Consensus is that the concerns raised in this RfC are valid. That is, the RfC concludes that Niemti has regularly and over a long period of time engaged in misconduct such as incivility and personal attacks, article ownership, not using edit summaries, and disruption of the "good articles" process. Niemti has not indicated any readiness to change their conduct. There is consensus, in #Motion to close, that a proposal to site-ban and to topic-ban Niemti should be submitted to the community.  Sandstein  11:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was held at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive247#RfC proposal for community sanctions against Niemti. Cunard (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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: 13:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 02:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC).

Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Statement of the dispute[edit]

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

There are multiple issues with Niemti's editing style, including incivility and ownership. There are significant instances of clear insults, including profanity, towards other editors; more prevalent is his condescending tone and "abrasive" style. Clear ownership issues include reverting explicitly because of personal preference, reverting with no explanation and without declaring the revert. Overlapping both is his heel-dragging in GA reviews. Another issue is his flooding of the video game WP:GAN queue with nominations, a significant proportion of them substandard (and then the manner in which he conducts himself during the reviews, and renominating if and when they fail).

This has progressed to the point where a number of users have stated plainly that they are "ignoring" or "want nothing to do with" Niemti. Sven Manguard, Sjones23, Sergecross73. Given the vast range of Niemti's activity across video game articles, it's untenable that editors simply ignore him.

Examples of straightforward incivility and ownership are given below. An overlapping issue is the infrequent use of edit summaries, (except perhaps to insult others or assert ownership) and reverting or partially reverting without saying that he is doing so nor why.

Another large issue, brought up twice on the WP:VG talk page, is Niemti's saturation of the WP:GAN video game subsection with nominations, many (though in fairness, not all) of them substandard. Over the last several weeks, he has had 20+ nominations waiting at any one time, and currently has about 25 of 36 of the nominations (bear in mind that the VG project does not normally have the chronic GAN backlog that the rest of the GAN queues do). A lot of them are sitting for weeks or months unreviewed (again, unusual amongst video game GANs), possible because they are a mess and secondly because of Niemti's behaviour during GA reviews, and while editing in general.

First, let it be clarified that among Niemti's nominations, articles on characters (and less so games) are the worst offenders, and in particular, longer character articles:

Niemti would disagree with this analysis, but now that at least three editors have found the exact same issues, with the same articles, consensus is against him on this. More than one editor has levelled WP:SUBJECTIVE at his reception sections and he has answered this argument.

Next is the manner in which Niemti's conducts himself during the GA process, which I would prefer to describe simply as "heel-dragging", but is a combination of blank disagreement, passive-agression, the OWN-y editing style described below and other-stuff-exists arguments used to denigrate GA standards as thus appeal that he should not have to make improvements, and that his nominations should be passed despite their failings.

Lastly among the GA issues, is simply renominating failed GANs despite outstanding disputes, presumably in the hope of a rubber-stamp review.

Also worthy of note is the fact that Niemti is User:HanzoHattori, recently returned from a ban and indefinite block for incivility and an inability to work with others.

Desired outcome[edit]


Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

Incivility[edit]

Most (though not all) of these are relatively minor, but should be considered as part of the broader problems with Niemti's editing style. Here are a few instances of clear incivility:

Ownership[edit]

Instances of clear WP:OWN violations (most of these of these are reverts):

The infrequent use of edit summaries also raises ownership concerns, as Niemti reverts or partially reverts without explanation nor indicating that a revert has taken place :

The lack of edit summaries is problematic in other ways. Take the "nope" revert above: Niemti was apparently not only reverting, but instead had a much better idea regarding how that section should look, and was about to implement it. He just didn't feel the need to mention this in any of his summaries, and instead was completely shocked that the reviewer "didn't even wait for me to finish" (before failing the relevant GAN for edit warring).

