Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Adam Carr

I have asked Adam Carr to stop calling users names on the Talk:Cuba article. He does so without any regard to violating the WP:CIVIL. He attacks enthnic backgrounds of users and calls them fidelist and communist including commrade. He gets very defensive when anything positive is mentioned about Cuba and starts flaming and being very rude to the person making the comments. --Scott Grayban 10:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It should probably be worth noting that I recently blocked Adam Carr for personal attacks (April 23 2006); however I was encouraged to unblock (for which I did) due to the fact that Scott Grayban was making personal comments also.  K ilo-Lima|(talk) 13:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Asking Adam to grow up is a personal attack after he repeatedly attacks me for no reason with name calling? Hmm --Scott Grayban 14:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Objection to PMA supporting anything related to this RFC because he is one of the people that encourage Adam as evidence of this is here --Scott Grayban 20:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Also User:172 is using only part of a conversation which doesn't reflect the real truth

'What is it in your background that I am supposed to be so scared of? That you're German? Ja, ist das sehr erschreckend, but I've argued with Germans before and lived to tell the tale.' (by the way, please go and read apostrophe, so I don't have to read atrocities like "War is the sum of all evil's" and "humanitarian actions sending out Doctor's to other countries" any more. Danke) Adam 09:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

''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)''

The bold section implies the Nazi attitude answer that 99% of German are offended by. --Scott Grayban 20:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * He was just making a light-hearted joke, it seems. It's quite a strech to suggest that he was calling you a Nazi. However, it is clear to me that he was telling you to work on your grammar. Constructive criticism is the core logic of peer editing, not a personal attack. 172 | Talk 21:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Any German would be offended by the implied remark based on Adam's previous attacks even the Jewish attack on User:Zleitzen was strickly meant to hurt him as did his suttle German hurt me. Adam is right no matter what and anything he does is factual, truthful, and God-like and that is a fact. The diff's supplied by me and Bruce show this. PMA has given Adam a free run by supporting this -- Scott and Bruce remind me of Marxists like Ruy Lopez and his Amazing Sockpuppets - in that case - show no mercy and do what has to be done. PMA 18:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC) and you still sit here defending Adam and PMA. I just don't get it. What did I ever do to Adam, PMA, and you(172) to warrant the name calling and ethnic insults? My only crime you claim I have done is get offensive at his snide remark on my heritage and the fact that I have tried to get the article(Cuba) into NPOV status by showing and providing the good points of Cuba and for some reason I am called a commie, nazi, pro-cuban, marxist and a few I sure I have forgotten. Where am I wrong in all that? Point out where I/we specifically caused Adam, PMA, and you to gang up on Bruce, Zleitzen, and me? Show the specific cause's that I/we purposely provoke anyone of you for this? Have I ever once made any comments to his sexual preferences? Nope. I have ever insulted his heritage/ethnic background? Nope I have questioned his agenda simply because he is connected in some fashion to the Australian Parlament. This could go on but I am sure you have gotten the point by now. --Scott Grayban 21:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * And just what is this? 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 [19] (an outburst later deleted without comment by Bruce [20]) to this diatribe (one of many) against Adam Carr. that you are saying? I threaten him where? Insulting where again? You keep pasting this same thing over and over and we have well over a couple dozen places where Adam and you have attacked us without reasons or provocation. I got nailed for 3RR once and I did that in good-faith but hey no sweat on that I learned my lesson however Adam has been blocked many times. Why don't you point that out as well? --Scott Grayban 21:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This RfC should now be deleted
James Forrester, an arbitrator, has just banned the author of this RfC, indefinitely for making bizarre threats against Adam Carr. Sgrayban's dispute with Adam has just been rendered irrelevant. In addition, this was an improper RfC all along, given that the subject was never notified about it on his talk page, as is required. 172 | Talk 03:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Merecat 04:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

-
 * Discussion below moved here from the project page.

