Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons/Evidence

Responses to User:Alansohn

 * 1) Calling this a "witch hunt" (title and summary) is hardly accurate nor AGF. It's a legitimate attempt to address serious issues
 * 2) Saying "...abuse of administrative authority to obstruct action..." is a serious accusation that you need to prove with diffs. As I've never used my admin bit in relation to you or issues between us, this may be a tad difficult to prove.
 * 3) If I felt I OWNed the Coker article as you claim, why would I have proposed mediation with neutral people assisting each side in an attempt to resolve our differences? An attempt you chose to ignore. You contradict yourself on the number of editors you allude to.
 * 4) As to your question as to how all this applies to this arb case...Prior to submitting I asked the arbs and clerk about the scope of the case if I could submit this, no one objected and I was told the title was a mere umbrella of all issues pertaining to the parties. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 01:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Misinterpreting edit history to get your pound of flesh revenge on an issue related to quotations in footnotes is an excellent definition of a witch hunt. Alansohn (talk) 05:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As you and your fellow admins used repeated threats of blocking to back up your efforts to add balance to the article, coming from individuals who had no connection to the article other than being fellow admins, I feel quite comfortable with the assertion. Without the bullying and threats entered on your behalf by your colleagues I would have raised your WP:COI issues a long time ago. I regret not doing it then. Alansohn (talk) 05:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your "mediation" offer leaves much to be desired. This is not my guys against your guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansohn (talk • contribs)

The mere fact something is verifiable and cited does not mean it has to be included. This is a common fallacy. Other factors, need to be considered, such as WP:NPOV, WP:POINT, WP:BLP, [[Wikipedia:Avoiding_harm, BLP, WP:NOR etc. If the subject of the article feels that the content in the article does not properly reflect them than it is important for us to take that into consideration.

Your claims of the diffs you cite are misleading... Your allegations that I was in violation of policy by removing this six times is misleading - as the first 3 were not sourced and the remaining had valid justifications, which were provided by me. So, no policy violation on my part exists here. You are clearly not followng AGF.
 * First two removals were unsourced. (Jan 2006, Aug 2007)
 * Third removal was of an EL to the Wikipedia article on HM (14 Dec 2007)
 * Fourth removal had a citation, but I cited the policy for removing the "sourced" material - BLP, which can mean it is in violation of any NPOV, VERIFY, or NOR. (16 Dec 2007)
 * 5th removal was actually moving it to the EL section, as I had discussed on the talk page - and you had said was ok with you. (21 Dec 2007)
 * 6th removal, removed some text referring it to the talk page for consensus, as insufficient time had elapsed for editors to review (11 Jan 2008)

And oh, calling things "complete and total bullshit" doesn't help. And how many edits you have, "I have made over 65,000 edits to Wikipedia", is a mere red herring. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 02:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Using your personal relationship as an excuse to cover up unflattering material about an individual is a reason to walk away from the article, not to attack those who have made good faith efforts to improve it. The red herrings you raised for months WP:NPOV (every statement was reliably and verifiably sourced), WP:POINT (unlike you, I only want to see balance, not hagiography), WP:BLP (film subjects who have made extensive efforts to be covered by the media are hardly unknown), Avoiding harm (no harm was made or intended), BLP (again, from an individual who has pushed himself into the media), WP:NOR (the claim of original research was never made before) are all knowingly false. Your failure to distinguish the obligation to create a thorough and balanced article and to try to whitewash the article's subject are evidence of the clearest possible conflict of interest. That you can still push the claim that there is a WP:BLP issue with the text proposed months ago only perpetuates the falsehood. I still have no issue with Coker as an individual. Despite the repeated personal attacks from you and your fellow editors, I only edited the article because the guy lives in the same state that I do. It's a shame that a good faith effort to improve and expand an article caused me to run into someone who can write endlessly about his scouting role but whitewashes his extensive appearance in an Academy Award-winning documentary. Alansohn (talk) 05:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Rather than rehashing this anymore, everyone please see Talk:George Thomas Coker and all the other links on the evidence page, the records speak for themselves. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 20:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Coming up on two and a half years and about a dozen editors and still no meaningful mention of Coker's appearance in an Academy Award-winning documentary has been allowed by User:Rlevse. Alansohn (talk) 05:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Enquiry for RedSpruce
Regarding the below section of RedSpurce's evidence:

As an editor who is unfamiliar with Wikipedia's standard procedures and attitudes (that is, Wikipedia's policy) on quotations, and as an editor who is sure he is not alone in that viewpoint, could I request a brief summary of the relevant policy, with quotations and/or links to the policy pages in question? I understand the point of the evidence being presented–that Richard Arthur Norton has allegedly made edits outside of consensus–but I for one require evidence that supports the statement that such a consensus (or, better still, such a clause in policy) exists.

Furthermore, I feel that the evidence is alleging that such edits were made in bad faith, or in a disruptive manner. To that end, I would also like to see evidence presented that any of the following statements would be qualified: 1/ RAN. has been made aware that insertion of quotations that add no relevant info. is against policy/consensus, and has inserted regardless; 2/ RAN. has refused to participate in consensus-building discussion or dispute resolution, and carried on inserting such quotations.

I would appreciate a response from RedSpruce on this matter, and would also welcome thoughts or comments from others, including Richard Arthur. Furthermore, I wish to note that I appreciate evidence being presented, but any points made therein must also be reinforced with evidence, for all evidence to be valid, and therefore warrant any resultant action (that is, any resultant Committee decision).

Regards, Anthøny  16:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Although RAN has certainly made a great many bad-faith edits in his comments to other editors, I have no reason to believe that his use of quotes in footnotes is done in bad faith. Many people have argued with him on this point, and he has left many of those arguments unanswered, but as far as I can prove, he genuinely believes that his way is the right way.


 * As for consensus, probably the clearest expression of a consensus against this editing practice is the one shown in this discussion on the Citing sources Talk page: Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources/Archive_19. Nine editors opposed this editing practice and none supported it, aside from RAN himself. This had no effect on RAN's editing practices.


 * Regarding Wikipedia policy, one need only look as far as the first and third sentences of Footnotes: "A footnote is a note placed at the bottom of an article that expands on a specific portion of the text. [...] Footnotes add material that explains a point in greater detail, but that would be distracting if included in the main text."
 * When a footnote quote simply repeats information that's in an article, or contains information that is irrelevant to the point being footnoted, then obviously it does not fit this definition. It neither "expands on a specific portion of the text" nor "explains a point in greater detail".
 * RedSpruce (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)