Talk:Andrew Thomas (American politician)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Article naming question

How do I make his name simply Andrew Thomas, instead of Andrew P Thomas?

The problem is that there is some composer that also is named Andrew Thomas.

The prosecutor does seem to be more important. A Google news search for the last two weeks shows 102 hits for "Andrew Thomas" Phoenix. For the moment, I'll add a link to the top of Andrew Thomas, but after that there should be a disambiguation page and Andrew Thomas should be about the prosecutor. Joeldl 03:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I've made a disambiguation page at Andrew Thomas. Most of the incoming links were for the astronaut, so I don't think the Maricopa County Attorney can count as the primary topic. --Stemonitis 16:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

News source. BLP?

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2008-02-28/news/andrew-thomas-maricopa-county-s-top-prosecutor-burnishes-his-wikipedia-page I read this in the news. William Ortiz (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Edits by APT37

The following article in the Phoenix New Times accuses user APT37 of being Andrew Thomas and editing his own article to take out negative statements. http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2008-02-28/news/andrew-thomas-maricopa-county-s-top-prosecutor-burnishes-his-wikipedia-page/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.196.221.79 (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You only need to look at apt37's edit summaries to know he is Andrew Thomas. One of the summaries contained the words "my office". Arbiteroftruth (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Content

User:OregonWrestling has just removed a large amount of properly cited content from the article. (See here. I propose reverting the edit, then going item by item through the article, so he can explain the basis for removing it. Fearofreprisal (talk) 10:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

This BLP should contain only facts about this living person, and in it's current state it does. As a Wikipedian I would love to see more relevant facts about the life and career of this subject, however simply adding recklessly sourced and irrelevant information wont improve the article.--OregonWrestling (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this wanton deletion of whole sections of the BLP in one edit is not fair to others who have spent much time working on the contents. Much of what was deleted was cited from published works, including court documents and judges findings in court, with citations from multiple sources. The only way to get the article back to where it was is to undo the mass deletion done by Oregonwresting and then debate each paragraph to determine it's future. You are not editing, you are hacking away repeatedly at what you find against your political beliefs. It you look at the BLP page for our president, you will see many sourced quotes of what he says publicly and the policies he endorses that reflect on him as a person and as a manager of a political unit. The blogs you refer to in at least some cases are blogs written by employees of the Arizona Republic (you know, they call them reporters.)

I agree that this last edit should be undone and the edits then debated one section at a time.Overdriver (talk) 05:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

One example of a section that you cut included a reference and quote from a judge with this text "This Court finds that the Maricopa County Attorney's Office has a conflict of interest that disqualifies it from conducting an investigation of its client on the very topic on which it gave legal advice to its client," Donahoe wrote. This section has three references and while negative, it is what it is and you should not have deleted it with asking for consensus. I feel that there is no option but to revert your entire edit.Overdriver (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Oregon, regards your statement "this BLP should contain only facts about this living person," here's what WP:BLP says:

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.

If you can cite some WP:policy that says BLPs should only contain facts, rather than what reliable sources say about the individual, I'd be interested in knowing about it.

Regards "reckless sources": I don't know what a reckless source is, and can't find anything about it in WP:RS. Can you please clarify?

Also, can you identify specifically what material you feel violates WP:Relevance_of_Content, and why?

Fearofreprisal (talk) 07:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Running for Attorney General

Thomas prosecutes others for running for offices: read 'em before, now google is failing me :) I'll get them here later []

Thomas runs for office himself: [1] [2] [3] technicalities [4] long time in the making: [5]

other good reference links: (from 2007) [6] [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.0.105 (talk) 23:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Misleading edit summaries

User:OregonWrestling has developed a pattern of deleting large segments of articles, and then using misleading edit summaries. Foe example, this edit (since reverted by was labeled "(Changed wording from "he" to subject surname "Thomas")", but was essentially a revert of the revert discussed above (in the section, "removal of content."

This seems to be a continuation of edit-warring pattern that started last week in the Joe Arpaio article. There, he did the same thing, multiple times: reverting changes, but mislabeling the edit summary. He does not appear to be acting in good faith. Fearofreprisal (talk) 05:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Fearofreprisal has developed a pattern of editing two particular articles in a way that expresses his point of view by using misleading wording and half truths. I edited this page to remove bias and POV information, and then edited the last NPOV version of this page. Clearly by looking at the user history of User:Fearofreprisal, one will see that that user account appears to have been created solely for the purpose of editing the pages of two public figures to solely present his or her viewpoint.--OregonWrestling (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I reversed your edit as it was noted as a change of surnames only, and you ended up deleting over 3,000 characters with no discussion on the talk page. You basically did the same thing (again) as noted in the first paragraph of the section above. Please edit one section at a time and label your edits to reflect correctly what you did, and explain your action on this discussion page to get consensus before you do so, not just throw innuendos around.Overdriver (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, OregonWrestling, this account (Fearofreprisal) was created to edit the the Arpaio article. Check the policies... it's entirely legit. It protects me from reprisals from Arpaio. As a resident of Maricopa County, that's important. Now, getting back to the subject at hand... your misleading edit summaries and edit warring. If you don't want to discuss it, that's fine. But trying to change the subject won't help. Fearofreprisal (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to make a political stance against your enemies. The nature of Wikipedis is such that there is no need to create new user names to edit different pages.--OregonWrestling (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's get back to the subject at hand... your misleading edit summaries and edit warring. Fearofreprisal (talk) 10:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The subject at hand is this article and the misleading information that has been included to "prove" someone's POV and further their political stance. The funny part is that even on the talk page you said "this account (Fearofreprisal) was created to edit the the Arpaio article". Really? You created an secondary account so that you could push your POV on people and you don't see how that's wrong in this forum?

