Adam Carr RfC Options

[Herschelkrustofsky]

There is a new Request for comment regarding Adam Carr, darling of the cabal.

This should be a hot one -- 172 has already threatened to block Cognition, just for participating.

[everyking]

When did 172 turn into Adam's pal? I remember when he used to try to stand up to Adam's POV pushing and aggressiveness, at least in some small way. Now not only does he support Adam, he harasses someone like Cognition, a user who is already completely marginalized? I don't know where he went wrong.

[ownage]

can't beat em? then join em.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

When did 172 turn into Adam's pal? I remember when he used to try to stand up to Adam's POV pushing and aggressiveness, at least in some small way. Now not only does he support Adam, he harasses someone like Cognition, a user who is already completely marginalized? I don't know where he went wrong.

As I recall, I found references elsewhere in the Wikipedia Review to 172 as a "leftist." I was shocked by this, because he has always struck me as a stone neo-con, as has Adam Carr, who styles himself, for public consumption, as a "moderate social democrat." Adam's politics are a derivative of those of his boss, Australian MP Michael Danby -- Adam "owns" the Wikipedia article on Danby, and has ineptly asserted his employer's "progressive" credentials by saying that he is an admirer of Joe Lieberman. More to the point, Danby (and presumably Carr) have played host to Michael Ledeen in Australia.

[Lir]

Adam Carr supported the invasion of Iraq.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Adam Carr supported the invasion of Iraq.

The original article he wrote seems to have been removed from his website, but as I recall, he supported the invasion because he said that the Saddam Hussein regime was oppressing homosexuals.

What is more ironic, given the flap about whether Cuba is democratic, is that Carr has defended the frightening police-state measures enacted in Australia under the rubric of "fighting terrorism," and in fact authored a Wikipedia article ("Australian anti-terrorism legislation") to whitewash those laws.

BTW, is this new forum within the Wikipedia Review productive? Are any un-banned Wikipedians reading it, and then participating in the relevant RfC?

[everyking]

The Islamists that are running the place now are, as everyone knows, exceptionally tolerant of homosexuality. Real farsighted of you, Adam.

Adam Carr is on the record as saying that he rejects the NPOV policy--or at least rejects the standard interpretation of it. He believes WP operates according to a Western, secular, rationalist POV, and this is what he fights for, against the communists--hey, I thought that's what Marxism was? Western, secular, rational? I guess a clearer definition would be to just say Wikipedia operates according to whatever Adam Carr thinks is right. The ACPOV policy.

[guy]

I thought that's what Marxism was? Western, secular, rational?

Why is it Western? How can it be, when it is espoused in China and Vietnam?

Of course, "rational" is a loaded word that can mean many things.

As to its secular viewpoint, some would disagree - see for example

http://doubleblue.info

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I guess a clearer definition would be to just say Wikipedia operates according to whatever Adam Carr thinks is right. The ACPOV policy.

Except SlimVirgin stood up for him, endorsing his comments in the request for comment. Wikipedia is a vast ad hominum wasteland.

...which brings me back to the recurring discussion of the nature of the cabal. I was involved in a conflict with SlimVirgin within weeks of her arrival at Wikipedia, and I watched carefully her initial activity. She sought out and formed an alliance with Adam Carr as one of her first orders of business (see this post.)

[Lir]

The original article he wrote seems to have been removed from his website, but as I recall, he supported the invasion because he said that the Saddam Hussein regime was oppressing homosexuals.

Yah, I bet homosexuals are a whole lot better off with a civil war.

[CrazyGameOfPoker]

Hey, this dispute made the news!

Heh.

[blissyu2]

I thought it was interesting that 2 people involved in the Request for Comment were blocked indefinitely - both of whom disagreed with Adam Carr.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sgrayban (banned for an alleged legal threat - one which was made off-wiki in an e-mail and hence is not applicable to NLT)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mystork (a sock puppet, supposedly, of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Colle, who in turn changed their name. Of course, no actual evidence that it was a sock puppet - Just Slim Virgin's decision)

When they start banning dissenters, it raises questions. This was picked up by the media this time. Hopefully they will do so in future cases as well. This happens far too often, especially when trying to build "consensus". Consensus is when a bunch of people bully others in to agreeing with them. Consensus can include bans if necessary.

How many users were banned for trying to include "Wikipedia Review" in some form in to Criticism of Wikipedia? Quite a few, I'd reason. How many were banned or punished in some way in relation to userboxes? They do this in order to get a false sense of majority view. Sock puppets aren't the problem - banning people in order to falsely build consensus is.

