Talk:Stephen M. Cohen/Archive 1

Archive 1

April 2007

I reverted unsubstantiated information entered by Helmr. The ownership of SEX.COM is long settled by courts that Gary Kremen is the legal owner. 74.96.165.62 02:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems that someone by the name of Stardust8212 keeps on changing this page for reason unknown.

The ownership of SEX.COM was in fact turned over to Gary Kremen on November 27, 2007 by Judge James Ware on November 27, 2000. docket number 440

It is not yet November 27, 2007, so this date must have a typo. The domain name was sold by Kremen in 2006. See Kremen's article for a citation. -Agyle 05:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Due to many conflicts in the sex.com stories, I became interested in searching for the truth.. I have visited the United States District Court here in San Jose, California several times.

I am currently doing a story for CNN about misinformation in the news. My story has grown so large that CBS and I are now working on a larger story on the subject of misinformation created on the internet that makes its way into news as being real news.

Investigation shows that many of the stories printed about the sex.com case first appeared on the internet through a press release issued by person working for sex.com. These stories were then picked up by members of the news media without any verification whatsoever.

Of course this has become a major news story about how news is made when in fact it may not be true.

The remarks that I have made about the sex.com case has been as a result of an intense investigation.

For Reference, the District Court records are in most part different that what has been printed in the internet that made it into the news. Docket number 479 through 1255. The records of the United States Trademark and Patent Office officially indicates that the United States Trademark for sex.com was issued in August of 2006 to Stephen Michael Cohen. [1]

My interviews have been with then United States Attorney for the Northern District of California Kevin V. Ryan, With agents of the FBI [2] Employees of the District Court including the Chief Deputy Clerk [3] .

The link to the U.S. Federal Courts requires an account charged to a credit card of which you are charged 8 cents per page. [4]

The Court record is absolute verification of the facts that I have stated here.

I removed all references to the word THEFT. Mr. Cohen has not been convicted of the crime of theft. The sex.com case is a civil case and not a criminal

case and the use of that word is in violation of Wikpedia's policies.Helmr 6:18, 11 April 2007

Please do not remove other peoples talk page comments. Also based on your wording of "My investigation" I strongly suggest you read Wikipedia's policy on original research, which can be found at WP:OR. Stardust8212 23:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the page because there is no reason to delete the correctly sourced information in lieu of information which has no source. Note that the links you have provided link to either pages which require membership to access or have nothing to do with this article. Please read Wikipedia's external linking policy and WP:SOURCE. Stardust8212 00:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

After your comments on my talk page I have made a request for comment on this article. I believe the sources I have added to be reputable sources which are not publishing false information. The state that Cohen has served time for both impersonating a lawyer and forgery, contrary to your statements on my talk page. I have also removed all information which does not currently give a source and removed use of the term fraudster from the introductory line. Stardust8212 20:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Did Cohen obtain the Internet domain legally or illegally?

I don't get it. Did Cohen obtain the Internet domain legally or illegally? If legally, then what's all the fuss with him being sued and all? If illegally, it should be stated clearly in the article. Itayb 20:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

According to all the sources I have found he obtained the domain illegally and owes the original owner something in the order of $65 million. Stardust8212 20:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added the word illegally to the article to make it clearer. It would be nice to know how exactly he was able to pull this off, after all, he is no computer hacker. It would be also nice to know how this Kremen guy didn't notice his lucrative domain name had been hijacked. The article is mute about these points right now. Itayb 21:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Information about any illegal activities by Cohen is being continually removed by another user (have a look at the page history) and I am loathe to spend time on something and have it summarily deleted. Reading here it appears that Cohen "hacked the computer system used to store all dotcom registrant details and change ownership of Sex.com into his name. Cohen later covered his tracks by forging a letter, purportedly from Kremen's company, handing over the domain in recognition of non-existent trademark rights Cohen had in the name "sex.com"." I would like to add this information to the article once Helmr stops claiming that all my edits are "libelous and poory sourced" [sic]. Stardust8212 21:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

July 2007

I would like to note that "Helmr" is not Chris O'Brien of the San Jose Mercury News. I am Chris O'Brien, and this is my first ever post to Wikipedia. Sjcobrien 22:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Chris O'Brien

I am Helmr and I am not Chris O'Brien nor at any time have I ever claimed to be him. The executive staff at Wikipedia knows my real name. Helmr 10:49, 24 July 2007

Helmr

That is a very good question. It looks like Stephen Michael Cohen may have been the real owner of sex.com all along and not Gary Kremen at least the United States Trademark and Patent office thinks so.

