Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lawrence Cohen

Lawrence Cohen

Voice your opinion (talk page) (19/12/6); Scheduled to end 03:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence Cohen (talk · contribs) - This evening I have the honor to nominate Lawrence Cohen (talk · contribs) for adminship. Lawrence has been a member of the community since August 2007 and has amassed in that time, over 11,000 edits, while accumulating a respectable number of recognitions by his fellow Wikipedians. In this time he has also created 100 articles & redirects. His best contribution is probably Storm botnet, which he brought to featured status and saw on the Main page on March 16th. Other accolades include 2 GAs and a DYK as well as a pending GA review. For his efforts, he has been awarded a Triple Crown.

Lawrence has also been active in the management of the project. He is a regular contributor at AN, ANI(400+ edits!), AIV, RSN, and RFPP. He has rollback and uses it to revert vandals. Further, he has been involved in dispute resolution, providing input and comments into many of the RFARs that have taken place in recent months.

According to my research, he is adept at using Twinkle to nominate articles accurately for CSD and AFD. Based on the diversity of his contributions to the mainspace, imagespace, wikipedia, wikitalk, user, usertalk, and template, I believe he has a firm understanding of the way in which the community operates and will make a fine janitor MBisanz ^talk 03:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thank you. Lawrence § t/e 14:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: To start if the RFA passes, I'd like to do my fair share of the basic toilet work: speedy deletions, WP:RFPP, WP:RM, WP:AIV coverage, and protected edit requests--the drudgery work that ties more seasoned admins up from doing other things. Eventually, I'd like to help cover AFD, the 3RR noticeboard, and Arbitration enforcement later on as an admin, as time permits. But, at heart I'm more of a gnome type, so I'd end up probably sticking with the first group of mentioned areas more often than not. I'd (hopefully) be fairly dull as an admin, as those who know me know that I can be fairly tenacious on the idea of admins not using tools in areas they're involved in already except in dire circumstances (obvious repeating vandal, for example, on an article you're a regular on).

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Storm botnet, as MBisanz mentioned. Something about the idea of the topic just totally caught my eye, and I had a blast researching it up. To the casual reader, it was almost like a commercialized version of Skynet from Terminator, when it was really just something far more mundane and dull. Beyond that I'm proud of Ballard Carnegie Library, my second GA, and I'm happy with where Bezhin Meadow is turning out, an odd tale of an old film that the USSR destroyed (when I have the willpower to slog through the sources on it). I did probably 95-99% of the edits on those articles--not the Terminator ones--before they got GA/FA status. Working with others, I'm very pleased with the cleanup that was done on Blackwater Worldwide and Waterboarding, which I would like to get to FA as well... someday. They might not ever, due to being social hot potatoes, but what’s the point in life if not to try?

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Very, very early on I was doing RC patrol (it seemed like an easy way to start helping out--look for people trying to break the site). I came across Joe Szwaja and ended up rewriting large portions of it that were a copyvio, when two people were in some silly political dispute (I don't recall their specific beef now). It was here I met User:Jehochman, who my first reaction to was "Why is this guy giving me beef?" until I realized he was trying to calm things down by getting to the point of the problem those users were having. He's become a good mentor to me, since then, and I thank him.

I've unfortunately gotten a pretty good view of the dispute resolution process early on because of the endless WP:NPOV wars we used to have on Waterboarding, which ultimately culminated on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding. There we uncovered--this was all confirmed about 5-6 weeks after that RFAR closed on a series of Checkuser confirmed findings on AE--that the suspicions myself, several admins, and a few other regular editors had were true, and that the main "opponents" on the other side of that conflict were nearly all sockpuppets of a banned user and serial sockmaster. Those who followed WP:ANI around late January 2008/early February 2008 probably got fairly sick of the waterboarding battles spilling over to there, and everywhere else on Wikipedia. It had originally been about 2-3 months of fairly quiet, circular, intense, but very congenial debate between people of various political stripes.

That changed the day the Sock Armies arrived en masse, eventually culminating in all sorts of bizarre nonsense like a Harvard University class project deciding to take a single unified position on the status of the waterboarding article and arriving to all "register and vote" the same day. My patience after months and months of trying to run shepherd on the mess finally began to crack, and I began to ask plead for help on various noticeboards more and more vocally (I admit, in the week leading up to the RFAR, somewhat shrilly, but that was after about 4.5 months of User:Neutral Good and the many faces of User:BryanFromPalatine's attention).

