A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the 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: 10:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 15:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Only users who certify this request should edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.
Sarumio edits on articles relating to football.
He is knowledgable and has a lot to offer, which makes his disruption all the move troublesome and perplexing.
There is concern that Sarumio ignores consensus in making mass edits to articles related to football clubs. The edits are trivial in the extreme, making the level of disruption caused by the ignorning of discussion, advice and warning all the more puzzling.
User has used a variety of techniques to wage his revert wars, such as suspected sockpuppetry, editing from IP addresses etc which could be Checkusered if denied. If it is inappropriate to mention this concern without Checkuser, I am happy to request it or strike this comment - I am unfamiliar with RfC protocol. --Dweller (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{Add summary here, 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.}
User:The Rambling Man summed up the issue well in a recent post to ANI:
Hello all. User:Sarumio is an editor who frequents association football articles on a regular basis. He's gone through phases of highly useful edits (such as updating league tables for new seasons) but on a number of occasions he has made mass edits (such as removing FC from infoboxes, capitalising "reserves" against good grammar) which go against community consensus. A lot of the edits are relatively trivial but, nonetheless, he continues to ignore the community. Most recently the edits have been performed subversively, by making other edits to take the scrutiny away from what he's trying to do. His edits have been discussed numerous times by WP:FOOTBALL, he has been warned by a host of different regular editors such as User:Dudesleeper, User:Number 57, User:Richard Rundle to no avail.
The various discussions have taken place as follows... A mass removal of F.C. from football club infoboxes raised initial concerns and was followed by an attempt at consensus. This was then followed by an infobox discussion whose outcome was studiously ignored by Sarumio (even as recently as today) and I blocked him temporarily. Funnily enough when he makes useful edits, it's fantastic and I've even gone so far as to congratulate him for doing so, but yet a drive for making trivial but controversial edits has ended up with me needing to discuss a way forward with you guys here. If anyone has any questions they'd like me to answer, fire away, here or at me personally. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
When Sarumio was blocked for his revert warring, I dropped him some advice. His response was (next revision) to blank my message, with the edit summary "what a dickhead" --Dweller (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct.
--Dweller (talk) 11:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Especially in the light of Sarumio's response (below), I think it's worth adding WP:CIVIL to the list, above. --Dweller (talk) 11:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.
Sarumio to:
That's all.
However, it seems that, despite strenuous efforts the user is not prepared to follow the norms of editing here. Some debate at ANI seemed to be moving toward a consensus for a three month topic ban from football articles, before it was suggested that such a move was premature without an RFC.
I'm therefore requesting either that Sarumio commits to, and upholds the three points I've listed above, or receives a topic ban. --Dweller (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.
---
Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.
Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
{This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed. Users not named in the request or certifying the request should post under Additional views below.}
Well this wasn't a complete waste of time was it....All this proves once again is that Rambling Man and his trusty sidekick Dweller will go to great lengths to get rid of me for petty reasons. Move on and use your adminstrator rights and priviledges in a more productive way in future! Your continued bullying and exploiation of your status as an administrator will catch up with you one day if you carry on like this! Go do something constructive instead of wasting your time, my time AND, although not in this case (because it was a stupid childish dispute you started up), the wiki-community's time on pathetic, stupid vendetta-like attacks/obsession (as thats what I have become to you for reasons unkown) on passionate, innocent, non vandalistic editors like myself. That is all. Sarumio (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.
Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
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.
{Enter summary here.}
Users who endorse this summary:
This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute. This section is not a vote and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties.
1)
2)
3)
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.
Well, while I don't necessarily want to close this yet after reading Dweller's talk page, reading it also confirmed that it may as well be best to close it. If anyone involved was going to comment they would have one so by now. Plus, Sarumio's conduct in terms of mass changes appears to have improved since this started, though I ask that he continue to understand consensus and avoid revert warring. This is really the RFC can do with so little commentary; due to inactivity this is all I can offer as a conclusion. Wizardman 02:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]