Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adam Carr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, 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: 10:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 07:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

[edit] BruceHallman

It is worth noting that Adam Carr has a very long history of contribution to Wikipedia, and most of what he has contributed deserves our gratitude. Though in the process of this Wikipedia experience, it appears to me that he has also learned how to veil his personal attacks, and to regulate his edit war techinque so at to violate just the spirit of the rules. If you look back through Adam Carr's edit history you see a long pattern of this. A recent examples of veiled personal attack phrased as a hypothetical question [1] where he asks an editor if he is jewish in context of nazi sympathizers. This is an obvious veiled personal attack. Another example, [2] a string of defamatory names is simply couched in as a hypothetical statement. The evading the edit war rule is also apparent from reading Adam Carr's contribution history, by not exceeding the three reverts poer day he stays clear of the three revert rule. Still, persitently and patiently he will simply revert without discussion in a slow speed edit war with zero attempt at compromise. Here is only a very recent example of many [3]. BruceHallman 13:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  1. BruceHallman 13:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    Mystork 21:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • User's first edit on 05:46, 24 April 2006. [4] The user has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. 172 | Talk 07:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
User has been legitimatly replaced by Myciconia Myciconia|Talk 02:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. --Zleitzen 23:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. -- MichaelW 16:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. -- My experiences with Adam Carr have always been very negative. Sill, I have reviewed the evidence presented in the RFC on the merits, not allowing my past experiences to bias me, as I kept in mind Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Then I got a whiff of that familiar odious stench when I saw the same chronic cast of characters. I see the same abuse of admin powers and cabal connections in the service of pushing a particular POV by the most notorious and corrupt Wiki-cliques of them all. Having investigated this RFC, I find that it is entirely accurate. It is only flawed insofar as it dramatically UNDERSTATES the severity of the problem, and the angle of Wiki-clique collusion. That clique as a whole, not just a single member of it, has been challenged by good-faith users over and over again, and suppressing those good-faith users over and over again. Not to name any names, I point to a few pieces of evidence from their paper trail: [5] [6] [7] [8] Cognition 18:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Cognition was on personal attack parole as a result of attacks similar to the above in the Nobs/LaRouche 3 case. [9] A ban (I suggest indefinate) is in order. 172 | Talk 20:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. I have a very low tolerance for wiki bullies. This should be delt with Myciconia 02:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zleitzen

It is my opinion that Adam Carr has acted against the spirit, ethos and policies of Wikipedia. I believe he has acted in extremely poor faith, and his attention to the Cuban article is motivated by his mistaken belief that the page is being “hijacked by Fidelistas”. As a consequence Adam Carr has initiated a series of deliberately disruptive edit wars, calling in other experienced editors and administrators to aid this process. I would classify his self-styled “robust tactics” on the talk pages as a form of bullying, utilising various techniques aimed to undermine and silence other editors. These include personal attacks and comments on other users nationalities, political views and ethnicity. His actions have created considerable and unnecessary disharmony amongst users, and have actively discouraged new contributors to the article, a type of behaviour that is very damaging to the overall project. As Adam Carr’s conduct has exposed, experienced editors have a potential capacity to draw from a large pool of like-minded editors, and this can be used to “shout down” new contributors, with no regard to consensus or improvement to an article. It is my recommendation that Adam Carr be blocked from editing articles related to Cuba and that he should reconsider his commitment to Wikipedia.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --Zleitzen 18:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Jay(Reply) 18:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
    --Mystork 21:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • User's first edit on 05:46, 24 April 2006. [10] The user has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. 172 | Talk 07:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
User has been legitimatly replaced by Myciconia Myciconia|Talk 02:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. So what! how many of your allies are regular contributers as opposed to rent a voters? MichaelW 16:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I think you'd be surprised. People from all over the spectrum appreciate Adam's work and have not been notified to defend him; they do it willingly. michael talk 07:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, unlike voting in Cuba, despite what Bruce says. [11] 172 | Talk 07:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  1. Adam Carr is a bully and a POV pusher with no respect for other contributors or for Wikipedia's basic policies. He has demonstrated this over the course of years; as long as I've been here I've seen the damage he's done. Being blocked from editing Cuba articles would be almost comically mild, but it would be a start. Everyking 10:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. BruceHallman 13:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Adam's ability to dominate the arena is not related to his commitment to honesty and evenhandedness. His only concern is to present his POV as _The Truth_. The only way to present a heavily contentious subject in Wikipedia is to note the range of views and describe them. The tactics employed by Adam and others like him make this a continual uphill struggle. His statement below (02:45, 25 April 2006) is a classic example of his use of straw man arguments, hyperbole, and wilful distortion of his challengers' positions. His accusation of "dishonesty, deviousness and unscrupulousness of their debating tactics." is an excellent summation of his methods. MichaelW 16:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. RuszewskiRuszewski 09:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Adam Carr's POV is not the truth but rather a radical neo-con POV. Cognition 07:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Like Everyking said. --HK 14:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Couldn't of said it better. Myciconia 02:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional Comments by Zleitzen