The more people that came to look, the more the socks became entrenched, which finally led to the RFAR. The biggest thing I took away from this was to

1) Say what you mean, when you mean it, rather than how you think people would like to hear your thoughts--I'm not particularly interested in winning political points, unfortunately, if that wasn't obvious yet. The early months of discussion on waterboarding were nice enough, but nothing overly productive ever came of it. Content discussion for the sake of empty discussion doesn't help Wikipedia, doesn't advance an article or the project, and just ties people up. It taught me here to just cut through the skin to get to the meat quickly. I will go out of my way now to not waste others' time, since all only have so many edits per day in us. Every edit that is taken away from Article space for pointless gamesmanship is a potentially lost edit.

2) Don't try to be Superman. None of us can save the day individually. Screaming/asking/begging for help is perfectly acceptable if a car is bearing down on you (preferably, before it's already hit you).

My major regret with that issue is that I waited so long to get 'outsiders' more involved, because it let the situation turn into a larger festering mess.

Question from User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back

4. Please tell us which currently active administrators you respect the most and why.

User:Jehochman was the first admin I worked with here, and he's consistently (maybe to a fault, sorry J!) patient and always extremely thoughtful in his actions, going out of the way to research things before taking a deliberate action. I've tried to emulate him in this, but as mentioned by myself and some of both the support and opposes below, I tend to be more likely to speak out sooner. As I've mentioned before, though, speaking out is not the same as hitting a button. I'm sure everyone has seen me constantly repeating my mantra--don't use tools if you're involved. User:FT2 and User:Lar I admire, since they both go above and beyond and out of their way to explain the reasoning behind their actions, especially administratively and as an Arb, in the case of FT2. User:Doc glasgow I admire for his unwavering tenacity on any and all WP:BLP issues: this is singularly important to us, and we can't give an inch on BLP. User:JzG, who I sometimes disagree with, and don't agree with his swiftness to use admin tools, I greatly respect as I do Doc for his unwavering loyalty to WP:NPOV. If Wikipedia is going to be viable and relevant in five years, we'll stand or fall based on how we enforce those two policies, along with article content. Everything else is window dressing. Lawrence § t/e 20:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

General comments

• See Lawrence Cohen's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Lawrence Cohen: Lawrence Cohen (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Lawrence Cohen before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. El_C 05:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Support - User is prolific (WP:ANI - Yikes!), versatile and experienced. While accolades and awards don't mean all that much, nice crown. : ) Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 14:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Exceptional candidate on paper, but tempremant issues worry me. Rudget (review) 14:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
4. I had actually been contemplating a nomination myself, believe it or not. I think Lawrence is a very promising newcomer (who happens to have a very cool first name :) but I digress. ) that can bring a lot to the project. Avruch raises some good points, equanamity is a good thing, and I'd advise Lawrence to keep the concerns raised in mind. Passion is a good thing, as long as it does not take us too far. That said, I support this nomination because I think the project will be better off if LC has the tools. ++Lar: t/c 14:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
5. I disagree with Avrush, something tells me this is gonna be a great success--Phoenix-wiki 15:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
6. Support - While Lawrence is certainly passionate about topics that interest him, he maintains a clear block log. He understands not to go too far and I trust that he will not administrate in areas where he is editing. Jehochman ^Talk 15:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
7. Support - I've been continually impressed by Lawrence Cohen's actions and judgment ever since I first interacted with him sometime in January. (I accidentally spent about two hours reading Storm botnet and its references because it was so well written...) Sean William @ 15:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
8. Support based on my experience of this user. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
9. He's not an admin? I need to pay better attention. Wizardman 15:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
10. Weak support. Being openly passionate about the project is generally a good and all-too-rare quality in admins, but the opposition's concern are nevertheless valid. Should this request not succeed, by all means keep going and try again in a while. Dorftrottel (canvass) 16:20, April 5, 2008
11. Weak support per Dorftrottel. I've interacted with Lawrence several times, most notably over the Waterboarding issue where we were on opposing sides of the debate. I thought, and still think, that he was entirely wrong about it. But I nevertheless support this request, because in all my discussions with him, I see many positive characteristics: a powerful mind, coupled with a passionate commitment to the project and to doing the right thing. Yes, he can at times be opinionated and argumentative (like me, in fact), but this is not necessarily a bad thing; I respect editors who are not afraid to engage with controversial issues, and, to his credit, he is always willing to engage in constructive debate. Furthermore, I respect his integrity, and I've seen nothing to suggest that he would be an abusive administrator. (Indeed, the worst administrators are often those who avoid controversy pre-RfA, pass with 100% support, and then become increasingly rogue once given the admin tools, knowing that they're unlikely to lose them.) Lawrence has a clean block log and does not have a history of edit warring. As no one has called into question either his experience (which is more than adequate) or his fundamental good faith, I see no conclusive reason to oppose. Walton^One 16:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
12. Support - may be controversial, but reminds me of many current admins. Just the problem is, he's not already an admin, and thus saying things that he sometimes says will kill any chance of successful RFA. I don't think he'll abuse admin tools, but as this will probably not pass, I suggest keeping such comments for when you are already an admin. Majorly (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

