few weeks I saw changes to the article and debate (sometimes vigorous) on the talk page but nothing I wanted to get involved in. That changed on February 13th with Scholarlyarticles second large revert bringing back material sourced to the NY Daily News, the New York Post, and legal documents hosted on scribd - all of which are controversial anywhere, let alone in BLPs. Since then, her assertions about the subject, the article, and other editors involved with the article have been problematic.

Desired outcome
''This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.''

For Scholarlyarticles to leave the James Rosemond (formerly Jimmy Henchman) and related articles and talk pages alone or find another mentor that will help her understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and assist with the contents of her postings, especially addressing BLP concerns and unsubstantiated or incorrect allegations against other editors.

Description
The main problems with Scholarlyarticles' edits are:


 * 1) Violations of WP:BLP in her comments
 * 2) An almost aggressive lack of understanding of various Wikipedia policies and procedures such as WP:BLP, WP:COI and WP:AFD
 * 3) Repeatedly making assertions about other editors which are unsubstantiated or proven to be incorrect.

Evidence of disputed behavior
My interaction with Scholarlyarticles started by her posting on my talk page claiming that:
 * "thhe Jimmy Henchman page was litigated, vetted, and decided up by the Wikipedia community" (referring to a 2012 AfD discussion)
 * "I saw no place in the discussion on the talk page in which there was consensus about changing the content of the page " (somehow missing all this)
 * "Dennis Brown was referred by the Arbitration Committee to help with this issue." He was not. He offered to mentor Scholarlyarticles with her problems understanding Wikipedia (sourcing, copyright violations, personal attacks).

After I declined to revert to the "litigated, vetted, and decided up" version she posted to Dennis' talk page where I explained why the article was getting increased attention (the help desk post and a BLPN post. She latched onto COI (and hasn't let go) and made a post to COIN. She was told there was no COI and that "You seem to grossly misconstrue the purpose of a deletion discussion".

Scholarlyarticles' lobbying on the article's talk page has also been problematic. Ignoring the text dumps, we have statements like these:
 * "Since this time, numerous non-auto-confirmed users have wiped out the entire page, wiped out large chunks of the discussion, re-litigated the issue of whether there's a BLP issue here (There's not: He's a convicted felon.)" (emphasis mine)
 * "And yes Arbitration people got involved informally (off board) because of the sensitivity and frankly the danger of the subject involved." Danger? Really?
 * "Nevertheless WP:HEY seems to mean that although an article might have been incomplete at one point it was not by the time the AfD was closed" Complete misunderstanding of WP:HEY.
 * "I understand WP:BLP issues." and "The strategy with Henchman has always been rather to shoot the messenger (probably more literally than we like to think)." in the same post! I warned her she ran the risk of being blocked if she continued like that. I believe that was the only time I mentioned blocking.

There's also various accusations of "secret" coordination (I think she's referring to the very public Help Desk and BLPN boards) and "attacks on the article" scattered through the talk page ("coordinated effort to attack the page" "Instead, three editors have elsewhere coordinated efforts in a call for 'more eyes over there'" "secrecy of the effort to dismantle the page."). Also attempts at canvassing like this. She's been asked to break down what she would change in the current version, , , but so far it's basically been "revert to my preferred version".

Scholarlyarticles is also blatantly misrepresenting other editor's comments. For example, she asked if she could make her sandbox private. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah responded with Yep, get a blog somewhere else and followed up with "If you're answering my comment here, what I'm talking about is the fact that everything on Wikipedia is open and to be used for the purpose of collaborating on the encyclopedia. You can't make stuff private. If you want to write your own thoughts on whatever topics and not have other people get involved, you ought to pay for your own web-hosting and run a blog.". Scholarlyarticles turned this into Alf has asked me "why don't you pay for your own blog and go away?" Ironically, Scholarlyarticles has been telling other editors to stop editing. ,, , , ,.

Another incident of misrepresentation is discussed at the bottom of this exchange.

Finally, she's harassing other editors by giving extremely ill-thought out warnings.
 * 1) A COI warning for no discernible reason.
 * 2) A "final warning" for "repeated defamatory edits". Note the edit she links to is sourced properly and is backed up by the source. Repeated queries of how the edit violated BLP was met by evasion.

Applicable policies and guidelines

 * 1) WP:BLP
 * 2) WP:RS
 * 3) WP:LIBEL
 * 4) WP:RELY
 * 5) WP:OWN
 * 6) WP:CANVASS
 * 7) WP:NPA
 * 8) WP:ETIQ

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
,, , ,

Attempts by certifier NeilN

 * 
 * 
 * 

Attempts by certifier Alf.laylah.wa.laylah

 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * -- Neil N  talk to me  22:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * 1) Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) &mdash; AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Response
''This section is reserved for the use of the user whose conduct is disputed. Users writing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section, and the person writing this section should not write a view below. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but no one except the editor(s) named in the dispute may change the summary here.''