I would like to add that I have also been critical of the behaviour of Scott Grayban in this matter, and have made my opinion clear to him[12]. But it should be understood that Scott's behaviour only deteriorated after an exchange which ended with this comment from Adam Carr "Why should I not conclude you are a common liar?". Until that point Scott Grayban had been working hard to seek consensus, had shown no political inclination towards any POV, having initiated helpful blocks on three disruptive users from all political persuasions. BruceHallman has made at least 10 attempts to reach consensus on the issue, and initiated the mediation cabal which failed due to the poor conduct of 172, Adam Carr and Scott Grayban. I encourage all commentators on these issues to view the neutral mediators final thoughts.[13].

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --Zleitzen 00:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. BruceHallman 13:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    Mystork 21:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • User's first edit on 05:46, 24 April 2006. [14] The user has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. 172 | Talk 07:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
User has been legitimatly replaced by Myciconia Myciconia|Talk 02:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. --MichaelW 16:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Indeed. Adam Carr's conduct has been similar on Lyndon LaRouche-related articles, where he has also been involved in similar abusive editing practices in order to advance his synarchist neo-con POV. Cognition 07:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Myciconia 02:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

[edit] 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.)

[edit] block history

Adam Carr block log excerpts:

  • 12:40, 23 April 2006 Kilo-Lima blocked "Adam Carr (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 hours (Personal attacks against other users; particuarly on Talk:Cuba.)
    • 13:44, April 23, 2006 Kilo-Lima unblocked Adam Carr (contribs) (due to the recent party of users who feel my block was unjustified)
  • 11:58, 21 July 2005 Ed Poor blocked "Adam Carr (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 hour (personal attacks, disruption)"
  • 14:54, 9 March 2005 Ed Poor blocked "Adam Carr (contribs)" with an expiry time of 15 hours (Abusive language)"

