Talk:Andrew Thomas (American politician)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

39 edit requests

Here are my disputed edits, which are enumerated and provide your response and my reply:

Edit # 1:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Thomas request: First paragraph of entry, last sentence: I would request that the last sentence referencing my disbarment be deleted. The fact of my disbarment is acknowledged in the first sentence, which describes me as a “former attorney.” A large section of the entry is devoted to my disbarment and the events leading up to it. Your previous point is well taken that the disbarment of both President Clinton and me is a footnote to our respective legacies (mine obviously being far more limited). I submit it would be appropriate, as in the Clinton entry, for the readers to be able to read the entry in its entirety and draw their own conclusions without the seemingly gratuitous mention in the entry’s short opening paragraph. In the alternative, if you decide to retain the sentence, I would request a balancing sentence afterwards that reads: “Thomas and his supporters bitterly disputed the disbarment, describing it as political retaliation by the judiciary over his numerous disputes with senior judges in the state.”

FearofReprisal response:

• The first paragraph, or "lead," should follow the style guidelines outlined in WP:BLPLEAD. While I believe that the paragraph needs work, I don't agree that removing reference to your disbarment is appropriate.

Thomas reply: As noted above, FearofReprisal has acknowledged merit to my proposed changes. However, despite repeated requests, FearofReprisal has declined to make these changes and to explain the reason for this refusal. In addition, the reference to disbarment is very different from how Wikipedia treats similarly situated public figures. E.g., Wikipedia entry on President Bill Clinton (four introductory paragraphs, very positive, impeachment mentioned in the third paragraph and balanced by “acquittal,” disbarment by U.S. Supreme Court and near-disbarment by Arkansas Supreme Court not mentioned at all). Clinton’s disbarment was notable because his legal career was central to his political rise: he was a Yale Law graduate; his first job was as a law professor in Arkansas; he served as attorney general of Arkansas, his first elected position. Of course, I was not twice elected president. But I was twice elected to lead the fourth-largest prosecutor’s office in the nation, and arguably had more impact on national policy (i.e., immigration policy) than any other elected district attorney, before or since. Finally, FearofReprisal stated in prior comments that Clinton’s disbarment and mine were a “footnote” to our respective legacies. True to this standard with President Clinton, Wikipedia disregards Clinton’s disbarment. Mine is treated as central to the entry, despite FearofReprisal’s own admission that such treatment is inappropriate. I ask that the reference be deleted and that the treatment of my disbarment, in content, tone, balance and relative size, be similar to Wikipedia’s treatment of President Clinton’s impeachment and related troubles.

•  Not done I agree with FearofReprisal. Per WP:LEAD we need to include notable aspects including controversies. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies Undoubtedly, the disbarment would fall within that description. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this would be an inappropriate change, inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit # 2:

Thomas request: Propose collapsing Sections 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 in Table of Contents into single entry, “Feuds with Maricopa County Judges and Board of Supervisors.” Reasons are explained herein.

FearofReprisal response:

• Regards collapsing Sections 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5: probably something that should be done, as they were an outgrowth of your anti-corruption efforts. But I'm not going to do it now. Too much work.

Thomas reply: As noted above, FearofReprisal has acknowledged merit to my proposed changes. However, despite repeated requests, FearofReprisal has declined to make these changes and to explain the reason for this refusal.

• Partially  Done. Collapsed 3.3 and 3.4. Kept section 3.5 separate otherwise it would be too long of a section. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

•  Pending - Further editing of Feuds/Conflict section is required. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit # 3:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Thomas request:

Propose insert this paragraph as final paragraph in Early Career: Thomas began his writing career in 1994 with the publication of his first book, Crime and the Sacking of America: The Roots of Chaos. [citation already at end of current entry] The Wall Street Journal described the book as “extraordinary” [Neely, Richard (1995-03-24). “Too Many Divorces and Not Enough Guns”. The Wall Street Journal.], and columnist David Frum wrote it was “the most fascinating and original book on crime and punishment since James Q. Wilson’s 1975 classic, Thinking About Crime.” [Frum, David (08-1995). “Working for the Man”. The American Spectator.] Afterwards, Thomas became a regular contributor to the Wall Street Journal, Weekly Standard, National Review, and other publications. [numerous citations on the Internet and specific ones available upon request] In a 1998 article in the Wall Street Journal, [Thomas, Andrew Peyton (1998-03-31). “The Minister of Defense Meant No Offense”. The Wall Street Journal.] Thomas defended remarks by Reggie White, the star defensive end for the Green Bay Packers. The article led to White and Thomas co-authoring a book. [citation already at end of current entry] Thomas’s cover story on U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in 1999 for the Weekly Standard [Thomas, Andrew Peyton (1999-08-30-/09-06). “America’s Leading Conservative”. The Weekly Standard.] similarly led to a book by Thomas, this time a biography of the justice. [citation already at end of current entry] The Michigan Law Review wrote the unauthorized biography “provides a comprehensive and extraordinarily detailed portrait of Justice Thomas,” [Ranjan, Jagan Nicholas (2003-03). “The Politicization of Clarence Thomas”. Michigan Law Review.] and Crisis, the official magazine of the NAACP, described the book as a “well-written and illuminating book that offers the most comprehensive portrait of the justice thus far.” [Coleman, Trevor W (2002-01/02). “The Verdict on Justice Thomas”. Crisis.]

FearofReprisal response: Did any of your books end up on best-seller lists?

Thomas reply:

The response is nonresponsive and appears to be an ad hominem. There are numerous examples of authors profiled in Wikipedia who wrote critically acclaimed books, as I did, and whose works are properly discussed in their entries. I ask to be treated the same and that these changes, or some version of them, be included.

• Books are usually listed in a separate section, if the books have been published by reputable publishing houses. Please provide a list of the books with ISBN numbers and I will add them. As for adding a narrative to the Early career section, we could add a short sentence if you can provide sources that describe your writings. Note that biographies in Wikipedia are not supposed to be written like a resume. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• The books are already listed at the end of the article. I didn't add more discussion of the books in the body of the article, just as a matter of weight. If we really want to include discussion of his books, then we probably ought to include some of the more radical viewpoints Thomas espoused in them, but has since disavowed. I didn't have the time to do the research properly, and thought it didn't deserve much weight. Fearofreprisal (talk) 08:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

•  Not done - per above. If, as he's stated, Thomas comes out with another book, it'll probably warrant more detailed coverage here. Fearofreprisal (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit # 4:

Thomas request:

Propose inserting in 3.1 Elections section:

Thomas forged an important partnership in fighting illegal immigration with Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. In 2005, Maricopa County Sheriff’s deputies arrested Patrick Haab, an off-duty Army reservist who had detained illegal immigrants at gunpoint. [Anglen, Robert; Carroll, Susan (2005-04-13). “Army reservist accused of detaining 7 immigrants”. Arizona Republic; Anglen, Robert (2005-04-16). “Soldier overwhelmed by support since arrest”. Arizona Republic.] Thomas refused to prosecute Haab, prompting a public disagreement with Arpaio. At that time, Arpaio was not a supporter of state or local efforts to curb illegal immigration. He told the news media, ““I want the authority to lock up smugglers, but I am not going to lock up illegals hanging around street corners. I'm not going to waste my resources going after a guy in a truck when he picks up five illegals to go trim palm trees.” Regarding the Haab case, Arpaio advocated prosecution. “You don't go around pulling guns on people,” Arpaio commented publicly after the arrest. “Being illegal is not a serious crime. You can't go to jail for being an illegal alien. . . . You can only be deported.” [Kiefer, Michael (2005-08-21). “Law agencies cool to new ‘coyote’ law”. Arizona Republic.]

