User talk:Lawrence Cohen

This is Lawrence Cohen's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9: 31 days


Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #167

Welcome to my page! Unless you specifically tell me otherwise, I will respond to you here for any conversations begun by you here. On the same side, if I start a talk with you, I will watch your page for at least a few days after my last message to you to see responses there.

§ § §

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 31 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives

● 30 August 2007-17 January 2008
● 17 January 2008-now

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by .

Today is June 8, 2024 02:24:08, according to the server's time and date.

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Pickersgill-Cunliffe	0	0	0	N/A	Discussion	00:35, 15 June 2024	6 days, 22 hours	no	report

GDS

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		And others. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

blp

Not remotely. everything I mentioned is covered in the article.Geni 23:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're trolling a BLP subject. Anyone who does that deserves an unpaid vacation. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

are you accuseing me of paid editing to wikipedia? And no I'm not.Geni 23:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could care less if someone were paid to edit here, I wish people were, for all it matters, if they churn out neutral Featured Articles. Unpaid vacation = block. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm british so I think the term is gardening leave. In any case threats will get you no where. I've gone head to head with everyone to two bit vandales to rouge admins to board memebers. Do you honestly think I can be intimidated by a few threats of blocking? Try logical debate.Geni 23:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logic falls by the wayside vs not harming others. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just a traveler from the afd page but I think that you are being pretty rough with Geni. You've suggested three times now (included on the afd page for Giovanni di Stefano) that Geni should/would be banned/blocked for not supporting your view on BLP. Furthermore, you have repeatedly claimed, without any justification, that "do no harm" should be the foremost tenet of wikipedia, not NPOV, not notability, not freedom from censorship. Keep in mind that 'do no harm' is NOT the overriding operating principle of wikipedia, nor does 'ignore all rules' dictate that one particular opinion should win out. As a matter of fact, IAR is there so that consensus should not be constrained by wikilawyering. Furthermore you are prepared to threaten or visit harm upon a wiki user in order to assert your feelings about a contentious biography. now I'm not saying that you are going to come around and feel differently than you do. I just wish you would accept that we are going to move forward based on consensus and that consensus might not reflect your personal interpretation of BLP.Protonk (talk) 03:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Andrew J. Moonen

I have nominated Andrew J. Moonen, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew J. Moonen. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I really did just do that. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Doc glasgow/BLP watch

Feel free to add stuff yourself if it obviously raises issues of provacy, subject's preference, or general decency.--Doc^g 23:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

can't, my RFA didn't pass. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What has that to do with it? Experienced editors do not need to be admins to do whatever does not involve those buttons, please reconsider your argument. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I think I protected it, I'll reduce to semi.--Doc^g 00:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doc! Squeak, I wasn't arguing that I didn't want to edit it. :) Lawrence Cohen § t/e 00:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks indeed doc, I know I haven't edited the page but nice to know I can. And that Lawrence can too. And thanks for the heads up, Lawrence, I hadn't checked. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

di Stefano deletion

You're not helping your argument by repeating it over and over and over again, you're just looking a little hysterical. Please don't accuse folks of wanting to hurt di Stefano or lacking moral fiber unless you're prepared to back it up with something much more significant than a keep vote on an AfD with IAR as a rationale. Avruch^T 01:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I think it would be easy to back up the assertions Avruch mentions, calmness is always a good strategy. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is the second or third time today you have insinuated that I have an agenda to harm di Stefano, and for bonus this comment implies I lack moral fiber. If its as easy as you say, I'd very much like to see your assertions backed up. Avruch^T 01:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should do no harm. I certainly have no agenda with you, Avruch, but I do feel that we should have an article about di stefano but the edits Geni and you and DF are making are making this impossible, and I am terribly frustrated by this as a long term editor who broke my wikipedia teeth on Daniel Brandt. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You guys, please give Lawrence a break. If you haven't noticed, his name is on the lawsuit papers filed, along with Avruch. He is probably stressed and is backing his contributions and covering himself. Avruch, I'd be careful what you say too. Everything is logged, and we need to be very careful about this case. Let's all calm down, and wait this out. - ђαίгснгм ^таιќ 05:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ironmanfilmflight.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ironmanfilmflight.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sanchez is evading his block again

After your comments yesterday, Sanchez has decided to attack you on the Matt Sanchez talk page via a sock, and continue editing his article, evading his ban. Here's his new sock handle: [1]. --Tanstaffl (talk) 14:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tanstaffl looks rather sockish. Jehochman ^Talk 14:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AE and WP:RFCU. Murky situation with significant chance of a joe job. Durova^Charge! 17:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing personal

I see where you're coming from; I just don't think it will help. Durova^Charge! 17:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I know. Something has to give on this, sooner or later. :( Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The RFAR

Lawrence, my friend - do you think you could, in about 10 minutes and after a walk around the block perhaps, consider tempering your language a bit there? It would be very helpful. You see, the steam coming out of your ears is fogging up my monitor... ;-) Thanks. Risker (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good idea. But adminship be damned, the right thing is more important. :( Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with adminship, Lawrence. You want your message to be heard and given the respect it deserves; you want to motivate Arbcom to take the case. Given some of the perceptions amongst that group about what is and isn't civil (as inconsistently or conveniently applied as they may be), it works in your favour to present a head-over-heart argument. Risker (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admins

