Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lawrence Cohen

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of arequest for adminshipthatdid not succeed.Please do not modify it.

Lawrence Cohen

Final(talk page) (120/47/13); Ended Sat, 12 Apr 2008 15:19:53 (UTC)

Lawrence Cohen(talk·contribs) - This evening I have the honor to nominateLawrence 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 ofrecognitionsby his fellow Wikipedians. In this time he has also created 100 articles & redirects. His best contribution is probablyStorm botnet,which he brought tofeaturedstatus and saw on theMain pageon 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 atAN,ANI(400+ edits!),AIV,RSN,andRFPP.He hasrollbackand uses it to revert vandals. Further, he has been involved indispute resolution,providing input and comments into many of theRFARsthat have taken place in recent months.

According to my research, he is adept at using Twinkle to nominate articles accurately forCSDandAFD.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 finejanitorMBisanz^talk03:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept. Thank you.Lawrence§t/e14:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

CommentFor what its worth, I had full plans to open myself up to recall if selected, and still do. I'd actually had a conversation with Lar atUser_talk:Lar/Accountability#questionabout the viability of binding voluntary recall. If people are concerned about my potential use of administrator tools in a conflict/area I'm involved with, consider this edit here to be my acceptance of binding recall if I do just that. Hopefully, I'd be allowed to do simple things, like stop an obvious vandal, or semi-protect a page I'd worked on against the sporadic anon-vandal spree we see. If not, not. Simple criteria. Six users in good standing, two of them admins, ask me to step down for using my tools in something I'm involved with, I'm gone as an admin and will ask on Meta to lose my rights as soon as six ask me. Per this edit, no take-backs, and I pre-authorize any Steward (or whoever has authority when/if it comes up) to do just that, or any admin to ask on my behalf per this edit. If I try to take away this binding recall for using my tools on an area I'm involved with in an unacceptable fashion, I also pre-authorize my removal of tools per this edit.

I will still be open to "standard" recall, if six users in good standing, two of them admins, feel I'm not able to fulfill my duties such as they are, as an admin, I will ask for a reconfirmation of my admin status. If I am selected, please refer whomever has power to desysop tothis diff.Lawrence§t/e21:57, 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:AIVcoverage, 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 ofSkynetfromTerminator,when it was really just something far more mundane and dull. Beyond that I'm proud ofBallard Carnegie Library,my second GA, and I'm happy with whereBezhin Meadowis 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 onBlackwater WorldwideandWaterboarding,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 acrossJoe Szwajaand 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 metUser: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 endlessWP:NPOVwars we used to have onWaterboarding,which ultimately culminated onWikipedia: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 followedWP:ANIaround 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 theSock Armiesarrived 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 toaskplead 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 ofUser:Neutral Goodand the many faces ofUser: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 beSuperman.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 fromUser:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back

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

User:Jehochmanwas 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:FT2andUser:LarI 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 glasgowI admire for his unwavering tenacity on any and allWP:BLPissues: 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 toWP: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/e20:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Questions fromDaniel

5.The following two questions relate to your answer to Q1, where you indicate you are interested in getting involved with AfD closes. I would like your opinion how you would close the following two discussions. For the purpose of this hypothetical, please pretend that the discussion has been open for six days (they actually have been open for four). If you could answer by posting your exact rationale that you would use in the AfD (ie."The result was [...]",including or not including additional comments, as you would if you were closing the discussion), it'd be much appreciated.

If there's any reason why youwouldn'tclose on of the two following debates if you were already an administrator, eg. conflict of interest in the subject area, please feel free to say so. I think it'd also be useful to link to thepermanent revisionfor the version of the debate you ultimately review, for context. Thanks,Daniel(talk)05:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

a.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ba-Ba-Bankrobbery:The result was [...]

Based onthis version,I would close it as a merge, and redirect back to the band article forErste Allgemeine Verunsicherung.The new article itself doesn't fully assert notability, saying it was only even in the UK charts for 4 weeks, peaking at 68. Based on the lack of sources, someone hyper-aggressive may even speedy it, but that wouldn't be right here.Lawrence§t/e05:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

b.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Age communities:The result was [...]

Based onthis version,the list at this time is an unsourced mess. Lists themselves don't need to provide notability however--I've never believed this, since a list is just a guide of whats already notable (or should be, for a proper list). A bigger concern is the list has no footnotes, on most entries--even one saying why it's a new age community would be good. Some of the deletes are not that strong despite their tone: we don't delete for subjective reasons, or shouldn't; listsareencyclopediac for purposes here, by repeated tests and consensus; the individual subjects are notable, so that's out (and the "topic" of new age communities is notable in and of itself anyway). Stifle and Dhartung's arguments are most compelling here to me: no sourcing for verifiability and the general vagueness of the list at this time. Phoebe, Jack, and Warden make strong keep points. Based on this, I'd call it a no-consensus, gut the list of unsourced entries, and recommend it go back before AFD in 30-45 days (we're not running a race, here) if it's not fixed up per the Keep recommendations. I'm really neither deletionist nor inclusionist myself, but for this one I'd probably lean towards a weak keep at best; possibly a weak delete if the list were a bit worse or more unfocused. The arguments on both sides are strong and simple here, and there's no harm in putting the list "on notice" for cleanup over the next 5-6 odd weeks before it gets a recommended green light for another AFD review if no one follows through.Lawrence§t/e05:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Question fromUntil(1 == 2)

6.You have expressed belief thatUser:NonvocalScreamis a sockpuppet[1].If you were an admin at the time ofthat MfD,would you have blocked that user as a sock puppet?

Not at all, because we don't block people as sockpuppets on simple assumptions, or shouldn't, without evidence and double checking. I still feel terrible about that, because of the stupid scrutiny it's begun in places. With this sort of thing, even with glaring evidence of sockpuppetry, I'm more of a supporter ofgathering a ton of factsto prove a case and point rather than pulling a trigger and saying gotcha, because that kind of mindset makes us paranoid and irrational, or come off that way. I've said it before: I had a major stupid attack there in my initial judgement call. I've apologized to Scream, and I'll apologize again.Lawrence§t/e01:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

General comments

• SeeLawrence Cohen's edit summary usage withmathbot's tool.For the edit count, see thetalk page.

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

---

Please keep discussion constructive andcivil.If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly reviewSpecial:Contributions/Lawrence Cohenbefore commenting.

Discussion

• Just for clarification, LC and I have worked things out amicably (for those diffs cited below). I was right impressed when he came to my userpage to discuss the issue with me. My preference is for those folks who discuss things late, rather than not at all.
• I have no opinion on this RFA however.Regards,NonvocalScream(talk)16:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. El_C05:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

   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)Changed to Oppose.Wisdom89_(T/^C)16:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

   Exceptional candidate on paper, but tempremant issues worry me.Rudget(review)14:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

2. 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, Isupportthis nomination because I think the project will be better off if LC has the tools. ++Lar:t/c14:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
3. I disagree with Avrush, something tells me this is gonna be a great success--Phoenix-wiki15:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Strong 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^Talk15:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

   Lawrence Cohen's deportment during this challenging RFA shows that he can handle himself. I will remind the closing bureaucrat that editors with high edit counts, especially those who work in difficult areas, tend to attract more opposition, and I hope the results of this discussion will be viewed through that lens.Jehochman^Talk13:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

5. 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 readingStorm botnetand its references because it was so well written...)Sean William@15:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
6. Supportbased on my experience of this user. Thanks,SqueakBox15:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
7. He's not an admin? I need to pay better attention.Wizardman15:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
8. 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
9. Weak supportper Dorftrottel. I've interacted with Lawrence several times, most notably over theWaterboardingissue 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^One16:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
10. 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)

    CommentThose who harbour admin ambitions at least, unfortunate but true, and whatever the outcome Lawrence should remain open in his passion. Thanks,SqueakBox18:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

    I sincerely hope that being unwilling to take firm positions and acting like achameleon,is not a social prerequisite for a successful RFA, or else a great many people that could be good administrators would never become one.Lawrence§t/e21:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

    There was a period of time in the first half of last year when any hesitation in not taking a hard-line stance in support ofWP:BADSITESdoomed your RFA to failure. I need not even mention what happened if you had the temerity to oppose it outright. Many a good candidate was lost to a roving mob of meta-activists who, despite having been warned on multiple occasions that this was toxic for the RFA process, continued to torpedo every "questionable" (in their mind) candidate. I think this may have made some think twice about running and others from candidly voicing their opinions on policy matters in their RFA. --Dragon695(talk)06:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