    Comment Those who harbour admin ambitions at least, unfortunate but true, and whatever the outcome Lawrence should remain open in his passion. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

13. Weak Support This user is a fine editor. He has done much to help improve wikipedia, and we are all appreciative of that. Thanks for your work so far. He is not without controversy however. He has a tendency to be very passionate, however, he has never "crossed the line". I don't believe he will abuse the tools, so I will support you.--SJP (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
14. Strong support — works tirelessly to uphold NPOV. I agree entirely with Majorly. EJF (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
15. Support evidence of 'pedia building is a positive. Civility could be better but not a deal-breaker for mine. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
16. Support. Prolific and thoughtful. See also Lar. Cool Hand Luke 19:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
17. Switched from oppose, Lawrence has the best of intentions and appears to me to genuinely care about the encyclopedia. In the recent MFD I also made the same observation that the nom was in bad faith, albeit only to myself in my head and I can't really criticise someone for voicing my own thoughts. As Majorly notes above, if he had kept his head down and only opened his mouth once he became an admin no one would really have had a problem with it. I don't believe Lawrence will misuse the tools in a way that will drive newbies away from the project as to my recollection he's never advocated blocking or deleting when smaller measures will do. I just reviewed his last 1000 Wikipedia space contributions and I think his behaviour in the Mantanmoreland case was exemplary. Furthermore, I wish more people would get involved in controversial topics instead of brushing it away with hand waving about how we should all get on and edit the encyclopedia. I don't see how it can be claimed that he's only interested in drama as he has FAs, Gas and DYKs to his name and has created a bunch of articles. That in itself says to me that he has the best interests of the encylopedia in mind. -- Naerii 19:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
18. Support – This editor is a contributor to Wikipedia, almost every single one of the oppose opinions, to date except for a few, state the value of this editor;”… First rate editor, valuable Wikipedian, impressive article-space work, I am all for being passionate” and so on and so on. The crouch of the oppose opinions is the temperament of Lawrence Cohen and I have to say Tiptoety’s reference, that he supplied, pushed me to support. Thank you Tiptoety’s for the research. In reviewing Lawrence Cohen comments are they a little trite and to the point yes! But sometimes you do need that to move things along. Could Lawrence Cohen be more PC at times, of course, couldn’t we all, especially me. Overall Lawrence Cohen not only has earned the extra buttons, but in his hands Wikipedia will benefit from his use of the extra buttons. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
19. Support – Careful and intelligent work on Blackwater-related articles. --Pleasantville (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Lawrence is a passionate, dedicated and valuable Wikipedian. I am sad to say, therefore, that I don't believe that he has the temperament to be an administrator. Many times I have seen Lawrence go overboard rhetorically on an issue he feels is important, only to be drawn back in time by the community. I personally have advised him on at least one or two occasions to consider taking a break - during the IRC case comes to mind, I believe. Just yesterday at a nomination for MfD Lawrence described the nominator and nomination as "bad faith nom by an obvious sockpuppet" and defended his accusation of bad faith at AN/I by saying that it happens all the time. Only when Dmcdevit pointed out that AGF is still policy did he say "Point taken." I haven't seen his last edit to that page (with an edit summary that he had it on good authority that the nominator was a "good person" after all) but prior to that I'd seen no apology for what clearly offended the nominator. By itself this incident isn't a deal-breaker, but it represents a pattern of judgment that suggests to me that Lawrence might use his administrator tools inadvisedly in a dispute in the future. I'm sorry, Lawrence - I think it not unlikely that this RfA will pass, and I hope that none of my concerns come to pass. Your contributions and work are valued by many, including me, whatever the outcome. Avruch ^T 14:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