[edit] Mentions of edit war

[edit] Cuba

[edit] Previous

[edit] Arbitration Committee

[edit] Other

[edit] Questionable civility by Adam Carr on pages related to Cuba

  • CarlKenner posted notice to 3RR noticeboard[29], no block was issued to Adam Carr or CarlKenner. Adam Carr notified admin Ambi[30] then Ambi joined in the edit war[31][32]and Ambi issued warning to CarlKenner at 10:37UTC "Please don't revert elections in Cuba... if you do so again, you're asking to be blocked"[33] CarlKenner stopped reverting, his last revert was at 10:36UTC[34], but Ambi issued block anyway 10:57UTC[35]. A subsequent request to unblock CarlKenner ignored[36]
  • Personal attack: "(I note by the way that Bruce has not actually denied being a communist despite my best efforts to provoke him). Adam 13:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)"[37]
  • Edit war [38], [39]
  • Personal attack [40]" Because I think you are a malicious fool."
  • Edit war. [41] "...so no "concensus" (sic) is possible"
  • Fanaticism in pursuit of truth is no vice. 14:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Failure to assume good faith [42] "You know what you're up to, Bruce, and I know what you're up, so do spare us your line of tripe. "
  • Vandalism, editing in a Spanish derogatory term into an article[43]
  • Unilateral removal of opposing POV and request for citation without providing citation.[44]
  • Edit war regarding this. [45]
  • Failure to assume good faith and personal attack including a taunt and frank admission of being deliberately uncivil[46] "... hypocritical, devious Castro apologists like Bruce? (Yes Bruce, I am being uncivil - so sue me)."
  • Personal attack phrased as an obscene question in Spanish[47].
  • Report of Adam Carr's incivil behaviour including name calling, in the Miami Herald newspaper[48] 5/2/06, "The debate over Cuba turned intense after Adam Carr..." and "Sorry, comrade, no dice,... answered Carr..", "... says Carr, calling Castro's foreign supporters `gullible idiots.'",
  • Unilateral editing threat 03:50, 1 May 2006 [49]
  • Statement of intent to abandon efforts to collaborate 23:58, 30 April 2006: [50]
  • Manipulation and deletion of critical comments from others made on Talk page. [51]
  • Insulting verb bleatings 00:51, 1 May 2006
  • Name calling and threat of unilateral action " I will now proceed unilaterally": [52] 22:54, 30 April 2006
  • Name calling coupled with unilateral 'edit war' revert of opposing POV: [53] 07:56, 30 April 2006
  • Unilateral 'edit war' revert of opposing POV.[54] 00:35, 29 April 2006
  • Unilateral 'edit war' revert of opposing POV.[55] 12:34, 27 April 2006
  • Name calling: "...El Bruco" Adam 12:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Name calling: "...Would Comrade Bruce like me to incorporate that into the article?" Adam 12:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Unilateral removal of request for citation:[56]
  • Unexplained deletion of another editor's post on talk page[57]
  • Uncivil Statement: [58] "Since I am not allowed to engage in "personal abuse" here, I cannot begin to express my views about a person who could utter such a stupid, despicable, disgusting, totally morally bunkrupt statement. "
  • Bad Faith assumption of user's motives: [59] "I'm sorry you find the truth insulting. When I was a communist, I may have been young and stupid, but at least I didn't try to hide my beliefs behind this nauseating veneer of "neutrality."
  • Uncivil comment: [60] "Why should I not conclude you are a common liar?"
  • Uncivil Response to appeals for civility; [61] "I am thoroughly sick of BruceHallman's pious lectures about standards of behavior at this page, which are no more than a cover for his political agenda in maintaining this article as a farrago of lies and communist propaganda"
  • Uncivil Response(context unclear): [62] "I am not American, so spare me your childish political insults"
  • Uncivil personal comment: [63] I will be charitable and attribute that comment to utter and total ignorance about Australian history rather than to <personal attack removed>.
  • Uncivil and unneccessary personal comment: [64] "If so, no doubt you would have enjoyed living in a Nazi-ruled world unless Zleitzen is a Jewish surname of course".
  • Uncivil Response: [65] "So spare me your pious crap"
  • Uncivil statement [66] but what is one to do when confronted by fools like ScottGrayban or hypocritical, devious Castro apologists like Bruce (Yes Bruce, I am being uncivil - so sue me)

[edit] complaints and warnings directed to Adam Carr

Excerpts of complaints about Adam Carr from this page.

  • He Seems INTENT on starting an edit war, by consistently putting his POV into Kurt Schumacher. I think he needs to be blocked from that page. Aplank 03:01, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Adam Carr is biased anti-Polish chauvinist. He utterred to the sentence
  • Adam Carr's comments are inappropriate. Lir is back as an accepted member of the Wikipedia community and should be shown that respect. FearÉIREANN 23:48, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • He is consistently going out of his way to belittle me. This edit is a good example: [2] -- I find his actions to be inappropriate and unacceptable. Lirath Q. Pynnor
  • I aggree with Jtdirl that Adam Carr's comments are inappropriate. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 00:30, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)
  • adam is yet again going out of his way to belittle a member of wikipeida. He seems to be intent on insulting me as you can see from his comment above. I think something needs to be done about this. I was insulted by that comment. Regardless, if people found me a problem, I would have a list on this page. No one found me a problem and i apologized for getting caught up in the heat of the moment
  • Here is another example: "This of course shows why everyone working on the Mother Teresa article finds Aplank something of a problem himself. Adam 23:11, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)" Aplank 01:23, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Quote from adam carr: I'm well aware that I can't remove myself from Problem Users, and I fully expected my self-deletion to be reverted at once. I did it to show up the arbitrariness of EdPoor's decision to remove all criticism of Aplank. I was listed as a problem user for entirely frivolous and vexatious reasons, and that was why I counter-listed Aplank (although many other people find him a pest as well)
  • also, he uses words like dear and sweety when talking to me, which is very condescending and insulting. Aplank 23:15, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)


"It is not adequate to say that "some Poles were anti-Semites." Most Poles were anti-Semites" Talk:History_of_Poland_(1939-1945). I do not even believe that most of Germans were Nazis at the time of Hitler. Why we tolerate such a biased POV in Wikipedia? GH


Hello Adam :) Nice work on Australian electoral system, but I've removed the "Please refrain from editing until it is finished." comment.