The USPTO hasn't issued any statements on this, have they? They deal with a lot of record keeping and ruling in the issuances of trademarks and patents, but it seems like federal courts would be the ones to express an opinion in the event of a dispute. -Agyle 06:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In the court records, there is a deposition of Gary Kremen where he stated under the penalty of perjury that he was not the owner of sex.com at the time he filed his law suit. Kremen stated he had sold his interest in sex.com to a company called Online Classiffieds, Inc., which had already been dismissed out of the case by District Court Judge James Ware.

Today in checking the docket Cohen and his attorneys have just filed an emergency motion for an order to show cause re: contempt against Kremen and his attorney's for fraud. According to the clerk's office, that motion is on the desk of Judge Ware.

Cohen has filed three motions to quash service and for a protective order which in part was granted by United States Magistrate Patricia Trumbull.

While Cohen was in jail and during the period he was in Mexico, the United States District Court discovered that there are over 400 filed documents went missing from the court records in the Kremen v Cohen case. The only ones that perused the file at the courthouse according to the clerk's office were Gary Kremen, his attorney's and members of the press.

The FBI office in San Jose, United States Department of Justice, United States Attorneys Office and the Clerk of Court for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California are doing a major investigation into these missing documents.

I have copies of most of the Kremen v Cohen case if anyone want to read it and I have Cohen's latest motions that were filed.

As to what is going to happen, who knows? It is up to Judge James Ware to decide and he has scheduled a date of June 21, 2007 to hear Cohen's motion to reverse the sex.com case.

The statement "Cohen had previously served prison sentences for impersonating a lawyer and forgery" is not true according to the court files at the District Court in San Diego. Cohen was convicted and served time for a Bankruptcy Fraud in 1992.

The current sentence on this, which I recently wrote, based on the Wired article cited, is "In 1991, he was convicted in a bankruptcy fraud scheme in which he forged documents and assumed other identities." Are you saying the conviction was in 1992, or that he served time in 1992? I think the meaning of the sentence is otherwise compatible with your account. I don't think the formal charge of "Bankruptcy Fraud" necessarily contradicts the prior wording that he "served sentences for impersonating a lawyer and forgery," if the bankruptcy fraud was committed by impersonating a lawyer and forgery, although it could be made more clear. -Agyle 06:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What is interesting is, if you do a search for press releases, and sex.com you will see that most of the articles about Stephen Michael Cohen came from someone connected with sex.com. I am currently doing a story on the subject of what is real news. Helmr 5:27, 11 April 2007