GANs[edit]

It's beyond the scope to discuss individual pieces of disputed content, but here are GA reviews which complained of poor prose dealing with fiction, overly-long, effusive reception sections and/or the misrepresentation of sources and other issues:

Other conduct during GA reviews[edit]

Much of what is described above and in the civility and ownership sections is pertinent to his conduct during GA reviews, but here are further issues:

Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]

  1. WP:CIVIL
  2. WP:OWN
  3. WP:NPOV, specifically WP:SUBJECTIVE and WP:DUE
  4. WP:EDITWAR
  5. WP:AGF
  6. WP:GACR
  7. WP:BITE
  1. WP:COMPETENCE
  2. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

(Provide diffs of the comments. As with anywhere else on this RfC/U, links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Attempts by certifier Bridies[edit]

I have tried to remedy the GAN backlog issues simply by reviewing Niemti's nominations in good faith (7, if I recall correctly). I am now completely at loggerheads with him: he has stated he has "lost faith" in me, "no longer enjoys" working with me and believes I seek only to insult his work. The last talk page thread exchange is this:

  1. [6]

Attempts by certifier GamerPro64[edit]

[7] The second of two discussions on the WP:VG talk page encompassed all of the GAN, civility and ownership issues, and multiple editors voiced concerns. Niemti responded bluntly. Another illustrative diff from this discussion. Described further below.

Other attempts[edit]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. I was the one who started the second thread about Niemti here. I wanted to raise awareness to his over-saturation of Good Article Nominations for the project as I saw it as a concern due being possibly one of the largest backlogs the project has seen in the four years I've been part of it. Then after noticing that he insults some of the editors in the project, Example, I saw that there were more to all this then what I originally found. Then seen later on in the discussion, he remarks "Hi guys. More GA noms are coming though. You only review if you want, you know?". Now I find that rubbing in the fact that he was planning to add on more articles for GAN childish and makes him less professional in the eyes of other editors. Speaking of Rubbing it in (I wish WP:RUBBINGITIN existed), he repeatedly mentions how he has made Good Articles and how much he's edited on them, to the point he says he's made "X%" of the edits. As the thread went no where, I do believe that this Requests for comment is the only thing that can help settle all of this. GamerPro64 02:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As described in the statement. When Niemti was allowed to return (having being banned and in-definitely blocked in 2008, as HanzoHattori, precisely for incivility and an inability to work with others), User:MuZemike predicted: If he gets unbanned/unblocked, I'm sure we will be discussing numerous ANI incidents, culminating with another ban proposal, within a year. So IMO this RfC is a last-ditch effort to get him to edit sanely. bridies (talk) 11:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

(Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or other people's endorsements belongs on the talk page, not in this section.)

