Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Niemti/Additional Evidence

This is a page of additional evidence of problems found with Niemti's edits on video game and other related articles during the RFC. The intention is to show that in addition to the RFC, the same problems still exist with Niemti being inconsistent with WP:GAN, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:OWN, WP:NPOV, WP:DE, WP:EDITWAR, WP:BITE, WP:IDHT and WP:COMPETENCE.

Please note that some of these diffs are over a year old, and that editors in the video game WikiProject are aware of the previous issues with Niemti's edits, and realize that there is a systemic problem with the edits which Niemti is making to video game topics. Also note that some of the edits have been corrected.

Also note that this is not an exhaustive list of Niemti's bad edits in the topic area. This is what numerous editors have been able to investigate.

Scope of these issues

Give indication of range of articles affected here. Give timescales of relevant edits here. Highlight particularly problematic recent edits here.

Give evidence examples in a standard format, one heading per article, below. Concentrate on most serious examples first.

Contention with other users

The GA review of Max Payne (Character) This is from February this year, within the video game character area (in which Niemti is particularly active). The user who did the GA review clearly showed that several aspects of the article, major and minor, meant a fail. But Niemti seemingly refused to either fix or (occasionally) admit the problems, instead contesting them and arguing with the reviewer. You can see that the argument extends across several paragraphs, with the reviewer trying to start a discussion about fixing the problems and Niemti simply continuing to attack and argue. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently reviewing one of his articles, and I think that his behavior in this Good Article Review will be very telling. This could be either a sign that he is ready to cooperate with his fellow wikipedians, or not, and we should then act accordingly.Talk:Kasumi_(Dead_or_Alive)/GA2 Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was quick, review what happened, more interested in trying to invalidate my concerns than address even the most obvious ones needing improvement. Judgesurreal777 (talk)|

Another example: The GA review of Elexis Sinclaire. This is also from February of this year. The user who reviewed the GA state that "too much work is required to fix it up to the point that when done it'll be a very different article" and that the article "needs more bulk and a heavy cleanup before it can proceed to GA. Things like character design and more insight behind the character's development would easily help discuss the subject here too." This was a direct result of the user losing his cool with Niemti somewhat after Niemti posted a vicious comment (which I think is a very clear violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL) on the WT:VG page after I proposed a cleanup on the GAs (this also led me to plead for help and a proposed ban from the project (which has not been done as of yet). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not right that he creates a backlog of video game articles, wastes reviewers time, and makes them feel stupid for making any improvement suggestions in the first place. I think enough is probably enough, and his GA nominations should be removed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, time to notify WP:GAN and remove them soon. Also, if we have the chance, we must clear out the backlog at WP:VG/A/R. There are nominations by Niemti dating back to November 2012 and something must be done about it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It also should be noted that after Niemti "bumped" Judgesurreal777 to continue the GA review on Kasumi (Dead or Alive) and Judgesurreal777 responded addressing Niemti's hostile behavior, Niemti initially dismissed his concern with "Just finish it." --ThomasO1989 (talk) 03:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed a discusion over at WT:GAN#Clear out VG articles?. Meanwhile, there is an ongoing discussion at WT:GAN#Talk:Liu Kang/GA1 & Talk:Resident Evil 5/GA1. FunkMonk has raised concern that two passages under Gold Edition and downloadable content end without citations. Marketing and PlayStation Home also end without citations. He said that it is a problem with verifiability. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another review case for consideration here: The GA review for Jill Valentine. Similar issues, similar responses from Niemti to the reviewer FutureTrillionaire. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that it spilled over to WT:GAN. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution case at WP:DRN

On Wasteland 2, a disagreement arose between Frogacuda (talk · contribs), Sxerks (talk · contribs), ThomasO1989 (talk · contribs) and Niemti over the use of "isometric" camera view in late February 2013 (dozens of diffs already, check the history). See also Talk:Wasteland 2#Game Camera View. Niemti reported Frogacuda at WP:ANI but was trouted by User:Kim Dent-Brown for escalating the situation there. One of the sources, Destructoid, is a situational source per WP:VG/S. As a result, a dispute resolution case was filed on March 1, 2013. According to ThomasO1989, "leaving out a statement on an objective idea when one knows it to be incorrect is plain common sense. It isn't good judgement to blindly accept what reliable sources say, because being reliable doesn't imply infallible." Go Phightins! (talk · contribs), a user who commented on the RFC, stated that "unless there is some alternate definition of isometric, the word is misused and consequently should not be used in the article." Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up - This dispute has been apparently resolved since Niemti has lost interest in it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the concluding statement by User:Go Phightins!:

