Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) at 02:30, 5 May 2006 (too funny). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I protest in the strongest possible terms the "mandate" given to Adam Carr to act in an incivil manner and to assume bad faith, indefinitely. In his mis-formatted, contemptious response to the RfC filed regarding his conduct, Adam Carr said, in part: "Sorry, Bruce, I will try to revert you more often in future." This response was endorsed by User:172, User:SlimVirgin, User:Bletch, User:Merecat, User:Sarah_Ewart, User:Dbiv, User:Snottygobble, User:Ambi, User:Will Beback, User:beneaththelandslide, User:Aldux, User:I@n, User:CJK, User:Blnguyen, and User:Astrokey44. It appears that due to the POV reason that Adam Carr is anti-Castro, he is to be given an extraordinary mandate to ignore Misplaced Pages policy whenever it suits him. Today, Adam Carr writes, in part: "Whatever. You know what you're up to, Bruce, and I know what you're up to, so do spare us your line of tripe." Not a word from any of the above users or anyone else, which underscores the POV nature of the project and the unequale treatment some are offered on Misplaced Pages on account of their pro-Big Money POV. El_C 19:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You left off from Adam's first quote above, "...although I must record my appreciation of Bruce's indignant accusation that I have most wickedly not broken the 3R rule. Sorry, Bruce, I will try to revert you more often in future." Context is everything, you know. --Calton | Talk 20:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

So I didn't quote the sracastic preamble, what's your point? I said, "in part." El_C 20:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You do know the meaning of the word "context", right? --Calton | Talk 01:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

and you really feel this is the best place to bring a content dispute--IworkforNASA 19:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)?

This is not a content dispute. El_C 20:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

(added after edit conflict) Er, if the RfC didn't work to reform his behaviour, you can always file a request for arbitration. For what it's worth, a casual perusal of Adam's history would seem to suggest that there are issues that need to be addressed.

Coming to this page and accusing a number of good editors of bias and a 'pro-Big Money POV', however, is not likely to result in a satisfactory outcome. I'm sure that you can see how a request couched in terms of "I need administrative intervention with this user, are any of you biased dicks going to help me?" might not generate the response you are looking for. Nobody on Misplaced Pages has a mandate to 'act in an incivil manner and to assume bad faith', not even you.

If you were to provide a concise statement of the dispute and what outcomes you might like to see (preferably accompanied by relevant, recent diffs) you might get a helpful response. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No comment. El_C 19:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

So what would you like to achieve with your posting here? It isn't really clear from your messages so far. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No comment. El_C 20:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"I need administrative intervention with this user, are any of you biased dicks going to help me?" LOL!! Sorry, El C. :-D My own position is simply that if Adam Carr and 172 are both attending to a page (both historians and with different POVs) then I trust them to be getting it right, as opposed to their opposition which seems largely to consist of sockpuppets. Not knowing anything about Cuba myself, I have to defer to expert opinion. SlimVirgin 00:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)