Sources

• Got sauce? Er, source? I removed one offensive and two non-RS "pseudo-sources" and provided lots of real sources. Someone that likes this article could read those sources and make a sourced article. Maybe I will if no-one else cares too but a lot on my plate right now. Cheers. --Justanother 04:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Source update. I removed what appears to be commercial link spam for an upcoming book that may well be published by a vanity press. I did not remove The Register again but that is non-RS, too. Someone else can remove it if they agree, please see WP:V. --Justanother 14:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, it was i who re-added the "The Register" reference and who added the reference to the book site. The "The Register" reporter, Kieren McCarthy, is also the author of the book. The book is clearly very relevant. Violet Blue mentions both the article and the book in the article, which you added yourself. Why do you consider "The Register" unreliable? Itayb 14:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The Register is basically a glorified blog, isn't it? These online publications are problematic; blogging is gaining respect and it is starting to become a tough call on some of them. Still, real news organizations have massive investment in personnel and facility that engenders real liability concerns that drive real fact-checking. Sites like The Register do not. The same holds true for a reputable publishing house vs. a vanity press or self-publishing. That fact-checking is the reason that we use reliable and reputable secondary sources as a substitute for peer review. That is basic to the history of Wikipedia vs. Nupedia. Re the book, it is not even published yet so the link serves only as advertising, no? Such advertising is prohibited. --Justanother 14:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Re the book, take a look at the site. It's brimming with relevant information. It stands independently of the book. As for the "The Register", maybe you're right in principle, but in this particular case, the "The Register" article is mentioned in the SFGate.com article. Wouldn't it be safe in this specific case to reference the source of this mention? Also, aren't the rules for inclusion in the "External links" section a bit looser than the rules for inclusion as a cited reference? Itayb 14:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, i haven't heard of the "The Register" before, but then i haven't heard of any of the other references mentioned in the article either. Inspecting the "The Register" website, and reading its Wikipedia article, it seems a bit more than a glorified blog. Does a publication have to be sold in dead-tree format to be reckoned with? Itayb 15:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that EL are looser than refs. You might want to check how that would apply. I put these sources there as potential refs as the refs that were in the article were problematic. So I would say, see what the policies say and then only use the ELs as refs if they are WP:RS. I think that the book site is self-published and should not be in the article (WP:BLP. See WP:BLP for special requirements. Also please see a related RfC I am running at Talk:Catherine Bell#Request for Comments - Use of the "truthaboutscientology" website as I cover some points there re BLP (I came here from the RfC page). I think that if a specific Register article is referenced in RS then it is appropriate to put an EL to that article. (edit conflict) I really do not have a top-of-my head answer to your last question but it bears research. --Justanother 15:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Helmr

"The Register" and Kieren McCarthy according to Cohen's attorney's are the same person. Helmr 10:34, 14 April 2007

"The Register" isn't a person. It's a website. What I think you mean to say is that it's owned and operated by Kieren McCarthy. 4.238.8.243 18:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If that's what's intended it doesn't seem well founded. Itayb 18:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

THIS IS HELMR

The court TV article relating to Stephen Michael Cohen are a reprint of several other articles that appeared on the internet. The fact is Cohen was convicted of Bankruptcy Fraud in the United States, District Court in San Diego in 1992.

Your statement that Cohen had previously served prison sentences for impersonating a lawyer and forgery are not true and they are libelous. The United States District Court case information is: http://www.casd.uscourts.gov/ and the case number is 90-1052 [[5]]

Kremen and Cohen have both become professional litigants and they both have sued anyone and everyone that has come into their path. Cohen’s attorneys have prepared a racketeering action against several reporters, magazines, news agencies and several web sites for publishing untrue information about Cohen during Judge Ware’s deliberation process, for the express purpose of influencing the Judge’s decision.

This attack upon the news has never been tried before. First Amendment Rights do not apply when it relates to criminal activity. As you know, several news reporters have spent time in jail for refusing to turn over documents, film or testify in criminal cases. Several United States Circuit Court’s including the United States Supreme Court have all stated that one does not have a right to freedom of the press when it relates to criminal activity.

In short, this could change the way we publish the news when cases are currently being decided in our court system. England has laws about news reporting on cases pending in their courts.

I have removed your comment as being not true even though it has been reported.

The court records on this subject outweigh the stories published and are in accordance with UTC’s policy. If you would like copies of Cohen’s case, just write to me and I will forward them off to you. Helmr 11:59, 15 April 2007

ES5 citations

I have citations for the new Earth Station 5 section. There are many linked from the ES5 article which I am currently working on. I'll turn some more attention to this article after I am done over there. mako (talk•contribs) 15:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Helmr

Today, I received a filed copy of a new law suit that Stephen Michael Cohen filed in the United States District Court against Gary Kremen, his attorneys and 2 members of the press for “Racketeering under Title 18 USC 1961 & 1962 engaging in the illegal influencing of the court during its decision process with outrageous and untrue writings and statements, undue enrichment and a 1981 action.

I am sending a copy of this action that I received today to Wikipedia so they can present it to their legal department to determine what if anything they should do regarding the web pages for sex.com and Stephen Michael Cohen.

