Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/EmilEikS

User stated s/he will not respond
I was checking into this but after seeing This comment I guess there is no reason to. If the person named refuses to comment what happens? -- Crohnie Gal Talk  19:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure, but the response itself basically conveys the message, at least to me, that he doesn't seem to think there's much wrong with his behavior. Extending a blanket apology if someone thinks they are owed one is really not saying he's sorry, it's saying "yeah, whatever, I'm throwing you a bone here, chew on it." It seems to me that refusing to participate in a user conduct review is thumbing his nose at it and is just one more indication of his disregard for Wikipedia processes. He's established a policy? This truly makes me believe he needs to be blocked. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Wildhartlivie. If he chooses to follow personal policies instead of Wikipedia policies, he is not being a cooperative, productive member of this community and should be blocked indefinitely.  momoricks   make my day  03:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I was letting emotion (and lack of sleep) talk for me when I posted the above note. An indefinite block is too severe at this point; however, perhaps a temporary block will help persuade him to "play well with others."  momoricks   make my day  09:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know either, but he's not compelled to participate here, though it just adds to the overall impression I have that he is not a "good faith" editor.  I don't know what consequences would follow his non-participation here.   As for his talk page message, he's wrong.  He can write this on his user talk page, but he doesn't own the page and has no more say about what gets written there than he does on any other page.  Anybody can and should continue to add warnings etc to his page if they are applicable and his new "policy" does not carry any weight in this regard.  It's not for him to define what are constructive and positive comments whether they be on his talk page or anywhere else. He is free to choose not to respond, but he has no right to censor a basic procedure that is in place to serve the project.  He doesn't have the right to opt out of being part of the community that he has voluntarily joined, simply by placing a few vague, self-serving sentences on his talk page. I've seen double standards in so much of his attitude, and it's not surprising to note his absence from this appropriate venue, despite the fact that he's freely offered his opinions in several inappropriate places.  There is no sincerity in a blanket apology.  It is lip service only, and completely dismissive.  I would dismiss it with the same cavalier attitude in which it was offered.   Rossrs (talk) 08:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

RFC/How to present a case
This informative essay will probably be most helpful posted here in a central location for those commenting on this Rfc: WP:RFC/HOW.

In addition, WP:RFC states that "[a]n RfC cannot impose involuntary sanctions on a user, such as blocking or a topic ban; it is a tool for developing voluntary agreements and collecting information." We need to collectively work toward helping User:EmilEikS understand what policies he is violating and, hopefully, help him reach his potential as a valuable contributor to Wikipedia.  momoricks   make my day  10:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with this, at least from what I have read so far is this; 1) WP:NPA 2) lack of WP:Assume good faith and 3) possible WP:COI and possible WP:Sock/WP:MEAT. I really think an administrator should take a peek prior to do all the necessary work and time to gather all the difs and so forth.  I read the editor feels threatened because his name and location is known, yet no threat was made.  Also the claim the 'C' is derogatory.  This is just so out there to me but I will continue reading and studying what is going on. Maybe I am missing something more important here.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Good points, Crohnie. The point I was trying to make is: while User:EmilEikS has violated numerous policies related to user conduct, there is no use in us discussing what sanctions he should receive. From what I understand, the Rfc and arbitration processes are only for coming to voluntary agreements by both parties. It is counterproductive to suggest what should happen to him. I guess all we can do at this point is wait and see whether or not the Rfc gets approved, and go from there.  momoricks   make my day  01:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the confusion on my part this time. I've not run across an RFC where the editor refuses to attend out right to help with the situation.  Plus to add to it "this comment" had me stop looking into things.  I figured since the user had 'retired' the account there was no reason for me to continue to learn more about what this was about to be able to give an educated opinion.  Now I noticed that the 'retirement' was short lived and was removed.  So if you want drop in at my talk and let me know if I am needed to look at the issues again to try to help to resolve the issues.  I will be honest, I will have to reread everything to get back up to speed since I thought this was done with.  If it is still needed, the RFC, please advice me of this again.  Sorry about this, I've been having it rough as you are aware and still not out of it yet but it's improving finally.  Thanks in advance, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)