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.

[blissyu2]

Well, I feel sorry for Willmcw, since he seems to have been stalked to some extent. I don't think anyone deserves that, ever.

[Sgrayban]

Adam Carr blanked his whole talk page right after a user, Xed, made a post about "Why I Supported the Liberation of Iraq" that Adam had been critized about many times. Seem's he has deleted that as well from his website.

Isn't blanking your talk page a blocking offense? Geez I'm so confused about what is legal, illegal, blockable and banable with wiki.

Hmm maybe it was the

Look, I'm not looking for a philosophical argument about the nature of truth. I'm just explaining to you that if you keep violating the policies on personal attacks and civility, you're going to get blocked—whether the Truth is on your side or not. In my lay opinion, I don't think Cuba is a democracy, either. But that doesn't excuse rude behaviour directed at other editors. That is all. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

harsh warning from the administrator there that prompted his quick leave?

[Sgrayban]

Adam Carr blanked his whole talk page

...saying "normal revert wars will be continued on my return."

Hmm something is fishy here.

Look at what he blanked that seems to be a very harsh spanking from a admin there. In particular read the section Elections in Cuba discussion. Maybe he is trying to hide the fact an administrator of real power has turned on him.

Someone here that can point this out to a admin on wiki that isn't banned yet? This just might be enough to see Adam blocked.

[Sgrayban]

In this edit, 172 simply vandalized the aritcle while making a recalcitrant remark in an edit summary denouncing dispute resolution processes.

OMG ! Adam and 172 are the most stupid(est) people I now know.

Revision as of 05:07, 8 May 2006
172 (Talk | contribs)
(rv, I won't recognize attempts at malicious compliance with dispute resolution)

I'm not sure how

+ population_estimate=11,345,670|HASFDLLKal;kjdshf;lksafhl;skdf

is a rv(revert)


And then we have
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=52095662

Current revision
Bletch (Talk | contribs)
(rv per 172)

Uhhhh doesn't a "rv per count a revert by the asking user? Hmm me smell's 3RR violation. Bletch isn't stupid, he puts in who asked him to do it.

[Sgrayban]

I'm not sure how

+ population_estimate=11,345,670|HASFDLLKal;kjdshf;lksafhl;skdf

is a rv(revert)

Zleitzen committed the same vandalism earlier. Aknemonto removed the vandalism and 172 replaced it.

That makes five reverts on the article by Wikipedia administrator 172 in 29 hours -- four in 24 if one counts two sequential reverts of separate parts of the article: 1... 2... 3... 4... 5

On revert number four 172 accused whoever who put the protected tag on the article of being a sock puppet. That's a new one. Admins calling other admin accounts sock puppets?

Let's step back and take inventory:

Wikipedia is under a national spotlight, with wire service stories around the United States calling attention to this article. An editor who admits to edit warring is called up for some sort of disciplinary hearings, but gets out of it by posting a private e-mail from another editor involved in the article, against policy, resulting in the sender of the e-mail getting blocked. He and his admin friends return to the fray and boldy denounce the dispute resolution process. Admins involved in the edit war twice remove a protected tag placed by other admins and proceed to edit a protected page contrary to policy, all the while accusing the person who protected the page of being a sockpuppet. Meanwhile admin 172 vandalizes the article while flouting the 3 revert rule.

I didn't think 172 was a admin at all. Sometime back Jimbo de-soped him for abuse of power's. Maybe I am wrong. Anyways looking at this is interesting as well. Although I must say the timing of Adam's need to go away for a conference and the harsh spanking by no less then 2 admin there for attacks.

Looking at histories I also see that Admin PMA has disappeared as well claiming some sort of health reason after I showed proof of him inciting un-civil actions to Adam Carr

All I know is that the rFc on Adam Carr is full of evidence that the only way anyone with his history of flat out abuse towards anyone has to be a f**king idiot to ignore it. It has got to be the longest rFc in the history of wiki that has been totally blown-off. Who the f**k is Adam Carr that he get's away with that many violations?

[Sgrayban]

No offense Hushthis but I really don't give a flipp'n f**k about political parties and who likes who for the moment. That is what Wikipedia is suppose to be, a group of people making something that should be creditable enough to be sourced. That is what Jimbo has been slamming all over the media. The truth is if the media really stuck there faces into the inner workings of the ArbCom and RfC and actually saw/read what does go on with both the users and admin Jimbo would be in a world of poo.

Wiki is suppose to be free of all the political mobo-jumbo and sourcing fact's not crap a person's own political party feed's them.

I'm a democrat and my party is far, far, away from ever being perfect and I don't and will not source anything I feel that is there POV. There is a level of integrity I must maintain so I can sleep at night knowing I did something right.

If the admin that are so tired of doing there job they should quit and recommend a user that will replace in both actions and honour. Not this bullshit on Adam's rFc that simply got swept under the rug.

If I was in arm's reach of any of those blokes right now insurance would be a high priority for them. Especially a few good dentist would be needed. Opps I broke the Wales carnal of law and violated WP:CIVIL. Oh well **it happen's but I am sick of seeing admin and users simply getting away with stuff that even good ole Presi Bush and his silly cronnies would gotten bent. Just don't ask for Cheney to come along. He might graze your cheek with some bird shot.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I didn't think 172 was a admin at all. Sometime back Jimbo de-soped him for abuse of power's. Maybe I am wrong.