See

: "Privacy: A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions in that area."Overdriver (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Major NPOV + BLP issues here

Let me start by saying that I take no position on the controversies in Maricopa County and I don't even know very much about them. What I do know is that this article must not be a battleground between critics and supporters and that prior to my recent edits, this article was in serious violation of Wikipedia's policies regarding Neutral point of view and Biographies of living persons. If you are not familiar with them, please familiarize yourself; we take them very seriously. Mr. Thomas indeed appears to be a controversial figure, which is all the more reason to approach this subject carefully. Wikipedia should present the views of critics and supporters alike and describe them as such, but Wikipedia should never present their opinions as objective fact. Best of luck, WWB (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think a good chunk of the mess before was related to Thomas supporters simply removing properly cited sections from the article. Possibly you should be specific about what violations of NPOV and BLP you're talking about? Though some of your clean-up seems appropriate, I believe that everything you removed was properly cited to reliable sources, as required by BLP. Further, most of the items you identified as POV seem to represent the perspectives of those reliable sources that have actually expressed views. For example, the Goldwater Institute piece on Thomas's self-promotion represents a view that is essentially uncontested by any other reliable source. That is, no reliable source has expressed an opposing view. Another example is in Thomas not having personally prosecuted any felony cases. While supporters of Thomas might like this fact not to be in the article, it is certainly relevant, is properly cited, and no reliable source, and not even Thomas himself, has disputed its accuracy. Fearofreprisal (talk) 11:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

State Bar Controversies

The last line of the "State Bar Investigations" section is very misleading. It states: "The Arizona Republic has described the bar investigations as "politically tainted" and a "witch hunt"". The article cited is from 2009, and is not concurrent at all with the state bar proceedings currently against Thomas. The AZ Republic has opined much more strongly against Thomas recently and citing the old article falsely characterizes their opinion of the current bar proceedings.

Zach 174.125.137.254 (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Run for Governor

Andrew Thomas considering run for AZ governor

Mr. Thomas said:

"Polls show most people believe the government is broken and corrupt; citizens have asked me to be a voice for that majority and to stand up for their rights. My recent exoneration by a federal grand jury of citizens, following a blatantly rigged court hearing that took my law license, proves how bad things have gotten."

"These citizens also believe I also would finish the fight I began as County Attorney by locking down the border once and for all against the violent chaos there, and tackle other tough issues."

"They believe, furthermore, that I have a uniquely compelling message and would win if I ran."[ http://www.kpho.com/story/20096603/andrew-thomas-considering-run-for-az-governor kpho.com] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.198.197.14 (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

External links

There are three links at the bottom of this post that do not work. I recommend removing these:

• End ID Theft
• Stop DUI AZ
• Wikipedia Bio Modification Analysis 07-17-08

I also question the purpose of having these links:

• Maricopa County Attorney's Office
• Illegal Immigration Journal
• Drug Free AZ

Roger Williams (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Help

I am adding this request as well, as I am not certain how to contact the administrator. Thank you. --Royalslongbeach1 (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I am the subject of this biographical entry and am attempting to reach an administrator. The entry is very one-sided and biased. Thank you. --Royalslongbeach1 (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

--Royalslongbeach1 (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Please list your specific concerns with the article, I will review the sources given and ensure what is in the article is accurate and maintain a NPOV- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Royalslongbeach1::There are a number of people here who can help. Like McMatter said, let's start with your specific concerns. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• I've added the results of the Republican Primary (which probably doesn't thrill you.) I've also changed "disbarred attorney" to "former attorney" in the first sentence, as the term "disbarred" already appears later in the paragraph. It may not be possible to remove much of the negative material, as it's all pretty well cited. If there are any things where one source got it wrong, and another got it right (New Times vs AZ Republic, for example), be sure to point those out, and provide a link to the relevant news story. Because of your legal troubles, it's much easier to find negative material on you than positive. So, if you have positive press clippings, it may be reasonable to provide us links to those -- so long as they're not "fluff," and so long as they're from reliable third party sources (for example, news organizations known for fact checking.) Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Please forgive me throughout our communications, as I am new to this process. My overall concern is the entry itself. It is almost completely negative. By comparison, the Wikipedia biographical entry for former President Bill Clinton is evenhanded, and I believe that comparison is appropriate here. Specifically, in his second and final term of office, President Clinton was caught up in various scandals, investigated by the FBI and a federal grand jury, had numerous battles with the Republican-led Congress, was ultimately impeached and put on trial in the U.S. Senate, and was disbarred by the U.S. Supreme Court and admitted to wrongdoing to avoid disbarment by the Arkansas Supreme Court. While I have not been twice elected President of the United States, I was twice elected to run the fourth largest prosecutor's office in the nation. I accomplished many things in office. My disbarment was highly controversial and I have third-party citations I can cite in support of this. These include editorials and columns from political critics of mine who write for the Arizona Republic newspaper.