However, in 2006 Arpaio’s deputies began arresting suspected illegal immigrants under the state’s new human-smuggling law. [Archibold, Randal C. (2006-05-09). “Arizona County Uses New Law to Look for Illegal Immigrants”. New York Times.] Arpaio and Thomas’ joint efforts were popular, and Arpaio endorsed Thomas for reelection, appearing alongside him in campaign TV ads. A columnist for the Arizona Republic who was not a supporter of Thomas’ politics predicted Thomas would win reelection because “he has kept his campaign promises.” While the slogan “Stop Illegal Immigration” on his campaign signs in 2004 “seemed like a cheap political ploy” because “[i]n those days the county attorney didn’t have anything to do with illegal immigration,” that had changed as measures to combat illegal immigration were passed by the legislature and the voters. [Montini (2008-09-03). “Campaign pledge”. Arizona Republic.]

FearofReprisal response:

We need a separate section on your relationship with Arpaio. And Haab should go either there or in the illegal immigration policy section, as it was a precipitating event.

Thomas reply: As noted above, FearofReprisal has acknowledged merit to my proposed changes. However, despite repeated requests, FearofReprisal has declined to make these changes and to explain the reason for this refusal.

•  Pending - Separate section on cooperation with Joe Arpaio needs to be written. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit # 5:

Thomas request: Under “Illegal Immigration” section, first paragraph, following first sentence which begins “As Maricopa County Attorney…” propose inserting the following: He advocated and helped draft state laws and referenda approved by the voters to combat illegal immigration using state and local resources and strategies. These efforts were later copied by other states and jurisdictions. [Wides-Munoz, Laura (2011-05-23). “States’ immigration efforts fizzle”. Associated Press.] }} –

Fearofreprisal response:

Probably should be included. But we probably also need to include the fallout, and the protracted legal battles leading to most of the laws being declared unconstitutional.

Thomas reply: As noted above, FearofReprisal has acknowledged merit to my proposed changes. However, despite repeated requests, FearofReprisal has declined to make these changes and to explain the reason for this refusal. In addition, FearofReprisal already included repeated references to the laws being declared unconstitutional. That work is completed, and is repeated separately and in every single paragraph in a manner suggesting bias. I again request the changes and that the references to the court rulings be wrapped into a single paragraph instead of the current arrangement, as it is preferable in both economy of words and elimination of bias.

Can you please provide a link for the AP source? - Cwobeel (talk) 03:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

No argument from me about including more illegal immigration info, including Thomas' role in advocating and drafting legislation. But the proposed language provided by Royalslongbeach1 needs to be put in the context of its fallout. I'm not interested in tackling it until we've dealt with the major inaccuracies and biases in the article. Fearofreprisal (talk) 08:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Here is the link to the AP story:[1]
•  Pending - Section needs substantial editing, with information on consequences of Thomas' illegal immigration policies and actions. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit # 6:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Thomas request:

Propose inserting the following at the bottom of illegal immigration section: Thomas’ disputes with the judiciary over illegal immigration and other issues prompted him to publicly condemn the courts as liberal and soft on crime, and led to long-standing tensions between him and Maricopa County judges and the state judiciary. [See sections “Feud with Maricopa County Judges and Board of Supervisors” and “Disbarment”]

FearofReprisal response:

I think this should go in the Feuds section.

Thomas reply:

As noted above, FearofReprisal has acknowledged merit to my proposed changes. However, despite repeated requests, FearofReprisal has declined to make these changes and to explain the reason for this refusal.

Please provide source. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

•  Not done - I haven't found a reliable source that that includes the cause and effect that Royalslongbeach1 is talking about here, and I don't think any actually exist. His public condemnation of the courts as liberal and soft on crime sounds like purely political speech (see [2] for an example of this.) Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit # 7:

Thomas request:

Propose inserting the following at the bottom of illegal immigration section:

Thomas took credit for the halt in illegal immigration that occurred during his time in office. Numerous media accounts noted that illegal immigrants left Arizona after these laws were enacted and related enforcement operations commenced in Maricopa County. [Muench, Sarah (2007-12-09). “Decline in holiday business blamed on Arizona's new hiring law”. Arizona Republic; Gonzalez, Daniel (2008-01-31). “Apartments going empty as hiring law hits migrants”. Arizona Republic.; Billeaud, Jacque (2008-03-02). “Illegal immigrants are leaving Arizona”. Associated Press.; Gonzalez, Daniel (2009-07-30. “Illegal-immigrant populace in Ariz. falls by a third, study says”. Arizona Republic.] Thomas’ office also published a report which tied the decrease in illegal immigration to declining crime rates in Maricopa County. [Maricopa County Attorney’s Office analysis of county and national crime rates (2010-03-21). Analysis using FBI’s Uniform Crime Report Part I crimes.]

FearofReprisal response:

Needs to go somewhere, but I think possibly we should put your policies and your actions in different sections.

Thomas reply:

As noted above, FearofReprisal has acknowledged merit to my proposed changes. However, despite repeated requests, FearofReprisal has declined to make these changes and to explain the reason for this refusal.

•  Pending - Will not use this exact content, but will incorporate the information into the illegal immigration section when it is revised. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit # 8:

Thomas request:

Under “Tough on Crime” section, propose inserting the following as the first paragraph: During his tenure, Thomas prosecuted two different sets of serial killers who had simultaneously and independently engaged in crime sprees during his first term as Maricopa County Attorney. These were the so-called Serial Shooters, Dale Hausner and Samuel Dieteman, and the Baseline Killer, Mark Goudeau. Thomas testified in court that he had ordered an emergency wiretap under state law to help identify and capture the Serial Shooters. He stated, “I felt it was necessary to act quickly to stop the killing. And in fact, the killing stopped.” [Kiefer, Michael (2008-04-19). “Thomas defends wiretap”. Arizona Republic.] Hausner and Dieteman were arrested by Phoenix police the following day. Dieteman pleaded guilty and received a sentence of life without parole. Hausner and Goudeau were sentenced to death. [Wikipedia entries]

FearofReprisal response: No citations.

Thomas reply: Citations were provided, including citations to existing Wikipedia entries on the criminals discussed. The change is again requested.

•  Pending - I'll do the homework on this and add it when I have time. Or someone else can do it. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit # 9:

Thomas request:

In paragraph that begins “In his first two years in office…”, sentence that begins “This policy change…”, propose insert the words “Critics claimed…” (I would counter, and did at the time, that the backlog was because the state and county governments had not sufficiently funded the courts and criminal justice system to ensure public safety. If this change is not made, I would request that the preceding sentence explaining my position be added as balance). Same paragraph, before the sentence that begins “Ultimately, all but a …”, propose insert: Thomas defended his actions, saying all of the defendants were first-degree murderers who deserved capital punishment and that juries be allowed should decide their fate. At end of paragraph, propose insert the following: However, these charges were in line with Thomas’ “plead-to-the-lead” plea-bargain policies, which required defendants to plead to the most serious charge and receiving long prison sentences.

FearofReprisal response: No citations.

Thomas reply: Propose citation back to “plead-to-the-lead” policy discussion FearofReprisal previously inserted into the article. Those policies as previously discussed included, by definition, the outcome of these homicide cases.

