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: 00:15, 29 June 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.
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.
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:
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).
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:
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:
(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.)
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:
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
(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.)
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)
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
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.
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:
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:
(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)
Users who endorse this summary:
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)
Users who endorse this summary:
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:
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)
Users who endorse this summary:
A request for closure was made at WP:ANRFC and responded to - this close was reverted by User:Salvidrim, see [16].
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)
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.
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: 00:15, 29 June 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.
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.
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:
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).
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:
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:
(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.)
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:
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
(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.)
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)
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
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.
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:
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:
(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)
Users who endorse this summary:
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)
Users who endorse this summary:
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:
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)
Users who endorse this summary:
A request for closure was made at WP:ANRFC and responded to - this close was reverted by User:Salvidrim, see [16].
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)
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.