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Admins have no extra authority in debates, and his closure is contrary to what was understood at the end of the DRV. They have access to tools, that is all. -- Ned Scott 22:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know I'm the first person to agree with that, and have gone to bat in such matters before. But the closing of debates like this is one of the few priveledges that lay with admins over regular users. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 22:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His closure is based on the idea that the DRV had the final call in the matter, which isn't the case. And it's just gaming the system. Any admin can come along and force these things, and that forces other users to start a DRV, then the user who starts a DRV is called disruptive. This is wrong. -- Ned Scott 22:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets move this over to Thatcher's talk page. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 22:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You could just ask me to do that normally. -- Ned Scott 22:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you started that ANI thread in reaction to Brandt throwing an off-wiki hissy fit? Shame on you, I would have expected you to not feed the trolls. -- Ned Scott 22:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, in response to JoshuaZ's provacations towards a BLP subject. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I filed the ANI request to topic-ban Josh from Brandt after seeing his RFD end-run and Brandt's outrage as a BLP subject on Wikipedia Review." And it should be painfully clear that Joshua was under the impression that the DRV closing admin as ok with the RFD. We've since cleared that up as not being the case, but Joshua didn't know that when he started the RfD. What the hell are you trying to do to this guy? -- Ned Scott 23:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is trying to get him banned from the Daniel brandt topic, a proposal many agree with. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm asking for a preventative measure to get an ex-admin who may have abusively used sockpuppets to stack a Brandt DRV to leave the BLP subject alone on-wiki. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(SqueakBox) It's a proposal that many disagree with as well

(Lawrence) I've never used sockpuppets, I never was an admin, and the matter isn't personal for me. Are you going to propose a topical ban when I take my next step in this? I don't know if he used socks or not, I don't know if it's personal or not, but every rationale he has given in this discussion is completely valid. The deletion of the redirect, the deletion of the article history, the way that well known admins are getting away with gaming the system, is wrong. -- Ned Scott 23:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ned, that is so. But its when a proposal gets universal disagreement that people think, hey maybe this was a completely bad call (as I think they would if someone proposed for a ban on you editing this topic) whereas a proposal as disputed as this one at least has some value to it. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To echo Thatcher, fuck process and fuck policy wonkery. Our voices are what matter, not the venue, and that is that. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our voices, our right to make these decisions as a community, have been removed, regardless of venue. -- Ned Scott 23:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you guys had your shot on the DRV and the community obviously doesn't want Daniel Brandt. Is that only valid if they don't want it for rules-based reasons you all can't wriggle out of with process games and nonsense like that? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the mosst discussed article/redirect the community has ever dealt with. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With a vast majority of the over-all discussion not supporting anything even close to the situation we have now. What you have is people who were run into the ground, and got tired of the debate and gave up. You have people wanting to delete it not because of the merits of the discussion, but because the word "drama" gets thrown around. -- Ned Scott 23:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)Like I said on the other page, "OMG, not again, endorse deletion, DRAMA" bullshit has no value on Wikipedia. It's why we are (normally) not mob ruled. And how dare you accuse me of that crap when I've taken all of the proper steps in this situation, and yet people like WJB and Doc g get away with deleting actions that directly violate AfDs and DRVs. They stack the deck in their favor and get away with it, not because the community supported it, but because they gamed the system. You might be able to interpret Joshua's actions as gaming the system, since now we know that these was confusion regarding his discussion with the DRV closing admin, but how dare you accuse me of that. -- Ned Scott 23:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm saying that I could give a fig about "venue" discussion or process discussion. It's a waste of time. Fuck process. Are we mob ruled? Sometimes, yes, and thats what that is, and thats the way it is. RFA is a mob, AFD is a mob, DRV is a mob, policy discussion is a mob. I'm sick as hell of people dressing things up other than what they are, and I frankly could care less who I annoy by pointing that out anymore. We're a barely organized mob that lurches back and forth. Policy keeps from teetering most days too far. But we are a mob, and it's a waste of time to pretend otherwise. The community has basically decided, and thats that. Take it to RFAR, honestly. Theres not much else left for recourse, unless you file another DRV. Every admin is going to shut down a reopen of the RFD at this point. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ned, if it helps to understand my mindset, you and I are generally on the same page. My probably singular biggest annoyances are gaming of NPOV, and considering process more important than the opinions and ideas themselves that are expressed. The venue is irrelevant, really, to me: the weight of the voice is what matters. And there was simply a shitload more people that endorsed deletion than otherwise. Is the community burned out on Brandt? Apparently, yes. Is this a principle thing for you guys, to keep hammering this? I don't understand. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stepping away from this for a while. I'm sorry, this situation is bringing out a monster in me that I don't like at all. I shouldn't be treating you like this. I'm really sorry. -- Ned Scott 00:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CAMERA

Usually I'd tell you it is a bad idea to get involved in more DRAMA, but I had no idea this Wikilobby issue = CAMERA. When I dealt with this at COIN a month or so ago, I thought they'd agreed not to do this sorta thing. Fully supporting you on the DR process. MBisanz ^talk 16:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I about blew my top when I saw how bad they were aiming to troll NPOV. Not even troll--this is prison sex territory. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Passover

Just want to wish you a happy Passover and I hoped you enjoyed your Seder meals and Matzoh. BuickCenturyDriver (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [2] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excessively strident rhetoric

Excessively strident rhetoric sets a bad example for other editors. Please tone it down and you will be more effective. Jehochman ^Talk 16:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CAMERA editors

Hi, I saw that you started the arbitration request on this issue. I posted earlier on the ANI subpage, but I think it got lost in the discussion on Dajudem. Based on page 3 of the second set of emails and this edit, it appears that user:Jersmum is also a member of this group. He only has two edits to his name, but the first one is exactly as described in the email. Since you started the RFAR, I'll let you decide whether it's worth adding him as a party. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 16:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]