•  Pending - This will require more work. The "plead-to-the-lead" policy mentioned in the Maricopa County Attorney's annual report was more accurately a "don't-offer-a-plea-until-the-defendant-runs-out-of-money-or-the-case-is-finally-headed-to-trial" policy. There are a number of reliable sources that discuss this, as it was a major disruption of the Maricopa County criminal justice system at the time. While I recognize that "tough on crime" sounds good in press releases, it doesn't actually represent Thomas' policies or actions. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit # 10:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Thomas request:

For section titled “Feud with Maricopa County…”, propose change “feud” to “feuds” and insert “Judges and” before words “Board of Supervisors” and combine the two “feud” sections into one and delete the “Arizona State Bar Investigations” stand-alone section. (Reasoning: (1) the feuds became related, the events are inextricably intertwined, and it makes logical sentence to combine them; (2) as it now stands, about two-thirds of the entry deals with multiple sections discussing separately my feuds with the judges and supervisors and the bar, making the entry imbalanced; (3) much of the material in these sections should be deleted because it is inaccurate, outdated, duplicative or all of the above (please see specific examples given later).

FearofReprisal responses:

For section titled “Feud with Maricopa County…”...}} - This all needs to be reworked. Seems like we're conflating your anti-corruption charges with your political feuds?

Thomas reply: As noted above, FearofReprisal has acknowledged merit to my proposed changes. However, despite repeated requests, FearofReprisal has declined to make these changes and to explain the reason for this refusal. Also, to clarify: the corruption charges were not related to “political feuds.” After Stapley was indicted, the board of supervisors rallied around their indicted colleague and retaliated against law enforcement. Their efforts were successful due to their alliance with the Maricopa County courts and State Bar (with whom they shared attorneys, among other things). The use of the term “feuds” in this context may be misleading and need to be reexamined.

•  Done: Combined the two feuds sections into one conflict section.
• Rejected: Not going to delete the "Arizona State Bar Investigations" section. This is too notable to remove. It may be combined with the disbarment section at some point, but that's not a priority. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit # 11:

Thomas request:

Insert the following: The Arizona Republic noted Andrew Thomas upset the “establishment” during his time as Maricopa County Attorney. Reporters wrote that after Thomas “had embarked on a populist crusade against the judiciary, crooked politicians and illegal immigration, a courthouse insider told an Arizona Republic reporter, ‘The establishment will take care of Andrew Thomas.’” [Kiefer, Michael; Sanchez, Yvonne Wingett (2011-10-16). “Many watching high-profile Andrew Thomas case”. Arizona Republic] The newspaper noted this prediction “played out” following the accumulation of these disputes. [Ibid.]

FearofReprisal response:

Needs to be incorporated in a restructured section.

Thomas reply: As noted above, FearofReprisal has acknowledged merit to my proposed changes. However, despite repeated requests, FearofReprisal has declined to make these changes and to explain the reason for this refusal.

• Rejected:The article at [3] is about opinions of people watching the case. It provides no useful factual information that would improve this article. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit # 12:

Thomas request:

Thomas filed a federal lawsuit against the presiding judge for Maricopa County Attorney in 2007 for probation programs that segregated convicted drunken-drivers based on race. Thomas argued the programs were “race-based courts” and unconstitutional, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The federal courts dismissed this lawsuit for lack of standing. [Thomas v. Mundell, 572 F.3d 756 (9th Cir. 2009).]

FearofReprisal response:

Needs to be incorporated in a restructured section.

Thomas reply: As noted above, FearofReprisal has acknowledged merit to my proposed changes. However, despite repeated requests, FearofReprisal has declined to make these changes and to explain the reason for this refusal.

•  Pending - There is substantial coverage of this among reliable sources. It will require research and work to incorporate into the article. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit # 13:

Thomas request: Propose inserting: Also in 2007, Thomas publicly denounced Maricopa County court officials for refusing to enforce Proposition 100. This referendum approved by voters ended the right to bail for illegal immigrants accused of serious felonies. Thomas pointed to an email that had surfaced showing that court employees were instructed not to ask arrestees about their immigration status. [Kiefer, Michael (2007-04-03). “Thomas: Migrant law defied by court”. Arizona Republic.]

FearofReprisal response:

Needs to be incorporated in a restructured section.

Thomas reply:

As noted above, FearofReprisal has acknowledged merit to my proposed changes. However, despite repeated requests, FearofReprisal has declined to make these changes and to explain the reason for this refusal.

•  Pending: The practice of court employees not asking arrestees about their immigration status was vindicated when Proposition 100 was struck down as unconstitutional by the Ninth Circuit. [4]. So, I don't think we should necessarily include this as a standalone statement, but rather as part of the overall discussion of Prop 100. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit # 14:

Thomas request: Following these clashes with the judiciary, retired judges reportedly sought out the State Bar of Arizona, which regulates the practice of law and controls prosecutors’ law licenses, and complained about Thomas. Part of the state judiciary which reports to the Arizona Supreme Court, the State Bar then initiated 13 investigations of Thomas and his deputies shortly thereafter. In response, Thomas went public and asked the Arizona Supreme Court to end the investigations. [for source, use Footnote 1 cited under current “Arizona State Bar Investigations” section]

FearofReprisal response: Needs to be incorporated in a restructured section.

Thomas reply: As noted above, FearofReprisal has acknowledged merit to my proposed changes. However, despite repeated requests, FearofReprisal has declined to make these changes and to explain the reason for this refusal.

• Rejected: We will probably want to clean up our coverage of the State Bar investigations, but I can't see any reason to include this material -- especially given the background your own website. [5] Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit # 15:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Thomas request: Insert the following: Ernest Calderon, the first Hispanic President of the State Bar of Arizona, filed an affidavit stating he concluded Thomas had committed no ethical violations. Afterwards, the State Bar declined to appoint him to a public position. The State Bar president admitted they did this because Calderon had signed an affidavit favorable to Thomas. [Editorial (2008-06-08). “Bar’s Witch Hunt”. Arizona Republic.] The Arizona Republic wrote an editorial entitled “Bar’s Witch Hunt” which denounced these actions against Thomas and Calderon. [Ibid.]

FearofReprisal response: This article is not about Calderon. He was also one of your attorneys, if I remember right.

Thomas reply: The response is nonresponsive and inaccurate. The article decried the mistreatment of both Ernie Calderon and me. The photo accompanying the editorial in the original hard copy of the paper was of Calderon. He was not my attorney at the time, but served as counsel for me in the later round of State Bar investigations (Maricopa County management later fired him without my consent by dropping him from the list of approved county counsel). The refusal is consistent with overall editorial resistance to inclusion of any content, no matter how well cited, that calls into question the due process afforded me in the highly politicized five years of investigations and proceedings against me. Reputable sources from even political critics of mine have been provided, as requested by FearofReprisal, to substantiate the independent basis for these questions and controversy surrounding the proceedings. All such changes have been refused. I ask again that the change be made.

•  Not done - I can find no reliable sources that opine on the Calderon affidavit. I did find this article, [6], that talks about his conflict of interest, and that he was paid to submit the affidavit. Fearofreprisal (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit # 16:

Thomas request: Insert: The Arizona Republic wrote an editorial entitled “Bar’s Witch Hunt” which denounced these actions against Thomas and Calderon.

FearofReprisal response: Can't find the article on azcentral.com any more.

Thomas reply: The article was written and can be found. It appears from the reference to the article in the previous edit FearofReprisal did successfully retrieve it. Is it the policy of Wikipedia not to refer to articles unless there is an active link to same on the www? Is this policy always followed? I ask that the change be made. The entry as currently written is very misleading. It omits any mention of the due-process concerns that underlay the actions taken against me, which were noted by outside observers and even my political critics at the Arizona Republic.