This is a Wiki, after all - discouragement for others to edit can be considered a little unfriendly, though I do understand you want to get everything down right.

Anyway, keep at it! It'll all look great in the end, and its nice for others to edit so it'll be even greater :) Dysprosia 13:35, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

...It is considered bad Wikipedia etiquette to remove the work of others without providing an least some kind of reasoning or even if one is an authority in the area in question. That can start an edit war. If there are several points of view on a topic they should both be allowed space in the article. As this is a collaborative environment it is not a place for one to write one's own articles and ignore the work of others even if one considers one's knowledge superior to the knowledge or lack of knowledge of others. Alex756 19:37, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --Scott Grayban 14:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Seeing that you have already been blocked for making personal attacks, this warning regards your edits to User:Sgrayban on Talk:Cuba: Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 16:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Your recent post in Talk:Cuba "Comrade Hallman said so above. Adam 13:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)" included name calling and appears uncivil. Template:Civil2 BruceHallman 13:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

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

  1. WP:CIVIL
  2. WP:POV
  3. WP:AGF
  4. WP:HA
  5. No Personal Attacks, and a subset of this policy Veiled attacks.

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Warning to be civil.
  2. Request for assistance April 11: [75]
  3. Request for mediation cabal[76]
  4. Agreement to second mediation: [77]
  1. Adam Carr expression of reservations about second mediation.
  2. This mediation request was then denied due to a lack of demonstration of good faith.
  1. Personal attack intervention noticeboard:[78]
  2. Wikipedia Talk:No Personal Attacks:[79]
  3. [80]
  4. [81] -- I know its long but it's well worth reading to see his path of thinking and unwilling to be NPOV, disruptive and abusive. And shows the history of the MEDCABAL trying to get Adam to work with everyone.
  5. [82] - Bruce asking him again to be civil and not resorting to name calling.
  6. [83] - History of the MEDCABAL that failed because of him and another users, User:172 disruptive attitude.
  7. [84] - His agreement to not use personal attacks during the Mediation but refuses to follow that agreement.
  8. Administration Kilo-Lima admonishment to Adam Carr 12:40, 23 April 2006 re: Personal attacks. [85]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Scott Grayban 10:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Sgrayban is no longer a valid cosigner. He was blocked indefinitely by the community on 02:51, 24 April 2006 for making legal threats. [86] 172 | Talk 06:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • It is worth noting that the request for banning of Sgrayban appears to have been inititated immediately after learning of the filing of the RFC by Sgrayban, raising the appearance of retaliation. It is also worth noting that Sgrayban has only been accused of this policy violation; because at least as of this point in time, the administrator that effected the ban has not responded to repeated requests to describe the specifics of the evidence used as the basis of the ban. See User_talk:Jdforrester#Ban_of_Sgrayban BruceHallman 13:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I did not ask for Scott Grayban to be banned. I posted the text of his threatening email to me at this page, and others then decided to ban him. Adam 13:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I accept Adam's explanation and accept Adam's statement that he did not ask for Scott Grayban to be banned. BruceHallman 14:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Re-reading the WP:NLT policy I see that rights to edit Wikipedia may be blocked but I don't see that rights to participate in the Dispute resolution procedures are taken away. BruceHallman 19:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  1. BruceHallman 16:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Zleitzen 01:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 16:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. I recommend fast-tracking this case to the Arbcom, and focusing also on the conduct of like-minded users acting in concert, such as SlimVirgin, 172, Willmcw, et. al. Cognition 07:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Myciconia 02:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

[edit] Derex

First, Adam needs to cool it on the rhetoric. It's clearly excessive, and it serves no productive purpose. In fact, it's surely counterproductive for him. As with anyone, a short-term civility block might be appropriate when that occurs. Second, it's claimed he reverts too much. However there's little evidence presented of that, and he hasn't been blocked in almost a year. If true, perhaps you should simply report this to the appropriate place ANI 3RR.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Derex 18:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Bletch 00:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Sdedeo (tips) 21:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. — Matt Crypto 07:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Whatever other issues may exist here, civility is clearly a problem. Friday (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. BruceHallman 18:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Myciconia 02:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 172