After talking to Wikipedia, I am removing all statements that are in dispute until United States District Court Judge James Ware decides who is the real owner of sex.com on the hearing scheduled for August 6, 2007 in San Jose, California. Helmr 7:22, 18 July 2007

Helmr

I changed back the page that was edited by Brianmc per Wikipedia Helmr 10:49, 24 July 2007

Helmr, you will be blocked by Wikipedia admins if you continue to perform a large scale blanking of this article. Nobody believes you when you say the foundation has ordered this information removed. I can readily check with Jimbo and others if you do this again, and then I will request you be blocked for disruption. I've read the case on PACER (law), anyone can. --Brianmc 10:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to add to this, the foundation operates a system called OTRS which handles all email to the main foundation addresses. Volunteers process the emails and - where appropriate - pass them up to board level or staff level. If you really had contacted the foundation you would have a ticket number you could cite and anyone (such as myself) with OTRS access could verify your claims.

In addition, were the Foundation to mandate that this article be changed for legal reasons someone from the office would perform the edit you claim to be doing on their behalf. There would be a cited number that would allow the validity of the edit to be checked.

In summary: You're totally unconvincing. --Brianmc 11:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I came here to catch up with the story after reading Kieren McCarthy's book, and it's remarkable to see that Cohen (under the name of Helmr) is plainly trying to suppress and confuse the situation even now. I feel honoured to have seen the last waning days of a notorious scammer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.64.172 (talk) 11:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Year of birth

All sources I've seen put Cohen's year of birth as 1948, but none are really reliable sources. Articles from what I'd consider reliable sources just give his age, from which you can only derive the year of birth to plus or minus one year. Sex.com's old reward for his capture included his birthdate, height, and other more personal information that probably shouldn't have been posted. An apparent court transcript of a deposition posted as a .doc file on porn industry gossip/news site lukeford.com included the same birthdate. -Agyle 05:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Same SMC in 1969 marijuana bust?

A Stephen Michael Cohen was arrested in this 1969 California marijuana case. (That's the 1970 Cohen v. Superior Court appeals decision). The appeals decision is still cited a bit ([http://www.acgov.org/jsp_app/da/pov/povarticles.jsp?year=2007 "Police Surveillance"] Point of View, Alameda County District Attorney's Office, Winter 2007.) Not knowing whether it's the same Stephen Michael Cohen, would it be appropriate to mention "A Stephen Michael Cohen was involved...," or should it not be included at all unless corroboration of his identity can also be cited? -Agyle 03:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Since there is not corroboration and the event is not really directly related to what he is notable for I think it should be left out. According to WP:BLP we must be especially careful with sources on an article on living people and the inclusion test at Wikipedia:Avoiding harm (only a proposed guideline but still a good rule of thumb) seems to indicate this shouldn't be included. By the way, your recent work on the article is looking pretty good. Nice to see someone putting some work into this, I got too frustrated to be productive. Stardust8212 03:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity

I think that if we are to list people under "American fraudsters" it is also correct to list them under "Jewish fraudsters" where this is correct. Why should only the American community be singled out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beganlocal (talk • contribs) 09:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection

The page was semi-protected in 2007, but there seems to be no reason to keep it protected now. --Credema (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Entrepreneur?

In the first line of the article, Cohen is described as "an American entrepreneur". Since when are professional and at least 3 times convicted con-artists and identity thieves "entrepreneurs"? Jdsouza (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

Note: The Pending Changes experiment ended and was removed from all articles, including this one. Guy Macon (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Outdated?

It looks as if there was a considerable controversy about various claims in this page in 2007, then the discussion just stopped without any indication of whether the issues were resolved. I tagged the article as being outdated. If anyone is interested, please update this using current information. Thanks! Guy Macon (talk) 10:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Vanburrena

I reverted unsubstantiated information back to the original on October 5, 2011. Vanburrena 4:35, 25 December 2011

I reverted unsubstantiated information back to the original on April 4, 2012. There seems to be a lot of frustration by Gary Kremen not being able to collect from Mr. Cohen. I would assume that he is the one writing under the username Tokmer, or it is one of his friends. In any case, Tolmer has not provided valid sources and I have reverted the page back. Vanburrena 2:34, 10 April 2012

I am currently writing a book about Stephen Michael Cohen and my position is neutral when it comes to the facts about Mr. Cohen. I have taken no position for or against him. I have substantial sources relating to Mr. Cohen's past prior to the sex.com case. Anyone that wants my sources is welcome to write to me at vanburrena@gmail.com. Mr. Cohen was sued by the United States Government because he failed to repay his education loan for law school. Mr. Cohen's name appeared in the Los Angeles times article for persons who defaulted on their government loans.

In 1972 an article appeared in the Los Angeles Herald Examiner about Stephen Michael Cohen. It seems that he was sued in small claims court in Van Nuys Municipal Court for failure to pay work done on his Money Rangers N90082V and N9153V. According to the court clerk, Mr. Cohen was the last person to see the case file before it went missing. Since no one saw Mr. Cohen take the file no charges were filed.

In 1985 an article appeared in the Los Angeles Herald Examiner when the FAA took Mr. Cohen's pilot license away at a hearing held in the United States District Court in Los Angeles. Vanburrena 2:50, 10 April 2012.

BBC article

I reverted Ryulong because some of the links are not related to the article example: Ward, Mark (2006-08-03). "Technology | How the web went world wide". BBC News. Retrieved 2012-07-11. Kasanders (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the last edits because the links do not address the article example:Ward, Mark (2006-08-03). "Technology | How the web went world wide". BBC News. Retrieved 2012-07-11. Kasanders (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

If one link had nothing to do with the page, then you just remove that one link. You don't rollback everything that's made to fix the article because a bunch of people with a vested interest in defending the article subject whitewashed most of the content away. I have removed this one BBC link.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Ryulong

Re: Stephen M. Cohen

Your link is still incorrect. This guy was not convicted or charged with grand theft and check kiting case

check the records yourself at: http://www.occourts.org/online-services/case-access/ Are you an employee of Gary Kremen? Why is your interest in Cohen?

Kasanders (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with Drmies, administrator why is this article relevant at all, it is old and there seems to be no updates on Cohen. Maybe this article should be deleted. Kasanders (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not in any way involved with Mr. Kremen or Mr. Cohen, which is more than I can say about you. I discovered this article due to the ministrations of yourself and several related accounts. Now about you. You have been removing reliably sourced material from this article for the past year. If an article says he was convicted on grand theft and check kiting, then we can say he was. Whether or not the content has been expunged from the court records is not something that matters. And Drmies has never stated that this article should be deleted. He just moved irrelevant information from the article regarding someone's additions that the subject has a pilot's license. Cohen is a notable person for the illicit activities he performed and was convicted for. So Kasanders, I suggest you stop editing this article to whitewash the existence of Mr. Cohen's illicit actions in the past that are not in regards to his Internet crimes.—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, you and other editors have been adding unsourced information into the article. There is nothing out there that says Cohen holds citizenship in Mexico, Israel, or Monaco. There is nothing out there that says he graduated from either college that was mentioned, nor that he holds a JD. And there is clear information that says he was incarcerated for 46 months on bankruptcy fraud charges. I have no invested interest in this article and all of my changes have been to correct information within and remove any false information, which is one of the major tenets of this project. All you have been doing is proving that you have a conflict of interest regarding Mr. Cohen in your insistence that the information, which is reliably sourced, is removed from the page.—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

And it turns out you are wrong, as this case document lists several convictions from 1972 to 2001, all of which support the information in other reliable sources.—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Biography or one event

I'm not sure a biography fits. Perhaps the info could be covered under an article such as Theft of Sex.com as a WP:SPINOUT from Sex.com with Stephen M. Cohen redirecting to Theft of Sex.com. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with such a renaming - the subject seems not notable apart from that. - Youreallycan 16:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

He is also involved in another notable e-crime venture that would make it hard to not have a page on him.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

External link

I'm not sure if this would be appropriate to add, but it does offer some information: http://sexdotcom.info/ JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Identity

It is entirely unreasonable to identify a person as a "fraudster and a thief" in wikipedia's voice. There are a hundred different possible identities that could be chosen to define anyone by and choosing to define someone through crimes committed forty years ago is not neutral or reasonable. If his crimes were chosen as prime identifier because that is the reason he is notable, then the only reasonable identifier I can think of is "ex-convict". ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Heh, you should join the wonderfully collegial discussion on BLPN. I like ex-convict, btw, but at this point I've pretty much said I'm okay with almost any wording as long as it's in good English.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Early life