In addition, the entry's citation to the Matt Bandy case is very odd. If you google the case, you will find it is a very obscure case. Perhaps that entry was made by somebody affiliated with him. By comparison, I prosecuted some of the worst serial killers in America, reformed plea bargaining, and successfully tackled illegal immigration and set national policy in that regard. None of this is mentioned or discussed, despite the genuine impact my actions had on the nation as a whole.

In short, before I begin suggesting new material, I would greatly appreciate it if Wikipedia would be open to altering the entry fundamentally so that Wikipedia's treatment of me is in line with its treatment of President Clinton, given the obvious similarities. I would be happy to provide information and citations for your consideration (my apologies in advance for my rudimentary knowledge of Wikipedia and its ways). Thank you again for your assistance and your patience, as I am a novice at this. --Royalslongbeach1 (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Please stop including the "help me" template with your edits here. It's not necessary -- I (for one) already "watch" this page for edits. Also, add your comments at the bottom of the page. The easiest way to do that is to click the "edit" tab at the top of the page, then, in the text editing window that comes up, scroll down to the bottom.

As to whether "Wikipedia would be open to altering the entry fundamentally": Wikipedia is run by a non-profit foundation, and is operated by volunteer editors. "Altering the entry fundamentally" is going to be subject to the consensus of editors. Much of what is in the article would probably be considered notable by most editors -- though some material, such as the Matt Bandy prosecution, certainly bears discussion. In any case, nothing is set in stone. The article can definitely be improved.

I recognize that, years ago, the New Times gave you a hard time for purportedly editing your own Wikipedia article. In this case, you are handling the situation absolutely correctly, by coming to the talk page to discuss the article, and leaving it to uninvolved editors to make any changes to the article itself. But, please remember -- we can't use *anything* you say here without citations to third-party sources. To understand this requirement, please read the article WP:No original research. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. To begin our discussion, I do request formally that the discussion of the Matt Bandy prosecution be deleted or reduced to merely a footnote. It was an obscure case that, I submit, deserves no more than that for my five-and-a-half years in office. Its prominent placement in the article is odd given its obscurity. It may have been improperly inserted.

I also request that any reference to or reliance on the Phoenix New Times during and after the fall of 2007 be deleted. That is because the editors of the New Times formally filed a notice of claim to sue my wife and me over my actions as Maricopa County Attorney, and followed up with lawsuits against us, at that time. This litigation continued for years (and was ultimately resolved in my favor). The New Times had a clear conflict of interest in reporting on me during that time and would not, I submit, be considered a reputable and independent authority for those (and other) reasons. Again, that is based on my understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines, and I am admittedly a novice at this.

Finally, I request that the reference to the FBI investigation in the opening paragraph be deleted. The reference appears gratuitous. President Bill Clinton does not receive such treatment in his Wikipedia biography, even though the same is true of him. Nor, for that matter, does Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was also investigated by the FBI (a federal grand jury declined to indict both of us and the Justice Department ended its investigation without bringing charges).

I'll await your responses to these requests before raising other issues. Finally, if I need to address these issues to the other editors you mention, I hope I'll have that opportunity. Thank you again, as I understand now you are a volunteer. --Royalslongbeach1 (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

While there is a process to formally ask for defamatory material to be removed (see WP:OVERSIGHT), the requirements are very strict. I don't think anything in this article would meet the requirements.

In this talk page, if you want something changed, deleted, or added, you need to make a case for it, and provide citations in support of your proposed edit. Even then, it's not up to me. It's requires consensus. I might agree with your change and make it, and the next day another user might come along and change it back.

Now, about your requests:

• Bandy: This information was added to the article in 2007, and was properly sourced. What made this case notable for the article, but wasn't clearly explained, was your initial requirement that Bandy plead to the most serious charge, and your waiting until the last moment to accept a reasonable plea bargain. Of course, since that was an explicit policy of yours, and I've just included information on that policy in the article at Andrew Thomas (prosecutor)#Tough on Crime, it is out of place now. So I have removed it.
• New Times: Wikipedia's policy is that we don't exclude sources just because they're biased. (For details, see WP:BIASED.) There's no doubt that Phoenix New Times is biased against you. But they have both editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking. If you feel any of the New Times citations need to be balanced with a different POV, please post citations to that.
• FBI investigation: It did not lead to any charges, so you are right -- it's gratuitous. I have removed it. (I think including speculation based on the DOJ investigative records released under FOIA earlier this year might also be gratuitous.)