In 172's second ArbCom case, he apparently agreed to give up his AdMin authority, so as to avoid further action against him by ArbCom.

[kotepho]

He doesn't have the sysop bit. Special:Listusers
The diff you show is just removing the tag, and it was sprotected anyways (so non-admins can edit). The tag has no effect on the actual status of the page.
Special:Log shows that 172 has never used an admin power on [[Cuba]]. The page is semi-protected by Freakofnuture currently. His full protection log
Meta rights log en. rights log

[Sgrayban]

Thought I would mention that I still have a couple good admin allies on the wikifront and I have just pointed out both Adam's and 172 problems they still seem to have.

I think this is going to get very interesting in the next 12 hours.

[Sgrayban]

Someone got creative in editing on Adam's user page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=51642149

[blissyu2]

You mean this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=51642149

[Sgrayban]

either/or -- both show the same thing.

[Sgrayban]

CJK is a supporter of Adam Carr and look what he's post's on his talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CJK...ions_to_history

Holy Crap!!

Oh man his userpage is even uggg better http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CJK

[blissyu2]

We had an argument on here before, that was quite heated, where we were trying to determine whether USA was a democracy, whether Russia was ever communist, and whether Australia and Sweden were socialist democracies.

See, the majority view is that USA is a democracy, that Russia, at least from the Russian revolution through to when they embraced democracy, was communist, and that both Australia and Sweden are currently socialist democracies, Sweden having only recently changed to this and Australia being named as such for almost 100 years.

However, these are debatable. And it really depends on your definition.

If we take the view that a democracy is merely somewhere that anyone can vote, then yes, USA is a democracy, whilst Soviet Russia clearly was not. And of course both Australia and Sweden are democracies too.

And if we take the view that communism is merely somewhere that allows an even distribution of wealth then Soviet Russia, Sweden and Australia are all communist states.

But it really depends on your specific view on this, and it is very much debatable.

Cuba of course regards itself as communist, but also has on many occasions pointed out that it is also a democracy. Therefore, it could be argued that Cuba, like Sweden and Australia (and indeed, we could also argue Britain is the same) is a socialist democracy.

Its not a simple, clear cut thing, and certainly not something you should say without a reference.

[Lir]

See, the majority view is that USA is a democracy

I dunno, I keep hearing that its a federal republic, for which it stands.

If we take the view that a democracy is merely somewhere that anyone can vote, then yes, USA is a democracy, whilst Soviet Russia clearly was not.

But in the US, 'anyone' can't vote -- many people are exempt, felons for example; and in Soviet Russia, they did have voting! Hell, here in the US I haven't voted on anything since 2004, and I'm not even sure my vote was counted; and since then, I think there has been only one opportunity to vote, and I didn't bother to do so, since it was just voting for some city councilman to vote for me.

And if we take the view that communism is merely somewhere that allows an even distribution of wealth then Soviet Russia, Sweden and Australia are all communist states.

But none of those states had, or ever had, an even distribution of wealth! And furthermore, what makes you think that the definition of communism involves an even distribution?

[blissyu2]

Australia has the lowest variation between rich and poor in the world. Fact.

You can talk about "even distribution of wealth" but Australia is the very definition of this. It even surpasses communism. And that is one of the fundamental precepts of communism.

[Lir]

Australia has the lowest variation between rich and poor in the world. Fact.

Can you provide a source? Im hesitant to ask, since you got so upset last time, but people tend to expect sources for statements like that. According to this site: http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1093582.htm, 10% of Australians control 50% of the wealth, and the poorest 10% control a negative percentage of wealth -- that hardly sounds like Australia has achieved wealth distribution at all.

[Lir]

World Bank stats...

The top three listed are Slovakia, Belarus, and Hungary; which was a surprise -- followed by Denmark, Japan, and Sweden, which was not.

[blissyu2]

Those stats certainly don't look right to me, and aren't the ones that the government here has been using for decades. Yes, Brazil should be up the top in terms of worst difference between rich and poor, but so should USA. Why isn't Australia even in the top 30? That's ridiculous, to say the least. Perhaps they didn't list it in there. Most countries have some variation, its just a matter of how much. But I can tell you this - there is no poverty here. Absolutely zero. You can go through the streets here, and there is no homeless. Well, there are, but they are by choice, in 3 categories: career criminals, drug addicts and runaway children. And even they are not permanently homeless, and can be given hostels and food and money from the government. We have welfare for life, and our welfare payments are very high, comparable with minimum wage. In most parts of the country (in all but the ultra rich areas) what you get on welfare is easily enough to get you a roof over your head, enough food to eat, and enough money to pay your bills and have a small amount of luxury. This is available for everyone for life. And if it isn't enough, there is a government guarantee that they will take care of you.

No other country has this. You think of anywhere in the world, and they don't have a comparable system. Oh but wait, you'll say I'm lying about this too, won't you?

I suppose this is like how I introduced "original research" in to the Port Arthur massacre article, by being the only person that linked to actual references, in a totally unreferenced article, and because I quoted from those references while everyone else who referred to them said the opposite to what the reference said therefore I should have been banned over it.

[Lir]

But I can tell you this - there is no poverty here. Absolutely zero.

Come on now, you know thats not true; at the very least, the aborigines that live in the bush and shit -- they are poor dude!