User:Ryulong is repeatedly associating a conviction when the subject was 43 years old with his early life - this is clearly false - I will revert it if the user fails to explain himself - early life and forty three years old? - Youreallycan 23:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Well you shouldn't have changed the whole separate instances of crimes and almost crimes into separate sections. So I've eliminated the sections (it's really useless to have a one sentence section) and just amalgamated everything into a "personal life" section.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Protected

This edit warring has become problematic. Please work out the lede on the talk page, not by reverting each other silly. — Coren ^(talk) 13:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Reminder about WP:BLPCRIME

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Persons accused of crime says: A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until convicted by a court. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. With a note reading Generally, a conviction is secured through court or magisterial proceedings. Accusations, investigations, and arrests on suspicion of involvement do not amount to a conviction. BLPCRIME applies to low-profile individuals and not to well-known individuals, in whose cases WP:WELLKNOWN is the appropriate policy to follow.

Emphasis on convicted by a court, and a conviction is secured. Convictions have been secured, repeatedly. We may describe Mr. Cohen as an ex-convict, criminal, or whatever else sources call him.

He is notable for crimes he committed and was convicted of, he is notable for being a criminal. For us to hide the label would be inaccurate and dishonest. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Yourealycan, this is why we should not be treating this with any kind words. No matter how little time the subject of this article served in prison, his criminal activities are the reason he is notable for coverage in the first place.—Ryulong (竜龙) 17:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

American ex-convict

Is the subject described as an American ex-convict in multiple reliable sources? - Youreallycan 21:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

No, but McCarthy's Sex.com calls Cohen a "convicted felon" twice, Wired magazine also says "convicted felon," and Findlaw.com also says "convicted felon". That's just using the sources already in the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you please provide a diff for your statement that, "McCarthy's Sex.com calls Cohen a "convicted felon" twice" - Are you supporting a change backed up by those sources of Cohen is a convicted felon? - Youreallycan 21:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he has been convicted of crimes and sentenced to minor/ish terms in jail (a few years only) and if you are intent on vaguely labeling him as an ex convict in the lede those details regarding his ex convict status need to be made clear in the lede also - Youreallycan 21:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Clearly - from your position I would have to request you to consider your desired addition position from Cohen is an American convicted felon to Cohen was convicted of ... in (year) and sentenced to (four years in prison) for ..... clearly this is the policy compliant position and easily citable - and informs readers in a much less vague manner as is required in the lede. Youreallycan 21:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I would support changing to "convicted felon." While many of the sources go on into various convictions, all his crimes being some form of fraud, but all the sources are concerned with his theft of the sex.com domain name. I believe it would be most accurate to say that he's a convicted criminal who, among many fraud convictions, is most notable for the theft of the sex.com domain name in 1995.

If we were to go into the crimes he is known to have committed:

• arrested for cheating people in various marijuana deals in the late '60s (McCarthy, 39)
• passing various bad checks from 1972 to 1979, leading to arrests in 1974 (sentenced to five years probation), 1977 (charming his way into three years' probation and a fine), and twice in 1978 (additional fines) (McCarthy, 40-41)
• a grand theft conviction in 1975 for check-kiting (McCarthy, 52; Wired)
• in 1991, he was arrested for bankruptcy fraud, making false statements, and obstruction of justice, leading to 46 months in jail plus 3 years' probation (McCarthy, 50-51)
• at some point after 2000, Cohen fled the US to avoid an arrest warrant (The Economist)
• at some point after 2005, Cohen spent time in jail for civil contempt for fleeing the country to avoid paying damages in the sex.com case (The Register)

Ian.thomson (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The highest quality sources would be best - the register and a couple of the others are low quality for BLP content (I and the en wiki founder reject the register as worthy of wiki reliable status for any BLP content) Its basically a low grade opinionated blog . .. - and is a "convicted felon." (add the specific felonies he has been convicted of and the sentences jail time and date clearly to the lede - Youreallycan 22:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It's been established that the subject has been convicted of various crimes. The BSIS document and the published book are reliable sources. And where the hell has Jimbo ever said that the Register is not a reliable source when it comes to content on biographies? You seem to be pulling out reasons to protect this person who is in no need of protection for things that he has been publically punished for. Why?—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Your desired addition of , Cohen is a convicted felon - What specific Felonies has he been convicted of, and when ? - we need to clarify that in the lede. Youreallycan 22:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