Effectively closed
Sgrayban has been banned by the community so this RFC is effectively moot at this point. I'll go ahead and delist it. 172 | Talk 05:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sgrayban is presently unbanned. Regardless, many important questions continue to exist which should be addressed independent of Sgrayban's status.  BruceHallman 13:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, he is presently banned indefinitly. (In case you were thinking otherwise because you say his recent posts on his talk page-- users can edit their talk pages while they are blocked.) And Sgrayban's status does matter. This is no longer a valid RfC because one of the cosigners is no longer a contributor due an indefinite ban-- a very rare and serious measure. In addition, the subject of the RfC must be notified on his or her talk page for the RfC to be valid. Adam Carr was never notified. Thus, this RfC was invalid all along, even before the author's indefinite ban. 172 | Talk 17:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have added notification to Adam Carr's talk page, regardless, many important questions continue to exist which should be addressed. BruceHallman 18:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This isn't about technicalities. A late note doesn't cut it. The author of the RfC was banned. And the response to the RfC was overwhelmingly negative even before the ban. This statement sums up the consensus of the RfC: 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. [20] [21] 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) 172 | Talk 18:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It is of no consequence whether Adam Carr is a non-anonymous professional historian. It is his behaviour in this case that is being questioned. Behaviour which is explicitly discouraged by Wikipedia, and which should be treated with seriousness. Your comment "The response to the RfC was overwhelmingly negative" only emphasises my points above about cliques and groups, and I do not regard them with any seriousness. --Zleitzen 19:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's absurd. This RfC is the time I've ever run into Aldux, Sarah Ewart, and Merecat, to name a few. Mackensen does not represent a "clique" but the community as a whole. He was elected overwhelmingly by the entire community in the recent arbcom election. Further, it's quite silly to suggest that I belong to the same "clique" as Adam Carr and CJK, two user with whom I have had editorial disputes in the past. You should get to know the community better before disregarding the community's feedback. 172 | Talk 19:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Please address each of the charges on the merits. A summary dismissal, citing technicalities, or an appeal of popularity doesn't cut it. BruceHallman 19:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This RfC, having not met the minimum requirements for validity, is moot. It's absurd to suggest that there is anything here which has "merit". Charges laid without a proper foundation have no merit. It's no different that if I said "Bruce Hallman is the bogeyman". Quite apart form the fact that such an assertion is nonsensical tripe, I've not brought the allegation forth properly, so you don't have to address it. Same too here. The certifying parties must be minimum (2) or the threshold is not met. And the notification must be contemporaneously made by the certifying party. If those conditions are not met, this RfC must be dismissed. And frankly, I see no prima facia case here, so if it were up to me, I'd dismiss it with prejudice. More so, I'd penalize the certifiers for filing a frivolous RfC. Merecat 21:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If you feel the need to dismiss the charges as "nonsensical tripe", then I would be interested to hear your opinions on each alleged act of incivility by Adam Carr (see above). The judgement of myself and the independent mediator seems to disagree with your assessment (see foot of my statement). For clarity I will repeat the mediators comments below; --Zleitzen 22:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * user behavior. I am amazed that both 172 and Adam -- users who have a huge number of edits and have a record of constructive contributions elsewhere on the wiki -- have behaved so poorly during this process. Both 172 and Adam have been rude and uncivil to other editors. There is no excuse for that, and it has materially impeded getting on with improving the article.