Beyond this:

• I've updated your 2004/2008 election information, focusing on endorsements and victory margin. Insults thrown back and forth in old elections don't seem particularly relevant, so I've not included those.
• I've greatly updated and expanded the policy section, to focus on your "tough on crime, tough on illegal immigration" principles - which, good or bad, are your most important legacy. (While I don't think your reference to Bill Clinton is entirely valid, I will say that the fact that you were both disbarred is only a footnote to your legacies.) I've included significant policies and actions you undertook in support of those policies. I've also noted that some of the laws you supported were struck down by the courts. If there are any big gaps in this section, or if you think it needs balancing information to present a neutral POV, please post some citations.
• I've generally cleaned-up the article, removing dated links and such, but it needs a lot more.
• I think the article needs a section on your anti-corruption initiatives, probably beginning with MACE (that's "Maricopa Anti-Corruption Effort," for other editors), in 2006.[8] I think the information in the feuds sections should be honed down, and folded into this, as it only really makes sense as part of this bigger story. If you can provide any citations which you think give a balanced picture of what happened, please post them here on the talk page.

Finally, let me reiterate: Please provide citations. I can't do anything without them, and I don't get paid to do research (or to edit Wikipedia, for that matter.) Fearofreprisal (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for all the work you put into the entry. I'll provide some proposed additional content in the near future along with supporting citations. I do appreciate the assistance and openness to my comments, as well as the promptness, particularly given that you are doing this on a volunteer basis. --Royalslongbeach1 (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

As promised, here is my proposed additional content for the entry and supporting citations. The proposed content is written in the third person, both to avoid awkwardness and to assist with implementing it, and the citations follow in brackets. I’ve tried to explain all proposed additions and changes; if anything is unclear, please do let me know. Thank you again for your assistance.

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 about our tenures without the seemingly gratuitous mention in the entry’s short opening paragraph. In the alternative, if you 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.”

Under “In Office” at the top, need to change the date April 1, 2010 to April 6, 2010. I announced my resignation on April 1 and it took effect April 6.

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.

Under section “Early career,” last sentence, replace words “which” he lost to Terry Goddard to “a race” he lost …

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.]

Under section “Maricopa County Attorney” and subsection “Elections,” propose inserting the following as first paragraph: Andrew Thomas ran for Maricopa County Attorney in 2004 on a platform of seeking tougher sentences for violent criminals and stopping illegal immigration. He posted the phrase “Stop Illegal Immigration” on his campaign road signs. [Montini, E.J. (2008-09-03). “On campaign pledge, there’s no doubting Thomas”. Arizona Republic.]

In second paragraph in section, which begins “In his 2008 re-election bid,” at end of sentence, propose adding a comma after Nelson and then the following: “who had served as Governor Janet Napolitano’s general counsel before resigning to run against Thomas. Thomas’ policies in requiring longer prison sentences for offenders, which led to an increase in inmates in the Arizona Department of Corrections, and his stop-illegal-immigration policies drew strong political opposition.” Propose leaving the rest of the paragraph as is until after the Romley statement that ends “color of their skin.” Propose creating two new paragraphs after this which read:

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.]

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.]

Paragraph that begins “Thomas was a strong supporter…”, propose adding this as last sentence: Thomas was the only Arizona prosecutor to file charges under the law, successfully bringing several cases during his tenure. [Hensley, J.J.; Kiefer, Michael (2009-11-19). “Employer sanctions law yields first case”. Arizona Republic.]

Propose inserting the following two paragraphs at the bottom of this 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”]

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.]

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]

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.

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).

Propose beginning this new, combined section with the following content:

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.] 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).] 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.] 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] 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.] 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. 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.]

Propose insert new paragraph: Following the board’s actions, Thomas and prosecutors working for him proceeded to seek indictments themselves. A second indictment of Stapley was handed down by a Maricopa County grand jury in December 2008, this time for allegedly using campaign funds for personal purposes. A second Maricopa County Supervisor, Mary Rose Wilcox, also was indicted on 36 felony counts related to failing to disclose business loans she took out from the business finance arm of an organization which had business dealings before the board of supervisors. [current footnote 44] A second Maricopa County jury subsequently issued a second indictment of Wilcox. Wilcox hired as her attorney Colin Campbell, a former presiding judge of Maricopa County. Propose deleting paragraph that begins “Thomas also obtained…”

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…”, the following:

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)]. Retain paragraph beginning “On December 1, 2009…” In paragraph that begins “On December 9, 2009,” delete sentence that reads “Thomas presented no evidence…” (This claim is inaccurate; the evidence admittedly did not satisfy the New Times reporters who reported this but evidence/explanation was given; the wording “actual wrongdoing” is tendentious and not neutral). Propose deleting paragraph that begins “Subsequent to the filing of …” The paragraph notes the issue became moot; discussing the mere filing of a court request that never produced results appears gratuitous.

Propose deleting the paragraphs that begin as follows: “In August, 2010, a Greenlee…” ; “Rather than ending the inquiry…” “Despite multiple press conferences…” The paragraphs should be deleted because they contain and are inherently based on inaccuracies. Specifically:

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.

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

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.

