Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/CartoonDiablo

Question
Just a procedural question - can an endorser also add an "outside view"? Aren't the two mutually exclusive? And in order to certify this RFC, doesn't the second certifier need to provide diffs showing that they, too, tried and failed to resolve the dispute? I have no idea what's really going on here - I just happened to bookmark this page when I looked at it during the RFAr filing - but this doesn't strike me as a properly certified RFC. And if that's the case, shouldn't it have been deleted almost a week ago? Guettarda (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm the one who did that. I question even the wording of that endorsement section because it is an RFC/U, but it used the word "dispute" in there which seems ad odds with the whole concept and scope of an RFC/U.   And then a subsequent "view" made totally and clearly erroneous statements about ME.  I visited the article briefly many months ago.  An uninvolved admin pinged me asking if I had ideas for the mess there.  I looked in. My focus has been on trying to get a rational process going there.   For 1-2 months  CD has just been tossing hand grenades at other editors, refusing any substantial conversation, and forum shopping.  As a result the story on their behavior at this article is scattered amongst about 12 pages, but a read of the article talk page gives a pretty good idea of the situation.  More recently I have been giving more direct warnings on taking action if they don't at least stop he nastier of the the stuff that have been doing. Their post yesterday is at least a tine step in the right direction. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is a record of article talk pages that have been edited by both North8000 and CartoonDiablo:
 * http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/editorinteract.cgi?user1=North8000&user2=CartoonDiablo&ns=1
 * http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/timeline.cgi?page=Talk:Tea_Party_movement&user1=North8000&user2=CartoonDiablo
 * http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/timeline.cgi?page=Talk:Single-payer_health_care&user1=North8000&user2=CartoonDiablo
 * http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/timeline.cgi?page=Talk:Public_opinion_on_health_care_reform_in_the_United_States&user1=North8000&user2=CartoonDiablo
 * http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/timeline.cgi?page=Talk:United_States_National_Health_Care_Act&user1=North8000&user2=CartoonDiablo
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * (added later) What is the germaneness/ usefulness of that.     Are you trying to imply something that does not exist? ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by  North8000   (talk • contribs)  13:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You wrote "the story on their behavior at this article is scattered amongst about 12 pages, but a read of the article talk page gives a pretty good idea of the situation." I responded with links to a list of your interactions with CartoonDiablo so that the reader can easily find them. Of course the reader can substitute any names, but I figured that I can rule out any page with zero edits from CartoonDiablo as being irrelevant to a RfC about CartoonDiablo. I have no idea why you thought that I was implying something, but I was just giving the reader a tool to avoid having to read twelve talk pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * By "12 pages," I assume North means article talk, DRN, and noticeboard pieces as well as conflicts that CD is involved in that we are not, such as at the Psychotherapies articles or at War on women. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Really, the only reason I opened the RfC was due to a suggestion from the RfAr: I see no indication that RfC/Us actually accomplish anything, and there's been zero indication that the user in question responds to outside criticism or suggestions anyway. That there's now a view that doesn't seem to have spent much time looking at the conflict and has thus given him more tools to use against us in the conflict doesn't help, but I suppose the process is the process. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Please don't rehash the arguments from the RFC/U on the RFC/U talk page. This page is for housekeeping topics like asking whether an endorser can also add an outside view or how to best search out an editor's contributions. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought this talk page was for discussion. My point is slowly being made. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "For discussion" does not mean for discussion about any topic. This talk page is for discussing the page titled Requests for comment/CartoonDiablo. It isn't for discussing Oranges or Aardvarks, and it is not for discussing CartoonDiablo. If you want to discuss CartoonDiablo, do it at Requests for comment/CartoonDiablo. Make your case there. Not here. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The RfC is about CartoonDiablo. If, specifically, people can't figure out why we're here, and you are endorsing a viewpoint by a user that has, at its crux, "that Thargor Orlando and North8000 are in disagreement with Cartoon Diablo over a number of talk pages" because people cannot be bothered to actually read the talk pages and see how CartoonDiablo has attempted to use dispute resolution processes as an attempt to get sanctions on those he disagrees with, this becomes rather pointless.  Which the RfC process largely is, which is why this has sat stale for two weeks, which is why I avoided bothering except when recommended by ArbCom. Thargor Orlando ([[User talk:Thargor Orlando|tal

k]]) 20:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have not endorsed anyone or anything. And you are still rehash the arguments from the RFC/U on the RFC/U talk page. Stop it. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You've endorsed the outside view from the Four Deuces. And I'm rehashing them because, according to the RfC/U front page, "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," so I am doing so. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I owe you an apology. I was assuming that you meant that my comments earlier in this thread were endorsing something. Sorry about that. Stupid mistake on my part. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No apology necessary, don't worry about it. These things are contentious no matter what, it happens. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW by the "about 12 pages" I refer to the article, various user talk pages, and all of the forums.  There was one more that they said existed but which I never saw. Each of the successive forum shopwp was used as an excuse to edit war while not discussing.  Then after they went the whole way (including unanimous refusal by Arbcom) they used "consulting another admin" as an excuse to continue to edit war without discussing. But I never saw where that forum was at. North8000 (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Please don't rehash the arguments from the RFC/U on the RFC/U talk page. This page is for housekeeping topics like asking whether an endorser can also add an outside view or how to best search out an editor's contributions.