undue vague descriptions in the lede

If we are to describe the subject in the intro (which I disagree with as WP:UNDUE and as such a WP:BLP violation) as an American ex-convict , then when have to add the details of his convict status/details also - to make it clear to the reader - when and for how long there where a convict - such a vague description as "ex convict" in the lede is undue. A possible resolution might be, is " an American who was sent to prison in (add year here) for four years for/after being convicted of ... (add specific conviction here) Youreallycan 21:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not undue if he's only notable for crimes he's commited and been convicted for. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It is unless we add the length and reasons for his convict status in the lede also - Youreallycan 21:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• A user is desirous of adding to the lede of this BLP ... that he's a convicted criminal who, among many fraud convictions, is most notable for - User:Ian.thomson's desired addition - You can not be this vague in the lede - full stop - clearly state citable notable issues - use the strongest reliable sources for any minor issues and keep them out of the lede - Youreallycan 22:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

  What the hell is your problem? It's a cited fact that he is a convicted criminal.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yourreallycan, I never said that that was what I wanted, I said I would support changing to "convicted felon." You've provided no real reason not to point this out. He is a guy who commits crimes and is known for committing crimes. That means he's a criminal. Plain and simple. If he has a problem with it, he should try to make amends to the people he's wronged. It's not our job to try and fix his life for him. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Currently as it stands its horribly worded. I agree his criminality must be in the lede, but as it stands it jars. I will have a thought on it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think we need to consider when and why it is ok to label a person "criminal", "convict", "felon" and use that as their primary identity. Many people are convicted of crimes and still identified by their profession in their articles (.e.g. "Bernard Lawrence "Bernie" Madoff ... is a former American businessman, stockbroker, investment advisor, and financier.", "Phillip Harvey "Phil" Spector...is a former American record producer and songwriter.", "Samuel B. Kent ... is a former a U.S District Court judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas", "Jack A. Abramoff ... is an American former lobbyist, businessman, movie producer, and writer." "John Milton Chivington ... was a colonel in the United States Army who served in the American Indian Wars during the Colorado War and the New Mexico Campaigns of the American Civil War. (contrast with Calley below)) but others are only identified by their status as lawbreaker (e.g. "Charles Milles Manson (born November 12, 1934) is an American criminal who led what became known as the Manson Family," "William Laws Calley... is a convicted American war criminal and a former U.S. Army officer found guilty of murder for his role in the My Lai Massacre on March 16, 1968, during the Vietnam War.") What makes some people more likely to be identified primarily as criminals? What makes it ok to identify some people as such and not others? I don't mean to turn this into an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, but rather a chance to reflect on how to develop a standard to apply in such cases.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

My guess would be: were they notable before committing those crimes, or did they become notable by committing those crimes? OJ Simpson was notable as a football player first, and so accusations of murder should not be the primary focus. Charlie Manson only became famous for killing people. Preference should only be given to the history of how they became notable, not whether they were rich (funny how that's what appears to be the current standard). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Yet we have "Orenthal James "O. J." Simpson ... is a retired American college and professional football player, football broadcaster, actor, and criminal."·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I left this discussion during my RfA (too much controversy). Ian's point is a good one, although I'd add that if the subject has become notable for other reasons after stopping their criminal activities, that should weigh against labeling them in the lead. This view is the one I expressed earlier - the lead should summarize the body. If pretty much all that is in the body is criminal activities, then labeling the subject a criminal (or some other appellation that is less generalized) seems appropriate to me. Each subject is different as sometimes the person is notable for one kind of crime, whereas sometimes the subject is more, uh, diversified, which makes it harder to use a specific label. Two more thoughts. First, I think we should err on the side of not using the label if it's unclear whether a label is warranted. Second, and this goes back to my earlier comments that I would be okay with different wordings, depending on the precise words used, I have no problem in not using any label at all. I don't see how it is misleading to say "so-and-so is an American who was convicted of such-and-such" rather than "so-and-so is an American ex-convict who did such-and-such".--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