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. Propose deleting paragraph that begins “Thomas has claimed…”, as it is outdated and is now better and more neutrally explained by the foregoing narrative. 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. Propose deleting paragraph that begins “On August 18, 2010…” I had nothing to do with this; the Wilenchik firm represented another lawyer and did this without my knowledge or consent; the public record confirms this. 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.” Propose deleting paragraph that begins “Thomas has denied any wrongdoing.”

For section “2010 candidacy for Arizona Attorney General,” propose adding final sentence: Despite being outspent by Horne almost 3-1 and having his potential disbarment touted in TV ads by Horne, Thomas lost to Horne by 899 votes out of 552,623 cast in the Republican primary. [9]

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. 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.] 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.] 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.] Syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin criticized the proceedings. [10] 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.] 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.]

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.] 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.] 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.]

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. Thank you again for your assistance and consideration. Andrew --Royalslongbeach1 (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Response

Far too much to deal with. But here are some thoughts on what you've said:

• 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.
• I fixed the resignation date, and moved the detail to a separate section.
• 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.
• I've added some of the information you've provided about your 2004 election.

The rest, I'm not going to deal with now. It makes my head hurt to try and separate the POV from the factual background. I may come back to it, or someone else may choose to deal with it. But, please remember, this is a Wikipedia biography. It's not a book. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

If you are now unable to deal with the work involved and cannot commit to addressing things in the foreseeable future, I would respectfully request that the entry be removed until it can be properly amended and that I be referred to somebody else at Wikipedia who has adequate time. This is because of not merely the one-sided nature of the entry but also the many inaccurate and misleading statements noted in my proposed content and revisions. Also, kindly note that my work was extensive not out of self-aggrandizement, but because of the one-sidedness and inaccuracies in the entry and my effort, which you suggested, to propose new content to deal with these issues. If somebody else other than the biographical subject can or should be doing what I'm doing (including writing proposed content), or if I should be seeking redress differently, could you let me know? Thank you again for the revisions and assistance to date. --Royalslongbeach1 (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Response

Wikipedia is a volunteer service. This means:

• All contributions are made on the free time of their contributors.
• There are no set crews or teams working on articles on any topic, just those who come along and volunteer information whenever they wish.
• Anyone can take a break for any period of time or drop out whenever they like.
• Editors have the right to quit and never return, no questions asked, no explanation needed.
• There is no minimum or maximum anyone can contribute.
• No one is, can be, or will be paid for their contributions.
• There is no deadline.

I already made a request for assistance from other editors. Two editors did come by, to clean up and validate some of the citations. Beyond that, no one has stepped up to help.

I appreciate the tremendous amount of work you undertook to provide your comments, proposed content, and citations. Had you not done so, it would have been likely that no one else would have. I expect to, over time, incorporate much of the this information into the article. But I'm not going to make any commitments.

All that being said, I'm going to take some time now to provide my viewpoints on as many of your points as possible here (beyond those I've already responded to. This is just my opinion.

