I've been watching this case and I'd like to make several comments. As for the BLP portion, what I see is two sides who apply conflicting wiki policies differently--this obviously led to strong feelings on both sides. This is not unusual. This is why I made that proposal about BLP needing a serious looking at. I don't see the admin abuse by Rlevse that Alansohn has repeatedly claimed. Rlevse never used his admin powers at all in this issue as far as I can tell. Rlevse also states he contacted the arbs and case clerk before becoming active in this case, so the claims about that Alansohn is making about case scope seem groundless. I'm sure they would have told Rlevse not to post otherwise. There is a well documented long history regarding Alansohn's behavior, including his close relation with Norton, and prior effort by what is obviously several people regarding several issues have proved fruitless. I can only wonder how many are afraid to step forward. I find many of Alansohn's statements, especially about Rlevse, to be way out of line ("egregious abuses", "abusive and malicious insertion of his personal agenda", etc) and baseless. He often makes claims without backing them up with hard evidence. He seems to have a pattern of severe over stated attacks on those he comes up against and never giving in. I also don't see the COI by Rlevse that Alansohn claims. I see them both as defending their version of policy interpretation and what policy takes precedence when they conflict. I think it is possible that Rlevse may have some bias in this area, but I don't think it amounts to COI. Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 22:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm sure that Sumoeagle179 is just one of many boy scouts who have randomly leapt into action to defend their partner, apparently always prepared to edit an article or participate in an RfAr, no matter how little connection one has to the article. While nowhere near as much of a problem as User:Rlevse himself, the apparent canvassing of members of the boy scout project to help protect Rlevse and to prevent the insertion of reliably sourced relevant information is part of the larger problem. By inserting himself into this process, and making rather malicious false claims to protect himself (e.g., ownership of Dane Rauschenberg), User:Rlevse has opened himself to the same examination for his far more disturbing abuse and ownership of George Thomas Coker. Rlevse, an admin with ample experience in these matters, needs to be held to a higher standard for his extensive abuse of Wikipedia policy in these matters, especially in a case where he seems determined to take advantage of his admin connections to silence those who differ with him. If there is any matter where adequate evidence has not been provided to meet your satisfaction, please point it out to me and I will be happy to document the violations to meet your demands. Alansohn ( talk) 03:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I agree with Sumoeagle179 about Alansohn making groundless claims. He's used this ArbCom case to make quite a few breathlessly enthusiastic charges against me, but hasn't bothered to present any evidence at all. He seems to think that just yelling an accusation loud enough and often enough will be sufficient. His partner Norton at least makes an effort to support his claims, however dishonest and misguided those efforts may be. RedSpruce ( talk) 23:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply

It's astonishing that someone up on incivility charges would use this platform to declare anyone's claims as "dishonest and misguided". Anything I could possibly add would not equal the evidence demonstrated by the accused himself. Alansohn ( talk) 03:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply