Wikipedia:Wikimediation/Adam Carr and Cognition

User:Cognition has become controversial for his advocacy of his Lyndon LaRouche-based POV on a number of articles, both directly related to LaRouche and unrelated. His editing style involves a lot of reverts, and many people seem to be rubbed the wrong way by his tendency to call historical figures he disagrees with, among other things, "beast-men" and "satanic."

User:Adam Carr has been one of the main people involved in the dispute with Cognition, and has reverted most of his edits because of Cognition's status as a "LaRouchist." He is also hostile when he engages in talk pages, being extremey dismissive of LaRouche, and frequently referring to his jail time for "defrauding old grannies."

Cognition

Comments by Snowspinner

It remains my hope that we'll get a good editor who can explain the LaRouche movement's views in a NPOV manner without sparking edit wars. The last editor to try was Herschel, who's use of sockpuppets to falsely generate consensus and to avoid the 3RR has put something of a pall on LaRouche supporters on Wikipedia. My point here is that there's a real niche to fill if Cognition wants to do it.

The problem is that LaRouche is controversial, and is always going to be controversial, and any pro-LaRouche editor is going to have to be willing to bend over backwards to accommodate what is, in pure factual practice, the overwhelming consensus that LaRouche is not to be taken seriously. He's going to have to accept that articles are not going to reflect the LaRouche view, and be willing to append small sections to a few choice articles that summarize the LaRouche view while also noting that LaRouche does not have mainstream respect. He's going to have to accept that LaRouche sources are not accepted by most Wikipedians, including Jimbo. And above all, he's going to have to strive to overcome the suspicion that many of us have that LaRouche supporters are hostile to the intentions of Wikipedia.

If Cognition wants to do this, I for one would be thrilled. But if he wants to do this, he's going to have to moderate his conduct - ditching the userpage that calls many historical figures satanic and beast-men would be a start, as would picking his battles with a bit more care. Apologizing to Adam Carr might be a powerful gesture of good faith. And accepting that the LaRouche point of view isn't going to be included without making it clear what the source is, and what problems are seen as existing with that source is going to be a must. If Cognition can do these things, I think he can become one of our most valuable contributors.

Adam Carr

Statement by Snowspinner

On a personal level, I largely agree with Adam's opinion of LaRouche and LaRouche supporters. But I have to say, I think the dispute has been made a lot worse by Adam's swiftness to judge and open hostility to Cognition. I'm not complaining about Adam's reverting Cognition - I'd revert most of Cognition's edits that I've looked at. But declaring that he will revert LaRouchists on sight without discussion is a bad thing - it makes the situation necessarily adversarial and with no hope of recovery. I hope Adam can find a way to be the better person here and engage in a more productive mode of discussion, because honestly, I think his open hostility is doing more harm than good for his cause, and, as a supporter of the cause, I find that to be a real pity.

Overall Dispute

I have tried to stay civil with Adam Carr, but I am tired of him being able to get away with breaking the 3RR at will while I'll get blocked whenever an admin can think of an exuse to block me. Any user who declares that he is above the rules, like Adam Carr, is the source of the problem. Adam Carr wrote: "I will revert all edits to all articles on my watchlist by the LaRouche cult "editor" Cognition, or any other recognisable LaRouche editor. I will do this until either the LaRouche cultists are banned from Wikipedia or I am. I don't much care which, since an encyclopaedia which allows crackpot cultists to edit its articles is not worth writing for." He even declared that he was reverting me when he had no particular problems with my edits, just to drive me off Wikipedia for my views. Cognition 04:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)