1. In the alternative, if you 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.” - This does not belong in the article lead. There is already a similar statement in the Disbarment section.
2. Under section “Early career,” last sentence, replace words “which” he lost to Terry Goddard to “a race” he lost … - I fixed this.
3. Propose insert this paragraph as final paragraph in Early Career:...Thomas began his writing career in 1994... - Did any of your books end up on best-seller lists?
4. In second paragraph in section, which begins “In his 2008 re-election bid,” at end of sentence, propose adding a comma after Nelson and then the following: “who had served as Governor Janet Napolitano’s general counsel before resigning to run against Thomas. Thomas’ policies in requiring longer prison sentences for offenders, which led to an increase in inmates in the Arizona Department of Corrections, and his stop-illegal-immigration policies drew strong political opposition.” Propose leaving the rest of the paragraph as is until after the Romley statement that ends “color of their skin.” - The the extra context on Nelson isn't really that enlightening. We probably need to discuss the pushback to your tough-on-crime policies in the appropriate section.
5. 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... - 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.
6. 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.] - 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.
7. Paragraph that begins “Thomas was a strong supporter…”, propose adding this as last sentence: Thomas was the only Arizona prosecutor to file charges under the law, successfully bringing several cases during his tenure. [Hensley, J.J.; Kiefer, Michael (2009-11-19). “Employer sanctions law yields first case”. Arizona Republic.] - No, you filed three civil complaints against employers under the law. Two were already out of business, and the third (the first you filed, as described in the cite), was not settled during your tenure. You did, however prosecute many hundreds of employees for felonies under the law. And, as the Cato Institute notes, killed Arizona's economic growth in the process.[11]
8. Propose inserting the following two paragraphs at the bottom of this 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”] - I think this should go in the Feuds section.
9. Thomas took credit for the halt in illegal immigration... - Needs to go somewhere, but I think possibly we should put your policies and your actions in different sections.
10. Under “Tough on Crime” section, propose inserting the following... - No citations.
11. In paragraph that begins “In his first two years in office…”... - No citations.
12. Same paragraph, before the sentence that begins... - No citations.
13. 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?
14. The Arizona Republic noted... - Needs to be incorporated in a restructured section.
15. Thomas filed a federal lawsuit... - Needs to be incorporated in a restructured section.
16. Also in 2007, Thomas publicly denounced... - Needs to be incorporated in a restructured section.
17. Following these clashes with the judiciary... - Needs to be incorporated in a restructured section.
18. Ernest Calderon... - This article is not about Calderon. He was also one of your attorneys, if I remember right.
19. [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. - Can't find the article on azcentral.com any more.
20. In November 2008, as part of their Maricopa Anti-Corruption Efforts, or MACE... - All regarding Stapley: Needs to be reworked into a new section.
21. Following the board’s actions... - Same. Needs to be reworked into new section.
22. 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... Ham sandwich.
23. The basis for the dismissal... - Again, all needs to be reworked.
24. Regarding the Greenlee County matter... - No supporting citations.
25. Regarding the DOJ matter... - No supporting citations.
26. Regarding the “multiple press conferences” paragraph... - No supporting citations.
27. Propose deleting paragraph that begins “Thomas has claimed…”, as it is outdated and is now better and more neutrally explained by the foregoing narrative. Yet, we can't use that narrative. We need a citation.
28. For paragraph that begins “Thomas filed a petition…”... - No supporting citations.
29. Propose deleting paragraph that begins “On August 18, 2010…” I had nothing to do with this; the Wilenchik firm represented another lawyer and did this without my knowledge or consent; the public record confirms this. - Citation says they Wilenchik was representing Aubuchon, not you. Removed as unverifiable, with respect to you.
30. 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.” - The text may be damning, but that doesn't mean it's "piling on." I can't envision removing it.
31. Propose deleting paragraph that begins “Thomas has denied any wrongdoing.” - Done.
32. For section “2010 candidacy for Arizona Attorney General,” propose adding final sentence: Despite being outspent by Horne almost 3-1 and having his potential disbarment touted in TV ads by Horne, Thomas lost to Horne by 899 votes out of 552,623 cast in the Republican primary. [12] - Included most of this - but not spending or dirty tricks.
33. 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. - Need citation.
34. 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.] - Should probably be included. And should probably also include the DOJ investigative notes.
35. 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.] - Montini never actually said the process was unfair. He just quoted you as saying it.
36. 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.] - Can't find the citation online anymore.
37. Syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin criticized the proceedings. [13] - In her blog. No editorial oversight or fact checking. Pretty weak.
38. 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.] - Pure political POV. Not worth including, in my opinion.
39. 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.] - The AZ Supreme Court said the affidavit "does not overcome the presumption that Judge O'Neil acted without bias or prejudice." (per your citation.)
40. 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.] - Unless there's a cite to a third party source, we can't use it.
41. 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.] - Do you want an entire section on how you were railroaded?
42. 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.] - 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?
43. Under section “2014 Campaign for Arizona Governor,” following first sentence... - The article is about you, not the election. You lost the election by a lot. Enough said.

Note that I've had to respond to 43 different issues you've raised about the article here. It took me literally hours to do so (properly checking citations and sources along the way.) If you wonder why no other editors have stepped forward to help with the article, then wonder no more. Fearofreprisal (talk) 12:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Fearofreprisal and Andrew. I hope that a new pair of eyes may be helpful. Reading through this article and its talk page I feel strongly that the article is too long - it's already half the length of Abraham Lincoln - with many details that may belong in an autobiography but don't belong in an encyclopedic article.

I have copied the whole of the existing article, plus Andrew's suggestions above, to my sandbox. Here, Fearofreprisal and I, and anyone else who feels like it, may work on a revised draft which I hope will meet all requirements of balance and of referencing. It will certainly be a lot shorter and will leave out a lot of the details of wrangling.

Andrew, if you aren't happy with any aspect of this process, the help page Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help may be useful. I have a more direct suggestion: if you are seriously unhappy with the current page, it would strike me as reasonable to delete almost all of the current page - leaving in only the noncontroversial details such as date of birth etc - while we await the slow process of work by volunteers in their tea breaks. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thomas (along with Kris Kobach), was largely responsible for the conservative backlash against illegal immigrants that started in the mid to late 2000's and continues today. Like him or not, he's certainly notable, and his policies and actions while in office are the subject of significant academic research. Working on the article in a sandbox does make sense, but I don't agree with blanking a significant amount of the existing content in anticipation of creating a new version of the article. Fearofreprisal (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