• Rejected: Irrespective of not being able to find original version of the article, the content [7] consists merely of transitory opinions about the propriety of individual incidents that were ultimately immaterial in the years long investigation that lead to your disbarment. If we're going to include opinions about the bar investigation and disbarment, they should be ones from 2012, not one from 2008. (Especially not one that was, in retrospect, so misguided that the AZ Republic took it off its website.) Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit # 17:

Thomas request:

Insert the following: In November 2008, as part of their Maricopa Anti-Corruption Efforts, or MACE, Thomas and Arpaio brought a Maricopa County grand jury indictment of Maricopa County Supervisor Donald Stapley, Jr. The indictment alleged 118 felony and misdemeanor counts related to Stapley’s failure to disclose business dealings as required by state law.

FearofReprisal response:

All regarding Stapley: Needs to be reworked into a new section.

Thomas reply:

As noted above, FearofReprisal has acknowledged merit to my proposed changes. However, despite repeated requests, FearofReprisal has declined to make these changes and to explain the reason for this refusal.

•  Pending Yes, needs to be included, but as part of a larger effort. We'll also want to include information about the indictment including charges for which you knew ahead of time that the statute of limitations had expired. Also, the rearrest without an indictment, the handoff to the Yavapai County Attorney (to stop the State Bar investigations), the grab-back when she wouldn't prosecute (which caused new State Bar investigations), the attempted pass-off to media personality special prosecutors, the Stapley lawsuit, the Ninth Circuit decision denying your motion to dismiss based on absolute immunity, and the $3.5 million settlement the county paid to settle the matter. It's a pretty long sordid tale, but fortunately, it's well documented in the State Bar investigation and disbarment. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit # 18:

Thomas request: Delete paragraph that begins “Thomas has engaged …” Delete paragraph that begins “The feud has also…” For paragraph that begins “Thomas originally indicted Stapley…”, delete first sentence. Next sentence should be the current, “In an effort to mediate…” In the following sentence, replace words “Stapley had not actually violated…” with the words “the Board of Supervisors had failed to properly enact the disclosure requirements that Stapley had violated.” At beginning of next sentence, which begins “Thomas then took the case…”, change to: “After a dispute arose between the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and the Yavapai County Attorney’s Office, Thomas then took the case back from the Yavapai County Attorney’s Office.” Delete last sentence and replace with: “Next, Thomas sought to hand off the cases to special prosecutors he appointed, Joseph diGenova and Victoria Toensing, prominent attorneys from Washington, D.C. The board of supervisors refused to approve the appointment.” [Wang, Amy (2009-10-20). “Effort to hire Stapley prosecutors hits snag”. Arizona Republic.]

FearofReprisal response: Same. Needs to be reworked into new section.

Thomas reply:

As noted above, FearofReprisal has acknowledged merit to my proposed changes. However, despite repeated requests, FearofReprisal has declined to make these changes and to explain the reason for this refusal.

• Rejected: Most of this edit request is POV, either removing properly cited material, or inserting material for which there are no citations to reliable sources. We might want to include the deGenova and Toensing event when we clean up the entire section (at some point down the line), but it's not a priority now. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit # 19:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Propose deleting paragraph that begins “Related to the Wilcox indictment…” (Reasons for the changes: Grand juries issue indictments, not Arpaio or Thomas, so the current statements that we issued indictments are inaccurate; the basis for the dismissal of the first Stapley case as written is incorrect and now has been corrected; the current account omits my attempt to appoint special prosecutors, a critical fact involving important public figures; the discussion of Leonardo’s ruling here is redundant, as it is discussed elsewhere; the discussion misstates Daisy Flores’ findings, as she concluded there was in fact probable cause to indict Wilcox but she declined to bring the case for other reasons.) Then I propose returning to the text and inserting, before the current “In March, 2009, Maricopa County Superior…”

FearofReprisal response: Ham sandwich.

Thomas reply: The response is unprofessional and speaks for itself.

• Rejected: The material you've proposed deleting is notable, and properly cited. The "issued indictments" statements have already been changed to "obtained indictments." The material regarding Daisy Flores' findings is verifiable through the provided citation. See Edit #18 for the special prosecutors. I am not the source of the ham sandwich remark, which you certainly know. See [8] Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit # 20:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Thomas request: As part of their anti-corruption task force, Thomas and Arpaio sought to investigate alleged financial improprieties in the funding of the new Maricopa County Superior Court building. Next sentence would return to the text and be: In March, 2009, … Propose deleting last sentence of this paragraph that begins “Thomas has made …”, as that is now redundant and better and more fairly explained by the foregoing. Propose inserting next: In June 2008, as these clashes were occurring, the State Bar announced publicly it was ending its investigations of Thomas that had started in 2007 following disputes with the courts over illegal-immigration-related issues. However, on the same day, the State Bar announced it was starting a new round of investigations of Thomas. [Editorial (2009-03-17). “Revenge, paranoia set off bender of bad judgment”. Arizona Republic.] The Arizona Republic editorialized against these actions, stating, “Has the state Bar demonstrated humility for its foolish vengeance-seeking against Thomas? Of course not. . . Last summer we cited the state Bar for conducting a ‘witch hunt’ against Thomas, a 13-count expedition we sensed was rife with political motives. Now we see the hunters are still in the field . . .” [Ibid.] The editors of the Arizona Republic also noted as suspicious the fact that the board of supervisors had fired Thomas as their lawyer, contrary to state statute, and replaced him with the President of the State Bar. [Ibid.] The Arizona Court of Appeals later ruled that the supervisors’ actions in “firing” Thomas were unlawful. [Romley v. Daughton, Arizona Court of Appeals decision (2010)].

Fearofreprisal response: Again, all needs to be reworked.

Thomas reply: As noted above, FearofReprisal has acknowledged merit to my proposed changes. However, despite repeated requests, FearofReprisal has declined to make these changes and to explain the reason for this refusal.

There are multiple edit requests here. Let's break them down:

1. Insert: "As part of their anti-corruption task force, Thomas and Arpaio sought to investigate alleged financial improprieties in the funding of the new Maricopa County Superior Court building."
2. Delete: "Thomas has made many statements, both publicly and in legal filings, that judges in Maricopa County Superior Court are biased against him."
3. Insert: "In June 2008, as these clashes were occurring, the State Bar announced publicly it was ending its investigations of Thomas that had started in 2007 following disputes with the courts over illegal-immigration-related issues. However, on the same day, the State Bar announced it was starting a new round of investigations of Thomas. [Editorial (2009-03-17). “Revenge, paranoia set off bender of bad judgment”. Arizona Republic.] The Arizona Republic editorialized against these actions, stating, “Has the state Bar demonstrated humility for its foolish vengeance-seeking against Thomas? Of course not. . . Last summer we cited the state Bar for conducting a ‘witch hunt’ against Thomas, a 13-count expedition we sensed was rife with political motives. Now we see the hunters are still in the field . . .” [Ibid.]"
4. Insert: "The editors of the Arizona Republic also noted as suspicious the fact that the board of supervisors had fired Thomas as their lawyer, contrary to state statute, and replaced him with the President of the State Bar. [Ibid.]"
5. Insert: "The Arizona Court of Appeals later ruled that the supervisors’ actions in “firing” Thomas were unlawful. [Romley v. Daughton, Arizona Court of Appeals decision (2010)]."

Addressing these in turn:

1. More recent sources indicate that the court tower case was a pretext to attack political foes. Not going to address this just yet, as the entire section needs to be reworked.
2. Still relevant, and should stay in the article, I think.
3. A better and more accurate description of these events is at [9]
4. I can't see that the board of supervisors has anything to do with the state bar. Seems like casting aspersions. (Also, can't find the citation mentioned here.)
5. This happened after Thomas had left office, and the ruling was more nuanced than is stated here.