2nd Name on the Rfc
After Scott Grayban's (well deserved) ban. I agree to support the Rfc alongside BruceHallman --Zleitzen 23:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's too late. You had to sign on within 48 hours. The only option now is to dismiss this and if complainers so choose, re-file with two new certifiers. And for a certification to be valid, there has to be proof that the complainers tried and failed to resolve issues about the subject of the complaint with the complainee. Have you tried and failed other options of resolution 1st? Merecat 23:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not yet 48 hours, for the tried and failed see
 * 
 * .
 * --Zleitzen 23:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I would consider this request for civility via mediation to be a failure, considering Adam Carr's subsequent comments "So spare me your pious crap"--Zleitzen 23:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Frankly Zleitzen, you saying that Adam's edits were "teenage ahistorical arguments" demonstrates that you were not negotiating in good faith. As such, your endorsement here is fraudulent. I see very little "tried" from you and no bona fide "failed". Frankly, if that's how hard you try, then I'd say you are a not an exemplar of a consensus editor. Merecat 23:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe it was after Adam Carr referred to my name being Jewish (which it is) in relation to me enjoying life under the nazis (and shortly after being called "morally bankrupt"), Merecat. Feel free to read the full exchange. I take it you also find such statements acceptable?--Zleitzen 23:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC).
 * I am telling you to re-read those comments. They were clearly not ill-intended.
 * Merecat 00:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no way of knowing that, given that his subsequent comments were also abusive.--Zleitzen 00:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like to re-iterate that I have been involved in one failed mediation (see mediators response) and have requested another mediation to end incivility. Subsequently I was referred to in the above terms. --Zleitzen 00:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC).
 * I am not persuaded that you have done enough to keep the peace yourself. Merecat 00:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What would you suggest, beyond being involved in two mediations (having taken the time and effort to initiate the second, inform Adam Carr on his user page and thank him for every helpful contribution he has made).--Zleitzen 00:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have also noticed that you have been blocked in the last 7 days for violations so it would be more sensible for you to refrain from questioning the credibility of users that have never even been warned. --Zleitzen 00:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Merecat 00:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

repost from project page
This RFC cannot be separated from the greater issue of the point of view edit war presently engulfing the Cuba article. Sadly missing from Cuba is: The spirit of mutual respect of opposing points of view, which is required before cooperation is possible, which is required before collaboration is possible.

The lack of mutual respect springs from the lack of civility. More than a few users have participated in the lack of civility, and Adam Carr is being discussed with this RFC, but he is not alone.

Also worth noting is that the pro versus con endorsements of this RFC appear to fall exactly on the same line as the split of the POV's of the article. BruceHallman 22:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It should also be known here that 172 has stated his intentions to "get users to sign against the fraduent RfC against Adam Carr" . This should be viewed as relevant in relation to my statement above. --Zleitzen 17:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Zleitzen, that's how democracy works everywhere except Cuba - people rally support for their point of view, freely debate issues, and cast their votes. How very shocking. Adam 00:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Banning of user Mystork
Looking at the ban of Mystork, it appears it may be related to endorsement of this RFC, and due to this timing it has the appearance that it may be retaliation. Also I notice that the Mystork ban has been protested. and. I ask to see the evidence used for the ban decision, the source of the evidence and the timing. Did any of the endorsers of this RFC play any role in the banning? If yes, please explain the appearance of what may be seen as retaliation. BruceHallman 15:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Bruce, give it a break will you. Mystork user is an obvious sockpuppet. -- Merecat 17:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "obvious" How have you reached that conclusion?  Do you know the answers to anything I asked above? BruceHallman 18:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Bruce, stop being willfully obtuse. Take a look at Special:Contributions/Mystork and tell me he's not a sock. Merecat 00:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no reason. That's what happens when you stand up to the Adam Carr-led neocon Wikiclique. You will get labelled a "sockpuppet" or a "LaRouchist" and banned without cause. When I came here, they were ready to ban me as a "sockpuppet" of HK (a person who lives in another part of the country) for no reason but because I too spoke out against neocon propaganda. They will continue doing that until one day more honest users stand up to them with gumption and demand that Wikipedia must tell the truth. Cognition 19:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you denying that you are a LaRouchist now? Adam 00:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * LaRouche is a great thinker and a great man. The fact that I follow LaRouche has nothing to do with anything. That's only brought up on Wikipedia as a part of the usual McCarthyism that goes on around here. Cognition 03:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate section moved from main page
Users who disagree with this summary:
 * 1) I think civility and NPOV are important. Cognition 18:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * (Cognition is a member of the Lyndon LaRouche cult, whose members detest me both because I have defeated several of their attempts to infect Wikipedia with their fascist poison and because I work for a Jewish politician.
 * That's libel. LaRouche is not a fascist and an anti-Semite. I happen to be Jewish myself. Cognition 03:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * My favourite Cognition quote: "You should be careful not to trust the likes of HG Wells. His "predictions of the future" were only able to come true because of the evil Synarchist network he was involved with that took his dastardly plans as gospel to be enacted through front organizations such as the Club of Rome, the Trilateral Commission, and the World Wildlife Fund." (from his Talk page). Adam 23:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC))