   Thanks, Avruch. For what its worth, three total people mailed me after that misunderstanding yesterday, to clear up my concerns, and I mailed Nonvocalscream as well--that entire thing is sorted out, between us. I do get passionate, at times, but I'm just as passionate about admins not using tools in situations they're involved with. Lawrence § t/e 14:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

2. Rueful Oppose. I hate to break WP:AAAD, but Avruch put it in a way I couldn't phrase any better myself. 21655 ^τalk/ _ʃign 15:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose per behaviour across Wikipedia, much of which is fairly similar to the behaviour displayed at Wikipedia:MFD#Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly.2FEpisode_6. I understand Lawrence's comment above, but the fact that is required an administrator to weigh in and clarify a policy like AGF would tend to suggest that he's not nearly ready to become an administrator. Nick (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose -- My main interactions with Lawrence have been in {{afd}}. I would be happy to support a request for administrator from a correspondent who disagreed with me, provided they demonstrated they made a fair-minded effort to really consider my point of view, offered civil replies to the points I made. I make an effort to really weigh the arguments offered by those who disagree with me. I make an effort to acknowledge when one of my correspondents makes a good point, that weighs against my arguments. I make an effort to openly acknowledge when I realize I was mistaken. I expect my correspondents to make a similar effort.
   • Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zahid Al-Sheikh. Lawrence nominated the article on Zahid Al-Sheikh for deletion on the basis that he was a "not-notable" Guantanamo captive. Lawrence didn't read the article closely enough to see that Zahid Al-Sheikh was not a Guantanamo captive, he is the older brother of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, an important al Qaeda captive, and he also played a prominent role in Afghanistan himself. No one forces us to read wikipedia articles. But, if we are going to nominate an article for deletion it is a good idea to actually understand what it says. Please note that Lawrence never acknowledged that he nominated this article for deletion, for bogus reasons, without actually reading it properly. Acknowledging mistakes is important. Lawrence couldn't do it. Unless Lawrence has made some huge changes in the last six months, I am very concerned by his accepting this nomination. We are all human, and fallible. I regard being able to recognize their own fallibality, when considering questions about their rulings, an absolutely essential quality in a wikipedia administrator. If Lawrence can establish a track record showing he has changed I would be happy to reconsider. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

   Took me a while to decide on this one, but no, I don't trust you with the admin tools. Sorry. -- Naerii 16:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

5. Oppose with regret. See [1] for an example of the sort of thing that makes me uncomfortable here. Guy (Help!) 16:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose. I have put a lot of thought into this request. I very rarely oppose editors on requests for adminship, but I feel somewhat inclined to do so in this case. Of course, this is with a touch of regret: Lawrence is a first-rate editor, and does some impressive article-space work. However, in a similar vein to the above opposing editors, I simply do not think he has the temprament suitable for a project administrator. I get the feeling that his use of the sysop. tools will inflame a lot of disputes he encounters, rather than neutralise them. The link given by Guy, above, is but one example: there are plenty more. I simply don't think that, at the moment, he is suitable or ready to become an administrator. Anthøny 16:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose per many of the others above. I too believe their are serious temprament issues here and I believe that this would only increase if he got the tools. I've seen him attempt to increase drama a little too often, most recently with this pointless request for clarification at RfArb that has been speedily archived. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose current interest in WP seems to be engaging in controversy. There is reason to fear he might use the tools inappropriately. DGG (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

   There's quote a bit of a logical gap right where you assume a link between passionate participation in discussions and likeliness of controversial admin actions. But it's clear from your camp that you must oppose, so you're excused. Just making up some arbitrary reason to oppose is not an easy task I suppose. Dorftrottel (ask) 20:25, April 5, 2008