There has been very little activity on this over the last four days or so, so I will now close it. Consensus seems to be that the term "isometric", though in the source, is not correct and that per ignoring all rules or using common sense the term can be ignored. I will leave the precise wording to a discussion on the article talk page, but the outcome of this discussion seems to be a consensus to not use the term isometric. Thanks to all who participated. Go Phightins! 3:22 pm, 12 March 2013, last Tuesday (3 days ago) (UTC−4)

The discussion is now resolved and archived. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Character designer categories

Niemti posted a discussion about the creators of the various characters of the Final Fantasy franchise. ProtoDrake disagreed with Niemti's creation of "categories for all the people who have designed so-and-so character(s) in Final Fantasy games." On WikiProject Square Enix's talk page, three users (myself, Tintor2 (talk · contribs) and PresN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) agreed that the articles need information about the designer and there is no need to create categories for characters designers, and according to PresN, "it's not a useful navigation aid." Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just recently, ProtoDrake removed this category and other ones from the Lightning (Final Fantasy) article, saying that "they seem superfluous to [the] article". Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Sarkeesian

A partially relevant example of Niemti's behavior can be found at the article Anita Sarkeesian (which is part of WP:VG). The user, who has a dislike for Sarkeesian, feels that the article is mainly about video games, entitling him to cite negative material negative material to the article from video game blogs, such as Destructoid (which is a blog and cannot be used as a reliable source. Also, per WP:BLP, unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material must be removed immediately). In these following edits, Niemti disrupted the article's talk page with incoherent rants disparaging Sarkeesian, circulating negative gossip, and derailing any discussions about actual article improvements, which is much of the same behavior he exhibits on video game-related article talk pages. ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]). Despite being warned about this many times ([10], [11], [12], [13]), he did not stop the disruption. Later, Niemti filed a requested move in an attempt to shift the focus of the article in the hopes it will let him introduce negative material from video game blogs and bludgeoned every other user who disagreed with him. However, these actions would eventually lead to a topic ban from anything related to Anita Sarkeesian on ANI. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link dispute on Garrett

On the article Garrett (character), Niemti removed eight archived links from the article without explanation. This was reverted by Izno. Niemti reverted this change, citing that "there are no dead links there, it makes any sense only for gamespot1 because the background there is missing and it's now white font on white white." After another revert by Izno, who cites that "deadlinks are irrelevant. we should archive before there's a need to," Niemti removed it a third time, saying that they deprive sites of their ad revenue, they bloat the article and also make archive.org busy. These statements were said to be irrelevant according to Izno. As a result, Izno filed a WP:3O request on the talk page of the article. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitate to comment on this, but I would not necessarily describe this as bad faith or evidence. From what I can tell, no issues of civility exists here really, and Niemti did not violate 3RR. The 3O request should be enough. If he goes against that, then perhaps it's worthwhile for inclusion here. As it stands, I don't believe an issue has really occurred in this particular incident. The edit histories may be wrong on policy, but are not really uncivil. -- ferret (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about this, but in Niemti's most recent comment there, he also partially used all caps, which comes off as yelling (and I consider that to be impolite at best). No one likes to be shouted or yelled at. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was after my initial comment here. We'll see where it goes, but I mainly wanted to suggest this was created somewhat prematurely, not that it never would be an issue. Care should be taken not to preemptively shade occurrences as an issue until it's clear. -- ferret (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I just don't want to create issues until its clear. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They were not proved to be irrelevant, only claimed to be. Do not misrepresent my edit summary. :) --Izno (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, sorry about that! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've also revised the edit summary. Apologies for the mistake, once again. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a result, PresN issued a warning towards Niemti, saying that rest of his comments in that discussion was "increasingly dismissive" and points out that despite pointing out that archiving links means that if the site later goes dead without an archive already made, Niemti ignores it. In Niemti's responses, he has made what I believe to be bad faith accusations towards me and Izno and tried to deflect the situation, but PresN warned him about the consequences. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, per WP:DEADLINK, web archiving is especially important when citing web pages that are unstable or prone to changes, like time sensitive news articles or pages hosted by financially distressed organizations. That way, it helps prevent WP:LINKROT. Even if the links are not dead, we should not remove the archived links. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