  1. I'm pleased that Niemti puts so much time into his edits. Generally speaking they improve Wikipedia. However upon reviewing a given article those involved are usually met with negativity/sarcasm/indifference/mild anger when suggesting fixes/updates. Suggestions to improve references, for example, have been met with brushing off of policy and established practices. The most recent example is here. The user was invited to bring the questioned sources to the table, yet instead ignored this in favor of his/her own opinion. It's been my experience in both participating in and watching others work with Niemti that this is par for the course. I'd have no major objection if this user weren't focusing on GAN/A-Class and possibly FA, but at every step he/she questions established practices and WP:BITEs other users for pointing these out. It feels as if they're simply trying to annoy someone enough until they back down, and for all the good that his edits do this would ultimately hurt articles and Wikipedia in general. --Teancum (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I also have concerns with WP:OWNership of articles as others have pointed out. He also has an issue with bending policy. As seen in the edit summary of Shank (video game) I had restored a previous edit per WP:3RR. Niemti changed it again, so I put it back the way it was, reminding him of the policy. He changed it yet again, ignoring policy to discuss changes on the article talk page. Yet here he warns another user on the exact same policy even though this editor asked Niemti to discuss changes on the talk page two weeks prior. It was not until this user created a section on the talk page that Niemti joined in. I should note, that this other user warned him of 3RR only a few minutes before his warning to that user. Long story short it's a mess that could have been avoided if he had taken discussion to the talk page as originally suggested. --Teancum (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Upon looking at the recent activity, I was immediately puzzled and appalled by what just happened. I have been working on my proposed guideline about notability for video game characters following a previous RfC discussion at WP:VG/GL regarding the use of Top X lists for video game characters. Every step he questions established practices and bites other users for pointing this out. However, I am also concerned about Niemti's incivility as well as his WP:OWNERSHIP-ish behavior on some articles, as indicated by Bridies above, as well as violations of the WP:3RR policy as pointed out by Teancum. The Shank (video game) article edit war could have been easily averted if there was discussion on the article's talk page as suggested. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Because of his unwillingness to engage in the RFC process, I am also willing to support the suggestions above as well as some voluntary sanctions. He has communication issues and disregard for cooperation, and since Wikipedia is edited by the community, no one should own any article. Niemti's comments are incoherent to the point where I make my point and simply move on. Endless arguing with this user just gets everyone nowhere fast, and quite frankly, I am clearly frustrated with his abrasive editing style. Also, being a rule follower, an ability to cooperate with others are most definitely required, as Wikipedia is a free and open encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The editor has shown that, while capable of making useful contributions to this encyclopedia, he has displayed poor communication and a failure to cooperate with others, including myself, and that is detrimental to the encyclopedia. In the end, it shows that he needs to learn to cooperate with other users, period. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. See my comments above. GamerPro64 02:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Full disclosure: I came here because of a message left on my talk page (diff). I have had very limited interaction with Niemti, but while it hasn't been pleasant, I cannot entirely pin the blame on Niemti. Niemti nominated the article XCOM: Enemy Unknown for a good article review. I speedy declined it because the plot section was bare-bones and had an expansion tag on it. To me, that meant it failed the completeness requirement in the GAC. I, myself, could and should have been more tactful in my speedy decline. That being said, Niemti's response was to relist the article at GAN with no changes to the article, no discussion with me, and not even an explanation edit summary. He also ordered me to relist it myself. I might have have done better with more tact, but Niemti displayed exceptionally poor communication and a total disregard for cooperation. At this time I'd like to see Niemti agree to some serious changes but would not support formal sanctions. Niemti's response to this page will factor heavily into how willing I will be to support sanctions in the future. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Because of Niemti's unwillingness to engage in the process, I am now willing to support sanctions. I'd prefer editing restrictions, probably along the lines of a six month topic ban from the Good Article process and a civility probation, but I would support a block now. Niemti needs to learn to work with others, period. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I've never had any direct conflicts with, (Probably only because there hasn't been any overlap in the type of articles we edit) but I've been involved in many related discussions because I field a lot of questions at Wikiproject Video Games, and there have been countless editors who have reported/requested needing help with dealing with him lately. Every time it's the same thing. "Niemti has WP:OWN issues. Niemti has WP:INCIVILITY issues. Niemti is either bulldozing the conversation, or reverting without consensus or even edit summaries at times. While I doubt he'd believe me, I really do appreciate how prolific his content editing is, he does get a lot done. But there's just no way he needs to treat people the way he does, or give off such an attitude. Pretty much every time I engage in discussion with him, I get a long winded, theatrical response, with all sorts of preposterous exagerations, weird analogies, and semi off-topic ramblings. It's usually pretty incoherent, to the point that now, all I do is state my opinion, and then be on my way, because no progress ever seems to be made from responding to his counter-questions. Otherwise it just leads to endless arguing with a huge disconnect...
    • Any ways, TL;DR version - He seems unwilling, or incapable of change at the current time, so I'd support either of the suggestions above by Sven. I think topic-banning WP:GANs is appropriate he doesn't seem to understand the requirements, so I think it would be good to basically make it so someone else has to "second" his nomination before it's actually listed.) I think all the incivility warrants a block now as well. Sergecross73 msg me 16:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Niemti has been part of a heated, drawn-out and pointless debate over at talk:Anita Sarkeesian. He blankly refuses to accept that Sarkeesian has received no substantial or serious from any reliable sources. In the light of his obsessive focus on the sex appeal of female video game characters, this is even more serious. If he uses talkpages as a forum for his opposition to feminist criticism of sexism in video game, articles like Anita Sarkeesian, he should be banned from those as well. Peter Isotalo 22:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The issues with Niemti dont fall in just video game related articles, but anime and manga in which he removed a chunk of reception and used subjective ideas as to why its unreliable.Lucia Black (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I've ran into Niemti a few times and experienced most of the issues users have raised previously. At first I gave him the benefit of the doubt and tried to address him as an adult and suggest various things he could do to improve community relations. It's clear that my suggestions were ignored. I've found that Niemti would rather argue for days about a change that could be made in less than an hour in GAN and many of them are subpar. When I listed a GAN as looking for a 2nd opinion recently he [12] I finish the review (using 5 revisions to get the formatting of his comment correctly rather than using preview). In the end, while I may have clashed less with Niemti than others, I'm slowly being worn down by his abrasive editing style. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 09:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I've only encountered Niemti at Anita Sarkeesian, but he's displayed almost all of those problematic behaviors there, and that's a BLP.Cúchullain t/c 14:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. These issues remain an issue, especially regarding WP:VG and GAN. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Something needs to be done about him.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

This section is reserved for the use of the user whose conduct is disputed. Users writing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section, and the person writing this section should not write a view below. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but no one except the editor(s) named in the dispute may change the summary here.

