Misplaced Pages

:Requests for comment/Adam Carr - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Adam Carr (talk | contribs) at 13:51, 25 April 2006 (ban on Scott Grayban). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:51, 25 April 2006 by Adam Carr (talk | contribs) (ban on Scott Grayban)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages: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: 11:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC).

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

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.

BruceHallman

It is worth noting that Adam Carr has a very long history of contribution to Misplaced Pages, and most of what he has contributed deserves our gratitude. Though in the process of this Misplaced Pages 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 where he asks an editor if he is jewish in context of nazi sympathizers. This is an obvious veiled personal attack. Another example, 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 . BruceHallman 13:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  1. BruceHallman 13:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    Mystork 21:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Zleitzen 23:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Zleitzen

It is my opinion that Adam Carr has acted against the spirit, ethos and policies of Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages.

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)
  3. Adam Carr is a bully and a POV pusher with no respect for other contributors or for Misplaced Pages'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)

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. 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..

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)

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.}

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.)

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)"

Mentions of edit war

Cuba

Previous

  • Stalinists and LaRouche cultists need to be driven out of Misplaced Pages one way or another, but I will try to avoid single-handed revert wars with them (unless absolutely necessary!) (emphasis added for this talk page)
  • I have recently been admonished by the ArbCom for edit wars
  • In the absence of any structural means of getting rid of Lopez and his ilk, robust edit wars are the only alternative. Adam 04:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Questionable civility by Adam Carr on pages related to Cuba

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 Misplaced Pages 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: -- 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 Misplaced Pages? 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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| 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)

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.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  2. -- 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.
  3. - Bruce asking him again to be civil and not resorting to name calling.
  4. - History of the MEDCABAL that failed because of him and another users, User:172 disruptive attitude.
  5. - His agreement to not use personal attacks during the Mediation but refuses to follow that agreement.

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. 172 | Talk 06:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • It is worth noting that the request for banning of Sgrayban appears to have been inititated by Adam Carr 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)
  1. BruceHallman 16:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Zleitzen 01:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 16:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

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:

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.}

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)

172

Adam Carr, one of only a few non-anonymous professional historians on Misplaced Pages (Rjensen and Jtdirl being the others) has been doing an excellent job bringing the Cuba article up to standard. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 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)

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 (an outburst later deleted without comment by Bruce ) 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. 172 | Talk 01:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Aldux 21:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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.

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)


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 Misplaced Pages 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. SlimVirgin 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)