In short, I'm not going to do anything with this edit request, until most of the existing accuracy and bias problems have been dealt with, and I have to time to do it justice. If someone else wants to tackle it, that's fine - just be aware that Royalslongbeach1's proposed text isn't verifiable. Fearofreprisal (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Agree that the proposed edit not doable as requested. If Thomas want to do some of the work and propose a more accurate presentation and provide sources, it can be considered again. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit # 21:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Thomas request: Regarding the Greenlee County matter: the grand jury that heard testimony and before which we sought an indictment of Judge Donahoe in December 2009 requested a draft indictment, usually a sign a grand jury is planning to indict; the grand jury then broke for the day, and before they could reconvene, the judge who later presided over my disbarment blocked us from seeking the indictment. The grand jury being referred to here was a second grand jury that did not hear the evidence that the first grand jury heard. The statement about “no further evidence” is taken out of context. If the paragraph is to be retained, it would need to be reworked to relate these facts. This report was released at a press conference with selective language by my successor while early balloting was occurring during my run for attorney general in 2010; he had been appointed by the board of supervisors and the “report” was obviously meant to influence the election.

FearofReprisal response: No supporting citations.

Thomas reply: Romley’s appointment by the board of supervisors and running for election during that time is a matter of public record. Citations to those facts can be found easily. In fact, the “succeeded by” information at the top of my entry is inaccurate, as Romley briefly served as my successor before losing the Republican primary election that year to Bill Montgomery.

Separate issues:

• Regarding the Greenlee County matter and the grand jury: Royalslongbeach1 has still not provided any supporting citations for his claims. No - I'm not going to do original research based on public records.

 Not done Per WP:NOR. If there are secondary sources, it can be considered. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding Romley appointment: Already corrected the article. Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done per above. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit # 22:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Thomas request:

Regarding the DOJ matter, Thomas did not refer the matter to DOJ, Arpaio’s attorneys in the RICO suit did.

FearofReprisal response:

No supporting citations.

Thomas reply:

The statement is false. Here is a citation:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/03/13/20100313joe-arpaio-attorney-letter.html

• Technically correct. Thomas held a press conference to announce the referral, and also made a legal filing using that referral as legal cover - so he was "involved" in referring the matter to the DOJ. The article is already corrected. Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done per above. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit # 23:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Thomas request: Regarding the “multiple press conferences” paragraph, I did provide evidence of bribery and explained why I thought the count was appropriate, as well as the two other criminal charges brought against Donahoe. Bob Barr, a former U.S. Attorney and Congressman from Georgia, testified in an affidavit he believed there was probable cause to charge Judge Donahoe with all three crimes. My testimony and Barr’s is part of the file in my disbarment case at the Arizona Supreme Court. The claim is inaccurate. If the paragraph is to be retained in some manner, I would request citation to the Barr affidavit to balance and substantiate that the charges were found to have merit by an expert.

FearofReprisal response: No supporting citations.

Thomas reply: The statement is false. I’ve referred FearofReprisal to information in the public record that establishes the falsity of this statement. I’ve testified and made public statements accessible to Wikipedia that establish the falsity of the statement and lay out the basis for the bribery charge. The source cited by FearofReprisal for this statement is the New Times, which he concedes is biased. Nevertheless, here is a citation that shows one of my many public explanations and cites Bob Barr’s affidavit in support: http://sonoranalliance.com/2010/12/06/bob-barr-says-andrew-thomas-investigation-of-judges-was-warranted/ The statement evidences bias as well. My political critics focused on the bribery charge alone and ignored the fact that Donahoe was charged with three crimes, not just bribery. Singling out bribery in this way is not only false but biased and misleading.

• Follow-up on Donahoe: The only citation you offer for this matter is [10]. It's an article you wrote, where you said "Former Congressman and Prosecutor Bob Barr has analyzed Andrew Thomas’s legal actions against Maricopa County Judges due to their involvement in this and determined they were justified." If you want to bring Barr into the article here, we need a citation to a reliable third-party source about what he said (not an article written by you, and published in a partisan blog with no reputation for editorial oversight or fact checking). The only one I can find, in the AZ Republic, says this: "The Donahoe and racketeering cases figure in ethics complaints against Thomas. Thomas' attorneys hired former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr and paid him fees totaling $5,000 to avow that the investigations and charges were justified. The payments come from public funds paying for Thomas' defense because the acts under investigation occurred while he was a public official."[11] If you'd like, I can include that in the article. If you know of any other citations to reliable sources, please suggest them. Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC) (moved here 02:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC))

• Rejected: No reliable sources can be found that support the notion that you provided evidence on the Donahoe charges. Similarly, no reliable sources can be found which actually analyze the Barr affidavit. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit # 24:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Thomas request:

For “Arizona State Bar investigations”, propose deleting the heading and the first paragraph. For paragraph that begins “In March, 2010…” change “the Arizona Supreme Court” to “the chief justice of the Arizona Supreme Court” to make statement accurate. FearofReprisal response:

No response.

Thomas reply:

I request that the changes be made.

 Done - The change has been made Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit # 25:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Thomas request: Propose deleting paragraph that begins “Thomas has claimed…”, as it is outdated and is now better and more neutrally explained by the foregoing narrative.

Fear of reprisal response: Yet, we can't use that narrative. We need a citation.

Thomas reply: The paragraph refers to my campaign for attorney general, is outdated (refers to my currently running for attorney general), and should be deleted.

•  Done - The paragraph's tense has been changed, to make it appropriate. Given the overlap in time of your attorney general campaign and the bar investigation, the statement should stay. Fearofreprisal (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit # 26:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Thomas request:

For paragraph that begins “Thomas filed a petition…”...

FearofReprisal response: No supporting citations.

Thomas reply:

Here is the citation: http://sonoranalliance.com/2010/06/21/state-bar-inquiry-of-thomas-illegal-unconstitutional-expert-says/

• Here's your original edit request: For paragraph that begins “Thomas filed a petition…”, add this after first sentence: Thomas noted that the courts and State Bar had appointed independent investigators and bar counsel in violation of their own rules, and cited an affidavit by constitutional-law professor Ronald Rotunda which said such changes which singled out Thomas in this way violated his due-process rights.
• The Sonoran Alliance citation above is inadequate, since it is just a press release from your 2010 political campaign. So far as I can find, there are no reliable third-party sources that talk about this. Fearofreprisal (talk) 08:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

•  Not done - I've been unable to find any citations to reliable third party sources that opine on, or even discuss, the Ronald Rotunda affidavit. Fearofreprisal (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit # 27:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Thomas request: For paragraph that begins “The investigative report…”, propose deleting sentences that begin “The State Bar of Arizona’s ….” and ends with “administration of justice,” as the text is superfluous and “piling on.”

FearofReprisal response: The text may be damning, but that doesn't mean it's "piling on." I can't envision removing it.

Thomas reply: The extensive quotation and FearofReprisal’s response evidence bias, as compared to Wikipedia’s treatment of President Clinton in a highly similar situation. Again, I request deletion.

•  Not done - The material is accurate and unchallenged. It's relevant as a summary of the bar investigation. If any other WP editors feel it's inappropriate, they can remove it, and we can use the WP:BRD process to come to a consensus. Fearofreprisal (talk) 08:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit # 28:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Thomas Request:

For “Disbarment” section, propose adding the following two paragraphs after the first paragraph: The panel’s findings of criminal conduct by Thomas and Arpaio were rejected by a federal grand jury in Phoenix, which reviewed the evidence.

FearofReprisal:

Need citation.

