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)
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)