 * BTW, the answer is no. If you are uninvolved, then you did not try to resolve the issue and cannot endorse. If you have tried to resolve the issue then you are not uninvolved. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's try to stay on track here. North800, do you consider yourself involved, or uninvolved? Have you also tried (and failed) to resolve the issue of CartoonDiablo's tendentious editing on articles in which he has a strong POV? If so, in what diffs did you do so? Guettarda (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Guettarda, have you reviewed the talk pages in question? Specifically the last month at Single-payer health care?  That should provide a very quick answer to your question. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Your rude comment is entirely uncalled for. If you have nothing but snark to add, please add nothing. Guettarda (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing rude intended. I was asking you if you had reviewed the pages in question, as they provide an answer. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I asked for diffs, and you replied "have you reviewed the talk pages in question". What that amounts to is "go find them yourself", which is very rude. Your initial refusal to provide diffs in the filing of the RFC is equally rude - despite the fact that you're required to post diffs, you expect other editors to ferret them out. And not only do you expect other editors to spend their time hunting down diffs that you can't be bothered to supply, you also expect them to spend their time trying to get inside your head, trying to figure out how you perceived things. General contempt for other people's time is extremely rude. Everyone here is a volunteer. If you want others help, you need to have some respect for their time. And, for what it's worth, I did read that talk page, and no, I can't find a "quick answer" to my question. Had I found one, I wouldn't have asked "have you tried..." (though I would still have asked for diffs). I think the thing that's most worrying is that you don't even seem to be aware of how rude you are. In light of that, I would prefer if you don't address me or reply to my comments unless it is absolutely necessary. Guettarda (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This, in a nutshell, is why RfC is generally not worth the time. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is the responsibility of the person who files the RFC/U to provide specific diffs showing that he tried to resolve the issue. "review the talk pages" is not a specific diff. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As I did in my initial posting. As such "attempts" are legion and are all over the talk pages, I provided the diffs necessary in my statement as well as the two attempts, and pointed people elsewhere for more.  For RfC to work, those observing it really need to put in some effort to look at the problems being presented.  Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I should have been clearer:
 * I am NOT involved in the content dispute which the behavior is related to
 * I AM involved on the CartoonDiablo behavior issues. "Dispute" is the wrong word for it.

One of the "viewpoints" jumped the tracks from the behavioral issues onto a different topic (the content dispute) and then wrongly asserted that I had an opinion the content issue. So my "not involved" comment was a response to that off-topic mis-statement, not on the behavior issues. North8000 (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If you are involved, then you shouldn't post an "uninvolved" statement - use this page for any off-topic discussion
 * As an endorser, you need to provide diffs of efforts by you to resolve the issue. Where have you tried to resolve the issue of "CartoonDiablo's tendentious editing on articles in which he has a strong POV". Guettarda (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Outside view by North8000
Moved from main page since it is not an "outside view" Guettarda (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC) I am NOT involved in any content dispute, my onlyt efforts have been in trying to get a normal talk process going there despite the wreckage caused by CartoonDiablo. There has been immensely bad conduct by CartoonDiablo. If I spend the hour to put together a well supported summary, this will be slam dunk clear, and there is no question what the result would be. Right now, fortunately for CartoonDiablo I am not inclined to spend that hour unless they continue with that immensely bad conduct. The last day has been a bit better.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) North8000 (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Boomerang?
I apologize if this isn't the right place to discuss this but this seems to demand a boomerang RFC/U of North and Thargor. Literally in the talk page for my alleged behavior both North and Thargor have been rude and abrasive as they have been prior in other discussions. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This RFC/U is going nowhere, and any RFC/U of Thargor or North will also go nowhere. I urge all of you to put this foolishness behind you and move on to different topics. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Call for an uninvolved administrator to close this RfC Reason: failure to show that at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. Under "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" we have one name listed, and the diffs are to a content dispute, not an attempt to resolve the dispute. Given the refusal of both North8000 and Thargor Orlando to provide diffs of them of trying and failing to resolve the dispute, I can only conclude that they never tried. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I support Guy's call for closure. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but not due to Guy's incorrect reasoning, but because this is a worthless exercise. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * How would you know? Your complaining about RfC/U after refusing to provide diffs of attempts to resolve the dispute is a bit like someone complaining that Subarus are useless after filling the gas tank of one with salt water. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)