Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:12, 1 February 2013

To remain listed at Misplaced Pages: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: 13:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 15:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC).

• CartoonDiablo (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.

Statement of the dispute

The crux of the issue is CartoonDiablo's tendentious editing on articles in which he has a strong POV, particularly in articles relevant to health care.

Desired outcome

We would like CartoonDiablo to be more engaged in the article editing process, most importantly in discussing the article in good faith on talk pages and explaining his changes and desires in a concise, respectful way. Respecting the consensus process, respecting dispute resolution's goals and limitations, these are things that can help everyone involved move forward.

Description

CD’s behavior has pretty much stood in the way of gaining any consensus on the article. The dispute is over 8 months old at this point (arguably it’s actually well over a year old), spanning multiple articles (Single-payer health care, Public opinion on health care reform in the United States, and United States National Health Care Act), and encompassing multiple disputes. CD doesn’t understand the point of dispute resolution processes, believing them to be binding to content as well as using it as a bludgeon to build a case for ArbCom. He consistently asserts a consensus that doesn’t exist (, ), accuses his “opponents” of canvassing (falsely), edit wars (including 3RR violation), and bad-faith sockpuppet allegations. This is not his only conflict, either, as he’s had numerous issues with other editors at the Psychotherapy-related articles, at Thomas Sowell (which was also rejected twice by ArbCom), at War on Women, and so on.

The key point in all of CD’s disputes? His self-professed point of view which causes him to push viewpoints from single payer health care to political talking points to Talk:Thomas_Sowell/Archive_3#Media_Matters.2C_again questionable or outright partisan sources to articles (more: . His point of view editing stands in the way of gaining consensus throughout most of the contentious articles he edits in, and results in factual issues and tendentious editing.

CD has tried to open an ArbCom case that is going to be closed soon with no acceptances, and a number of arbs recommended this route, so here we are.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(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.)

Diffs are not helpful here as the issue is more about the lack of accepting consensus (or lack thereof) at talk pages, and so on.

1. Talk:Public_opinion_on_health_care_reform_in_the_United_States#Single-payer_table
2. Talk:United_States_National_Health_Care_Act#On_the_polling_section
3. Talk:Single-payer_health_care#On_the_polling_section
4. Talk:Single-payer_health_care#Problem_with_.22like_medicare.22_in_polling_section
5. Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_37#Public_opinion_on_health_care_reform_in_the_United_States
6. Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_51#Single-payer.2Fhealthcare_polls
7. Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_36#Health_care_articles
8. Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_58#Single-payer_health_care.2C_United_States_National_Health_Care_Act

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

1. WP:NPOV
2. WP:OR
3. WP:WAR
4. WP:V
5. WP:RS

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.)

• In this instance, I will direct people to the talk pages of the three article-space discussions above. Diffs are possible, but time consuming at this point as the dispute is months, if not years, old, so I'm adding two recent diffs for reference.

Attempts by User:Thargor Orlando

Attempts by certifier C2

Other attempts

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
2. North8000 (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC) I tried a tiny too-reasonable-to-turn-down step (saying that I would support their edit IF they started discussing it in talk and if not not) and even that failed. North8000 (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

{Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or other people's endorsements belongs on the talk page, not in this section.}

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.

First let me say that this has been a long dispute but so far as I can see there are two accusations against me, (1) that I edit with a POV and (2) that I don't engage in disputes or I don't do so in good faith.

To the accusation that I edit with a POV, I suppose is for others to decide. I believe I do edit neutrally (including the in the present dispute) and as of yet I believe Thargor is the first person to officially put it up for dispute.

To the second it seems obvious that from the 3 different DRNs I created in the present dispute, I clearly do engage in the dispute and that I do so in good faith. This includes the AN/I request for accusing me of "willingly" sabotaging a dispute and a Sockpuppet investigation for obviously suspicious behavior by a user who (at that point) had a single edit in a dispute we were involved in.

It's worth noting that I'm not the only person who has found problems with Thargor's behavior. These include:

Ebe123: "Thagor, say something useful or go away from the article and CD. You do not seem to care about the article, nor are you helping the discussion."

Scjessy: "I'm afraid I can no longer work with Thargor constructively. A block for 3RR will serve no useful purpose because Thargor is used to waiting patiently. Only a topic ban will work."

Notice I never called for a topic ban or said that Thargor doesn't care about the article, I raised obvious concerns over user conduct. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or comments made by people endorsing this view belong on the talk page, not in this section

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. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. 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 The Four Deuces

There does not appear to be any evidence of user misconduct presented in the description of the dispute. The links to evidence of trying to resolve the dispute are to disputes over content. One of them is on the NPOV noticeboard, another on an article talk page. The accusation of canvassing links to an edit by Thargor Orlando. The accusation of accusing other editors of edit-warring links to an accusation by Thargar Orlando against Cartoon Diablo of edit-warring. Cartoon Diablo did in fact follow that accusation with a counter-accusation, but neither accusation had any results (See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive204). The "bad-faith sockpuppet allegations" was actually one allegation made at the sockpuppet investigation noticeboard which is the correct forum for raising suspicions.

The talk page links are not helpful because they do not tell us what to look for. All I see is that Thargor Orlando and North8000 are in disagreement with Cartoon Diablo over a number of talk pages. That makes this a content rather than a conduct dispute.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. TFD (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
2. Scjessey (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
3. Guy Macon (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Outside view by North8000

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)

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.