Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ludovicapipa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Full RFC notifications on Ludovicapipa's Talk page

I just want to point out that I've made repeated attempts at getting a response to this RfC from Ludovicapipa, and she has not indicated at all whether or not she will provide a response to this RfC/U. I'm copying diffs and the content of each request:

1st Request (templated per RfC guidelines):

Hello, Ludovicapipa. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ludovicapipa, where you may want to participate.-- Dali-Llama 03:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

2nd Request:

Ludovica, I saw that you deleted my, notice of your RfC/U. That's okay, but I just wanted to let you know that it's a good idea for you to respond to it, and that the RfC is not taken lightly. Per the RfC guidelines:

In most cases, editors named in an RfC are expected to respond to it. The Arbitration Committee considers a response or lack of it, as well as the comments and endorsements from the community, if the matter ends up being escalated to arbitration.

Dali-Llama 12:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

3rd Request:

Ludovica, are now three people endorsing in one shape or another the RfC/U about you, which means it has been approved. I strongly suggest you take the time to respond. This is the third time I'm asking you, please, for your response. Your silence does not help the resolution of the situation in any way shape or form. If you do or do not intend to reply to it, please make it clear. You can find it here--Dali-Llama 18:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

4th Request:

Ludovica, one more endorsement has been added to the RfC/U. That makes 4. I beg you to respond to it. The reason why I'm asking is that if you do not respond, that could be interpreted as refusal to use the dispute resolution mechanism, which could open you up for sanctioning by an individual admin and/or a referral to ArbCom. I don't want to see you blocked by a single admin and then think this was a one-sided decision. You have a chance to participate and say what you think about your actions, me, everything else. --Dali-Llama 16:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Dali-Llama 20:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is far above and beyond the call of duty to get Ludovica's attention. She so far has deleted each and everyone one of these notices and has not responded here. I think it's safe to assume that she's aware of the RFC and is choosing to ignore it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No response from anyone?

Well, this RFC sure is going nowhere fast. :P — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem with RfCs in obscure articles: Very few people have been "stung" by a user to rally other people to look at the situation, which makes a situation where a user stings one other user repeatedly, hard. I'm about ready to close this RfC up. What I don't know is if I should bump it up to arbitration for sanctioning or just "keep it as evidence" if she acts up again. Considering it's a relatively minor number of parties involved, I'm assuming if it did go to ArbCom, they'd deal with it relatively quickly.--Dali-Llama 19:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You can take it to ArbCom if you feel it's a pressing enough matter, but if Ludovica is now leaving you alone, it might be in your best interest to just let sleeping dogs lie for now. If she starts causing you trouble in the future, then by all means point to this RfC as one of your pieces of evidence that you tried to resolve the dispute. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)