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it.}

Users who endorse this summary:
''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. Discussion of this view or comments made by people endorsing this view belong on the talk page, not in this section''



Views
''This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. 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. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.''

Involved view by TheRedPenOfDoom
The user is treating Wikipedia as a platform to try to bring Rosemond/Henchman (and apparently others) to justice".

The user has fixated on the fact that the article survived an AfD, and is still misconstruing that afd as some type of fiat that the content must stay the same, (as of Feb 27) despite being shown the policies otherwise multiple times several weeks ago (Feb 13 on the Rosemond talk page), (told on Feb 14 at WP:COIN)

The user has fixated on the fact that some experienced users after initially questioning using a blog as being a reliable source, decided that the Village Voice was generally a good caretaker of their blogs and accepted it as a source   -- apparently without realizing that the author of the blog post   was the same author of a newspaper story about Rosemond/Henchman that had been retracted and formally apologized for by the paper. And and also apparently without reading the blog closely enough to notice that the claims from the blog being used in the article were complete hearsay: the blog's author stating that someone claimed to have overheard in a private off the record conversation with the judge. The user needs to understand that consensus can change, particularly when the old consensus was based on not fully evaluated source.

While my initial impression of the user was of a SPA against Rosemond, the user has moved on to other "scandal" editing related to other living people  with similarly questionable appreciation for and application of BLP.

The user needs to stay away from the Rosemond/Henchman topic at a minimum, and perhaps all articles/topics about living people until they can show that they actually do understand, and will abide by, WP:BLP and are here to build an encyclopedia, and not be leading a lynch mob for "justice."

The user has recently indicated an interest in establishing a relationship with a mentor, which I appreciate, and I would encourage the user to further investigate the possibilities at WP:MENTOR.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) &mdash; AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Outside view by Robert McClenon
I would like to see a statement by User:Scholarlyarticles. However, having seen the statements by the certifiers and the diffs provided, it appears to me that the conduct of the subject is troubling in that she is acting to insist on ownership of the article, and is mistaking the consensus of an AFD review to keep the article (meaning that the subject is notable and the article is properly sourced) with a consensus to lock in a particular version of the article. I also see serious issues with her failure to assume good faith in her repeated statements that her critics are trying to have her blocked from editing. (They aren't. They are asking her to be more collaborative.)  However, I do see civility violations that, if continued, may be blockable, in attacking edits that she doesn't like. The subject needs to understand that Wikipedia is an electronic work place and is a collaborative environment. She needs to learn to try to work with other editors rather than against them, and to be willing to listen to them when they want to work with her rather than against her.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1)  As author of view Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) &mdash;AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) --Randykitty (talk) 11:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5)  Collect (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

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.

Summary
With the exception of two endorsements by a single user yesterday, this RfC/U has been inactive since 1 March 2014 (nearly 8 weeks). Although this RfC/U is being closed due to inactivity, the following comments have also been noted in summary.

After Scholarlyarticles (the subject of this RfC/U) was notified about this RfC/U following its certification on 28 February 2014, Scholarlyarticles indicated on the talk page of this RfC/U that she intended on providing a response. However, Scholarlyarticles has not provided a response to this RfC/U within the last 2 months. There is some speculation about whether Scholarlyarticles retired from Wikipedia on 3 March 2014, or whether she did not actually retire given that she continued to make some edits to Wikipedia on 12 April 2014 and 18 April 2014. There has also been some discussion about this on the talk page of this RfC/U, with suggestions that the last set of diffs collected in her userspace sandbox (here) may have been with a view of adding a response to this RfC/U. It was also noted from this diff on that talk page that although Scholarlyarticles was more recently requested to provide a response to this RfC/U on 12 April 2014, the request was blanked by Scholarlyarticles on 18 April 2014, and no response was provided to this RfC/U.

There appears to be no inconsistency between the statement of dispute presented by the certifiers, and the involved and outside views expressed in the RfC/U. In effect, there are significant concerns about Scholarlyarticles conduct at large. Accordingly, should Scholarlyarticles continue to edit Wikipedia, now or in the future, the feedback from this RfC/U acts to provide Scholarlyarticles with an opportunity to change her approach voluntarily. That is, Scholarlyarticles is expected to take steps to ensure that her future editing does not further substantiate the concerns already expressed in this RfC/U.

Should she be unable or unwilling to edit collaboratively and in accordance with the Wikipedia policies cited throughout this RfC/U, it would be necessary for editing restrictions to be placed on her account. If that is the case, it is recommended the certifiers (or in fact, any concerned user) consider escalating this dispute by seeking relief from one of the administrators' noticeboards (WP:AN or WP:ANI) where the Community may impose individual or specific sanctions, or an administrator will be in a position to enforce existing sanctions where necessary. Alternatively, or if the attempts by the Community to resolve the dispute have failed, it is recommended that a request for arbitration is filed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)