9. Oppose - Mainly because of temprament issues, and a bit too much drama as shown here, here, here, and here. I am all for being passionate about something, but there is a fine line. Tiptoety ^talk 18:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose Sorry, but too likely to cause controversy. Epbr123 (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
11. Oppose Per above concerns and the argument by Tiptoety. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
12. The recent display of instant bad faith towards NonvocalScream was disturbing to me; around a minute of research would have revealed that Scream has write access to the WMF wiki, as well as access to every info-, permissions-, and photosubmissions- queue on OTRS. Abusive sockpuppets obviously wouldn't be privy to our most sensitive areas. My point here is that Lawrence may jump into something without fully getting a read on the situation first, and cause some harm. east.718 at 20:20, April 5, 2008

    In my defense on the Scream issue, he wasn't listed on the OTRS meta page on his present name until after our conversation. For what its worth... Lawrence § t/e 20:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Like a mosquito or a moth to the porch light, I see Lawrence gravitating to the ZDOTW (ZOMG Drama of the Week). I'm not sure, to be perfectly frank, that we need more admins rubbernecking at the ZDOTW and expressing the opinion that this or that remedy is The Most Important Thing Possible, which I seem to regularly see. Lawrence is, I think, a moth -- kind and certainly more reasonable than many of the usual suspects and drama mongers at ANI/RFAR. But I worry it's only a matter of time before the tools are used, er..., creatively; ANI moves to RFAR; RFAR moves to some project page; strong opinions derail that process; etc., etc., ad nauseam. Sorry, and look, I'm neutral, but the way to break out of the cycle is by letting go every now and then unless it's really an issue that you're involved with. We don't need to enlarge our professional drama corps. --JayHenry (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

   Bizarre as it may sound, I actually think drama can often be a good thing. It's a mark of a healthy and active community that we can, and do, criticise each other, sometimes harshly. While WP:DGAF is all very well, expressing strong views on controversial issues is a mark of an editor's heartfelt passion for the project. Lawrence and I usually disagree on the major wiki-issues of the day, but IMO his willingness to get involved in controversy, and to speak his mind, is a major positive characteristic. Walton^One 16:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

2. Neutral -- wow this is my first ever neutral! The user meets my criteria but the concerns raised by Avruch are very worrying! Sorry --Cameron (t|p|c) 15:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
3. I'm neutral also. LC, you're article contributions are stellar. I've also found myself enjoying your sound logic and debate style, and believe that you are quite probably one of the most intelligent writers we have. However, there are times when you seem to go too far with a conversation and it feels like you Just Can't Let It Go^TM if you feel you've somehow been wronged, slighted, or misunderstood. This link here is one example where you've been "asked to leave" a conversation that has blown out of proportion. I will not oppose you for this, mostly because it was me who asked you to leave, but also simply because you are absolutely passionate about this project, and passion is a good thing. I will never oppose someone for adminship because they dare stick their toes in the muddy waters of controversial topics with the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. I won't oppose someone for coming to the defense of another editor either. I might even switch to support, but that link/conversation left a really bad taste in my mouth for the same reasons as Avruch and JayHenry pointed out. You seem to easy to join the drama (or drama joins you), which is OK, but I'm not convinced that LCohen+buttons will help matters. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Really like the user, but the NTWW nom is worrying. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
5. I have gone back and forth on this one. I believe that you are a great editor, but I don't think you'd be suited for an admins work. Like others have said, you are a "drama-magnet." I would be willing to support an RFA from you after three months with no drama beyond the norm. Sorry, Malinaccier (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
6. Neutral, because I had positive experience with the candidate in the following discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bantha, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Barker (athlete), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frogs in popular culture (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Sander, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Six Feet Under deaths, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters from The Simpsons (fourth nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TV Links, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Florida Taser incident, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O. J. Simpson Las Vegas robbery case, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Blessing Way (The X-Files), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Crocker (internet celebrity), but I am not quite as confident in the judgment expressed in these: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloverfield (creature), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lost ships of Starfleet, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nirvana band members, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Worms weapons, tools, crates and objects (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charter School of the Dunes. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)