Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Adam Carr

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. Merecat 04:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This RfC should now be deleted

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  repost from project page 

message: 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)
replies: text: Bruce, give it a break will you. Mystork user is an obvious sockpuppet. -- Merecat 17:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "obvious"  How have you reached that conclusion?  Do you know the answers to anything I asked above? BruceHallman 18:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Banning of user Mystork 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Please look at the situation with fresh eyes