Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Scholarlyarticles
Please note that I am working and it might take me a while to find the relevant diffs. That the situation is in the process of being resolved by someone familiar with the case. There might be a situation of canvassing to get me blocked and as I'm not familiar with the procedures and have another job, it might take me quite a while to respond to this case. ThanksScholarlyarticles (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Ongoing behaviour
[edit]I'm beginning to think more and more that this is a competence issue and that Scholarlyarticles needs to heed the advice of a mentor before referring to any essay/guideline/policy or editor. After this RfC/U was opened she's accused an admin of "wiping out links" on my talk page [1] and she's tried to wipe out an article [2] (undid) [3], [4] (not reverted) citing "WP:Principle of Least Drama." [5] --NeilN talk to me 23:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Retired
[edit]"This page was Scholarlyarticles is a fake of and was created on March 3 from my sandbox. Please ignore any comments made by this user on March 3 as they are an impersonation of me in order to receive immediate relief from impersonation I have retired this page."
{{Retired}}
-- Trevj (talk · contribs) 13:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Not retired
[edit]Per Special:Contributions/Scholarlyarticles, the subject of this RfC/U does not actually appear to be retired. There are also some more claims of BLP issues in there. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, when she reappeared I asked her here to respond to this, but she didn't answer and blanked it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- I still need to review all of the diffs on this RfC/U if I ever choose to comment, but I will say that based on the contribs this ought to be revived. Whether it has merit or not, there should be some sort of resolution. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yep.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- User:Scholarlyarticles/sandbox seems somewhat interesting. It appears to be a collection of links regarding this case. Edits like this one in particular seem to indicate that the user is collecting information regarding this RfC/U. Perhaps they are planning to participate? They retired, then started this editing in their sandbox six days later, and now things have been quiet for another six days.
- What wouldn't be desirable is if the user simply refuses to participate in the RfC/U and lays low in an attempt to dodge it entirely. Note that I am not accusing the user of this, I am simply saying that would be unfortunate. I have seen subjects of RfC/Us try that before. so, whether that is the case here or not, I think this ought to continue.
- Is it time to propose some sort of a solution to the issue? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- I have just closed the RfC/U due to inactivity, but due to the nature of the RfC/U, I have also added this summary - which clarifies what to do next if issues persist. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to review and close this. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 05:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- You're welcome :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- I have just closed the RfC/U due to inactivity, but due to the nature of the RfC/U, I have also added this summary - which clarifies what to do next if issues persist. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yep.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- I still need to review all of the diffs on this RfC/U if I ever choose to comment, but I will say that based on the contribs this ought to be revived. Whether it has merit or not, there should be some sort of resolution. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