Thomas Reply:

Here is the citation:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20120831sheriff-arpaio-federal-criminal-investigation-closed.html

•  Not done - The citation says something different from what you say it does. Further, if we include this, we need to add the DOJ investigation back into the article. I don't think you'd be happy about that, since you argued that mention of the DOJ investigation was "piling on." Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• See Edit #29. This is essentially a duplicate. Fearofreprisal (talk) 08:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit # 29:

Thomas request: In August 2012, the Justice Department announced it was ending its investigation of Arpaio and Thomas and that no indictments would be issued. [Christie, Bob; Billeaud, Jacques (2012-09-01). “Feds close criminal investigation on Ariz. Sheriff”. Associated Press.]

FearofReprisal response:

Should probably be included. And should probably also include the DOJ investigative notes.

Thomas reply: As noted above, FearofReprisal has acknowledged merit to my proposed changes. However, despite repeated requests, FearofReprisal has declined to make these changes and to explain the reason for this refusal.

The reference to DOJ investigative notes is unclear. Again, I request treatment comparable to that afforded President Clinton.

I don't see any mentions of Andrew Thomas on the AP source.[12]., if you have a different source, please provide. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Found the source [13], and will add to the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done [14] - Cwobeel (talk) 04:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• We should decide whether to cover the FBI/DOJ investigation or not. If yes, we should include these citations [15][16], along with the information on the allegations in the investigation, and put it in its own proper section. If no, then we shouldn't tack-on an off-hand reference to it in the Feud section. Fearofreprisal (talk) 08:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
•  Discussion ongoing...
  Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit # 30:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Thomas request:

Thomas’ disbarment and the State Bar proceedings leading up to it were controversial. Numerous third parties challenged the fairness of the process. Arizona Republic columnist E.J. Montini, normally a critic of Thomas, wrote before the hearing that the deck appeared stacked against him because of the courts’ hostility. “In America, we believe that a person accused of wrongdoing has a right to make his case before a jury of his peers. . . . Thomas will face a jury of peers – who hate him.” [Montini, E.J. (2010-12-10). “Thomas Facing a Jury of Wrathful Peers”. Arizona Republic.]

FearofReprisal response: Montini never actually said the process was unfair. He just quoted you as saying it.

Thomas reply: FearofReprisal mischaracterizes Montini’s comments, which can be accessed readily. The title of his article, the central thrust of the article, and specific allegations he made indicated Montini’s belief that the process was unfair, due to judicial hostility towards me arising from my clashes with senior judges. Montini repeated this claim directly in the article, as the quotation I provided makes clear. He specifically noted (1) the gratuitous reference to disbarment in the complaint filed against me and (2) the fact that the pool of legal insiders to serve on the panel was limited and incestuous as specific evidence of unfairness. He need not use the word “unfair” explicitly to make the point. These specific facts and the overall tone of the article prompted the New Times to criticize Montini for defending me. I’ve provided a citation to a reputable source, indeed a political critic of mine. I submit the continuing refusal to cite any source that calls into question the fairness of the five years of investigations and proceedings against my law license, no matter what sources I cite, is compelling evidence of pervasive bias in the entry.

•  Not done. Montini is just stating what you said. He also said "Not many people weep for Thomas… I'm sorry, that last statement misrepresents the situation. Not ANY people weep for Thomas. During his time in office he and Sheriff Joe Arpaio raged war with county supervisors and judges in a way that cost the taxpayers millions and probably won't be cleaned up for years."[17] We can't just cherry pick from a source. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit # 31:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Thomas request:

Insert the following: In an editorial, the Arizona Republic wrote that the disbarment complaint was “almost hysterical spleen-venting.” [Editorial (2011-05-19). “Supervisors are obligated to pay costs”. Arizona Republic.]

FearofReprisal response: Can't find the citation online anymore.

Thomas reply: Is it the policy of Wikipedia not to cite to any fact that does not have an active link on the www? If not, why is the policy being enforced here? The article can be found and I can provide a copy if need be. Again, there is a consistent refusal to admit any content that calls into question the fairness of the proceedings, which ensures the narrative remains very misleading and one-sided. This is very different, for example, from Wikipedia’s treatment of Bill Clinton’s impeachment.

• I finally found the citation here [18].
• In talking about "spleen-venting," the editorial was expressing an opinion that the Bar complaint had "overcharged" you. The editorial also said "Thomas' legal pursuit of supervisors, judges and county administrators constituted some of the most paranoid abuses of police authority we ever have witnessed."
• You wanted to use this citation to support the notion that the bar investigation and disbarment was controversial.[19]. The full context of the article doesn't support that.
• Rejected Fearofreprisal (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)(edited 01:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC))

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit # 32:

Thomas request:

Insert the following: Syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin criticized the proceedings. [20]

FearofReprisal response:

In her blog. No editorial oversight or fact checking. Pretty weak.

Thomas reply:

The statement and citation were offered to prove the truth of the claim that the proceedings were controversial. Malkin is a nationally syndicated columnist who took notice of the proceedings in Arizona. Resistance to this citation is consistent with a concerted attempt to exclude balanced discussion of the disbarment. The dismissal of the Malkin’s nationally syndicated comments specifically suggests political bias as well.

• Rejected - The Malkin citation mostly criticizes attacks against Rachel Alexander's blogging, and mentions you only incidentally. It doesn't provide a basis to conclude that the proceedings against you were controversial. Fearofreprisal (talk) 14:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC) (edited 01:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC))

Edit # 33:

Thomas request:

Propose inserting:

The Maricopa County Republican Party passed a resolution on the eve of the hearing that called the proceedings “baseless and politically motivated.” [Sanchez, Yvonne Wingett (2011-09-06). “GOP group denounces ‘baseless’ Andrew Thomas investigation”. Arizona Republic.]

FearofReprisal response:

Pure political POV. Not worth including, in my opinion.

Thomas reply:

The statement and citation support the claim that the disbarment was controversial. It is offered for that reason alone. Point of view is not relevant in this regard. FearofReprisal has admitted bias, and this response again suggests a concerted attempt to retain the imbalance of the article’s treatment of the disbarment, which results in pervasive bias. President Clinton was not treated similarly. I request the change be made.

•  Not done - The county Republican party's 2011 resolution lacked fact checking, and was refuted by the Arizona Bar Association.[21] While there is some evidence that the early phases of the bar investigation engendered some controversy (both as a result of missteps by the bar, and Thomas' own actions in fighting the investigation), I can find no evidence to support Royalslongbeach1's claim that the disbarment itself (which actually happened in 2012) was controversial. To the contrary, all reliable sources I can find support the notion that it was fully justified. See, for example, [22] Fearofreprisal (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit # 34:

Thomas request:

Propose inserting:

Following the hearing, a witness came forward who testified the presiding judge in the hearing, William O’Neil, privately had admitted bias against Thomas and took exception to Thomas’ treatment of Judge Donahoe. In response to these and related matters, in a front-page article, the Arizona Republic publicly scrutinized O’Neil’s ethics and interactions with the Arizona Supreme Court. [Wagner, Dennis (2014-04-16). “Divorce case stirs ethics allegations against judge”. Arizona Republic.]

FearofReprisal response:

The AZ Supreme Court said the affidavit "does not overcome the presumption that Judge O'Neil acted without bias or prejudice." (per your citation.)

Thomas reply: FeaerofReprisal has declined to respond.

