Wikipedia:Requests for comment/EmilEikS

The following discussion is an archived record of a

request for comment

. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia: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 ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 05:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 16:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC).

• EmilEikS (talk · contribs · logs)

Note:

 Confirmed

EmilEik (talk · contribs) = Fiandonca (talk · contribs). I'll let the community decide their fates. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC) [1] Jehochman ^Talk 15:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I have blocked Fiandonca which was used contrary to

WP:SOCK. EmilEik was declared and not used deceptively. I would normally block the main account for one to two weeks, but have decided not to this time so they can participate here. Jehochman ^Talk 15:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Issues with User:EmilEikS regarding overall overt and implied behavior which is contentious and disruptive to the project.

Desired outcome

User:EmilEikS needs to become familiar with the cooperative editing concept, cease the dramatics and contentious behavior and accusations, stop viewing someone who disagrees with his views or editing as an enemy, stop looking for trouble when none exists, stop the attempts to game the administrators and shop talk pages for backing and absolutely cease the "fear because we know who he is" dramatics. He is a newer editor and his conduct to date has been disruptive, contentious and stress-causing. If he cannot work with others, then he needs to either voluntarily stop editing or be stopped.

Addition

Given that this editor has refused to participate in this process, and his "blanket apology" that, to me, has no ring of sincerity to it, but instead is basically throwing a bone if someone thinks he's made an error, is no real acknowledgement of the problems he's created. He created his own "policy" which seems to override Wikipedia's. My feeling has changed on this and I truly feel like he has no place in the Wikipedia community. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second addition

With the confirmation that User:EmilEikS and User:Fiandonca were editing from the same location, confirming sock puppetry, and the evidence from #1, #2 and #3, below, plus the refusal of User:EmilEikS to participate here, as evidenced by his removal and note about his personal talk page policy here, and his contentious reply to the sock puppet notice which he left on User:Jehochman's talk page here, it seems clear that he is a disruptive editor and I would suggest that User:EmilEikS be blocked. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Description

Issues with

2. User:Fiandonca posted a rant when she claimed that I twice ignored "the humble wishes of this image contributor were not respected, by you, through your speedy edit of the caption." Note that Fiandonca has never edited the Mae West page. Soon after, User:EmilEikS responded about being talked down to here, after which another editor left a WP:NPA notice on his page, to which he replied with a "fair warning". Across all of this, both User:Fiandonca and User:EmilEikS made rude warnings to more than one editor "not to talk to me again". At this point, I questioned the congruence between contribution claims, postings and "don't talk to me" admonitions.[2] Other editors then posted comments on the behavior displayed and stating that they saw no rudeness or attacks in my comments.

3.

1. I attempted to discuss the ratings suggestion with him at Talk:Jacob Truedson Demitz#Assessment and told him three times to feel free to request a reassessment. That was not done. The assessment ratings were supported both on the article talk page [29] and at the BLP/N page [30], [31].

2. He has been told by more than one editor, besides myself, to not take these issues personally, [32], [33][34] yet he continues to do so and launches somewhat subtle personal attacks and disruption against other editors involved who are working in good faith on articles. For what it is worth, User:Pinkadelica, User:Rossrs (who made some comments in the initial flag icon issue), User:Momoricks, myself and a few other uninvolved editors all work together quite congenially across many articles and projects and have never had any WP discussions on article issues that weren't civil, polite and calm and seem to have that sort of relationship with the majority of editors on Wikipedia, yet all of us had encountered issues from User:EmilEikS.

3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive494#Personal attacks by User:EmilEikS

4. I (

tendentious editing essay. Three minutes later, User:EmilEikS removed my note from his talk page here

and has not responded to my note on his talk page nor mine as of now.

5. I (User:Momoricks) interpreted the removal of my note and lack of response as a refusal to consider my suggestions, which led me to post an ANI notice (evidence #3). I posted an ANI notice template on User talk:EmilEikS here. User:EmilEikS removed the ANI notice template here and to my knowledge, did not participate in the ANI notice discussion.

6. User:EmilEikS removed the note inviting him to respond to this Rfc and replaced it with a note entitled "Contentiousness" here.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. momoricks ^{make my day} 18:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

1. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 08:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Rossrs (talk) 09:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Viriditas (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Outside view by

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by

Users who endorse this summary:

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.

User retired on 1 December 2008.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.