11. Weak SupportThis 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)
12. Strong support— workstirelesslyto uphold NPOV. I agree entirely with Majorly.EJF(talk)18:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
13. Supportevidence 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)
14. Support.Prolific and thoughtful. See also Lar.Cool HandLuke19:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
15. 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. --Naerii19:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
16. Support– This editor is a contributor toWikipedia,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 ofLawrence Cohenand I have to sayTiptoety’sreference, that he supplied, pushed me to support. Thank youTiptoety’sfor the research. In reviewingLawrence Cohencomments are they a little trite and to the point yes! But sometimes you do need that to move things along. CouldLawrence Cohenbe morePCat times, of course, couldn’t we all, especially me. OverallLawrence Cohennot only has earned the extra buttons, but in his handsWikipediawill benefit from his use of the extra buttons.ShoesssS^Talk19:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

    almost every single one of his oppose opinons, to date except for a few, state the value of this editor.True. LC is a valuable editor. I will also point out thatexcept for a few,almost every single one of his supporters has said, basically, "yes he has a temperament,but...".What's the difference? Both opposers and supporters acknowledge that LC can act/get heated in a discussion when he feels he's in the right. Some!vote support based on that, some oppose. You, Shoessss, need to assume that the opposers have!voted their conscience, as you have most certaily done. As for LC, sometimes he is right. Sometimes he is wrong. He usuallybelieveshe is right though, and from my experience, he has a "I must have the last word" mentality. How will adding a delete/block/protect button set help that? I see no evidence provided, other than LC'sassurances,that new drama won't unfold as a result of sysopping and sysop actions by LC. But I am assuming good faith. I'm not opposing, because LC said he wouldn't use tools where he wasoverlyinvolved. I'm neutral.Keeper|76|Disclaimer14:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

    "because LC said he wouldn't use tools where he was overly involved."

    It's actually more broad than that. Ivowed upon compulsory/binding recallto not use my tools at all in involved areas, barring mundane anti-vandalism matters, which hopefully would be allowed.Lawrence§t/e15:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

    Thanks LC for the clarification, solidifies my neutral, struck the word "overly" above.Keeper|76|Disclaimer15:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

    Thanks Keeper. I'm really not after the tools to have them--I would have self-nominated months ago if I were. The opportunity came up, and I accepted so that I can do my fair share of the housekeeping, and thats it. I've no interest in being the next Great Defender of WP, using the tools to hold evil at bay. I'm a gnome at heart. Every 10 mundane things I could deal with frees up others to do other things.Lawrence§t/e15:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

17. Support– Careful and intelligent work on Blackwater-related articles. --Pleasantville(talk)19:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
18. Tempermemt issues aside, I believe Lawrence is a trustworthy editor. There are admins withfar worsetemperment than he has, and they are valued and respected contributors.Valtoras(talk)22:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
19. SupportUnlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979^{Talk to me}23:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
20. Support.I first of all feel that Lawrence has the judgment necessary to use the admin tools well. He has had some temperament issues, but heishuman, and I think that Lawrence would be a net positive (to use Pedro's phrase) if he were to have the admin tools.Keilana|^{Parlez ici}23:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
21. Strong support- Has the judgment to use the tools appropriately, his contributions to debates have been solid and common sense. Shoessss's and Jehochman's contentions above are pretty spot on. Good luck.Orderinchaos00:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
22. Support.He speaks his mind and is passionate about the project. He does excellent work in article space. He brings important arguments to controversial subjects, both meta and non-meta in nature. We need more admins who are willing to advocate for their fellow editors. --Dragon695(talk)02:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
23. Support.Wow, seriously? Yes, please. ➪HiDrNick!02:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
24. SupportAs nom.MBisanz^talk03:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
25. SupportI trust the judgement of this particular nominator. Also, Lawrence is the sort of colorful person who isn't afraid to state his opinion and stick to it. Make sure you don't get too carried away though.EconomicsGuy(talk)06:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
26. SupportMet him on WP:ANI. Pretty damn intelligent. Like a computer on Wikipedia policies. Oh and by the way, as for his temprament issues that others have brought up, I don't find that as an aggravating circumstance for adminship - that would be purely intent mentalities which I am against. Needless to say, I *love* drama. So what if he's controversial? People whom like things to stay simple tend to have simpler minds. So there's nothing wrong with making things more dramatic - it makes you think outside the box and get a better grip on both sides of the story. I personally don't find it useful for admins to have simpler minds anyways. We do have a Wikipedia: request for de-adminship, and that's a solution, so I really don't care about hypothetical situations.Neal(talk)12:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC).
27. SupportA thoughtful, intelligent editor with judgment who cares about the encyclopedia. Passion can be taken too far, but if you're thoughtful, sincere and not reckless you can rein it in, and I'm confident he can. Wikipedia would be better off with Lawrence as an admin. I was impressed with his comments at the Mantamoreland RFAr and with his ideas on community arbitration.Noroton(talk)16:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
28. Support.Does a great job at the afds's. A little personality can't hurt. --brewcrewer(yada, yada)16:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
29. dvdrw19:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
30. I haven't always agreed with LC's positions on various dramas, but no doubts about his commitment to the project. On the whole I agree with Majorly and Noroton.Angus McLellan(Talk)20:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
31. Supportafter reviewing the concerns expressed below, I don't see any major problems with his being given administrator privileges. I respect that he is placing himself subject to recall. Lawrence is a dedicated and productive contributor to the project.Cla68(talk)22:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
32. Support.I actually swore out loud while trying to decided this one. I had an oppose all written out, the tally updated, but as I was previewing and read the RfA again, I thought, hell, this isn't brain surgery, where a mistake can kill the patient. So what if he's occasionally abrasive and sarcastic; 99% of the time he's a great asset to Wikipedia. I'm cut-n-pasting my oppose vote below for posterity.

    Oppose - I went back and forth on this one for awhile; Lawrence Cohen can display great zeal and exuberance, which isn't necessarily bad - I don't think editors or admins need to be bland.Talk:Waterboardingalmost convinced me to support, butthissort of stuff is just tiresome. And then thinking about it, the same attitude is displayed in this very RfA (that I see Avruch finally called him on in the MfD) - an attitude of having to respond to every differing opinion. Just too much drama and opinion pushing. I should clarify I don't mean the user breaksWP:NPOV,I'm saying there's too often a disrespect for the opinions of people with differing!votes.Tan|3900:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

33. Support,a great wikipedian and the first recipient of the Uga Man presidential barnstar.--Uga Man(talk)UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 200802:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
34. Support--Duk02:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
35. Absolutesupport.MrPrada(talk)03:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
36. Support.It looks like some people are trying to torpedo this on political-correctness grounds because he didn't take the (losing) pro-deletion stance with regard to the podcast with all the banned users in it.*Dan T.*(talk)04:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
37. SupportThere isabsolutely no reasonto believe he would misuse or abuse the tools. In response to opposers, please remember that "too controversial to be an admin" is not a convincing argument.szyslak(t)05:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
38. I like his answer to Q5, although I confess it's a close call between this and neutral because I can certainly see some validity in the comments below.Daniel(talk)05:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
39. Weak support- I had to think over this one for some time. When I met Lawrence Cohen first, it was over the wholeWaterboardingdebacle and the subsequent ArbCom case. Throughout all that, I thought he handled everything excellently. Since then, I've met him again and again at RFCU, mostly relating to Grawp and incarnations and once again, he's been great. I've seen him debate passionately (maybe a littletoopassionately?) over policy matters. What makes me a little twitchy, though are the diffs cited below by Tiptoety and thus, I'm afraid that he might be a little tooBITEyand quick to anger. However, on the whole, his track record elsewhere is keeping me out of the neutral zone. I think he'll be okay -Alison^❤05:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
40. Support.Seems honest enough, little risk of abuse. Re: Alison's point - there areBITEyadmins already, can't say he's necessarily moreBITEythen those.Minkythecat(talk)06:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
41. Supportman of integrity, not likely to abuse his tools in any way. Frankly people opposing because of his support for that podcast are looking rather like a bunch of foxes with sour grapes here.Viridae^Talk07:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
42. Support,good editor, offers good input on controversial admin-related issues.Everyking(talk)11:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
43. Support.If "sometimes can be an asshole" disqualified candidates from adminship, we'd have about 2 admins left.—iridescent12:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
44. Support.Qualified and dedicated user. I trust that the candidate will carefully consider the concerns expressed here, and will adhere to his commitment not to use the tools in any dispute in which he is otherwise involved.Newyorkbrad(talk)13:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
45. SupportThought he already was an admin, and has the judgment needed to be one. Unlikely to abuse the tools. Probably could moderate his language some, but we have other admins that could stand to do that.GRBerry13:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
46. SupportA responsible and very level headed editor. He thinks things through thoroughly before opening his mouth. As an admin he would be a complete asset to the project.Giano(talk)13:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
47. SupportLawrence isn't the least controversial admin candidate we've seen. He has opinions, and doesn't hold them back. But at least we know his opinions, unlike many RfA candidates; and, when carefully parsed, most of his positions are entirely in line with the Five Pillars. He has also demonstrated his ability to address ethical issues, by his willingness to leave the admin tools behind when dealing with areas in which he is involved. He could do with a bit more self-moderation from time to time. So could about half the admins we have now, most of whom I'd never consider recalling.Risker(talk)16:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
48. Support,because I like what I see enough to think sysoping this guy would be a good move.Deacon of Pndapetzim(Talk)16:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
49. On the principle that administrators are allowed to be human beings.Sam Korn^(smoddy)16:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