OK. Let us try a sandbox draft. I suggest starting from the top of the original article and working down. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Keatinge: Thank you for your participation in this and your recommendation about deleting the page for now. I do request this. With all due respect to Fearofreprial, the page as I found it was extremely one-sided, littered with inaccuracies (to put it charitably), and a veritable playground for my political critics. For example, there was virtually nothing about the illegal-immigration issues that are the very basis, in your judgment, for having an entry about me. I respectfully request that the page be taken down and rewritten from scratch. It is not salvageable, and frankly it wasn't right that I had to spend hours creating new content and then was criticized as self-aggrandizing for doing so. And again, respectfully, many of the comments from Fearofreprisal above (e.g., "Ham sandwich") suggest a bias at this point, either due to pride in previous authorship or something else, and suggests you or somebody else at Wikipedia should take over. While Wikipedia is a volunteer association, it obviously has a responsibility, not only to the public but to the people whose stories it records, to provide such information neutrally and accurately. I am sure you recognize and appreciate this, and I thank you again for the assistance. Again, if I need to seek redress in some other way, please let me know. --Royalslongbeach1 (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• If you want the article deleted, there is a process called WP:Articles for Deletion, or "AfD." I should point out that one of the guidelines in that process is "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD."
• The article was no more one-sided or littered with inaccuracies when you came to it than most other Wikipedia articles. Most of the content in this article was properly cited to reliable sources.
• You suggest that the article is not salvageable. That's a difficult case to make.
• There is now a section on illegal immigration in the article.
• There was no requirement that you spend hours creating new content for the article. You chose to do that work. I told you "I appreciate the tremendous amount of work you undertook to provide your comments, proposed content, and citations." I did not call you "self-aggrandizing."
• It is certainly true that I am biased. However, I am quite capable of editing the article in a manner that doesn't reflect those biases. If you have a concern with bias in my edits, or you feel that I am being incivil to you here, you should use the WP:Dispute resolution processes.
• I'm certain you knew what I meant by "ham sandwich."[14] Despite my making this comment (which is certainly applicable in the Stapley indictments), I did correct the related inaccuracy in the article.
• The concept of someone "taking over" editing this article is foreign to Wikipedia. Remember: volunteer editors.
• If you'd like to understand better how Wikipedia works, read the article WP:FIVE.
• Again, if you're unhappy with my edits or with how I'm interacting with you, please review the WP:Dispute resolution processes. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I have reflected on the fortunate fact that nobody is ever likely to write a Wikipedia page about me. I doubt that I'd enjoy it. I'm only human. I suspect that what will appear neutral to me will appear hopelessly self-aggrandizing to anyone else. That is exactly why autobiographies are not what Wikipedia does. Andrew, sadly, I suspect that you, like most humans, won't really enjoy any article that is acceptable to Wikipedia, and what you can do about it (so long as it's factual and properly attributed) is real, but limited. The help page Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help outlines most of the available remedies. The most obvious one is that facts must, if challenged, be supported by reliable sources. If you have a serious problem, I or other editors will usually be very happy to put matters right very quickly, and if not then Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects should bring a rapid and satisfactory resolution. But if you simply feel that the article isn't perfectly balanced, and you can't persuade other editors of this, your remedies include cultivating personal tranquility or giving your own point of view on your own web site.

I should not delete or drastically shorten this article without consensus here and so I shan't. I can't "take over" this article in any meaningful sense and I'm not going to try. This article simply strikes me as an interesting challenge to my editing skills and to the overall project of building an encyclopedia. I am prepared to put some time in, striving for a neutral and well-written article, for exactly as long as the project feels rewarding to me. We will see how long or short that time is. For now I'm off to work. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

I cannot figure out how to request assistance on the dispute resolution page. If somebody can assist me with some instructions or point me in the right direction on that page, I would appreciate it.

The entry still contains inaccuracies, obvious imbalance and (now admitted) bias. This is especially clear when compared to Wikipedia's treatment of President Clinton, a logical point of reference, as noted before. --Royalslongbeach1 (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

If you feel that you've reached an impasse here on the talk page, one possible next step may be to request help through the Biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you choose to do this:

• Go to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard,
• Scroll down to "To start a new request..." Enter the name of the article as [[Andrew Thomas (prosecutor)]] (with the double square brackets), and click the "create report" button.
• Then, in the text entry window that is displayed, describe why you believe the article it violates the biographies of living persons policies.
• If you want to mention my name as a biased editor, enter it as {{la|Fearofreprisal}} (This is a "template" which will tell Wikipedia to include proper links to my talk page and history.) If you want to refer to this talk page, use [[Talk:Andrew Thomas (prosecutor)]].
• When you get done, be sure to sign your report by adding 4 tildes at the end ("~~~~"), and press the "Save page" button.
• Then, come back here, and post the following: {{BLP noticeboard}}. This will notify other editors that you have posted a report on the biographies of living persons noticeboard.

If this all seems like too much work, you might consider continuing to discuss issues here. Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I've requested a mediation, but I don't know if I jumped through all the hoops. It is certainly not easy for a novice to gain redress here. As far as continuing the discussion here, what do you propose? And when would you make the changes if you agreed to them? --Royalslongbeach1 (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You jumped through the hoops sufficiently to get started. I've responded to your mediation request, and now the mediator is seeking clarification from you. Please go to Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Andrew_P._Thomas,_Prosecutor, and respond. Just add your response right below the mediator's question, and sign it with 4 tildes. Further discussion here, at least between you and I, should continue on the Mediation page, until that process is complete. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

In light of the mediation decision, which seems to refer me back here, can you tell me how we should proceed? --Royalslongbeach1 (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest first discussing any recent edits of mine that you disagree with. If we can come to a consensus on those, we can move on to existing accuracy problems, and then to POV issues. Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Based on your comments, it looks as if you were open to some of my suggestions and we have consensus on some points already. If so, we could implement those areas and take those off the board and work through the ones where there's disagreement. That of course assumes I'm reading your comments right. Does that work for you? If so, do I need to propose any language in those areas? --Royalslongbeach1 (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think you're reading my comments right. Possibly the problem is you're not familiar with how to look at the page history? Here is an explanation Help:Page_history. To look at the page history of this article, first click on the "Article" tab at the top of this page, then the "View History" tab. Here's a direct link to the article history page [[15]. You'll notice another link there that says "edits by user." Click that, and you can get a listing of all of the edits I have made to the article.[16] If you click on the word "diff" in an entry, it will show you exactly what change I made in the article there.