I said I'd not comment on this sillyness, but that's becoming just completely ridicalous. Yes, of course I display "double standards" towards female characters because I'm such a pervert. That's why I rescued Larry Laffer, because I identify with him so much. That's why I created an developed Battletoads (characters), because I'm also a pansexual furry deviant and just look at them. Oh, and Cyberdemon and Tyrant (Resident Evil) evan as they lack reproductive organs. Same for Dogmeat, too, obviously because I'd like to screw a pooch. OK, this was the first and last that I commented on that and I'm not even watching it anymore. If I wanted to answer all of that stuff here it would take a lot of my time that I would actually spend editing, like I did with almost all of 27,327 edits in 3,279 different pages since March. Ciao. --Niemti (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:[edit]

RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or comments made by people endorsing this view belong on the talk page, not in this section

Views[edit]

This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.

Outside view by GiantSnowman[edit]

Two quick points. Firstly, it is disappointing and concerning to see Niemti refusing to engage with this RFC and dealing with the valid concerns raised by others; in fact, his response has shown a lack of respect for the community. Secondly, it should be made very clear that being a producer of good content producer is never excuse for poor and uncivil behaviour.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. GiantSnowman 11:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sergecross73 msg me 15:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 09:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I've personally had positive experiences at GAN with Niemti, and respect him as a content contributor. But the diffs listed above are clearly problematic, as is the refusal to address the issues. Khazar2 (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ZappaOMati 22:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I have never encountered this user and was unaware of him prior to reading this page. What I have seen is more than enough. I fully endorse this statement by GS and believe strong sanctions are in order. Jusdafax 00:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cúchullain t/c 14:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. ClaudeReigns (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. ProtoDrake (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Tintor2 (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I have generally had poor experience of this editor, who expects others to clear up the mess he makes when he can't be bothered to complete something, and who is uncivil as a starting point. His belief that edit warring is an acceptable method of interaction in order to bludgeon others to accepting his point of view is tiresome to say the least. - SchroCat (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Go Phightins![edit]

I definitely see widespread incivility throughout the GA reviews, especially in the Jill Valentine and Taki (Soulcalibur) ones...also the diffs regarding ownership are simply unacceptable per WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:5P. Unfortunately, these are patterns, not isolated incidents, in my opinion, and therefore I would support sanctions of some nature.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Go Phightins! 01:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sergecross73 msg me 15:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ZappaOMati 22:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jusdafax 00:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SchroCat (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-involved view by JimmyBlackwing[edit]

(Full disclosure: just today had a run-in of my own with Niemti's rudeness and refusal to cooperate, on the article Thief: The Dark Project.)

The summary of Niemti's behavior here seems very accurate. He does not appear to value the contributions or opinions of other users, nor, given his comment above and his abuse of the GAN system, the rules and processes of Wikipedia. In fact, it almost looks like he views these things with disdain. Even in my single encounter with him, he posted rude, mocking messages about the work User:Noj r and I had done on the article in question, and he edit warred on a disputed change instead of stopping to discuss the issue and build consensus. These events, in themselves, would not be particularly serious—but, given the material collected in this RfC, it's clear that this is Niemti's mode of operation in nearly all situations. Despite the obvious editing ability he displays in the listed work (even many of the edits he made to Thief were good), he is clearly a problem user who needs to be dealt with. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sergecross73 msg me 15:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ZappaOMati 22:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jusdafax 00:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SchroCat (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outside and semi-involved views by ThomasO1989[edit]

Niemti's blatantly rude and inappropriate response to the matter above shows that he simply has no intention of listening to these comments or changing his behavior. I have once pointed out that one of his edits to the article Battletoads (video game) contained multiple occurrences of the word "you", and he gave a defensive and curt response that he only copied the text from another article and thus was not responsible for what it contained. Echoing the comments above, great work on articles is not an excuse for hostility towards other editors. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sergecross73 msg me 14:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ZappaOMati 22:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jusdafax 00:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ProtoDrake (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SchroCat (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Kurtis[edit]

When this RfC first went live a few months back, I opted against commenting here for the sake of avoiding drama. I didn't want to take shots at someone who evidently shares in many of my own interests (video games, horror films, humanities, Kill Bill, etc) because there is a chance I will wind up contributing extensively to the same articles as him at some point — in fact, it's already happened, and I even acknowledged it on his talk page (him and Khazar2 subsequently managed to bring the page to GA-status, very impressive). I've also steered clear of this page thus far for another reason; as I'm sure several people are already aware, I don't like user conduct RfCs. I see them as a necessary evil in cases where prior DR outlets have proven ineffective, something that should be avoided wherever possible. So for a time, I decided to just let the chips fall where they may and hope for the best as I carried on with my business elsewhere.