    If I can, I would like to echo NewyorkBrad and Sam Korn. I've taken a look at the contribution history, and I've taken a look at the past interactions. There is nothing there that would give me the inclination that LC would misuse the tools. I believe (the contributions do not convince me otherwise) the LC will take the advice of this RFA and work a little harder on his temperament. I trust he will use the tools, the way he is supposed to. Admins are human also. Best regards,NonvocalScream(talk)17:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

50. Support.Being passionate about Wikipedia policy isn't a disqualification from being an admin. I've followed various opposers' links to the "dramas" he has participated in (which wouldn't be "dramas" if there weren't large portions of Wikipedia who thought they were important), and in all of them I see him making strong, coherent arguments toward a sensible resolution.rspeer/ɹəədsɹ17:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
51. SupportI think that too many RfAs fail because of "temperament problems" or "This user flies off the handle too easily". Everyone has bad days, and I think that the question should not be "Is this useralwayscivil? ", but rather" How does this user try to rectify the situation if he has made an error? "and" How does this user react when he is called out for his actions? ". When I ask myself those two questions, I think Lawrence would be a good admin.J.delanoy^gabs_adds17:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
52. SupportThe passion and eloquence that people like Lawrence bring here keep this project alive. It's clear that this candidate has above and beyond the experience and tenure that we look for in admins, and I do not think that he will misuse the tools. I am disappointed that this RfA is faltering because this user is not afraid to argue rather than turn the other cheek.GlassCobra17:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
53. Support,capable of clear discussion on controversial topics, abuse unlikely. --Reinoutr(talk)17:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
54. Support.—Athaenara✉18:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
55. Support..With some candidates, you don't really know what you're getting. The candidate has behaved well for a couple of months, written a few articles, reverted vandalism and reported some vandals - but you don't really know how the candidate will act under stress. That is not the case with this candidate. I've mainly interacted with Lawrence on the waterboarding debacle, where he handled himself well through some very frustrating interactions with others over a long period of time, culminating in an arbitration case. On that basis alone, I think he is suitable for adminship. He is willing to engage in controversial areas, perhaps a little too willing, which will always lead to at least some people disliking him - it goes with the territory. While he will argue his case passionately, he will also listen and reconsider his positions if given rational arguments. The opposers make some good points, however I think Lawrence would make a good addition to the admin team. We do not just need quiet and demure admins, we also need passionate ones.henrik•talk19:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
56. Support.The fine people above have summed it up well. Lawrence is a great editor, everything points to him being an excellent administrator. If all else fails, we can recall him.Discombobulator(talk)19:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
57. Support- adminship shouldn't be a big deal, and Lawrence has certainly made clear where he will draw the line. I suspect he could actually be a very good admin, if given the chance. I would suggest he not respond to too many of the oppose votes, or even not respond to any, or at least only politely to correct mis-statements of fact. Going completely off-topic, I see that it is nearlythree monthsto the day (9th January) since rollback was switched on (I am going bythis difffor the date). Wasn't something meant to happen after three months? Maybe everyone should take up the idea expressed below to only post five times on any one topic and then move on?Carcharoth(talk)19:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

    Unrelated to my RFA directly, but just asking as it's high visibility right now: was it a review of rollback? I can't remember exactly either. EDIT:Yeah, a review/discussion for April 10 2008. See here.Lawrence§t/e19:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

58. Excellent contributor to the 'pedia, and unlikely to abuse the tools. THat's all that matters to me. Perhaps there's been temperament issues in the past, but they were relatively minor and I'm willing to overlook them.Nousernamesleft^{copper,notwood}19:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
59. Supportper Newyorkbrad and candidate's willingness for binding recall. I don't think it'll likely prove necessary though. I have no reason to think the editor will abuse the tools, even if once in a while he can be a bit opinionated.John Carter(talk)19:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
60. Support:He has shown a willingness to work with people that is laudable, a command of logic that is admirable, and a good temperament. While no doubt some in the "IRC case" who were themselves insulting and bitter found his remarks unpleasant, they were measured, and Lawrence has, when opposed by anyone in good faith,consistentlyattempted to understand the other person, accommodate that person's point of view, and achieve harmonious editing. I personally have little confidence in those claiming to have found him difficult, as they point to times and places where they themselves were violating the "battlefield" guidelines. This is a very clear and easy support case.Geogre(talk)20:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
61. SupportI think that the incivility concerns are not large enough to cause me to oppose.Captainpanda20:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
62. SupportHe is an excellent editor and has had great input in controversial disputes. When this guy speaks, it's worth a listen. -Epousesquecido(talk)20:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
63. SupportHave thought very hard about this. Lawrence goes off the deep end too often, and doing so undermines the arguments he wants to make. However, I don't see enough evidence of sustained incivility, rather than hyperinvolvement, to oppose. His efforts at keeping fringe-iness out at waterboarding are more of the sort of thing admin candidates should be encouraged to do. --Relata refero(disp.)21:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
64. SupportWe need more admins willing to plow head first into the areas of WP that few dare to travel.Baegis(talk)21:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
65. Support.Sigh. As Neil pointed out below, we all know the game; keep your mouth shut and act like a mouse, get the bit, then you can start behaving like a real person. Granted, a few real people do sneak through from time to time (Moreschi, a great editor/admin, comes to mind), but it's rare. I am greatly opposed to incivility, but that's not what I'm seeing in these diffs - just strong opinions. (Really, demanding that AGF apply to obvious socks is ludicrous). -Merzbow(talk)21:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
66. SupportYeah you sound real, real is good.Polly(Parrot)21:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
67. Support.Lawrence may have ruffled some feathers, but his impact on the encyclopedia has been positive, and he'll do even more good with the tools.--Akhilleus(talk)21:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
68. Support.LC, I've made a lot of comments on your RFA, both in the neutral section, responding to supporters, and responding to opposers. All along though, I've been uncomfortable with my own assessment of your contributions to Wikipedia as I was basing my impression on you based on one ANI thread where I thought you had gone too far in a "back and forth" commentary with another user. That's all I was basing it on though. You've stated that you'll be open to recall, which is good. You've stated that you'll refrain from using admin tools in disputes/content that you are involved in, which is good. You've remained civil during this RfA despite a large pile of good faith opposers, which is good. As I read, and reread the supporters and opposers (and neutrals) here, as I read, and reread your answers to questions above and responses to comments below, and as I look deeper into your contributions into thisinsanewebsite, I think you'll make a fine admin and deserve to have the tools. My apologies for my earlier waffly impression based on our one interaction. Happy to support, you'll be a positive addition to adminship.Keeper|76|Disclaimer21:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
69. Support.I consider Lawrence to be a proven quantity - he has handled conflict well.Skinwalker(talk)22:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
70. Support.Just turn down the tendency to bite and seek to diminish drama, and abondon the need to "have the last word." Learn to just walk away. No indication he would misuse the tools.Edison(talk)01:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
71. Support- seems to be a good admin material. IMHO his interest into righting the wrongs and solving controversies is extremly helpfulAlex Bakharev(talk)01:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
72. Support- Will be one of the few admins who hasfeatured material.Some of the reasons made by the opposers are ironic.miranda02:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
73. Support- Strong content contributor, and I just don't see the whole "NTWW" thing as a big deal. There are arguments to be made on both sides, but I don't see anything that Lawrence did as being in bad faith, and to use that as a stick against his adminship run smacks of petty politicking. I'm opposed to the notion, as others above are, that an admin who engages in controversy can't ever become an admin. I willassume good faiththat he will take to heart the constructive criticism expressed in some oppose/neutral opinions and become a responsible, level-headed mop-wielder.FCYTravis(talk)05:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
74. Supportgood on yer, Lawrence.Privatemusings(talk)06:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

    SupportAlthough IP editors are generally snubbed and whatnot, despite (or because?) being more "non-anon" than others:) you get my vote (however much it may count) Straight thinker (even thinks for himself! a novelty!!), straight shooter, and has self insight, unlike a LOT of other "admins"195.216.82.210(talk)06:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