•  Not done - I don't see any place in this article for including this third-party accusation of bias against Judge O'Neil. Fearofreprisal (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit # 35:

Thomas request: In paragraph that begins “Thomas has denied wrongdoing…” following first sentence, propose adding: Thomas’ testimony in the hearing was consistent with this denial. [Evidence and testimony before the disciplinary panel in Andrew Thomas hearing, Sept.-Nov. 2011, video available online at Arizona Supreme Court, www.azcourts.gov/pdj/VideoPage.aspx.]

FearofReprisal response: Unless there's a cite to a third party source, we can't use it.

Thomas reply: The hearing itself, recorded and available online, is cited. Here is another source as well: [Kiefer, Michael; Sanchez, Yvonne Wingett (2011-10-28). “Andrew Thomas reveals why ignored key aide’s advice”. Arizona Republic.]

A recording is a primary source, and we should avoid these. Link for the Arizona Republic source, please? - Cwobeel (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• There are a month's worth of recordings - I suspect hundreds of hours. Going through those is the job of reporters, not WP editors.
• Here's the link to the AZ Republic article [23]. It does not support the claim that "Thomas’ testimony in the hearing was consistent with this denial." (But, I'm not sure why his continuing denial of wrongdoing is really important?)
•  Not done - per above. Fearofreprisal (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit # 36:

Thomas request:

Insert the following: Following sentence that begins “While he had the opportunity…”, propose adding: Among the reasons Thomas gave for not appealing, Thomas explained that the board of supervisors--as reported by the Arizona Republic--“repeatedly fired” his attorneys, hobbling his ability to appeal effectively and defend himself throughout the proceedings. [Kiefer, Michael; Sanchez, Yvonne Wingett (2011-10-28). “Andrew Thomas reveals why ignored key aide’s advice”. Arizona Republic.]

FearofReprisal response: Do you want an entire section on how you were railroaded?

Thomas reply: FearofReprisal has declined to respond.

Can you provide a link for that source? - Cwobeel (talk) 04:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• The link is the same one as in Edit #35. It says: "The county controls the purse strings and has repeatedly fired attorneys retained by Thomas, Aubuchon and Arpaio, citing cost or misconduct as reasons." [24] It does not support the notion that the county "firing" his attorneys was a reason for his not appealing. This may be true, but we really need a clear citation to support it. Fearofreprisal (talk) 09:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Unless a supporting source is provided. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit # 37:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Thomas request:

Insert the following: Following paragraph that begins “Thomas’ disbarment was the most…”, propose adding: Thomas has argued the costs rose because the State Bar selected out-of-state lawyers to handle the matter, paid them by the hour, and lodged them at an expensive resort, all in violation of his due process rights. [previous footnote citing Ronald Rotunda affidavit.]

FearofReprisal response:

Maybe we should have a section on costs to the county taxpayers of the feuds you've been involved in? Over $45.3 million, right?

Thomas reply:

The response is nonresponsive, biased and retaliatory. In reply, please note the Arizona Republic decried the above-described settlement payouts by Maricopa County officials to current and former Maricopa County officials as an incestuous “insult to taxpayers.” The only case that was not settled, and that went to trial, resulted in a federal jury verdict against the board of supervisors. I again request the change as a balancing statement, in keeping with the Clinton Wikipedia entry.

I am not sure why are you bringing Bill Clinton's bio to this discussion. As for the request, unless your arguing about the costs where published in a secondary and reliable sources, we can't just add this. Please provide a source so that we can review. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Here's a citation to the costs:

John Gleason, the Colorado attorney who "prosecuted" the Bar case... charged the Bar a discounted fee for his time, but it still added up. And being from out-of-state, Gleason incurred plenty of expenses for travel and other costs. He stayed at the Arizona Biltmore each night he was in town, though at a heavily discounted rate of $89 a night.
Had the proceedings been handled all "in-house," the bill... would have been much lower. The Bar told the Arizona Supreme Court it would have been "perfectly capable" of handling the proceedings in-house but that it might be better to seek outside counsel to avoid the slightest appearance of a conflict of interest.
Chief Justice Rebecca White Berch initially picked a local attorney, J. Scott Rhodes, to do the honors. But Thomas' defense team balked because Rhodes had once donated $390 to the campaign of Thomas' opponent in the race for county attorney. That's when Gleason was called in.[25]

• Royalslongbeach1's claim that it was the state bar that selected out of state lawyers is also wrong. It was the AZ Supreme Court [26]. I find no reliable sources that suggest that hiring an out of state investigator, paying him a discounted hourly rate, and lodging him at $89 a night were violations of Thomas' due process rights, as Royalslongbeach1 claims.
•  Not done - per above. Fearofreprisal (talk) 10:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit # 38:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Thomas request:

Propose inserting: Under section “2014 Campaign for Arizona Governor,” following first sentence...

FearofReprisal response: The article is about you, not the election. You lost the election by a lot. Enough said.

Thomas reply: The response evidences bias. Omitting the six-way nature of the race is misleading. President Clinton’s elections, in contrast, were covered in a balanced manner. The discussion of my political campaigns, to the extent they are discussed, is almost entirely negative. Again I request the changes.

It is not clear what you are asking here. Could you please clarify? - Cwobeel (talk) 03:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Here is his original edit request:

Under section “2014 Campaign for Arizona Governor,” following first sentence, propose adding: To qualify for the ballot and public funding for his campaign, Thomas obtained signatures from almost 10,000 Arizona voters and $5 Clean Elections contributions from 4,500 Arizona voters. Thomas entered a six-candidate Republican primary. As early balloting began, an Arizona Republic columnist wrote an article, “Can Andrew Thomas Win?”, in which she quoted a political consultant who acknowledged Thomas’ support was rising in the polls. [Roberts, Laurie (2014-07-28). “Can Andrew Thomas Win?” Arizona Republic.] However, in both funding and support from aligned “dark money” independent expenditures, he and the other candidates were heavily outspent by the eventual winner, Doug Ducey. [Sanchez, Yvonne Wingett; O’Dell, Rob (2014-08-30). “Governor’s primary shatters spending records”. Arizona Republic.] Final sentence as is.

• Though I still think this is too much detail, I've added most of it to the article. See [27]
•  Done

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit # 39:

Thomas request: Reduction of entry’s references to and discussion of disbarment to be in line with Wikipedia’s treatment of Bill Clinton’s disbarment. Currently, more than half of my entry is devoted to the subject, is extremely one-sided, and evidences pervasive bias.

Awaiting response.

--Royalslongbeach1 (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Additional information needed - Please identify all specific instances of bias that you can. General statements such as "pervasive bias" do not help us correct any problems. Fearofreprisal (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Response to edit requests

• You just dumped a wall of text with over 6200 words worth of edit requests here.
• From what I can tell, only #21, #22, #23, and #24 actually cite inaccuracies in the article. I've corrected the article with respect to those 4 issues. I'm sure you'll let me know if you find any problems with these corrections.
• I'll be happy to discuss any other inaccuracies in the article, one at a time.
• If that's not good enough for you, I suggest you find some other editors. Fearofreprisal (talk) 03:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not a new wall of text. As noted above, these are edits I'd previously requested and you had previously responded to. They are merely repeated here, along with your responses and my replies, to aid in resolving our disputes. I did this in response both to your statement above requesting a list of specific, disputed edits and the mediator's instructions. These are bona fide disputes about bias. As you know, my complaints have been primarily about bias, not inaccuracy. Wikipedia has a policy specifically dealing with bias. I've done my best as a novice to seek redress under that policy. You seem unwilling to address these concerns despite my repeated, well-documented requests.

