I usually keep an eye on the Help Desk and so when post 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 problematic anywhere, let alone in BLPs. Scholarlyarticles then posted 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). [1]

After I declined to revert to the "litigated, vetted, and decided up" version she posted to Dennis' talk page [2] 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.)" [3] (emphasis mine)
• "And yes Arbitration people got involved informally (off board) because of the sensitivity and frankly the danger of the subject involved." [4] 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" [5] 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! [6] 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 (diffs supplied upon request). 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". I believe for some reason she's unusually invested in the article's subject and it would be best for her if she left it alone or find another mentor that will help her understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and assist with the contents of her postings.