Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jamen Somasu

Offering my responses to Sandman888
Here, I am offering responses to some of the spurious mischaracterizations given by Sandman888. He states that TRM and I are "trying to force their own will" on Jamen Somasu. Neither I nor TRM have forced anything; if we wanted to "force" him to do something (a concept foreign to cooperative editing), both of us have admin tools. However, neither of us have misused those tools in any way, nor have we made changes to the article to enact those alterations which would need to be made in order for the list to pass FLC. My statements have also been misquoted in that I specifically noted that sorting was not absolutely necessary. The featured list criteria state that such lists are "easy to navigate through and [include], where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities". I find the current list format confusing, and I believe that sorting facilities would be helpful. I have made the latter assertion at the FLC, and I offered to help Jamen Somasu develop a sortable format. Though he has said "If you have any idea of how to make a sortable table for the types of pages CONMEBOL has, I would welcome them", he has done so in such as way as to seem dismissive and rude. He has chosen to focus on the fact that the criteria say "where helpful" and use that as an excuse to apply WP:IAR. I continue to assert that the function of sortability would be valuable to that list. Yes, it would require a major re-formatting, but it wouldn't be the first time that a list needed to be re-formatted during the FLC process.

As to the comments by Sandman888, accusing TRM of WP:BITEy behavior toward Jamen Somasu and saying that his frustration should be "kept inside", I would respond that Sandman888 has made similar irritable comments toward TRM relating to another FLC and that these should thus be disregarded, as the editor is not uninvolved. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  12:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added a couple of diffs (1, 2)to the main RFC page to show that, far from being bitey to Jamen, I went to extensive pains to try to help him with his various endeavours. Furthermore, in this diff where I said if tables are sortable, they should sort correctly.  I don't recall ever stating that sorting was mandated.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Response to Jamen's comments
Jamen Somasu seems to be mistaken about my position in his response; while I am an administrator, I'm not an FL director. TRM is a director, however. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  15:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship?
I see Jamen Somasu has launched straight into an edit war upon returning from a block, and has now been indeffed. My question is, does the community think that with support and guidance he can be a productive editor, or is there no hope of his behaviour changing? If he was unblocked, with it made quite clear that he is in last chance saloon, I would be prepared to participate in some kind of mentorship. However, I am not as active as I once was, and would not be able to commit to doing so alone. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. I'd be happy to assist you / Jamen. But given the recent escalation, I'd have to be on the condition that one or both of his mentors can easily ask for Jamen to be blocked again. I'm not inclined to mentor him and then going through a cumbersome process to deal with it if it goes awry. But I think Jamen can do a lot of good if he's given some training in dealing with other editors wishes and the art of compromising. Sandman888 (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that if Jamen's editing privileges are reinstated with a mentorship caveat, that mentor should not be someone who has been involved with this RfC or with Jamen's previous activities. An uninvolved editor (perhaps an administrator who would not need to ask for assistance should a block be required) should be recruited. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  01:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't see why neither Odelpaso nor I can mentor Jamen because of the rfc. But perhaps his thoughts should be heard first. Sandman888 (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My belief is that users who are involved in this RfC would not be neutral in their assessment of his work. For example, if I were to mentor Jamen, I would find it hard to continue to assume good faith when it comes to edits that may seem problematic because of the interactions he and I have had. Conversely, an editor who doesn't find Jamen's edits or his style of interaction objectionable may be loath to report him to an administrator, or to block him if said user is an admin, because he may not see what Jamen is doing improperly. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  23:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've left a note for Jamen, in case he's unaware that the offer of mentorship is being discussed here. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Response by Jamen
Please read Requests for comment/Jamen Somasu with particular regard to the discussion over potential mentorship after an unblock. If you wish to respond, do so here, your comments will be noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sure. Jamen Somasu (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what that means. But the offer is there.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll take it. Jamen Somasu (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Criteria for mentorship
If Jamen Somasu is willing to agree to mentorship, I would propose the following criteria to which he should adhere:
 * 1) Abide by a one-revert rule on all articles. If an edit he makes is reverted, he should contact that editor civilly on the discussion page of the relevant article, or on that editor's talk page, to learn the reasoning behind the editor's reversion or to discuss possible improvements.
 * 2) *This was originally proposed in the RfC by Oldelpaso.
 * 3) Assume good faith in all cases. This especially includes the following clauses from WP:AGF:
 * "'When disagreement occurs, try to the best of your ability to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict; and give others the opportunity to do the same. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives, and look for ways to reach consensus.'"
 * 1) *This was also originally proposed in the RfC by Oldelpaso.
 * 2) Use civil language when editing in a discussion forum. This also includes his edit summaries.
 * 3) *This is drawn from a concern raised by The Rambling Man in the RfC.

I still stand by my above assertion that the mentor should be an uninvolved experienced editor or administrator, if one can be recruited. If Jamen Somasu returns to his original editing patterns or doesn't give a timely response when asked why he has done something that doesn't line up with these proposed editing guidelines, either his indefinite block, originally enacted by Rettetast, should be reinstated, or he should be blocked for a period of time in accordance with his actions. This would be an "adminstrative" sanction, as per WP:RFC. These are all just my suggestions, and obviously we should all be open to feedback on potential alterations, additions, and deletions. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  18:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with any of what KV5 has just written, and I'm impressed that the community are prepared to go to this effort to get Jamen back into the fold and back to editing. There's no doubt he can be a real asset to the project, and if he can keep his editing style and communications within guidelines, there should be no problem whatsoever.  Happy to volunteer to help, but as is pointed out, since I'm heavily involved, I suspect it would be better if someone else took the helm.  Also happy to advise in any capacity. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with above, (but will point out that an experienced editor is almost preferable, so mentor and Jamen are equal in that regard). Sandman888 (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Offer accepted
It appears that Jamen is willing to take up the offer. Now all we need are suitable candidates for his mentorship. Anyone? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure of the best place to recruit a mentor. A notice could be put up at an appropriate board, but where? Adoption? I think Jamen might be too experienced for that. The admin noticeboard? Don't know if that's the right forum. Are there other boards out there for this purpose of which I'm not aware? &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  12:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well perhaps a note at WT:FOOTY would be a good start, where people understand his field of expertise and can provide useful insight into his edits? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite good. I'll take care of that. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  12:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Have done that. Once we find a suitable volunteer as a mentor, I would suppose that we post all of the relevant information to Jamen's talk page so that he can see the criteria and agree to them? &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  13:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, I've notified Jamen of the note at WT:FOOTY, just have to wait and see if someone steps up to the mark. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My original post still stands, though I realise some have concerns about my level of involvement due to my input on this RfC. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we should disregard those if nobody else turns up within a reasonable time. Sandman888 (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think a reasonable time has passed and the note will be archived by now. If Odelpaso's offer still stands I support him mentoring Jamen, if he accepts that is. Sandman888 (talk) 07:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. After a week, it's likely been forgotten or overlooked, unfortunately. If Oldelpaso is willing to serve as Jamen Somasu's mentor, I'll support that. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  11:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have posted a message on Jamen's talk page formally proposing to act as mentor diff Oldelpaso (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As the blocking admin I have no problem with this solution. Rettetast (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * On the basis of this discussion, I have now unblocked. Jamen has agreed to accept the mentorship and conditions. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Closing
I'm not aware of the protocol, but it seems that the comment part is, by all means, over. I suggest closing the rfc so we can focus on the mentorship, no need to make more people go though all thats written here. Sandman888 (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is about time to close this (RFC/Us usually run for 30 days), but I don't know how, that's all. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  19:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)