User:El C/On the extraordinary "mandate" of Adam Carr

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 sarcastic 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 what essential piece of context are we missing from that (in the context of civility)? El_C 02:42, 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 Wikipedia 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 (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly that. But not so different POVs. I'd say they're placed pretty closely to one another, as left-leaning left-liberals or right-leaning social democrats, 172 is simply infinitely more understated. But endorsing Carr's contemptuous response in-effect gives him license to ignore pressing conduct issues. El_C 02:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, listen. I'm involved in this dispute and I wouldn't have proceeded without serious consideration. Adam and 172 may have doctorates in history, but I can confirm from experience in my own academic career, and from discussions with friends and colleagues (Latin American historians and archivists) here that their content judgements are suspect in this case. I entered the debate expecting an academic discussion approaching consensus, with the usual accompanying standards. Instead I was greeted with self styled "robust tactics" involving personal comments, and a ridiculous "edit war" in full flow, largely instigated by Adam. Adam's name calling became such that it got a mention in the Miami herald! Please note that neither I, nor my co-signer in Adam's rfc, BruceHallman have been reproached in any way for incivility, and the attacks (mainly on Bruce) have been one way. Many users and one mediator have tried to broach Adam on this and have failed. I have also explained to him that academics specialising in Latin American politics, particuarily Cuban affairs, have been actively put off from contributing to this article, citing his behaviour as the reason. I can confirm this if need be.--Zleitzen 01:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

"No comment" and "No comment" no wonder you moved the comments. --Calton | Talk 01:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Is that a comment or an observation? Do you seek comment from myself? If so, no comment. El_C 02:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "Adam's name calling became such that it got a mention in the Miami herald!" :-D Really? Do you have a link, Zleitzen? SlimVirgin (talk)  01:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed! It tickled me as well!--Zleitzen 02:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hilarious!! LOL We must add the "this page has been cited" tag to the top of the page. :-D SlimVirgin (talk) 02:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I spent a lot more time, and endured a lot more sockppuppetry on that page, I should be the one derided by the Miami Herald! El_C 02:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh, now it comes out. Jealousy of Dr. Carr's highly imaginative personal attacks, the notability of which is now independently verified per WP:V. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Dr. Carr's personal attacks may be worth an article in themselves. I'm still furious I was written out the piece. I would have relished the notoriety of making the Miami Herald for doing nothing more than sitting in a dark room, tapping on a keyboard and listening out for baby noises! I don't think I'll get such a chance again.--Zleitzen 03:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Still, my main thrust is that Carr is allowed to get away with a lot, not only due to the extent of his contributions, but because, in global (non-1st World) terms, he is politically reactionary, staunchly so, consistently siding with the rich and powerful in world affairs. This is his shield, protecting him from being held accountable. El_C 03:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It continues as we write . Adam has just thought it acceptable to call Bruce "a malicious fool" . The only thing Bruce has done is disagree in a civil manner and follow wikipedia procedures. If Bruce would allow me to say this (although it should be unneccesary), a quick google check would confirm Bruce's integrity and credibility. Adam isn't castigating trolls, vandals or POV pushers here, far from it. This is very damaging to wikipedia, it's wrong in any area of productive human discourse (academic or otherwise) and it should be rooted out without favor for the sake of the overall project. --Zleitzen 13:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have warned Adam that his conduct is unacceptable: . If he persists in making personal attacks or grossly incivil remarks, I (or another admin) can and should block him.  Please start with short blocks – 3 hours, if necessary – to get his attention; if he doesn't reform his behaviour then escalate to longer blocks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Warning at 13:50, 5 May 2006 followed by personal attack: "Brucve with his usual devious and dishonest word games." at 14:02, 5 May 2006. BruceHallman 17:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * While I haven't clicked on any of the links, have read anything or spoken to anyone about this dispute since May 4, I want to note that, despite any impression one could draw from the above, TenOfAllTrades enjoys my confidence. Please do not hesitate bring to his attention any concerns about incivilities in this dispute. Thanks. El_C 01:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi El C, Adam is away for a couple of weeks and 172 was instructed to deal with his affairs. Although 172 appears to have had a very bad day at the Cuban office himself, pulled up the blinds and retreated into the shadows for the time being. But the below message from Constanz to 172 spells potential older trouble.
 * I'll try to have a look on the article when I am in wiki (though now I'm offline mostly). Anyway, unblocking User:205.240.227.15 would be a acceptable option. --Constanz -
 * User 205.240.227.15 is of course the notorious El Jigue. Internal strategies are already being drawn up. Will keep you posted. --Zleitzen 02:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do. I'm not sure if El Jigue wants to be my friend. I remember when he accused me in various places of promoting pro-Castro propaganda after I made a purely formative change. He argued that I changed content in simple copy and paste move, which was clearly false &mdash; I ctrl.c'd & then I ctrl.v'd. El_C 03:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)