75. Support.Lawrence clearly has the experience and dedication to the project needed of an admin, and I see no indication that he would misuse or abuse the tools. His tendency to get involved in controversy may have provoked the ire of some, but I think it's clear, as he's explicitly pledged, that he wouldn't use his sysop bit in disputes. I trust he would make a fine admin.krimpet✽07:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
76. Kusma(talk)09:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
77. SupportWhile he has made a slight misstep recently, and I hope it's something he learns from, I say that is outweighed by his general behavior and I think there's every indication that he'd be a fine admin and use the tools appropriately.SirFozzie(talk)10:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
78. SupportHonest, hardworking, open to recall, funny,Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboardwas a great idea.Novickas(talk)12:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
79. Support.Experienced as any other, and I think he has a good grasp of what adminship is when he wrote"We do thing by consensus and communal norms here, not by fiat by lone people and/or arm twisting from any or all directions.".Sjakkalle(Check!)13:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
80. Support.Since this seems close, I'd like to add an opinion here. I share some of the concerns of the opposers about the occasional lack of restraint; calling Nonvocalscream names a few days ago almost pushed me into the oppose column. But I think I'll take Lawrenceat his wordwhen he says he will never use his admin tools in a dispute. If he does, I'll be at the head of thepitchfork brigade.It is obvious enough that he is clueful and has the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart; as long as I am confident that, for example, he would not have actually used his tools in the NTWW MfD, I think Lawrence having the tools would be a net positive. Please prove me right. --barneca(talk)15:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
81. Support- and a general note to opposers... this recent incident was possibly affected byvarious potentially misleading statements (...) on NonvocalScream's partSome statements NVS made that I think were - unintentionally - open to misinterpretation. --Random832(contribs)15:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
82. Support- sure.jj137(talk)17:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
83. Cautioussupport- I've been going back and forth on this one for a few days. There are a lot of editors I hold in high esteem on both sides of this debate, and they're all making pretty compelling points. He clearly meets four out ofmy five admin criteria,with the missing one being "A damned near sterling record of adherence toWP:CIVIL,WP:AGF,andWP:NPA"- not that his record here is appalling, it's just some distance from sterling. And if he continues to spend time in Wikipedia's ugliest parts, it's reasonable to think that civility issues might get worse. On the other hand, if he can stay on the good side of those aforementioned policies, he'll be very valuable as an admin willing to do the ugly work (we definitely need more of those). Given that he's open to recall, and given my general predisposition towards optimism, I have to come down on the support side.Sarcasticidealist(talk)17:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
84. Tex(talk)19:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
85. support,perTanthalas39's switchback reasoning up at #33. Ta/wangi(talk)20:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
86. SupportNo need to repeat all the good things said about this person who can handle himself.Jacina(talk)20:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

    Just curious, is this editor having the qualification to cast his/her vote here? So far, he/she has only edited 3 times including the RFA and his talk page. It seems veryfishy.--Appletrees(talk)22:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

    Did you read Jacina's userpage? He/she says he/she's been here for a while as an IP. No reaons toassumeits any more than that, AT.Keeper|76|Disclaimer22:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

    I did not have a chance to read his/her user page, however his edit count looks insufficient for voting here. --Appletrees(talk)22:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

    There is no prerequisite number of edits to!vote here. Only prereq is that you have an account name (non IP). Seems Jacina meets that.Keeper|76|Disclaimer23:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

    I often see some votes on other RFAs being struck by admins due to their disqualification, so I assumed here has similar regulations like other language Wikipedias have. (in some Wiki, voters should at least register their account one month before RFA, and in minimum have 50 edit count,etc) Anyway, thank you for enlightening me on the matter, 76 and I apologize to Jacina for my bad faith. --Appletrees(talk)23:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

    No Problem, I thought it would pop up, and that is the reason I put the information on my talk page. Even on my IP I don't have a lot of edits compared to others... heck I've only been around editing for around a week or so. I prefer IP editing due to the unique challenges it offers;)Jacina(talk)06:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

87. Support from NeutralReally like the user, but the NTWW nom is worrying.Regardless, I've been persuaded to support because I remember he wanted to reduce the amount of witchhunting in the dispute resolution processSceptre^(talk)16:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
88. Support- One of the most consistently thoughtful, productive, and overall excellent editors I have seen. Effective in tracking down and shutting down persistent abusive sockpuppets, good in mediating disputes, constantly on top of things--this person represents the best we look for in an admin, as a community.Badagnani(talk)03:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
89. Support- I see you all the time, doing the exact sort of things I'd expect the ideal admin to do. Excellent candidate. --Liempt(talk)04:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
90. SupportMay be temperamental, but does not seem irrational. Willing to take a chance.Amerique^dialectics17:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
91. SupportA mature, level-headed voice. --Semifreddo(talk)19:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
92. Support- looks okay to me.Deb(talk)21:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
93. SupportWiki would certainly benefit from him having the tools.One Night In Hackney₃₀₃21:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
94. Support.Per the great nom statement byMBisanz(talk·contribs), per his answers to the questions on what tasks he wants to focus on as an admin, per some greatWP:FA,WP:GA,WP:DYKcontent contributions, as well as contributions atWP:AIV,WP:AN,WP:ANI,WP:RSN,WP:RFPP,WP:CSD,WP:AFD,and his willingness to be open to recall per his nom acceptance statement.Cirt(talk)01:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
95. Support.–Outriggr§03:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
96. Support- Admins are just regular editors with more buttons; he won't be able to stir up more drama as an admin than he does as a regular editor, and his contributions and level of commitment tell me that he'll use those buttons just fine. --jonny-mt04:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
97. Support- again, one or two losses of temper have resulted in a pile-on of opposes, and that is sad, because Lawrence Cohen is a fine editor. Everybody, I say everybody, (excuse theFred Elliott-style structure there, I just couldn't think of any other way of emphasising my point other than the use of bold/italics text) goes through times whenone looses one's ragas they say. I've done it, and I bet all of the people who have voted on this RfA have done it. We learn from our mistakes, and by golly, there are enough opposes on this RfA to make a fair point.Lradrama08:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
98. Support- I like this user's answers, I think he'll make a fine admin.iMatthew200810:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
99. Support-Eusebeus(talk)11:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
100. Support- see nothing wrong with his role in waterboarding article. -MBHiii(talk)21:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
101. Support- after much thought. I don't think that he would abuse the tools, I like his answers to the questions and, perHenrikabove, we know what we're getting.--BelovedFreak18:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
102. Strong support-Sarvagnya18:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
103. Support- My unequivocally strong support goes to Lawrence for his ability to be rational in heated situations and because he is willing to go to great lengths to help people out in tough situations and explain complex policy decisions to newer users. Lawrence has an excellent knowledge of policy and a fair hand to administer it. I have no doubt that Lawrence would use the tools well and that he would represent this encyclopedia and its community in a positive and forthright manner. Good luck, LC.Cumulus Clouds(talk)20:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
104. Support.Bottom line is that this user with tools is, as I read it, a net benefit to the project. 95% of the time when I come across Lawrence he has been level-headed to the point that I have been impressed with his thoughtfulness. I hasten to add that 100% of the time I've come across him it's in situations that are semi or very contentious (which might - possibly - also say something about me). I think there is a bit of attraction toward drama for Lawrence (and in that regard Edison's advice in support-vote-thingy-72 above to "seek to diminish drama, and abandon the need to 'have the last word'" is particularly useful), however I think he is drawn toward contentious situations because he truly cares about the project and feels he has good ideas about how to advance it. That's basically my belief as well, and thus I feel that he can be trusted with the mop.--Bigtimepeace|talk|contribs07:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
105. Strong SupportSeems like a nice guy and would be a great admin.--Pookeo9(talk)18:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
106. Strong Support,per Claa and George and my own judgment that here is a candidate worth coming out of retirement for, briefly, in order to support. The petty-mindedness of many in the opposition is truly disheartening...even by Wikipedia standards. How many of YOU, oh noble, wise admins, would make it past the Rfa gauntlet today? How many of you would be willing to put yourselves up for recall? Damn few I bet. Those who would, would then have every right to vote against this fine candidate. But suit yourselves...it is your project, not mine. In the end Wikipedia gets the admins it deserves.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)(talk)20:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
107. Support,would be an asset to Wikipedia.~ Eóin(talk)21:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
108. Support.Of course!weburiedoursecretsinthegarden22:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
109. Weak SupportThis candidates strengths outweigh his weaknesses. --Sharkface21722:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
110. Support.Good content contributor.—dima/talk/23:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
111. Supportper others.hbdragon88(talk)00:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
112. What else needs to be said? An all around fine guy.Support.Editorofthewiki00:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
113. Support.I am suprised to see this RFA. I thought Lawrence Cohen was an administrator. Lawrence is already doing regular admin stuff!QuackGuru(talk)02:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
114. Weak SupportI had to think quite a while about this one. Although many opposers seem to raise valid concerns, particularly regarding Lawrence's temperament, I believe such a dedicated, experienced user deserves the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, his temperament doesn't seem to equal incivility. At all. Lawrence appears to engage perhaps too deeply in conflicts, but drama aside he certainly seeks only complete resolution of situations that he finds problematic.Húsönd02:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
115. Looks alright to me.SQL^{Query me!}03:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
116. SupportI've seen Lawrence around during the last couple of months. Drama is a principle reason for being part of Wikipedia and looking at the contribs I can't see any which would make me raise an eyebrow unless it was months ago. certainly no blowing up. --BpEps-t@lk03:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
117. Support,an honest editor who would never abuse tools. Also, impressive record of content writing. -Irpen06:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
118. SupportI can't agree more with Alison, and she expressed what I think exactly. I think Lawrence can be an asset to the project as an administrator, as long as he remembers that being passionate is great, but can backfire very easily when words are written. --lucasbfr^talk10:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
119. SupportReluctant support from Neutral.SunCreator(talk)14:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
120. Supporton balance, impact of his promotion should be a net positive.Pascal.Tesson(talk)15:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Switching to neutral. The weight of the supports, the supporters, and Lawrence recall pledge lead me to hope that my original concerns about Lawrence are unlikely to bear fruit particularly with the recall as a precaution. I also do not believe that someone cannot become an admin after working in controversial areas, although folks like that are subject to special scrutiny because of their visibility. It is theroleone plays in these areas that is important - participating with a positive impact should be encouraged, even and especially atWP:DRAMAand other places that are often the locus of bitter disputes.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^T14:12, 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/e14:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if Avruch switched, I guess I should too.Rueful Oppose.I hate to breakWP:AAAD,but Avruch put it in a way I couldn't phrase any better myself.21655^τalk/_ʃign15:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Opposeper behaviour across Wikipedia, much of which is fairly similar to the behaviour displayed atWikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Episode_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)