 * To qualify as per bellow, I do applaud Adam Carr's efforts in combatting the LaRouchites' cryptofascist propaganda on Wikipedia. El_C 02:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Users who disagree that Haiti is a democracy:


 * 1) I've only glanced at this, but it looks bad. I am surprised and shocked by many of the signatures above. What am I missing here? I'm certainly glad I didn't undergo "self-criticism" in my youth under the auspecies of a highly questionable party &mdash; that would have seriously messed me up. This isn't something I wish to say, but regretfuly, Dr. Carr places me in that position. And on that front, I am getting quite tired of his perpetual red-baiting rhetoric. Also, Cuba's current "freedom"house lead is one of the most pov leads I've seen in any country article &mdash; I should know, I've authored tens of country article leads (the vast, overwhelming majority still up), and I have every country and dependent territory on my watchlist. I reject & denounce the Cuban Communist Party as a corrupt, state capitalist party, but this is notwithstanding these sort of incivil terms of debate and the anticommunist pov focus which appears to be at its basis. El_C 02:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Er, are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? Adam 04:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Er, it is flawed to approach complex topics through absolutist terms. And what is up with that lead? El_C 05:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the question.
 * As to Haiti, that country has just held free and competitive elections for President and a two-house legislature. While these elections were far from flawless, and while Haiti obviously has a long way to go before it can be described as a perfect democracy, it now has a President chosen by its people from a number of candidates offered to them, many political parties, a free press and freedom of political organisation. Despite Haiti's many problems, this marks real progress. It is a lot more than Cuba - a country with a higher standard of living and a much higher level of education - can claim. Adam 06:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You were the one who posed the question. What do you not understand about the answer? A lot more playing around with dead-ended liberal-democratic, parliamentary games. Everything "except a higher standard of living and a much higher level of education." (!) Living, that's important. El_C 07:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, my question about the lead being an encyclopedically substandard propaganda vehicle, that's right. Its negative pov emphasis is obviously problematic. As if elections mean anything to a Haitian living in a slum. I'm sure they'd take a higher standard of living, but the lead can't say that, oh no. Instead, it opts to promote the Orwellian unfreedom house mantra (with rather odd-looking ten diffs). El_C 07:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I tried to respond to whatever you are saying in a reasonable manner, but all I get back is incoherent nonsense and slogans. Feel free to try again when you have learned to write comprehensible English. Adam 07:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Now you suddenly dislike slogans? Let's just say that I felt your try was lacking. I'm not interested in the absurd, uncommon sense terms of parliamentary machinations since I know who those politicians serve (and it sure isn't the people), also including those who play pretend. El_C 08:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Does anyone else get this? CJK 20:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You appear to have accidentaly typed fifty-some question marks. You may wish to correct that.El_C 20:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I meant to have 51. I apologize. CJK 20:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, yes, that's fascinating. As in, you'll "try to revert more often in future"? Good to see Adam setting an example for civility, but otherwise, I'll be back once I learned "to write comprehensible English". Oh, and the articles I authored yesterday should probably be checked for... incomprehensiblity. Goodluck with that, too. I'm confident it'll prove a worthwile undertaking. El_C 20:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I know not what language you speak. But remember, say NO to the stuff you say yes to on your user page. CJK 20:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Great comeback. El_C 21:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not a comeback. I'm being perfectly serious. CJK 01:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Whatever. El_C 01:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please look at the situation with fresh eyes
I've noticed that some of the people here complaining about Carr here are themselves problem editors. However, please don't assume from that fact that there are no legitimate issues here. It looks to me like a lot of people looked at this and said "Look who the complainers are- there must not be a real problem here." I'd ask those people to look again with fresh eyes. Carr's behavior looks pretty clearly problematic to me- I would think this would be apparent to any editor examining his behavior of late. He has all but stated his intent to edit war- check out his talk page, and particularly this edit. He sure looks to me like he's on some kind of campaign for "The Truth"- his own personal version of it. This is exactly the wrong approach for any editor to take. Friday (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)