Adam Carr, one of only a few non-anonymous professional historians on Wikipedia (Rjensen and Jtdirl being the others) has been doing an excellent job bringing the Cuba article up to standard. [87] [88] This RfC is frivolous and politically motivated. Adam Carr should be commended for his excellent work on the article. 172 | Talk 18:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. 172 | Talk 18:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. CJK 18:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Merecat 19:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
    I read BruceHallman's cited complaints and frankly, I think he is being willfully obtuse. Only one of those cited postings by Adam could resonably be interpreted as hostile or insulting and frankly, I'd probably feel the same way as Adam seems to have felt, if BruceHallman had made such comments about Cuba to me. Even so, I ask that Adam please apologize to Bruce, so Bruce will stop whining and kvetching. And no, using a Yiddish word is not anti-semitic. It takes real work to be a kombinator, but complaining is easy. Stop complaining and start organizing Merecat 23:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. PMA PMA 19:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. David | Talk 19:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC) (although not a professional historian, I have had a book of political history published - does that count?)
    I'd say yes. I've been a proponent of setting up a professional system of peer review on Wikipedia for around a couple of years. Personally, I'd say the key is whether or not the editor is anonymous. That'd rule timid people like me out. I think a professional peer review mechanism should include not only academics but also journalists, professional editors, and distinguished published authors in general. At any rate, this is an interesting discussion for another forum-- like Wikipedia:Forum for encyclopedic standards. 172 | Talk 20:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. --Aldux 23:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Bletch 00:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Mackensen (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. bainer (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    At the very worst here, there have been a group of people acting uncivilly on the Cuba article and its talk page, and while all involved should know better, talk of blocks and bans is unlikely to resolve disagreement. I suggest a nice cup of tea and a sit down instead, and another crack at mediation about the content at Cuba (I'll offer my services if anyone is interested). --bainer (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. -Will Beback 21:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. Snottygobble 01:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  15. Ambi 02:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  16. michael talk 04:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  17. I@n ≡ talk 13:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  18. Clearly from the diffs it is seen that Adam has rankled a few people for making them accountable for their claims that Cuba is a democracy. I agree with Adam's attempts to accurately portray Cuba and its political system - a authoritarian/totalitarian single party state.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  19. The problem here is Bruce Hallman, not Adam. FRCP11 17:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Users who disagree with this summary:

  1. No user has any excuse to disregard the fundamental policies of Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View and Wikipedia:Civiliy. Cognition 07:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional comment by 172

It's also worth nothing that the main offender on the Cuba article with respect to behavioral standards is the author of this RfC-- Sgrayban (talk · contribs) He has been blocked for violating the 3RR on Cuba, not Adam. He has been threatening other users, not Adam. And his comments--directed toward both Adam and me-- have been far more insulting than anything posted by Adam. His insults range from telling me to "piss off" for suggesting that he work on his grammar [89] (an outburst later deleted without comment by Bruce [90]) to this diatribe (one of many) against Adam Carr:

You are very ignorant and rude. And me being German has nothing to do with your repeated insults here to users or me. For your information I am retired from the USAF after serving over 20 years in it, not to mention all the ribbons and citations I have gotten and you sit here mocking my ethnic background? I'm more pro-democratic then you will ever be. You are a wannabee. You wish you had something to stand for like I do. I spent my time fighting the freedom you have to insult me and bash my ethnic background. You really do have mental issues don't you? --Scott Grayban 09:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It is Sgrayban, not Adam Carr, who should be subject to an RfC at the moment. 172 | Talk 19:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Merecat 19:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. PMA 19:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. This doesn't excuse AC's heated rhetoric (which I quite enjoyed), but this RFC does seem a rather one-sided presentation of the affair given the complainants' sins in the matter. Derex 22:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Bletch 00:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    I'm not sure if I would go as far as to say that User:Sgrayban is THE villain as 172 posits, but he's not 100% innocent either. --Bletch 01:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    I think I was easy on him. Check this out. [91] 172 | Talk 01:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Aldux 21:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Ambi 02:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. FRCP11 17:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC) (subject to Derex's amendment)

[edit] Mystork

A quick look at the edit history shows Adam Carr to be reverting and editing in his pov --to the extend where he seriously bends the truth--. The human rights section rewritten by Adam, shows the absurdity of some of the edits Mr. Carr strongly defends. Take for example, the comparitivly mild introduction to the section: "Cuba is a one-party state dominated by the Communist Party of Cuba, in which the rights of the individual are subordinated to the interests of the state, which is in turn subordinate to the Communist Party . The government restricts freedom of speech, association, assembly, press, and movement." While that clearly is just a mainstream POV, Later on, Carr blasts Cuba's constitutional intolerance towards gays --with no mention that his argument is 10 YEARS out of date, as the source clearly states.

