Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bluerim

To remain listed at 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 &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 01:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 30 July 2024 (UTC).



''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.''

Statement of the dispute
''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.''

Desired outcome

 * Bluerim will agree to follow community consensus.
 * Bluerim will agree to assume good faith and use edit summaries when reverting other users's edits.
 * Bluerim will agree to not revert if he is asked to discuss changes.
 * Bluerim will agree not to insult or disparage contributors.
 * Bluerim will agree to respond and answer questions in discussions that are directed at him.

Description
Bluerim has been a Wikipedia editor since he started editing in March 2012. However, there seems to be some issues with his editing style, especially with issues regarding consensus. Over the past six months or so, Bluerim has been involved in edit warring on the List of God of War characters article that resulted in two RFCs about this situation and two Third Opinion discussions with uninvolved editors which led to a community consensus, as well as five threads about similar issues at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page (1st, 2nd although unanswered, 3rd, 4th, and 5th). Also concerning is that Bluerim is ignoring input from outside users on his edits to the article and disregarding community consensus as seen in the RfCs and Third Opinions linked below. Bluerim has stated in his edit summaries "do not revert" and "do not edit war" despite the fact he continues to do this himself and despite the fact he's been directed to the Talk page for the issues (one example of JDC808 directing to discussion, "Are you really going to do this again (and by that I mean, reverting despite there being a discussion, which has been a past problem with you)? All but a very few of your changes are covered in the discussion." and Sjones23, "See the Talk page for relevant, detailed debates").

Bluerim also sticks to the opinion that his writing is superior, as made evident in the 5th ANI report where he stated JDC808's writing, or at least some, is inferior. He also continually states JDC808's additions are weak and his writing needs work (the most recent example seen here). This is also made evident where in edit summaries (most recent example), he states "corrections," but he does not see the issues with his own writing as pointed out by JDC808 on the Talk page, to which Bluerim has yet to respond to these concerns. Bluerim also sticks to the opinion that JDC808's additions make the article read like a fan entry (also most recently seen here), however, no outside editors have agreed with this viewpoint as seen in the RfCs and Third Opinion discussions, and one editor said not getting the "fanpage" vibe....

Third Opinion

 * First discussion
 * Second discussion

Requests for Comment

 * First RfC (no outside editor responded)
 * Second RfC

Edit warring
In the most recent discussion at Talk:List of God of War characters, Bluerim did not answer concerns in response to JDC808 and reverted again with the edit summary "added corrections to lead; Merchandise section. Added one word to Titans descriptions that makes difference." Based on that edit summary, this revert was an edit that hid a revert as can be seen compared to Bluerim's prior revert. JDC808 reverted Bluerim with the edit summary "Another editor reverted you for the same reasons I have, and then you revert, but hide that revert by claiming you made corrections to the new section and one in Titans. Your recent Talk post provided little to nothing to help." When JDC808 stated "Another editor reverted you for the same reasons I have,..", he was referring to this revert by Sjones23 who stated "See the Talk page for relevant, detailed debates." Bluerim reverted JDC808 again with the edit summary "Actually, the only one who seems to have issue is you. Some of your suggestions have been integrated, just minus the weak terms."

Applicable policies and guidelines

 * WP:CIVIL
 * WP:NPOV
 * WP:CONSENSUS
 * WP:EDITWAR
 * WP:AGF
 * WP:NPA

Essays

 * WP:COMPETENCE
 * WP:BRD
 * WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(Provide diffs of the comments. As with anywhere else on this RfC/U, 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.)

Attempts by certifier Sjones23

 * The fifth of five discussions on the WP:ANI talk page encompassed his behavior, and myself and JDC808 voiced concerns. Bluerim responded bluntly. Two other possibly illustrative differences here and here.

Attempts by certifier JDC808

 * I requested both RFCs and Third Opinions and made the five ANI reports (all linked above) pertaining to issues with Bluerim. There's lengthy discussions on each and other editors have voiced their opinions. I also began another discussion asking for more outside comments and opinions. In both the 3rd and 4th ANI reports, lots of editors voiced concerns about Bluerim, especially in regards to personal attacks, for which he was almost blocked for (luckily, he has not made any evident personal attacks since, although his tone can sometimes still be condescending, which can somewhat be seen in the links provided by Sjones23). The third report also had concerns of Bluerim not discussing and him not understanding consensus. The 5th report also has voiced concerns from Sjones23.



Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * In the last ANI post, User:Bwilkins said that "Then you're well into WP:RFC/U territory" in response to Bluerim not understanding consensus. This RFC is an effort to get Bluerim to understand consensus. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I was hoping the ANI reports would settle the issues with Bluerim. Since those did not, I'm hoping this RfC will. -- JDC808  ♫  07:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Response
''This section is reserved for the use of the user whose conduct is disputed. Users writing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section, and the person writing this section should not write a view below. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but no one except the editor(s) named in the dispute may change the summary here.''

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Views
''This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. 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. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.''

Outside view by Odie5533
I believe Bluerim has participated in edit warring ([], [], []), incivility in attempting to conceal his reversions ([]), incivility in some of his responses ([], []), and neglecting to adhere to Wikipedia's policy on forming a consensus indicated by the recent edit war while discussion at the talk page was still ongoing.

That said, and putting everything in context, I still believe he is a good editor and I think an RfC/U is the prefect place to remind him of the relevant policies and ask that he both reexamine his behavior and agree to adhere to policy. I respect and appreciate his dedication to improving articles, but edit warring and incivility are not acceptable, and other users' good faith efforts to resolve content disputes can not be skirted. It isn't just against policy, it also doesn't get us anywhere. Not closer to the resolution the user wants, and not closer to the resolution others' want. It sets back the discussion and seeds ill will in others. Try to remember that the editors on the other end are not trying to destroy the article, they genuinely want to improve it.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1)  Sergecross73   msg me   16:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) I'll just agree with this rather than write my own view.  Bluerim frequently makes good edits and can make good points in discussions, but I am troubled by the condescending way in which he treats JDC808 in particular. —Torchiest talkedits 18:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by Sergecross73
I've passively run into the issues this RFC is about at the GoW character list article (completely random) and at WP:ANI while dealing with other issues. Everything Sjones, JDC, and Odie have said seem just about spot on. Definitely have picked up on some WP:IDHT and WP:OWN type issues. The only thing I have to add is in regards to the way he sometimes addresses editors, not the issue at hand, which can rub people the wrong way. For example, with me, when asking for third party opinions, I said that I thought one version read better, and he proceeded to lecture me on who "better" wasn't an appropriate term, and that I should use phrases like "more acceptable". Comments like that totally miss the point, slow down the discussion, and ultimately aren't that constructive. It's not a huge deal, but if you look at how these massive conversations drag onward on talk pages, you'll see it doesn't help either. Sergecross73  msg me   16:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * Yes, per my above comments. —Torchiest talkedits 21:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion
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.