   This keeps coming up, with myrevisedreaction to Scream's nomination of the NTTW, which he himself later admitted ended up being disruptive after many people told him so. My revised take is based firmly in established policy, but was mistaken nonetheless:Wikipedia:AGF#About_good_faith,"This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary."Straigtforward, bold, and policy. My initial Keep was simply there's no valid basis to delete, until I saw his stated intent to make it gone on AN, and when he was stopped from delinking, and MFD'd the page, I refactored. This was a mistake--here was a "new" account that was taking a hardline on something that was bound to be disruptive (it was) and clearly appearing to be an established user under another name. Was it wrong to jump the gun? Yes. Was it evidence of me being some horrible person? Hardly. If you want to see how far my good faith can stretch--please read the exhaustive archives over on Waterboarding.Lawrence§t/e15:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

2. 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 seeWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zahid Al-Sheikh.Lawrence nominated the article onZahid Al-Sheikhfor 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 ofKhalid 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)

   Geo, at the time I nominated the article, it was a BLP that was sourced almost entirely off of primary sources (US Government sources) with no secondary information to indicate otherwise. As such, we had a BLP that was a BLP1E violation, and worse a reposting of then-unproven allegations from one source (the US) towards an individual. We owe no adherence to US government views, but we do owe adherence toWP:BLP,and our own notions of notability, and that's why I nominated it at the time. You've done good on expanding those problem article since then, and they're largely fine now. It seemed like many of them did turn around in response to the AFD I issued, after a few of them were deleted thus. In the end, that means the whole experience was a positive for the project, because we had BLP-compliant articles afterwards, even if someone had to do more work because of it. I'm sorry for that.Lawrence§t/e21:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

   Lawrence, your answer concerns me. First, it is not an open and unequivocal admission of error. Second, there is no really polite way to say this -- it is quite deceptive. You are implying you stated these apparently reasonable sounding justifications in the{{afd}}.But you know, and I know, and anyone who cares tolook at your nominationknows, the justification you put in your nomination focussed around your misconception that he was a Guantanamo captive -- a mistake you could not possibly have made if you had read the article before you made your nomination. You know what they say in Washington? It is not the lapse that is most serious. It is the cover-up that is really damaging. We are all fallible. The sooner you learn to acknowledge error the sooner you will start to be ready to take on this serious responsibility.Geo Swan(talk)17:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

   Hi Geo, there were three AFDs I launched back seven months ago, all on the same day:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fahed Nasser Mohamed,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zahid Al-Sheikh,andWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Gulam Rasoul.On the one in question, I assure you I read them, after coming across what appeared at the time to be a walled garden of articles on Arab men, alleged terrorists, all sourced (at the time) to basically only just official US Government documents. Of the three I nominated for AFD on October 22 2007, two were deleted, and you were able to get two independent sources for the one in question here on the AFD. I nominated these for deletion in the wake ofWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda,an AFD thatUser:Steve Dufourhad initiated, on a list of names of BLP subjects, all being accused of possible terrorism by one primary source. The version ofZahid Al-Sheikhthat I nominated for deletion, asseen here,was sourced totwoprimary sources, on aWP:BLParticle, and was nearly a straight reposting of harmful allegations if untrue from one lone source. I apologize for mis-speaking that Al-Sheikh was a Guantano Bay detainee when he was not, but I have to stand by the AFD nomination on 22 October 2007 itself. Based onthat version of the article,it was in my opinion deleteable, and BLP (even for alleged terrorists) is more important than my accidentally mistating that he was a Gitmo detainee on the AFD nomination itself. I'm sorry, Geo. I obviously didn't mean to make that mistake there, and based on my involvement in the previous intense AFD for the DoD List article, I can assure you that I read all three articles in question. I believe we'd discussed all this afterwards, on my talk page, and came to a basic understanding, but I guess some doubts remained. I hope this clears it up finally.Lawrence§t/e20:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

   Of course, since BLP applieseverywhere,mis-stating that somebody (even an alleged terrorist) is detained at Guantánamo Bay (and even by accident)... you get the picture.Don't get me wrong, I'm willing to accept this as an honest mistake, albeit an embarrassing one, but having read your comments atWT:BLP(link below) I am convinced that you, Lawrence, would have rather less tolerantly reacted to any other user who had made a similar mistake. —CharlotteWebb15:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

   Took me a while to decide on this one, but no, I don't trust you with the admin tools. Sorry. --Naerii16:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

3. Opposewith regret. See[2]for an example of the sort of thing that makes me uncomfortable here.Guy(Help!)16:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

   My response to Phil was unfortunate in it's tone and wording, on the first part, and unneeded. In the second, the use of the {{fact}} tag to question a stated policy claim (here, Phil's that the NTTW was an attempt to circumvent the banning policy) is a common thing that is done often, and harmless. That policy claim was discarded in any event by the community, with the strongly endorsed keep. Again, though, my wording to Phil was unfortunate.Lawrence§t/e15:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

   Guy do you really have the gaul to oppose on the basis of civility with yourtrack record?Viridae^Talk07:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

   I believe that's "gall" as Guy is not exactly what I think of when I think of a textbook example of aFrenchman:). I would ask some of the early opposers to perhaps review and reconsider their stands... others have switched to neutral or even support. This is not a clear cut case by any means. ++Lar:t/c12:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

   And yes I do. I know exactly the kind of pressure that can be caused by hotheadedness of the type Lawrence very often displays. I think he will be in trouble the whole time and it will make him less effective as an editor.Guy(Help!)22:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

4. 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.Anthøny16:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

   In regards to my use of the sysop tools, it's no secret I'm constantly saying that admins should never, ever use their tools in a situation they're involved in--that's a bright line, and I've reminded admins that have done this, of this fact. For me to do just that would be wildly hypocritical, and about the very last admin scenario you'd ever see from me--so I'm not sure how I'd be likely to inflame situations with use of tools? In any event, I've already committed to a binding recall process if selected, so it's a moot point: if I were to do something so stupid, I'd be gone as an admin in short order, whether I liked it or not.Lawrence§t/e15:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

5. Opposeper 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 withthispointless request for clarification at RfArb that has been speedily archived.RyanPostlethwaite17:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

   The request for clarification was not pointless at all: we have many people under specific topic bans, and I wanted to see if it was considered by the committee accepted for people under such bans to remove things like simple vandalism and BLP violations, or whether those would get them in trouble too. I figured such a clarification would benefit the many people under sanction, who are entitled to protection from pointless harassment simply for having a mark against them--such as the harassment of Privatemusings the other day. It's bound to happen again, and that's why I wanted it clarified. How did that clarification possibly increase drama? It was a legitimate question in regards to an existing arbcom sanction against a user otherwise in good standing.Lawrence§t/e15:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

6. Opposecurrent 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) ((based on the many links above & now below, which i saw no reason to repeat here--comment added)DGG(talk)04:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

   There's quote a bit of a logical gap right where youassume a linkbetween 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 upsomearbitrary reason to oppose is not an easy task I suppose.Dorftrottel(ask) 20:25,April 5,2008

   Are you being deliberately ironic linkingWP:AGFin that statement Dorf? --JayHenry(talk)21:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

   I oppose LC in some matters, and support him in others. I'm just coming from supporting him on notability(criminals). I may sometimes judge by an overall tendency, but certainly not a single issue. I support policy work, but it shouldnt be so exclusive.DGG(talk)05:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

7. Oppose- Mainly because of temprament issues, and a bit too much drama as shownhere,here,here,andhere.I am all for being passionate about something, but there is a fine line.Tiptoety^talk18:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

   Does using strong rhetoric to drive things to a solution or conclusion cause drama, or the actual use of admin tools? Are these different, or the same? My wording is heated there, and I apologize if that has offended people there. Does the use of very strong rhetoric mean someone is likely to abuse the admin tools?Lawrence§t/e15:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

