Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Niemti

Archives

Typo'?

Should "...and on the other hand do accurately reflect the full range or balance of secondary opinions." from the introductory comments have a "not" in it? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but we might do that. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GAN discussion

A discussion about Niemti's GAN issues is being brought to the forefront once again at WT:GAN#Clearing out the VG backlog. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional evidence page

After a discussion with Salvidrim and at WT:VG, I boldly added a section for additional evidence titled Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Niemti/Additional Evidence. Please post new evidence there. Significant examples of new problems would be needed before taking any necessary action such as blocking him or topic banning him from video games. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, if we can get enough evidence to attain a rough consensus, we should take it to ANI with that in hand. In the words of David Fuchs, "taking the time for formulate evidence will save everyone more grief and back-and-forth." Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications

I've posted a notification at the film, anime and Good article Wikiprojects. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've also posted a notification at the Fictional characters Wikiproject. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request to close

A request to close at WP:AN has been posted by Cunard. Please note that if the RFC is closed, new and significant evidence must be posted here or on the additional evidence subpage. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I closed it once, but the disputants were apparently unhappy that the closure didn't result in punishments for Niemti, and it was reverted. The RFC/U directions are pretty clear that these pages should be closed "after about a month from opening, if no progress is being made". The fact that this didn't get closed no later than last December is a violation of our practices and existing guidelines.

Since a ban proposal has appeared, and since this is not a normal place to have such discussions, I have left a note at WP:AN about the ban proposal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. This RFC has gone on long enough and discussion has stalled over the past couple of months. I think it's really that time to close this, but with a proper resolution this time. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Well, I can't speak for anybody else, but to clarify, I objected because your close didn't summarize the RfC, state a conclusion, or make recommendations. The AN/I thread you referenced and this RfC appear to me to be about quite different issues. It's water under the bridge now, but I'm still not clear why you saw a topic ban regarding BLP violations at Anita Sarkeesian as resolving the issues raised in any section here, and giving a rationale might have helped to clarify this.

Personally, I'm not in favor of Niemti being "punished", so please don't ascribe that motive to me. I've reviewed 4 or 5 of his Good Articles at this point, I think he's made some terrific contributions and will make many more, and I hope every effort will be made to get him to keep contributing within the bounds of policy before a serious ban is issued. But I would like to see this RfC close with at least some kind of recommendation, given the obvious consensus that change is needed.

Whatever the outcome, though, I do appreciate your work on this and in other areas of the 'pedia, so please don't read any of the above as too negative. Cheers, and thanks for all you do, -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to read the RFC/U closing directions here. If you find anything there that requires, encourages, or even explicitly permits, a closing statement beyond a bare statement that the disputants took their problem to some other dispute resolution forum (e.g., ANI), to be added without the express consent of the participants, then please let me know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the snarky reply, but I actually have read it. What I and others have tried to point out to you a few times is that these two threads were not about the same dispute, and therefore the policy you're quoting doesn't apply (even if you consider AN/I a more advanced dispute resolution forum, which is itself pretty debatable). That's why everyone who's commented on this, including some uninvolved folks at WP:AN, has pointed out that it was not a very good close.

A discussion about whether Niemti should be banned from the article Anita Sarkeesian, who hadn't even been mentioned in this RfC at the time, doesn't address this RfC. It's a different article than any mentioned here, a different issue (BLP violations) than the ones discussed here (ownership, courtesy, GA behavior, etc.), and a clearly narrower focus (behavior on one article only) than the more general discussion here. It was opened by a user who hadn't even participated in this RfC at the time, though he did post a comment on the experience two weeks later. It's hard for me to understand how you saw that AN/I thread as "proceeding from" the discussion here, or being interchangeable with it, except that the word "Niemti" appears in both of them. Again, maybe you do have a good explanation for why these are the same; it's just a shame you chose not to explain your actions then or now, either in your close or when asked directly about this point.

Like I said, though: water under the bridge now; I just wish you'd be a little more careful with these closes in the future. I do thank you for taking on closes generally, and wish you all the best. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The policy that RFC/U pages are closed "after about a month, if no progress is being made", and closed without a summary statement in that instance, very much applies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It would have been a much more sensible and policy-based close, avoiding the confusing and inaccurate suggestion that the RfC dispute had moved to AN/I, and giving a clearer sense of what had happened in the RfC; it's a shame you didn't go with it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to ban

For what it's worth, I'm opposed to banning Niemti for six months. (I'm not sure we can do that through an RfC anyway, as Whatamidoing points out above).

I know it's been dragging on, but eventually, this RfC will receive a real close; we'll hopefully then have a clear community consensus for what Niemti needs to look at changing in his behavior. We should give him a chance to see that consensus and abide by it before a site ban is seriously discussed. I realize I may be in the minority, but wanted to offer my two cents. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timing and process

Comment - It looks like there's a pretty clear consensus on this:
1. Let's close the RFC/U.
2. To make the ban proposal legit, a new discussion needs to be started at AN. It can still reference this RFC, and we can have people re-cast their !vote again there. Sergecross73 msg me 11:26 am, Today (UTC−4)

It is obvious that there will be overwhelming if not unanimous support for closure. I'd recommend letting this go to the end of the week to let everyone who wants to to comment here, before closing it. I agree that a new discussion will need to be started at AN for any actual formal sanctions to be imposed, if any. That is why I worded the motion the way I did. I have no intention of making the AN proposal myself, but I thought it would be useful for whoever wanted to take on that chore to have as many people comment here before closure so the AN request is as complete and fulsome as possible. That timing will also allow Niente to respond at AN, because his 2-week block will expire on Monday. Fladrif (talk) 11:40 am, Today (UTC−4)

I was going to cite WP:SNOW in regards to wrapping this up, but you do make a good point that letting this play out will put us past Niemti's block, so he can take part in the discussions. (And I understand, I've also made it known that I'll assist the process, but refuse to drive the process - I won't be doing the proposal either.) Sergecross73 msg me 11:45 am, Today (UTC−4)

I also do not wish to propose a ban on Niemti myself, but I would be happy to participate in the ban discussion whenever I can. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 11:50 am, Today (UTC−4)

I got no dog in this fight. Anybody who wants formal sanctions imposed on this editor is going to have to go to AN themselves. I'm not doing it for you. Fladrif (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC concluded

As noted in the closure, the matter has been submitted to the community, at WP:AN#RfC proposal for community sanctions against Niemti. Sandstein 12:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some people have commented here but please note that it is important that as many people as possible participate in the formal proceedings (with a support or oppose or comment) because a high rate of participation would indicate the concern of the community regarding this issue. That will be important in the future if an unblock proposal is made, or if a similar discussion is undertaken at another project. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]