So one part is the informational (is it misleading, does it summarise the article), but what about the ethical side. When is it ok to reduce te sum of a person's many pssible identities to the label of a "wrong doer". Does that only depend on the relevance of the information?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

If they are only notable for their criminal behaviour, I have no problems with labelling them as such in the lede. If they have other significant notability criteria, its probably not best to label them as a 'criminal'. Many people have been convicted of crimes at some point. Al Capone is a criminal, Stephen Cohen is a criminal, Winona Ryder is an actress ;) The OJ example is a bit of an odd one, he was certainly notable for his earlier exploits in football & acting, but his profile EXPLODED with first the court case over his wife, and then with the Vegas thing. His prior notability ensured his criminal notability will outlast anything else people remember about him. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, although I think we can express some general observations, it will almost always vary from article to article. Our "ethical" responsibility is that the lead fairly characterizes the person based on his notability and the body of the article. If the only thing the body is about is his criminal activities but an editor doesn't want to "reduce" the person to wrongdoer, then there may be something wrong with the body. I don't see a policy-driven basis for not including the label in certain circumstances, although I can understand the queasiness in doing so. If we want to prohibit that sort of label, we'd have to be more specific in the policy (generalized statements in the policy don't wash in these nuanced cases).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• It would almost never be appropriate to start an encyclopedia article with "X is a convicted felon", not least because "felon" actually does not tell you anything about the person. Compare:
  1. X is a plastic surgeon/rapper/home maker/social worker/financial trader convicted in 2009 of killing Y in a dispute over ..." vs.
  2. X is a felon convicted in 2009 of killing Y in a dispute over ...
• 2 is tautological and misses the chance to tell the reader something they might want to learn in the first sentence. Ian makes a good point too above. --JN466 20:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • As others say, it's not good to call him a felon unless he is an actual professional felon: works mainly as a felon, gets most of his money from his felon activities, etc. Describe him by his actual profession, then say that he has been convicted.
  • By the ways, consider using "conman", per sources:
    • "the con-man who stole the world's most valuable domain" The Register
    • "until a con man named Stephen M. Cohen came along" San Francisco Gate
    • "(...) stolen from right under his nose by a conman (...) the extraordinary gift for obfuscation possessed by Stephen Michael Cohen, a gift that has been behind a great deal of his lifelong success as a conman. (...) Unlike other members of his profession, Cohen has not come clean or sought to relieve his conscience. (...) Stephen Michael Cohen, you see, is a conman – a very, very good conman. (...) A guy who counts some of America’s smartest criminals among his closest friends; a guy who sits on top of a vast and sprawling web of companies, businesses and offshore bank accounts; a guy who in just two years pushed, kicked and threatened his way to the top of the multi-billion-dollar adult sex industry and has since moved into hotels, casinos and international stock scams; a guy who has talked his way out of almost as many jails as he has into people’s bank accounts. (...) Gary Kremen had chased down one of the greatest conmen of all time [Stephen] and won."Quercus
  • --Enric Naval (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Well you might have trouble convincing people that someone whose career as a conman (and convicted of con-related crimes) does NOT qualify as "professional felon, works mainly as a felon, gets most of his money from his felon activities, etc." using the English language. However I have no objection to 'is a conman convicted of X' if you favour that as a replacement. His profession appears to be parting people from their money illegally/immorally. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Cohen's notability pertains solely to the Sex.com litigation, which was not a criminal proceeding as best I can tell. That appears to have been a civil case and so describing him in the lede as a convicted felon would presumably be referring to his past criminal activities, which only receive significant mentions in the context of this civil case. His past criminal convictions are certainly relevant enough to mention in the lede, but I think the label "felon" or "convict" should always be used sparingly as a label in articles if at all as it has inherent connotations that prejudice the reader.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The Sex.com litigation is one of fraud, and he was arrested as a result of it (namely his flight to Mexico).—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

According to the sources, he was arrested for contempt of court due to non-payment of damages in the civil suit. That is not a felony. Only mention I can find of him being convicted of a felony concern prior arrests not related to the Sex.com civil suit. The way the lede is currently written implies a connection between the felony convictions and Sex.com case, when no such connection exists.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Stephen M. Cohen/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article seems accurate

Last edited at 00:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)