   Although Lawrence was not very tactful in those places, I can sympathize with his frustration about "consensus" on Wikipedia. All too often, people who are clearly in the minority invoke "Consensus is not a vote" to simply tie up the process indefinitely, or until the 99.99998% majority finally gives in and compromises the clear consensus that was reached by the community. I think that what he was saying is that he thinks that "Consensus" too often simply becomes a technique of filibustering, and that someone should be able to just say "OK,thisis how it is, and it's too bad if you don't like it, because black is not white no matter what you say. "I fail to see how his strong wording there is a problem. If anything, I think that someone who is willing to come out and state such a controversial position has the boldness and fortitude to utilizeWP:IARvery effectively to combat "consensus" filibustering and other issues.J.delanoy^gabs_adds17:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

8. OpposeSorry, but too likely to cause controversy.Epbr123(talk)19:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

   Why do you think I'd be likely to cause controversy? Because I'm willing to have strong opinions and stand by them? I'm trying to understand why it seems like RFAs are more likely to succeed for people who act like mice only until they get the sysop bit.Lawrence§t/e15:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

   Two wrongs don't make a right.Epbr123(talk)07:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

   !!!!!, This is your RFA. Calling prudent people for their RFAacting like miceis a really inappropriate personal attack and shows you're not qualified to become admin.--Appletrees(talk)08:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

   He wasn't calling anyone mice, he was simply pointing out that if you are an upfront person the only way to pass an RfA is to not be yourself untill the nomination has passed as a general rule. Any kind of controversial behaviour - even be that holding strong opinions on something and expressing them in a non harmfull manner can topple an RfA with ease.Viridae^Talk08:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

   I don't think so. Your interpretation and mine seem to be very different. Your comment even convince me more about why people with controversial attitude should not be elected as a sysop. Even if some people pretend to do such on their RFA, this is not the right place to criticize the attitude or whatever. Do you think his inflammatory comment can earn his point? --Appletrees(talk)08:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

   Your comment even convince me more about why people with controversial attitude should not be elected as a sysopWhat you are going to get that way is a bunch of new admins who choose to look the other way or resort to the least risky solution when what is needed is admins who dare to care more about the encyclopedia than their own reputation. It's not hard to block a RfA when 1 oppose needs 3 supports to balance things out nor is it hard to become an admin if you stick to doing what causes the least controversy. That doesn't get you good admins though.EconomicsGuy(talk)09:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

   That doesn't get you good admins though.--What are you trying to say to me with the comment lacking of logic and civility? No thanks for your officious interference. Please don't try to inculcate me with your point of view. I stick to my belief, period.--Appletrees(talk)11:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

   Really there was nothing at all incivil about that comment...Viridae^Talk11:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

   I think Appletrees misunderstood Lawrence's comment. Might be worth a re-read, Appletrees, to see if perhaps Lawrence meant something different than what you interpreted (he seems to be echoing other comments here about how it is difficult for people involved in controversy or with strong opinions to pass an RfA).Avruch^T13:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

   Sorry to say, I did not. I've seen several people who managed things reported on ANI in good and neutral manners successfully past their RFA. --Appletrees(talk)17:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

   I think Lawrence is right that people in RfAs are more likely to pass if they act like baby kittens than to be someone whom has strong opinions on something. (Baby kittens, same thing as mice.) It's very easy to say his comment regarding that is uncivil; much harder to explain why.Neal(talk)18:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC).

   The strong opinionis his thoughtful and sharp perception on nominees in RFA? That is really helpful for me to stick to my vote atoppose.Thanks.--Appletrees(talk)18:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

   No, no strong opinion on that. He merely said "I'm trying to understandwhy it seems like RFAs are more likely to succeed for people who act like mice only until they get the sysop bit."If you believe that people whom have 'strong' opinions aren't qualified on becoming admins, then perhaps you're favoring more of the confused-type admins.Neal(talk)19:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC).

   perhaps you're favoring more of the confused-type admins.What a good way of persuasion and logical thinking, really?! I get that why you support Lawrence Cohen. Good luck for your position. --Appletrees(talk)19:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

   That wasn't a persuasion, but personally my own opinion. Okay, maybe you're right that the opposite of strong opinion isn't a measure of more confused, but I don't think I quite put it as a logical opposite. I supported Lawrence more on the basis that he's qualified (in a knowledge sense).Neal(talk)19:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC).

   Cut it out, guys. Neal, let it go. Appletrees, you're walking a fine line with hypocrisy with this exchange if your argument is about incivility.Tan|3919:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

9. OpposePer above concerns and the argument by Tiptoety.Otolemur crassicaudatus(talk)20:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

   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 toeveryinfo-, 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.718at 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/e20:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

   Is this an admission that you would have behaved differently had their name been listed on a page at Meta? If so, how do you expect such a view would impact on your ability to help administer the site?Nick(talk)20:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

   My initial statement there wasthis edit,which I later expanded to include my (then mistaken) assessment about the good or bad faith assessment of Nonvocalscream's nomination when I saw his statement immediately afterwards onWP:ANthat he would make an effort to ensure the.ogg files of the banned users were not linked to. Gamesmanship is one of the biggest problems on our website, and I misintepreted things without knowing who this user is (I do now) and made that very imprudent and rash statement, which I apologized for in e-mail andscratched outas soon as I knew what was happening. If I'm wrong, I'm ready to admit it. I've nuked my own AFDs that I've initiated in the past similarly. All I can say is I'm human.Lawrence§t/e21:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

   We all have our share of "d'oh!" moments, especially when we're trying to determine the circumstances of pretty obtuse matters. Sometimes something seems obvious to us which, with more information which usually emerges in debate/community participation, looks kinda silly. The fact you can admit and retract rather than try and maintain your pride and fight on in these situations, to me, is a positive rather than a negative.Orderinchaos00:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

10. Strong OpposeI've seen him several times at ANI, but his way of speaking tend to make more drastic dramas. We want more calm and neutral admin who don't speak inappropriate comments.mice?nice.[3]--Appletrees(talk)20:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
11. Weak Opposeper Avruch,sorry. Allow me to add that wikipedia doesn't need more drama. Lawrence is a good editor, but I have to go with my gut.Spencer^T♦C20:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
12. Oppose- tendency to make situations more dramatic than necessary.PhilKnight(talk)23:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
13. Keeper76 put it really well once, on ANI. I can't remember the exact wording, nor can I find the diff (well, I could if I searched, but I have a life!:), but it basically went along the lines of; "Lawrence, I looked over your contribs. Today, you've commented on the Muhammed images, you've commented on the latest request to overturn a ban, you've commented on three different ArbCom cases, you've commented on a stack of BLP cases, and you're commenting here. Every comment is basically a 'omigosh how can you say something that rude - retract at once' comment." —We don't need more admins who are going to tell us to think of the children.dihydrogen monoxide(H₂O)23:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

    I searched, I have no life. The diff ishere.The entire conversation, for context, is linked below in my neutral!vote.Keeper|76|Disclaimer14:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

    Yeah, that's the one I meant. Thanks.dihydrogen monoxide(H₂O)08:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

14. Opposeper East718, the immediate jump to "bad faith nom by sockpuppet" on that MFD isreallydisturbing and not the kind of thing I would want to see from an admin.I should also note that while the "bad faith nom by sockpuppet" part was stricken,"Carry on with trolling"and"AGF except when a user is obviously disrupting Wikipedia: You/disruptive sockpuppets"were never withdrawn and I see no evidence of an apology to Scream either.Mr.Z-man00:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

    As I've mentioned above, I've already apologized to Scream and sorted out all those issues by going directly to him. It's in the talk page history for him and email.Lawrence§t/e15:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

15. Oppose,sorry, but I share the temperment concerns as described above, particularly the issue with scream. We need admins who are focused on cooling things down, not escalating them. -Philippe12:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
16. OpposeIn Lawrence, i believe we have an excellent contributor, who sometimes gets a bit heated. Keep your contributions at the high standard you have set, just cool things a bit, and id definately support you again. Thanks.FiveYears15:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
17. Oppose- Changed from an extremely early support vote (see above). After revisiting this discussion sometime later and combing through the entire discussion, I've come to the conclusion that the candidate exudes a recklessness and acidulous attitude per all of the diffs that have been provided thus far. Unfortunately, upon closer inspection, I am compelled to change my!vote. Cheers.Wisdom89_(T/^C)16:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
18. Oppose- For an admin to have a certain level of passion about Wikipedia is not necessarily a bad thing. The level of passion displayed is certainly intriguing. But an administrator needs to be able to curb their passion at times and look at the situation in an objective matter. That's not to say that an administrator can't make mistakes, or get involved in community discussions. But when a user is imparted with tools that display the community's trust in that user, I expect that the user makes their edits with care. The diffs above, particularly those provided byTiptoety,it appears that this user does not apply the same personal restraint and self-control that I would expect from a user with the capability to delete pages, close AfD discussions, and block users. —scetoaux(T|C)18:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
19. OpposeGood editor but needs to control his temperament better. As scetoaux put it, passion is a good thing, but an admin has to be able to separate his emotions from many situations and as another editor put it, I feel that the user may inflame situations instead of help them. All that said, the user is a great editor and an asset to the community.« Gonzo fan2007(talk♦contribs)03:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
20. OpposeThe recent NTWW MFD did it for me. Passion is more clearly expressed without personal attacks and a hot temper. The volume overshadows the argument itself, and LC needs to learn that before entering the janitor's closet.KrakatoaKatie05:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
21. God no, enough of a drama lover as it is, no need to involve the tools.John Reaves06:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
22. Nope-- per Avruch mainly, but also because he seems to insert himself into drama-laden situations when there's no need for his commentary. I seriously doubt his good judgement.Xdenizen(talk)07:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

