Talk:Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives/Archive 1

Tax collection
To the statement that formerly read "The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) was kept within the Treasury Department and continues to operate the tax collection side," I added the qualifier "most of" with respect to tax collection. The new BATFE is still charged with tax collection under the National Firearms Act -- i.e., it still handles the gun taxes. --70.160.160.175 10:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

the New "BATFE" still is officially known by the acronym "ATF." Blondlieut 23:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Part of the reason is that "ATF" or "BATF" is a widely recognised acronym, while ATFE is the acronym of both the Association of Toolmark & Firearms Examiners (ATFE) and a religious group called ATFE.Naaman Brown (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

WRONG, Ruby Ridge started as a US Marshals operation, DUH--68.81.105.166 22:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wrong still. the initial ATF investigation into the goings on at Ruby are was caused the US Marshals to be involved in the first place. --Numerousfalx 04:55, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They were outstanding ATF warrants, because there were violations of federal firearms laws, but there was no ATF presence in the actual operation. It's really rather common in law enforcement at all levels for outstanding warrants (of long standing) by one organization to be acted on by another, often with the knowledge or cooperation of the organization issuing the warrants. It's sort of the idea of an "outstanding" warrant, and the reason why there's a system for checking whether or not outstanding warrants exist. I don't believe there's ever been any serious question as to whether the warrants as issued were valid.Blondlieut 23:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, there's been subsequent legislation, since the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (which moved ATF to Justice), that has since deleted the comma after "Firearms." The agency, for internal and external purposes, has never used the comma after Firearms, for any purpose.Blondlieut 23:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed non-neutral POV
Dear fellow editors: I have made some edits to remove blatant non-neutral point of view in this article. In my opinion, this article probably should not be used as a dumping ground for verbiage that is blatantly either pro-gun control or anti-gun control, pro- BATFE or anti-BATFE. I argue that the purpose of a Wikipedia encyclopedia article on this government agency is not to criticise or commend the agency or its actions, but instead to be informative in a neutral way. Also, any statement of controversial "fact" should be supported with a citation to the source for the statement. Yours, Famspear 14:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Unexplained language deleted
Dear fellow editors: On 14 July 2006 I deleted the following verbiage:


 * It is commonplace for sheriffs to allow BATFE to operate within their counties as if BATFE were regular law enforcement with the same standing as an elected sheriff.

This language is problematic for a number of reasons. First, from a legal standpoint Federal law enforcement officials (such as ATF agents, FBI agents, IRS agents, Secret Service agents, etc.) do not as a general proposition need to be "allowed" by local "sheriffs" -- or by any other local law enforcement officials -- to "operate" within the geographical boundaries of the United States of America -- which boundaries obviously include all the "counties" and parishes in the United States. Second, the phrase "regular law enforcement" seems to have been used in contradistinction with what presumably would be "non-regular law enforcement" -- whatever that might be -- a concept, the contours and relevance of which the user who inserted this verbiage failed to explain. Third, the phrase "the same standing as an elected sheriff" is enigmatic as well. What would it mean to say that a law enforcement official has the "same standing as a sheriff"? Why would that be important? The user who inserted this verbiage did not say. For example, is there such a thing as a "regular law enforcement" official who does NOT have the "same standing as an elected sheriff"?? Why is the "standing of an elected sheriff" supposed to be relevant or important to the duties of ATF agents? Let's be more specific in the article if we're going to have language like this in the article. To someone like me who has no pro- or anti- ATF bias, the entry just comes off as some sort of bitter, non-neutral POV attempt at a "slam" at the ATF. Non-encyclopedic in my opinion. Yours, Famspear 21:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

What is Celeta and what does it have to do with the "Glover case" or a "culture of cruel ineptitude"?
Regarding this paragraph:


 * The Jewish gun-rights organization JPFO accuses the ATF of manipulating evidence in the case of competition shooter John Glover and sells a video that allegedly proves the ATF "supports a culture of cruel ineptitude."[1] This case is notable as Celeta sells "80% Complete" guns, which are uncompleted firearms that require more labor to be functional.

It's unclear to someone like me -- who has no expertise or particularized interest in firearms or the ATF -- what the second sentence has to do with the first sentence. Presumably "Celeta" is a manufacturing or wholesaling or retailing company for firearms or parts of firearms. What does Celeta or its "80% Complete" guns have to do with the "case" of John Glover (whoever he is), and why or how is the "Glover case" "notable" with respect to Celeta and its products? Can anyone provide specificity here? The verbiage as written might make sense to someone who already knows a lot about ATF and firearms and Celeta and John Glover, but in my opinion most readers of Wikipedia do not fall into that category. Yours, Famspear 22:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

PS: The apparent footnote [1] reference after the word "ineptitude" in the article seems to lead nowhere when I click on it. Can anyone help here? Yours, Famspear 22:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I corrected part of the problem. There was a coding error that masked part of the text in the article, making it invisible. We now have two footnote references, and the missing sentence is now visible. But the links still don't work. So there might be another coding error (?). Yours, Famspear 22:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have changed the coding on the footnote references so that they are operational. I express no opinion one way or the other on the reliability of the cited material. Yours, Famspear 22:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

To summarize, the material now reads:


 * The Jewish gun-rights organization JPFO accuses the ATF of manipulating evidence in the case of competition shooter John Glover and sells a video that allegedly proves the ATF "supports a culture of cruel ineptitude."[1]


 * More recently, the ATF raided gun parts manufacturer Richard Celeta of Dillon, Montana.[2] This case is notable as Celeta sells "80% Complete" guns, which are uncompleted firearms that require more labor to be functional.[citation needed]

The sentence beginning with "More recently, the ATF raided [ . . . ]" had been imbedded in the article but was essentially invisible because of a coding problem. Yours, Famspear 23:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of material apparently protected by copyright
On 8 August 2006, I removed a large amount of material placed in the article by an anonymous user at IP65.79.129.116. The material was apparently copied from other another source or sources without considering possible copyright violations. This material may have had as its source the web site:

http://jepoch.dth.jp/ww/www.atf.treas.gov/about/atfhistory.htm

which appears to be a U.S. government web site.