One of the RfC's desired outcomes are that "Niemti will agree to use edit summaries. At a minimum, he will agree to provide edit summaries when reverting good-faith edits." Niemti still seemingly refuses to use an edit summary for making edits, but still uses them to address other users, which is considered quite rude. He was reminded numerous times to always use them, the most recent reminder is here. One such instance can be found here, in which he removed an image without a proper explanation. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight issues

There are still issues with Niemti giving undue weight to articles, especially video game characters. One of these examples can be found at the Max Payne (character) article. For example, this source has issues with the WP:NPOV policy, specifically giving undue weight. It was initially removed, but was reverted by Niemti. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationales in images

In Niemti's fair use rationales of the images that he has uploaded, he leaves out important elements including why the image needs to be show in the article and why it's crucial to see an image of a character. A few clear examples of this can be found in the following images: File:Alpha-152_DOA4.jpg#Summary, File:Kasumi_DOA5.jpg#Summary, File:Kasumi_Devon_Aoki.jpg#Summary, File:Ayane_(Dead_or_Alive).jpg#Summary, File:Sniper_Wolf.jpg#Summary. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in articles

There are sourcing issues in some of Niemti's articles, especially in his GANs. One of these examples can be found in the Jill Valentine article, in which the following sources may be considered unreliable by Wikipedia standards: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]. For example, the Comic Vine source is user-submitted and does not qualify as a reliable source. Youtube and Facebook are also used as sources in the article and these links are usually avoided due to WP:SPS and WP:LINKVIO issues. However, some of the sources are user-created fansites or forums and these should not be used as reliable sources. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warning posted here.[24] Fladrif (talk) 9:45 am, Today (UTC−4)

And I've already removed the personal attacks, as they are not tolerated anywhere on Wikipedia. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very personal attack

This concerns attacks on Lord Sjones23, who has most diligently been gathering evidence in this case, to use a court expression. Niemti has, according to a part of this piece here, been blatantly trying to discredit Sjones23 with other editors, despite Sjones23's many valuable contributions: 1, 2 and 3. There are other examples of personal attacks in the main section, but this seem particularly noteworthy, and particularly vicious. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Not to mention that this was a personal attack done on purpose, even on this very page, but I had to remove them as they are not tolerated anywhere on Wikipedia and they apply to everyone. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick update, Niemti has been blocked for two weeks by PresN for consistent, incessant incivility, unreasonablness, personal attacks and inability to get along with anyone else. As what PresN pointed out to me, he is watching Niemti's contributions since he has warned him. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war on Pussy Galore

In October 2012, Jerem43 (talk · contribs) removed the "Cultural references" section on the Pussy Galore article, citing it as a "trivial section with no pertinence to subject beyond passing mention in other media." It was later reverted by Niemti. A month later, Treybien (talk · contribs) removed the passing references, only to be reverted again. SchroCat (talk · contribs) removed the passing references, which was unsourced, but was reverted again. This sort of led to an edit war between the two. SchroCat again removed the unsourced material and added a couple of sources, and was reverted yet again by Niemti. SchroCat reverted once more, instructing Niemti not to edit war, but to take it up to the talk page. However, after yet another revert, SchroCat reverted again, citing that the information fails WP:TRIVIA and WP:ENGVAR. In the recent message by SchroCat on the talk page, he states:

“

I've removed a number of the references from the "cultural impact" section as these were unsupported by any citations at all. The section also previously failed WP:TRIVIA. There are now two entries, both of which carry support from reliable secondary sources. Please do not add in any references into this section without a source. I have removed the "citatiopns needed" tag from the top of the section, although it still sits at the top of the page as much of the rest of the article also needs supporting references.

”

This is fairly recent, from November 2012, around a couple of weeks after the RFC was filed. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]