    Oppose- moved to neutral, see below.Neıl☎09:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

23. Well, in February I was impressed with his ability to recognizea couchful of elephants,but in March I had to wonder whether he was trying to introducean exaggerated wording and an aggressive implementationto BLP policy or if he just comes off that way. Sorry. —CharlotteWebb19:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

    On that proposed wording change forWP:BLP,it was simply so that--if it came up--that no one could ever try to claim immunity from BLP their actions, if they did something overtly BLP-violating outside of article space. My thinking was, if we had something that violated BLP in a Wikipedia space, or in a move log, or in a block log, or in a Template talk space, it's still a BLP violation if it's a BLP violation. That's why I'd suggested firm wording that BLP applied to anything visible on "*en.wikipedia.org" rather than specific statements about where and when it applies--I'd seen comments in the past from editors and Jimbo that BLP was "everywhere" which made sense, and I took it to mean "everywhere visible". We can hurt someone with a BLP violation in a block log as easily as we can with something in article space, and we can get sued just as easily in either scenario. After Black Falcon, JoshuaZ and I went back and forth (very congenially, too) about possible wording and implications, with some people weighing in to say "YES!" and some saying "NO!" quite firmly, it appeared that my wording change wouldn't get traction because of possible concerns so I let it go fairly quickly (my last post there is about 1/2 way through the entire chat). I was surprised to see an oppose for this, since it was basically just a good natured policy discussion about a possible way to strengthen BLP interpretations to protect people.Lawrence§t/e13:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

24. Weak opposeGood guy, I just wasn't a fan of the hubub at the waterboarding article.Arkon(talk)22:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

    I believe the hubub atwaterboardingwas the fault of disruptive users operatingsock puppetaccounts. Once those accounts were blocked (seeWikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding#Log of blocks and bansfor a list) the editing climate atwaterboardingimproved.Jehochman^Talk22:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

25. Opposebecause of the lack of calm inWikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Episode_6.Pax:Vobiscum(talk)01:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
26. I'm just not sure about temperament concerns.Ral315(talk)03:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
27. Significant and ongoing issues with temperament. Maybe in a few months' time. ~Riana⁂12:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
28. The only interaction I recall isSection "User:Mikkalai"where he showed himself completely unsuited in temperment to the role of an administrator, and proceeded to inflame a conflict rather than diffuse by attacking one of the participants. I simply could not trust this user with access to the block tab.WilyD16:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
29. Oppose.Per temperament issues discussed above. I don't see admin material here.Ronnotel(talk)16:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
30. OpposeThe main quality the community looks for in an admin is trustworthiness, especially under pressure. While admins have acquired the status of village elders, this status can also be acquired by non-admins of character and individual strength. The main role required of admins is a calm, unbiased use of the tools on behalf of the community. Creating drama, being of strong opinions spoken forcefully with little respect for discourse, and having uncertain temperament are three qualities that should automatically rule out anyone from being an admin. Having a powerful mind, coupled with a passionate commitment to the project are qualities great for the village elder speaking at meetings, but are not needed for complying with a community request which the admin doesn't personally agree with. Lawrence can continue to speak out and make his views known without the admin badge. Better that way.SilkTork*^YES!17:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
31. Opposeper diffs previously provided. To be perfectly honest, your attitude reminds me of my first RFA. Learn to pick your battles (in RFA and elsewhere), and treat all with common courtesy whatever the situation. Avoid drama at all costs, rather than inflaming it (even when your intentions are admirable). Show a change in behavior over the next few months and try again.VanTucky21:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
32. Oppose regretfully- based on others' comments, there is far too much Wikidrama, which indicates a risk as an admin. Please come back in a few months after you prove your ability tostay calmandwalk away from fights.Bearian(talk)00:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
33. OpposeAfter reading the above comments and weighing both supports and opposes, I cannot support at this time. There is no doubt that Lawrence is a fine editor but his proclivition towards compounding a tense situtation and making it worse is not a good trait for an admin. --Hdt83^Chat04:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
34. OpposeMore than enough drama as it is...Jmlk1704:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
35. OpposeOnce again, this is not the easiest decision. However, as FT2 says below, and has been mentioned elsewhere on any number of occasions, RfA's and RfB's are at their core, a community referendum to opine on a particular user'sjudgmentand whether or not the project is comfortable intrustingthe user to exercise good judgment and decision making when using, or at times more importantly,notusing the mop-and-flamethrower™. While Lawrence has, at times, shown intelligence, wit, and an understanding of wikipedia policy and guidelines, he also, has demonstrated enough interpersonally frictive comments that lead me to, regretfully, feel that without a longer period of demonstrated control, withdrawal from wikidrama, and positive interactions with people with whom he has differences of opinion, the potential for an unfortunate incident to arise with the bit is sufficiently great enough for me to record my misgivings at this point. --Avi(talk)05:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

    I didn't understand it when FT2 said it and I don't understand it now: how can one, when!voting on an issue of personal trust, give thecommunitys possible lack of trust as a reason? If everyone did that we would have no idea what the community actually felt...--Relata refero(disp.)08:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

    As RfA/B is a community/project referendum, and as I, and FT2 for that matter, are project contributors and community participants, we are expressing our opinions, as project and community participants, that we do not believe that the community should extend its trust for the reasons given; not that we are saying what we think the community actually feels. --Avi(talk)12:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

    OK, I get it now. Sorry. Nice rewording, incidentally. --Relata refero(disp.)13:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

    There's thisessay to which I often refer…--Avi(talk)16:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

    Incorrect statement above, my view is given as simply "comment", and filed under "neutral".
    To clarify, consensus-seeking and neutrality (at RFA) means not just forming an opinion, but also considering whether my view is out of line with others' views, and acknowledging/respecting how others see it, taking into account wider sentiment too. If a large number of people oppose for apparently reasonable reasons they have thought about, then it's important not to ignore or marginalize that. There's no obligation to appointanyone,so if fair question marks or doubt seem to exist, especially over a suggested tendency for escalating rather thanresolvingproblems (which iscrucial for admins) it's always reasonable to be cautious and play safe until those are no longer of wide concern. But the candidate seems a good guy with aWP:CLUE,I'm pretty sure he'll get there eventually.FT2^(Talk|email)06:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

    On the first point, I stand correctedagain.Sigh. On the elucidation, thanks, I think I understand your stand now. --Relata refero(disp.)12:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

36. Oppose.Drama magnet, or at least magnetically drawn to drama wherever it appears and not above trying to cause some if things are quiet. The whole thing atthis ANI threadshows him in not-unusual action. ➨REDVEЯSis always ready to dynamically make tea11:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

    He went flying madly and inappropriately off the deep end there, which is, as you say, not-unusual. He also made the point that Mikka really needs reining in, which is somethingvaluablethat he didn't need to do. That is equivalently not-unusual. --Relata refero(disp.)13:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

    Mikka really did need reining in, it's true. But the whole"went flying madly and inappropriately off the deep end there",not unusually, is not a appropriate response either, and certainly not for an admin candidate. ➨REDVEЯSis always ready to dynamically make tea19:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

37. Very reluctant oppose.Judgment and an even manner may be the most important qualities in an admin -- particular one who participates in dispute resolution. I'm sad to say that when Lawrence joins a dispute, it seems like things getmoreheated, rather than less. I really like the guy, and I agree with him often -- but I don't trust him enough yet to want to give him the tools. In particular, this bothered me:[4].Marking an RFC for deletion on the question of whether a certifying editor's certification was valid...well, it may have been technically correct (I don't know), but in the situation seemed like poor judgment. --TheOtherBob18:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
38. OpposeperGuy,User:DGG,User:Tiptoety,and others, as relates to temperament/drama issues. Will certainly support in a few months time as per FT2 comment below.≈ jossi ≈(talk)20:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
39. OpposeSeems too keen to push his strong opinions without tempering them in the manner required in a collaborative project and even seems to take pride in doing so. Therefore too likely to cause the drama feared by many above.TigerShark(talk)22:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
40. Oppose- I have the same temperament and drama-bomb concerns as others above. Not only is there an issue with the way Lawrence handles issues, but in my view he actively seeks out conflict and interjects himself into it. Drama-mongering does not help the expansion of the encyclopedia.Lara❤Love22:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
41. Oppose- Given the previso that this editor has made some valuable contributions, there seems to be insurmountable testimony that his temperment isn't quite right at this time.Netkinetic^(t/c/@)01:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
42. Opposeper the tempremant issues and the LaraLove oppose.Rudget(review)14:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
43. OpposeRegretfully the temperament/drama issues make me unwilling to support at this time.Davewild(talk)17:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
44. OpposeNothing personal, sorry. Not this time. ——Martin^phi☎ΨΦ——00:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
45. Oppose.Needs to work on temperament and interaction. Not ready for adminship yet, but hopefully will be in the future.Singopo(talk)00:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
46. Weak opposeNetkinetic's view roughly mirrors mine.Joe03:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
47. OpposeThere are some real temperament issues here, there are too many times demonstrated above where his involvement in a developing issue increased the drama level rather than decreasing it. Basically it's a judgment thing...RxS(talk)05:57, 12 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 isThe 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. WhileWP:DGAFis 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^One16:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