Now, with all that background... please tell me which of my edits you disagree with, and why. Find the edit using the "diff" funtion (as described above), copy the URL, and paste it here, in square brackets. Or copy and paste the text of the edit here. But, in any event, tell me which of my edits you disagree with, and why. With specificity. If the answer is "none," then we can go on to work through the rest of your suggestions. Fearofreprisal (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The comments I'm referring to are the comments you made above on this page where you said my proposed content probably should be included somewhere in some manner. These comments weren't in Wikipedia terminology or symbols but followed my suggested content above. I understand you didn't yet make these changes in the article, but am circling back to them because you acknowledged the merit in implementing at least some of the content/ideas there. I can list them here if it's still unclear.

Again, I want to do what I can to streamline things, so at the risk of seeming presumptuous, if I can do anything to minimize the work on your end, please let me know. --Royalslongbeach1 (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I just want to be clear: you have no problems with any of my edits so far? If that's the case, then what accuracy problems in the article would you like to address first? Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll go back and double-check on your edits. But you still haven't responded to my requests about the content I've proposed that hasn't been implemented, yet you acknowledged there was merit to it. I've raised the issue twice now. I'd appreciate a response. --Royalslongbeach1 (talk) 23:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, here's my response: I'm not going to think further about the new content that you've proposed, much less discuss implementing it, until we resolve any disputes over the existing content of the article. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Why? And to be clear, those are disputes over the existing content of the article. They are edits by omission. --Royalslongbeach1 (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what you mean by "edits by omission." But, to address your question "why": You recently requested mediation, stating:

Despite my best efforts, the entry contains many clearly inaccurate statements, clearly misleading statements, and is biased overall. The editor has admitted on the Talk page for the entry that he is biased against me, and has shown much evidence of this both in the entry as I found it and in the Talk page itself. He insists that his bias does not infect the entry; however, that is plainly wrong, to the point that he is perpetuating known inaccuracies on the page still.[17]

This mediation request was turned down by the mediator, as follows:

In light of the requesting editor's assertion that there was a dispute over specific content of the article, I went back and read through the talk page carefully. I'm afraid that I simply do not see sufficient discussion at the article talk page to satisfy prerequisite for mediation #4, that the "parties must have first engaged in extensive discussion of the matter in dispute at the article talk page".

I am trying to engage you in discussion regarding the specific content of the article which you are disputing - yet you seem to not want to do that. If you're no longer disputing any specific content, all you need to do is say so, and we can move on. Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Issues

Coming here from WP:BLP/N, I've got to say the article is a bit of a mess. Issues I see are:

1. Balance: this chap has clearly done stuff outside the role of Maricopa County Attorney, and there needs to be more coverage of that. In particular his 2002 race for Arizona Attorney General, which presumably generated a reasonable amount of coverage at the time? A quick google suggests that some of that coverage was quite complimentary
2. Americanisms: this article is full of terms-of-art from the US political and legal system. Remember we're writing for a global audience, so while the article is in american english, terms of art and terms unlikely to be understood by non-americans should be wiki linked.
3. POV terminology: we only call something a 'Feud' if that's what the reliable independent sources call it, and we explicitly link to them to show that, otherwise it's a 'conflict'
4. Context: none of this happened in a political or social vaccum, link to that context using See also Illegal immigration to the United States / See also Maricopa County, Arizona and similar pointers.

As for the complaints of the subject, I agree with the number of other editors when they say he needs to pick handful of the most pressing issues and resolve those before moving to the less pressing issues. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Responding, point by point:

1. Thomas didn't do much notable before being elected county attorney, and the stuff he's done since is only notable because of that role. Feel free to add anything you think might help balance the article.
2. Not sure which Americanisms you're referring to. It might be more efficient for you to wikilink them than for me to do so.
3. The term "Feud" has been used in the media.[18]. The American Bar Association called it a "war".[19] If using "conflict" seems a bit less harsh to you, I won't argue against it.
4. No problem with wikilinking to context. Just didn't seem like a priority, when Royalslongbeach1 was (and still is) raising issues of accuracy and bias. Fearofreprisal (talk) 12:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Article name

I will move the article to Andrew Thomas (politician) tomorrow unless there are any objections. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. Keep a redirect on the current name, of course. Fearofreprisal (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. when you move an article, the redirect is done automatically AFAIK. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Cwobeel (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)