Yet again we see Slim Virgin acting up. But this time 172 is joining in the party.

[Donny]

I'm not proposing that Carr's views should be allowed to dominate as much as he is able to bully other writers. I'm saying the untoward behavior of educated people like Carr and many more offers ample evidence of why social activities require orderly processes. I'm saying the impact of untoward behavior is a direct result of the communities failure, not of the individuals who repeatedly do exactly what can be expected of them.

What kind of orderly processes did you have in mind?

Hey, this dispute made the news!

Heh.

The link is broken.

[blissyu2]

Correct link to news story:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati...183_wiki05.html

As discussed here:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=1079&hl=

[CrazyGameOfPoker]

Sorry Donny, I was linking to a search in the NewsFeed forum. I guess it was only for me.

Actually, I'm fairly certain that User:Colle (now User:Myciconia) did own User:MyStork. In fact I'm certain, because she admitted making it because she lost the password to User:Colle http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=50221916

I don't agree with the block though. The account wasn't being used for disruption, only continuing discussion.

As it stands now, there's some backlash against Carr and his methods. [[User:El C]], now has a subpage about thim... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:El_C/On_...22_of_Adam_Carr

[Herschelkrustofsky]

As it stands now, there's some backlash against Carr and his methods. [[User:El C]], now has a subpage about thim... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:El_C/On_...22_of_Adam_Carr

Note that the list of endorsers of Carr's behavior is a close match for the cabal.

[blissyu2]

There has also been a mediation on Adam Carr, under the label "Cuba" now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._mediation/Cuba

What's the bet that the other 2 will end up being bashed over it, while Adam Carr gets off scot free?

Actually, I'm fairly certain that User:Colle (now User:Myciconia) did own User:MyStork. In fact I'm certain, because she admitted making it because she lost the password to User:Colle http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=50221916

Fair enough I guess. Although why didn't the banning admin, Slim Virgin, use that in evidence?

As it stands now, there's some backlash against Carr and his methods. [[User:El C]], now has a subpage about thim... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:El_C/On_...22_of_Adam_Carr

Note that the list of endorsers of Carr's behavior is a close match for the cabal.

Not really. Besides Slim Virgin, there's nobody there that is in the cabal, or is even a maybe. And Slim Virgin said on El C's page that she disagrees with Adam Carr anyway.

Also of note is this false label on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cuba

News This article has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2006 press source article for details.

The citation is in: Pablo Bachelet (2006-05-02). "Cuba entry in Wikipedia stirs controversy". The Miami Herald.

It is not being used as a source. A story is being written about it. That's different. And the story is talking about how the Cuba article is horribly inaccurate. Used as a source implies that the newspaper accepts the article is being accurate enough.

And besides which, It is not listed in the Wikipedia as a press source article. Someone should alter that misleading banner to say something along the lines of "This article is so inaccurate that a newspaper wrote about its woefulness".

[Herschelkrustofsky]

As it stands now, there's some backlash against Carr and his methods. [[User:El C]], now has a subpage about thim... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:El_C/On_...22_of_Adam_Carr

Note that the list of endorsers of Carr's behavior is a close match for the cabal.

Not really. Besides Slim Virgin, there's nobody there that is in the cabal, or is even a maybe. And Slim Virgin said on El C's page that she disagrees with Adam Carr anyway.

I have seen Ambi's name mentioned on the discussion thread about "who's in the cabal." I give her credit, however, for recusing herself from a case where I was involved. Will Beback is SlimVirgin's siamese twin. 172 has lately become their cheerleader. I'm unfamiliar with the others.

[blissyu2]

No Snowspinner, no Raul654. And 172 at least at one point was anti-cabal, in support of Lir. The names don't neatly fit the cabal. Will Beback doesn't seem like a cabal person. A cabalist wouldn't care about his real name being mentioned.

Ambi is fair enough though. By my reckoning, she is on the outer of the cabal. Ambi is a supporter of Kelly Martin, who in turn kisses the butt of the people in the inner circle. But I wouldn't regard Ambi as being in the cabal proper.

Even if she was, we've got the wrong names there.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Will Beback doesn't seem like a cabal person. A cabalist wouldn't care about his real name being mentioned.

Actually, as far as I was able to glean from seeing fleeting references to it in this forum and at Wikipedia, Will Beback abandoned his former user name (Willmcw) because it resembles his real name, and certain details of his personal life had been revealed in a Wikipedia article about his father, who has the same name. The author(s) mistakenly conflated the two Wills. I believe that SlimVirgin speedy deleted the article, possibly more than once.