Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jamen Somasu

The following discussion is an archived record of an

user conduct request for comment

. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

In order 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: 16:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 05:06, 2 July 2025 (UTC).

• Jamen Somasu (talk · contribs · logs)

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.

The desire outcome of this RfC is that

Since early May,

1. The aforementioned block for edit-warring – other cautions for edit-warring are shown on his talk page
2. The uncivil edit summary on "List of Copa Sudamericana winners"
3. Frivolous request for page protection
4. Link to the FLRC for List of Copa Libertadores winners
5. Calling editors' contributions "insipid", "ludicrous", and "pointless"
6. Uncivil and dismissive comments saying that I "don't understand"
7. Deletion of warnings: after asking him not to make uncivil comments on my talk page, dismissing a request as "vandalism" in edit summary
8. Uncivil comments on my talk page: 1 (note that I mistakenly posted a link to
   WP:RFC/U to his talk page, which I apologized for and corrected), 2, 3
9. Upon being notified of this RfC/U, deleted the template notice as vandalism, and did the same to TRM upon receipt of a non-template message
10. Blocked for a week for disruptive editing. (TRM)
11. Blocked indefinitely by Rettetast for continued edit-warring after the one-week block expired. (KV5)

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:CIVIL
2. WP:CONSENSUS
3. WP:POINT
4. WP:GAMING

(Provide diffs. 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.)

1. The Rambling Man tried (this is the latest of several warnings from TRM)
2. I tried again (after his last round of comments at the open FLC)
3. My first attempts at civil discussion (TRM)
4. My second extensive attempts at civil discussion (TRM)

(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute.)

1. The continued uncivil comments on my talk page occurred after the initial warnings above (1, 2, 3)

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. KV5 • Talk • 17:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. -- Cirt (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Woody (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. PopMusicBuff ^talk 16:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

I like keeping it honest: nothing gets misunderstood. We are far beyond tact at this point so I will keep this short and sweet: it is amazing the amount of xenophobia and troubles I have received from many individuals in wikipedia but I never expected it to come from actual administrators. To use their given authority in order to try to block someone simply because that individual didn't buckle to what they wanted (not what the guidelines state) is, bluntly, one of the most pathetic things I have ever seen and the worst thing is that they were lying to my face even after I cited the guidelines numerous times on the issue stating otherwise.

Those two above are FAR from being administrator material of this website; supposedly, admin are to be neutral and stick to the guidelines; not lie, try to deceive, and/or abuse the little authority they have (which tells me a lot about those two). They definetly shouldn't be directors of the FL. I am sure there are others far more qualified to do such things.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Jamen Somasu (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Seeing how Jamen was being treated at the FLC proces I decided to offer him some consolidation and encouragement. It is my belief that both KV5 and The Rambling Man (TRM) have acted less than helpful on the FLC, trying to force their own will upon the inexperienced Jamen. Instead of making it perfectly clear that Jamen could choose whether to do it one way or another KV5 cites criteria to give his arguments greater weight see here. After Jamen declines KV5s request, KV5 directly stated that it's " it's part of the criteria." here which is not only false, but also a quite stubborn way of communicating ones wishes. TRM then proceeds to

1. Sandman888 (talk) 11:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Brian Halvorsen (talk) 01:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jamen Somasu edits articles relating to football in South America. This is an area where our coverage is sometimes patchy, as the football project has few Spanish speakers. In this respect, since his arrival a few months ago, he has made some good contributions. For example the expansion of Copa Libertadores from this to this was largely his work. When working alone, he is productive. However, Wikipedia is fundamentally a collaborative project, and his interactions with other editors seem to frequently result in friction.

The root of some of these disputes appears to be an overly defensive attitude when other editors suggest changes or offer constructive criticism. The FLC mentioned in the summary above is one of these. An editor new to the featured processes can occasionally misinterpret comments on an article as slights on their efforts, when in reality the only intention is article improvement. In almost all cases such misunderstandings are quickly resolved. In this case though, Jamen Somasu has reacted by making a number of incivil comments, and has compounded them by labelling things he disagrees with as vandalism (like #9 in the summary). If this was an isolated incident I would not be particularly concerned. However, similar things have happened at

Jamen Somasu has been blocked three times for edit-warring. On a few occasions he has accused others of an "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude. It takes two such attitudes to edit war. This trend of blocks is likely continue unless he changes his approach. I would suggest to him to do the following:

• Follow a
  one revert rule
  .
• Slow down a little when engaging in discussions. Comments such as "So is this becoming a FL or not?" suggest that impatience might be a cause of some of the incivil comments. It is worth remembering that
  There is no deadline
  .
• It has no doubt been suggested before on multiple occasions, but
  assuming good faith is vital. Progress will not be made as long as comments starting with the words "I don't assume good faith for people like you
  " happen.

1. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. — KV5 • Talk • 14:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Woody (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. MicroX (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Digirami (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. --
   TheWindows, sir! 14:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
   ]
8. Dolphin (t) 00:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. ^talk 02:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
   ]
10. I might add that all presented "incivility" is unconvincing. Ludicrous is now uncivil? oh please. The real case it edit-warring.
    East of Borschov (talk) 04:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
11. --
    WP:CFL) 19:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
12. Fences&Windows 17:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13. — e. ripley\^talk 17:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.