Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Niemti/Archive 1

tl;dr
Seriously you guys. And if I started to comment on this... (as requested?) --Niemti (talk) 09:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I commend you for refusing to be baited. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

sanctions
I see a few comments here regarding sanctions being imposed. I'm afraid this process cannot do that. the goal is supposed to be to come to a voluntary agreement with the subject. If they refuse to participate (or participate in the form of sarcastic ranting) that option is obviously off the table and the RFC will fail. However that does not mean those concerned about these issues cannot make recommendations for voluntary restrictions and ask for endorsements of those positions. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that we should include voluntary sanctions in the RfC since concern has been raised about the subject's failure to participate on the RfC. We've tried numerous talk page discussions, and even the idea of a ban proposal at WP:AN resulted in no consensus and we are trying to come to a voluntary agreement with the subject. Also, two uninvolved users have responses to the concerns and one semi involved user has responded to the subject's concerns. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban discussion
Would everyone watching this page comment on the topic ban discussion at ANI concerning Niemti's involvement in the Anita Sarkeesian article? Some people have commented on ANI, but 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. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up - The user is now topic banned from all articles or discussions relating to Anita Sarkeesian, broadly construed. The discussion can now be found at Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive784. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for following up here with the outcome. I've closed the RFC/U (moving the dispute to another forum is a normal reason to close RFC/Us) and will list it at the Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. Unfortunately, while I agree with the closure, the RFC/U mostly concerns about his disruption in video game-related articles. The ANI topic was about the topic ban proposal on Anita Sarkeesian, which is partially relevant to his pattern of mostly disruptive behavior at video game-related articles. We should be looking at this more closely and see if we can come up with a compromise about this matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I undid the close... I'm not specifically disagreeing with the closing of this RFC/U itself, but it was done with no readily apparent statement, summary or rationale for future reference. If you still think it should be closed as per the outcome of the AN/I thread you listed in the archive, feel free to do so but please try to make sure some note of the reason behind the close is added to the RFC/U page itself to avoid any possible confusion. If it matters, I think the RFC/U's scope is much too broad to be considered adequately resolved by the rather narrow topic ban decided at AN/I. :) · Salvidrim!  ·  &#9993;  01:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The summary would only say "Dispute moved to ANI" (with a link), which isn't exactly important. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to admit I'm also confused by the rationale for this close. How do you see a topic ban regarding Anita Sarkeesian as resolving the issues outlined in the "Statement of the Dispute", "Desired Outcome", and "Views" sections? Anita Sarkeesian was barely even mentioned in this RfC. In any case, though, thanks for taking a look at it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)