And that's when I came across this recent AN/I thread, where his participation at the talk page of a biographical article was discussed extensively and resulted in overwhelming support for a topic ban from anything pertaining to the subject. I seconded a suggestion made by My very best wishes for Niemti to voluntarily cease editing in that area, which I think would have reduced a lot of frustration for both himself and everyone else. That, as well as the fact that I was possibly the most vocal advocate of unbanning him when it was discussed last July, made me realize that I could not maintain my silence on the matter any longer.

Niemti is a dedicated volunteer who has contributed extensively to many, many articles. His work is appreciated, as it should be. It's quite a shame that these positives could be offset by some serious communication issues. But the fact remains, Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Being able to work well with others and to understand their perspectives is crucial towards building strong, resilient articles. Disagreements and misunderstandings are part of what makes this project so effective as a resource. It is also much easier to resolve conflicts through keeping a cool head, rather than resorting to sarcasm or an otherwise aggressive tone (i.e. avoid using all caps or needlessly cussing out of frustration with someone else).

Niemti was previously banned per community consensus for exactly the sort of behavior that's getting him into trouble nowadays, and he narrowly inched away from meeting that very same fate this past November (around the same time this RfC went live). I still feel Niemti has a lot to offer to this site, but he has to realize that the Wikipedia community is not 4chan. We have much higher standards for professionalism and civility, and abiding by them is not an option.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. I hope all of this eventually serves as a wake-up call for Niemti. His relationship with the community is on a downward spiral, and he must readjust his behavior so that it fits into what is expected of all our editors. The only alternative is another site ban. Kurtis (talk) 11:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 15:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SchroCat (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by User:Fladrif[edit]

I ran across Niemti on March 17 when a question was posted at WP:RSN on sourcing questions that had arisen during a GA review of an article that Niemti had been working on. [13] Niemti called another editor who disgreed with him on the sourcing issue a liar on that page, so I hatted his comment, and posted a warning on his talk page.[14] and again on the RFC page where the same attack was repeated [15] The comment was wildly inappropriate, and was repeated in multiple venues in addition to those two. We had one other interaction later in the day when he inadvertently deleted a comment because of bug in how the edit conflict software is working. I have had no other dealings with this editor before or since, though I paid attention to the various discussions that led to his current block. There are some clear behavioral issues that need to be addressed if he is to return to editing. Fladrif (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Oh crap, I remember that! Some people who have behavioral issues on Wikipedia need to improve their behavior. Otherwise, they are not just cut out for interacting with others on Wikipedia. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for closure and revert by Salvidrim[edit]

A request for closure was made at WP:ANRFC and responded to - this close was reverted by User:Salvidrim, see [16].

Motion to close[edit]

This should be closed. It has long passed the point of usefulness and it quite frankly giving credence to Niemti's complaints about Wikihounding. The editor in question has been banned once, sockpuppeted to evade the ban, was inexplicably allowed to continue editing as the sockpuppet[17], and has been repeatedly sanctioned with escalating blocks for long-term, continued misconduct and incivility under both identities. That can't be allowed to continue. But, the RFC/U now appears to this outsider to consists principally of piling on.

Moved: That this RFC/U be closed, and that ANI/AE (as appropriate) be requested to impose the following sanctions as a community consensus:(i) Niemti is banned from en.Wikipedia. He may request reinstatement at ArbCom after six months. (ii) Niemti is topic-banned from participating in GA nomination and review for any article; (iii) Niemti is topic-banned from Video Games, broadly construed. Fladrif (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking the opposite. The guy is not a collaborator and you need to be able to collaborate at least with the reviewer to make good articles. AIRcorn (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The intent was not to ban him from writing or editing Good Articles, but only to ban him from the GA nomination and review process, which is one of the areas where he has proven most intractable. Clarified in italics above. Fladrif (talk) 02:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion[edit]

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.

More