  1. Mystork 21:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • User's first edit on 05:46, 24 April 2006. [92] The user has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. 172 | Talk 07:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
User has been legitimatly replaced by Myciconia Myciconia|Talk 02:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. Cognition 07:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Myciconia 02:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Friday

I have little prior knowledge of Adam Carr or his history. I noticed this and started paying attention to Cuba and a couple other articles. It's possible that he has a history of doing good work here, and many articles are better off because of his editing. I have no opinion on those issues. What I do see right now is that he's a unrepentant fanatic- he wants to ensure Wikipedia presents his own personal version of The Truth. And, like many POV warriors, he's frequently rude to those he disagrees with. This is not helpful to the encyclopedia. Blocks for incivility seem appropriate and easy, but the POV pushing is a harder matter to deal with. He needs to drastically change his approach, or stay away from topics he has such strong opinions on. He also doesn't seem to understand or believe in WP:NOR- he spends a lot of his talk page time trying to show why his opinions are the correct ones. As a long-time editor, he should know better, and as a community, we should hold him to the same standards of civility and neutrality as anyone else. Length of tenure as an editor does not excuse poor editing.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Friday (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. BruceHallman 18:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Well stated. Myciconia 02:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

(2 "discussion" postings moved from here to talk - please re-read instructions - DO NOT post here in this section - this section is a NOTICE only.)


[edit] Comment by Adam Carr

I'm sorry that so many people have had to waste their time responding to this stupid piece of petty harassment, which is just another manoeuvre by the Wikipedia Friends of Fidel to prevent or delay the long-needed rewriting of the Cuba suite of articles, which be assured which proceed regardless. My thanks to 172 and others who have taken the time to add comments. I won't bother with most of this farrago of nonsense, 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.

The one accusation I want to respond to, however, is the one about Zleitzen's "Jewish surname," which seems to be an insinuation that I have made some sort of anti-Semitic remark. This arose from an interesting discussion about moral equivalence, in the course of which Zleitzen approvingly quoted the statement: "there can be no moral or ethical hierarchy between two sides in a conflict, nor in the actions or tactics of the two sides".

My response to this was:

Do you really take the view that "there can be no moral or ethical hierarchy between two sides in a conflict, nor in the actions or tactics of the two sides"? Do you apply that maxim to World War II? Do you argue that there no was "moral hierarchy" between the Nazis and the Allies? If so, no doubt you would have enjoyed living in a Nazi-ruled world (unless Zleitzen is a Jewish surname of course - one of the reason Jewish intellectuals generally reject moral equivalence is that they understand better than most the real-world consequences of moral choices in politics). By taking this position, you convict yourself of moral bankruptcy out of your own mouth.

It can be seen that my reference to the possibility of Zleitzen being a Jewish surname was made in the course of a serious political dicussion, while asking a serious question, which he of course refused to answer, instead raising a storm of bogus indignation about my question. Far from made in an anti-Semitic context, my remark was actually one of praise for Jewish intellectuals who reject moral equivalence of the kind deployed by Zleitzen and others of the morally bankrupt post-modern left to justify their adulation of despots like Castro. This is typical of the tactics of the Wikifidelistas, whose shameful apologetics in defence of an odious dictatorship have been matched only the dishonesty, deviousness and unscrupulousness of their debating tactics.

La historia me absolverá, Adam 02:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. 172 | Talk
  2. Glad to see he's on form. image:smile.png SlimVirgin (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Bletch 03:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Merecat 03:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. David | Talk 08:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Snottygobble 01:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    Clarification in response to this: I endorse the above paragraph as a reasonably accurate summary of the nature and cause of the current dispute. This should not be interpreted as an endorsement of everything Adam has ever said or done or will ever say or do. Snottygobble 00:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Ambi 02:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. -Will Beback 03:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. michael talk 05:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. Aldux 10:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. I@n ≡ talk 13:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. CJK 21:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  15. --Astrokey44 04:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What a farce