   I'm passionate about the project as well, and I'm not afraid to criticize someone harshly (ask WJBscribe about that:), but in the last four months or so, Lawrence has inserted himself, at the least, intoIRC drama,Private correspondence drama,Mantanmoreland drama,BLP drama,Rollback drama,!! drama,Bluemarine drama,Waterboarding drama,Daniel Brandt drama.Vigorous and principled discussion and criticism of heartfelt views is of course one thing. But this is something else entirely. --JayHenry(talk)20:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

   On the Rollback mess, I watched (as did half of Wikipedia) arguments that boiled down to process vs. no process, and I basically chastised people to simply take an action, rather than repeat the same arguments towards each other for another 100kb--someone has to prod people, if anything is to happen. Waterboarding and Bluemarine I did absolutely no "insertion" --I was/am probably themainregular on Waterboarding, for better or worse, that was trying to hold nationalist sockpuppets at bay for a while.User:Bluemarinehimself decided to join that fray, and when I saw he was up for RFAR, I weighed in with my own experiences with him, and did some research for the Committee to demonstrate evidence of his homophobic attacks on multiple editors here. As mentioned I've worked with Jehochman a great bit, and if you'll recall the Durova/!! RFAR was originally entitled "Durova and Jehochman". I followed into that from seeing Jehochman's actions. I actually wrote the Private Correspondence policy proposal (which could have benefitted us greatly) that was nearly adopted before it was smothered under 18,500 different conflicting agendas. The IRC issues I weighed in on as an extension of the Durova RFAR, in part from seeing Giano's contributions. I'm hardly the only person to sound off on both the Mantanmoreland (protecting the site from naked NPOV abuse) and Brandt issues (BLP issues), considering they were spammed and discussed over half of Wikipedia as well, and are two areas--BLP and NPOV--that I'm most interested in. As for BLP drama, what BLP drama would that be? I've posted on the BLP talk page, yes, with my hardly secret desire that we enforce BLP more stridently and firmly. But that's not a bad thing.Lawrence§t/e21:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

   I'd just add that there are dozens of others users that also seemed to be involved in each of those debates, for what its worth.Lawrence§t/e21:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

   I've stricken Waterboarding and Bluemarine per your clarification that the participation here was not insertion. Fair enough. I'm not opposing, but Lawrence, this is a prodigious amount of drama. And weighing in is one thing (making a statement, responding a couple of times), but you become deeply entrenched in many of these events. On your addendum, I agree you are not alone. And you should not interpret my comment as criticism of any particular stanceyou've taken. I am equally unimpressed with the other editors (especially the administrators) who devote so much energy to following the ZDOTW, whatever it may be. To all of them, please lay off a little bit, you don't need to always weigh in, you don't need to keep hammering your points home. Here's a technique I've found that helps -- I try to limit myself to five posts to a non-content review discussion, be it an RFA, AFD, MFD, DRV, RFAR, etc. If after five posts I haven't argued my case, it's probably best to mosey along. From the few times I've breached my little rule, I've noticed that more than five posts almost always becomes litigious. I'm at four posts here, and I think that's enough. I'm sorry. If things were toned down for a few months at AN, AN/I, RFAR/*, etc., then I could support in the future. --JayHenry(talk)22:47, 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)

   Moving to supportI'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 youJust Can't Let It Go^TMif 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 areabsolutelypassionate 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|Disclaimer16:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

3. 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)
4. 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),andWikipedia: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),andWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charter School of the Dunes.Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho!19:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Neutral,I have seen good things from this user, but the potential for drama worries me.Lankiveil^{(speak to me)}00:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC).
6. Neutralas well. This is out of respect as you meet my requirements yet the concerns raised are good and valid points. I'll be happy to support at a later time. Good luck.SynergeticMaggot(talk)13:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
7. Comment and encouragementLawrence focusses on improving the encyclopedia, and generally is a level voice on that score, making contributions in different areas. The concerns about a propensity for drama are ones I'm less familiar with, mostly as I don't track this user around the wiki. (I wasn't aware of his content work either.) In general, drama (the unnecessary choosing of heat over light, strident voices without much information, or hyping up of cases into trainwrecks) is completely to be avoided. It's hard enough to solve problems with good thoughtful input all around; the presence of yammering voices and vocal demands, often missing a chunk of the issue, is a prelude to disaster a lot of the time. Even for good reasons, that's to be avoided. My ownpreferencesfor administrators have a marked preference forproblem solversagainst problemantagonizers,for goodattitudes,and for people who explain and enter dialog rather than fanatical approaches or politiking. In that light, I've reviewed my limited awareness of Lawrence, and some of the cited incidents/diffs above ([5][6][7]) and my own instinct still leans greatly towards "tentative trust", that this is a user who wants the project to be better and is willing to say so, and listen to others and be responsive, rather than bull-headedly ignoring other views. For example at RFAR/IRC, a heated drama-ridden case, Lawrence stated firm views, but reasonably so, and they were analytically to the point and good questions, for the most part. For me that's crucial, it's a major distinction between people one can work with, and people one cannot easily work with. Likewise I remember discussing the npov noticeboard that he created, and I found him reasonable to talk to, aware of issues, and focussed upon project benefits even when told of possible difficulties.
   
   On the other hand, RFA concerns by a large number of users cannot be set aside because above all RFA is a test of communal trust, and each user measures trust their own way. That some 35% of users (at this time) have concerns enough to oppose, says to me that there is evidence the community is in doubt right now, and the reasons they give seem to be based on diffs not emotional whim. The doubts center around drama areas, getting "drawn into disputes" a bit much, and experience in judgement. There is nothing wrong with wanting to go to the real issues and get involved in them, so in a way this is about reassuring others, and that the aim is to address and solve problems rather than escalate them. There's a skill to that, which comes with experience. If this RFA does not pass, then I would urge Lawrence to definitely consider a second RFA in some months time... but to consider the concerns and advice of others (which I am sure he would do in any event) and possibly even seek a bit of mentoring or input when tough situations come up, to help round off his otherwise excellent input to the project. In summary, I suspect Lawrence is a user who works towards genuine resolutions of good quality (rather than say, carrying on when the matter is already closed), and people like that are often an asset to the project long term. He is already "acting as an admin", as the saying goes and seems to speak with integrity and aclue.I don't see him as a tool-misuser so it's all down to trust that he'll help reduce and not add tensions, and use RFA-ship (if granted) with good judgement. If he is the kind of person I think he is, he'll set himself to learn from the feedback on this page however it goes.FT2^(Talk|email)11:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
8. I cannot in good conscience support because of the issues listed above.seresin(¡?)22:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
9. Neutral as explained above in my initial oppose.Avruch^T22:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
10. Neutral- The fact we already have some aggressively incivil, drama-mongering admins doesn't mean we should have more rudeness on the other side to even it out; rather, we should get rid of the bad apples we already have. It makes me smile to see some of them opposing Lawrence based on civility grounds, when they have been a hundred times worse and gotten away with it, chiefly because they waited til they got the bit first. As it is, though, I can't support anyone with Lawrence's track record of incivility for adminship. Sorry.Neıl☎13:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

    Moved from oppose - to be pedantic with myself, "I can't support" doesn't mean "I will oppose" (bad logic, bad Neil). Still can't support though.Neıl☎09:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

11. Neutralafter reading all the supports and opposes. I'd like to think Lawrence will get adminship at some point in the future. I'm just not 100% sure it should be now. Having said that, it would'nt unduly worry me if he does pass this RfA. So all i can do is vote neutral and say, good luck!TheProf-T/C12:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
12. Neutral(switched out from Oppose)21655^{ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ?}15:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
13. Neutraldoes not deserve an oppose.SexySeaShark16:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral- The drama issues don't appear so dramatic as I first thought, seems some are just being bold, others are mistakes in understanding policy. A bit more calm would help greatly.SunCreator(talk)20:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it.Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of eitherthis nominationor the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.