Are you now refusing to make the changes you previously agreed to? If so, why? --Royalslongbeach1 (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm willing to discuss inaccuracies, one at a time. As soon as you say all the inaccuracies are dealt with, I'm willing to discuss bias issues, one at a time.
• Based on the number of requests you've made, it should take a couple of months to work through them.
• If you want all of your requests incorporated into the article in one feel swoop, you need to find someone other than me to do it. Possibly Rachael Alexander? Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Am I able to ask Rachel Alexander or somebody else to implement these edits? Or was this an insult?

Regarding remaining accuracy issues:

The bias issues are intertwined with the accuracy issues.

New material has now been added about tracking Mary Rose Wilcox's mail. Did you add this? If not, who did? I cannot open the New York Times article offered in alleged support. The citation does not appear to support the claim. I have no knowledge of the matter and doubt its veracity. Unless you can prove this claim, I request deletion.

The references to the Donahoe case remain inaccurate. The phrase "no evidence of actual wrongdoing" is provably false, as I've stated repeatedly, and I've offered supporting citations as you requested.

Finally, why will it take you two months to work through these issues when you were very speedy in addressing the other changes, so long as they did not address the bias? --Royalslongbeach1 (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I've returned to seek relief and guidance from the mediator. The issues I mention above are trivial compared to the bias issues, for which there is no reasonable likelihood of resolution between us, as documented above. --Royalslongbeach1 (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• The suggestion of Rachael Alexander was genuine.
• Bias and inaccuracy are distinct enough that they can be handled in turn -- inaccuracy first, bias second.
• Had you checked the article history, you would have seen that I didn't add the new Mary Rose Wilcox info.
• The NYT article opens fine in my browser, and fully supports the article claims.
• The citations supporting the "no evidence of actual wrongdoing" check out, and are from reliable sources, contemporaneous to events. One of these citations is your own press release. But, if you want, we can discuss the Donahoe issue further. Possibly you have a better citation than Sonoran Alliance?
• Two months is just a guess, not a pledge. It may be much longer. I'm a volunteer.
• Your post on the mediation page [28] is not likely to go far. The Mediation was rejected. I'd suggest you try WP:BLPN

Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

(Moved paragraph regarding Donahoe to Edit #23) Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

(Coming from BLP/N, which I patrol) Andrew, we are all volunteers here and making 39 edit requests is a tall order. If you could identify, say the five top edits that you want assessed, please do so. Otherwise my guess is that you will have very little response here due to the volume of your requests. Once these are addressed, you can post the next five and so on - Cwobeel (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Article status

@Royalslongbeach1: - This is a follow up on the status of the article.

• Last week, at my suggestion, you posted a request for intervention at the BLP Noticeboard [29]. Here are the things you said, along with my comments:

• My repeated efforts to resolve these disputes with the apparent lead editor, FearofReprisal, have been unsuccessful. - I'm not the lead editor. There is no lead editor. As for your efforts to resolve the disputes: I see no impasse.

• While the article has been improved from the state in which I found it, it remains replete with bias. - Please identify all biased material. Be specific. General statements are not helpful.

• In my communications with him on the Talk page, FearofReprisal has admitted bias, and the article and his comments on the Talk page reflect this. - Please identify all biased material.

• The article as it now stands violates Wikipedia's policies against bias, the combating of which I understand to be a high priority of Wikipedia and its executive director. - Please identify all biased material.

• The bias falls into two main categories:

• (1)Suppression of any and all information that challenges the legitimacy of the actions taken against my law license... - You've provided nothing that can be used. Articles written by you, affidavits from paid consultants, transcripts of hearings, articles on partisan blogs, partisan resolutions - none of these meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. The AZ Republic citations you've provided are no help - the might bemoan aspects of the investigation, but they don't call it, or the hearings, illegitimate. I have searched for, but can't find, any reliable third-party sources (such as media outlets with a reputation for fact checking and editorial control) which provide support for the notion that your disbarment was illegitimate. Even your ally Joe Arpaio doesn't seem to be willing to publicly call your disbarment illegitimate. But - if you feel that I'm unfairly excluding sources, you can post a complaint on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (WP:RSN), and see what the people there say.

• (2)Wikipedia's disparate treatment of my disbarment and related issues and the same events in the life of President William J. Clinton. - Comparing yourself to Bill Clinton here is likely to be no more effective than when you compared yourself to Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr, Solzhenitsyn, and Thomas More after your disbarment.[30]

• The Talk page on my Wikipedia article lays out 39 specific disputes over content and bias. FearofReprisal refuses to address substantively my proposed changes and concerns relating to bias, and gives no timetable for addressing them. - Several of those requested edits were dealt with before you filed the BLP/N. At this point, all 39 of your proposed edits have been responded to. In some cases, they've been "done." In some cases, they've been "not done" or "rejected," with the reasons stated. A handful are "pending", as they will take a bit of time to implement (No, I will not provide any time commitment.) In any event, feel free to go through the entire list, and comment as you feel appropriate. Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Royalslongbeach1: I have closed the edit requests that were either rejected with solid arguments or that they were done. Please respond to the edit requests that are still open or under discussion so that we can proceed. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I can give you Andrew Thomas's date of birth (funny, he didn't supply that). October 24, 1966. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:7776:5130:24D1:AD9:AAE:CB90 (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Andrew Thomas (American politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091201024858/http://sonoranalliance.com:80/2008/12/02/maricopa-county-supervisor-don-stapley-indicted/ to http://sonoranalliance.com/2008/12/02/maricopa-county-supervisor-don-stapley-indicted/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111006065843/http://www.mcaodocuments.com/press/20090917_a.pdf to http://www.mcaodocuments.com/press/20090917_a.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110614055101/http://www.kpho.com/news/22777948/detail.html to http://www.kpho.com/news/22777948/detail.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120315200258/http://vvoice.vo.llnwd.net/e14/5718397.0.pdf to http://vvoice.vo.llnwd.net/e14/5718397.0.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100829050911/http://www.abc15.com:80/dpp/news/state/sheriff-arpaio-endorsements-influence-elections to http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/state/sheriff-arpaio-endorsements-influence-elections

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Andrew Thomas (American politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070817192858/http://www.law.asu.edu:80/Apps/Faculty/Faculty.aspx?individual_id=50877 to http://www.law.asu.edu/Apps/Faculty/Faculty.aspx?individual_id=50877
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120220032658/http://www.mcaodocuments.com/press/20091201_a.pdf to http://www.mcaodocuments.com/press/20091201_a.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://vvoice.vo.llnwd.net/e14/4834924.0.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140606204420/http://ktar.com/22/1734676/Andrew-Thomas-files-petitions-for-Arizona-governor to http://ktar.com/22/1734676/Andrew-Thomas-files-petitions-for-Arizona-governor

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andrew Thomas (American politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130920214102/http://azsos.gov/election/2010/Primary/Canvass2010PE.pdf to http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/Primary/Canvass2010PE.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Andrew Thomas (American politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.law.asu.edu/Apps/Faculty/Faculty.aspx?individual_id=50877
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140818194645/http://www.abc15.com/news/local-news/investigations/fact-check-andrew-thomas-campaign-ad-for-governor to http://www.abc15.com/news/local-news/investigations/fact-check-andrew-thomas-campaign-ad-for-governor
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080716181641/http://www.myazbar.org/AZBarInfo/NewsPDFs/Reply%20to%20Petition%20for%20SA%2007-02-08.pdf to http://www.myazbar.org/AZBarInfo/NewsPDFs/Reply%20to%20Petition%20for%20SA%2007-02-08.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080801024420/http://www.maricopacountyattorney.org/state-bar/ to http://www.maricopacountyattorney.org/state-bar/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070224113640/http://www.maricopacountyattorney.org/index.html to http://www.maricopacountyattorney.org/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)