What a farce. What a storm in a teacup. Yes, Adam comes across as smirkingly arrogant and rude (and he might well be so beyond the virtual world.) He is also a dedicated contributor. Quite why he needs a pack of groupies (172,Ambi, etc etc) running around attempting to defend him is just amusing. Not to mention the head-in-the-sand denial of reality that the pro-Cuba club are stuck with... I know a lot of you find Wiki super-important, but incidents like this really should be cause for some inward-reflection - on all sides - as to the actual value of what is going on here at Wiki and how much you wish it to affect you. I think the fact that you rise to Adam's bait is the saddest indictment of this RFC. 138 08:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The head in the sand bit is failing to realize that when it comes to social reality, Wikipedia is a venue for propaganda, and to some extent, a scholarly endevour. The actual value cannot be immediately guaged; clearly there is a lot of wastefulness, but that is to be expected. El_C 08:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adios, amigos

I'm taking this page off my watchlist. See you all at the front lines of freedom. Adam 02:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Bastante comprensivo, Dr. Perhaps I should issue a block for your next inevitable incivil personal attack, anywhere? And the next one, and the next. It's bound to disrupt your editing patterns. How's that for an ideological conflict of interest [technically] perfectly propper block? Since none of the above admins are likely do anything. I already blocked (and not only Skyring) on your account before, time to be evenhanded? It's easy to side with the intelligencia of the imperialist slave masters. Freedom for them, servitude and slavery for the rest. El_C 03:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On the job injuries

Some say wikipedia can be therapeutic but its not therapy. Others might say Wikipedia has no responsibility to people who might be harmed in the process of editing Wikipedia. Probably the pertinent question is whether indifference toward those harmed in the fray best serves the purpose of writing an encyclopedia. If it doesn't then what means can we consider other than a tired old game of musical chairs through a burgeoning bureaucratic process to reduce and remediate harm editors suffer? Is it possible that endless repetition of the boilerplate doctrines of Wikipedia is failing to address new phsycological circumstances to which the establshed policies are blind?

What we seem to see with Carr is a context-specific disintigration of personality as his Wikipedia addiction progressed. His early concern for quality, in 2003, went unheeded until eventually he took matters into his own hands. What he was offering in 2003 included informed measurement of article content one would expect from a PhD. He offered a proposal for reforming Wikipedia that included suggestions similar to what Sanger offers but with a different approach to accepting lay editors. He now links to a 2004 Larry Sanger article with reasoned proposals for repairing Wikipedia -- again one which recognizes expertise and suggests solutions. Could it be that mere sympathy for potential competing projects or forks can be cause of isolation from the group as a whole? I'm not suggesting his support for Larry led to this RfC, but it might have contributed to people pulling away when he needed peers to help keep his work here within bounds.

Why is Carr claiming not to be editing an article on Australian politicians when the claim is readily refuted? It might be more than addiction-related disintigration. It could be a result of attempting to construct social action in an unreceptive context. It might be a co-morbidity involving addiction and social isolation.

In Constructing Social Action, (Philosophy and Social Action, Vol. 27, No. 4, October-December 2001, pp. 7-23) addiction psychologist Ross Colqhoun and author of the "Whistleblowers Handbook" Brian Martin write, in reference to women seeking women's rights reforms:

The history of women seeking to bring about change was one of persecution and the labelling of these women as emotionally unstable and mentally ill. Individual women who sought help struck the same attitudes, compounding their existing feelings of low self-esteem, lack of confidence and high anxiety. In the face of values held to be intrinsic to women, any attempt to be heard required them to confront the prospect that what they were saying was prima facie lacking in reason, rationality and force. Without the support of a group, the risk to individuals that they would suffer disintegration of personality was a testament to their courage.

And Carr didn't get whatever support of a group he needed to stay on the narrow-guage track this project seems to follow. The disintigration we see now is likely the result. Wikipedia can probably always find new editors, from a pool of about 6 billion people in the world, so why show any concern for editors when they get to be a problem? Maybe we should be concerned that as more editors are used up and burned out, the project increasingly relies on a less informed pool of editors to take their place. I've seen not evidence that constantly tossing aside editors as they inevitably burn out improves articles. It seems more to shift editorial and administrative focus from content to police work.

I have a hunch it's okay to call people trolls and vandals here, because that ingratiates a person with vandal-fighters, but to look intelligently at the way addiction and social action can lead to disintigration of personality will result in me being told for innumerable reasons I'm not qualified to comment on the matter. People involved here might be too proud of their work, and too addicted to the reward of seeing their work in the Net to step back and take a dispassionate view of the dynamics of this group. How unfortunate that a project based on neutral point of view is so poorly situated to see its own dynamics from a neutral perspective. (these comments were inspired by an e-mail I received today) Morton Hayward 20:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)