Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adam Carr

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

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]

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)[reply]

   • 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)[reply]
   • 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
     BruceHallman 13:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
     ]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

Re-reading the

BruceHallman 19:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

1. BruceHallman 16:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. Zleitzen 01:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 16:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
4. Myciconia 02:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

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:

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.}

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

Users who endorse this summary:

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

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)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. 172 | Talk 18:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. CJK 18:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Merecat 19:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   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)[reply]

4. PMA 19:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
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?)[reply]

   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)[reply

   ]

6. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. --Aldux 23:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Talk) 00:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
9. Bletch 00:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Mackensen (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. talk) 03:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    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

    talk) 12:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

    ]

13. -Will Beback 21:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Snottygobble 01:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Ambi 02:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. michael ^talk 04:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. talk 13:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
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.
    review me 04:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
19. The problem here is Bruce Hallman, not Adam. FRCP11 17:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply
   ]

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)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Merecat 19:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. PMA 19:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply
   ]
5. Talk) 00:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. Bletch 00:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   I think I was easy on him. Check this out. [91] 172 | Talk 01:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7. Aldux 21:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Ambi 02:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. review me 04:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
10. FRCP11 17:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC) (subject to Derex's amendment)[reply]

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)[reply]

   • 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)[reply]

User has been legitimatly replaced by Myciconia Myciconia|Talk 02:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Cognition 07:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Myciconia 02:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Friday

I have little prior knowledge of Adam Carr or his history. I noticed this and started paying attention to

Users who endorse this summary:

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

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.)

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)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. 172 | Talk
2. Glad to see he's on form. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Bletch 03:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Merecat 03:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Talk) 06:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. David | Talk 08:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Snottygobble 01:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   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)[reply]

8. Ambi 02:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. -Will Beback 03:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. michael ^talk 05:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Aldux 10:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. talk 13:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
13. CJK 21:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. review me 04:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
15. --Astrokey44 04:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]