Copyright is apparently claimed by Oxford University Press, Inc., and the aforementioned web site states that the material was used with "permission." The fact that the copyright holder may have granted permission for use at that web site does not necessarily mean that the material can be legally copied and reproduced in Wikipedia or elsewhere. Yours, Famspear 19:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Government works are public domain.--Conor Fallon (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Legal Issues
"For this reason most firearms builders prefer to use fully manufactured receivers - 100% receivers - that must comply with the same federal regulations as a complete firearm.

Regardless of the receiver completion percentage the home made gun must comply with all relevent gun laws including restrictions on the numbers of imported parts, barrel length, overall length, and cannot be convertable to a fully automatic weapon. "

I'm not sure what the above has to do with ATF as an organization. Even discussion of the requirements of the federal gun laws themselves, seems to me, belongs under the gun laws in question (see the box), not under ATF.

I plan on deleting these, as I believe they are in the wrong location.

Blondlieut 20:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur with Blondlieut. The controversial aspect of this case does not appear to have anything to do with the BATFE. They are merely enforcing a federal firearms statue under their administration.  Cafe Irlandais 19:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Kenneth Ballew
Anyone want to do an article on this guy?


 * You are welcome to it, but it is not relevant in an encyclopedia article about the ATF. The article on Ballew can reference the ATF article, but it is not necessary or useful to post every single offense (real or otherwise) that the ATF has allegedly perpetuated in the ATF article.  Izaakb 17:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Why does one department get all the fun stuff?
Seriously, how does it happen that one unit gets so diverse a set of laws to deal with? I'm not now, nor have I ever been, a US subject nor citizen, so I'm asking in case there is a story there. Grant McKenna 20:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This isn't your personal blog space. --Haizum   μολὼν λαβέ 21:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * True, but harsh! I see you've been blocked. Karma, I guess.DMCer (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Seriously? I'd wager because it all involves the illegal trafficking and use of illegal/heavily-monitored items. I can see the disparity between substances and weapons themselves, but the execution of enforcement is likely similar. -BaronGrackle 20:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * GOOD POINT TO BaronGrackle. The chief historian of the federal law enforcement training center made the point in Appendix G of the Treasury Dept report on Waco that tax collection on alcohol, tobacco and firearms involves very similar regulation functions, as well as the same problems in interdicting illicit trafficking as well. There is still the old running joke that alcohol, tobacco and firearms ought to be a convenience store and not an agency.Naaman Brown (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ATF Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, who brought the chips?--Conor Fallon (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"Good O' Boys Roundup" Controversy
The "Good O' Boys Roundup" controversy should at least be mentioned in the article. There is plenty of evidence for these racist gatherings and that ATF played a major role in them. --DiehardDanny 21:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The Good O' Boys Roundup (GOB) was run by an ATF agent Eugene Rightmeyer as a private enterprise. Throughout its history it involved at most fifty ATF agents off-duty; in its zenith (or nadir) it involved nearly five hundred people, camping out, whitewater rafting, etc. at a private campground. About fifty or so were federal agents, another two hundred were state, county or city LEO and up to 250 were civilian friends of the LEOs. The Knoxville TN district court office warned US Marshals and federal Prosecutors not to attend if they valued their reputations. The US DOJ investigators stated that their investigation of allegations against the GOB were hampered because one of the features was a 24-hour all-weekend free beer truck. The GOB was an out-of-control event loosely associated with an agency that collected "sin taxes" on alcohol, tobacco and firearms: the self-appointed guardians of public morality. For people (including myself) outraged at the excessive force displayed at Ruby Ridge and Waco, the GOB was a perfect send-up for their least-favorite agency involved, the ATF. BUT although the organizer was an ATF agent, and some ATF agents did attend, GOB was not an official function of the ATF and criticism of GOB should be directed at Rightmeyer for failure to control his own private event. GOB does not reflect on today's BATFE.Naaman Brown (talk) 04:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

United States v. David Olofson
I'm not sure that this case's controversy really relates to this bureau. The charges would have been brought by U.S. Attorneys (outside of the Bureau of ATFE) and the question of the gun would have been a jury question. If the sentence imposed was wrong, it's not really an ATFE error, but a Federal Court "error" 68.49.245.215 (talk) 05:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Except an ATF "Expert" testified and the US attorney presented evidence supplied by the ATF which was inconsistent with the facts of the case. ATF agents tried to recreate the slam-fire and could not do so using the same situation, so they altered the scenario by using different primers, but disclosed their results as if the situation were unaltered.  The ATF generated false evidence and presented it to the US attorney.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.162.175 (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Need help with new ATF related article
I am new and need help here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Operation_Fast_and_Furious%22
 * I think I named the page wrong
 * This subject is in the news and is a discrete project name which is notable, so it requires it own article.
 * RexZeedog (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Your effort is appreciated... However, you will find that Operation Fast and Furious is only one of several under Operation Gunrunner.  "Since February 2008 under Project Gunrunner, Operations "Fast and Furious", "Too Hot to Handle", "Wide Receiver" and others (all together satirically dubbed "Operation Gunwalker"), have done the opposite by ATF permitting and facilitating 'straw purchase' firearm sales to traffickers, and allowing the guns to 'walk' and be transported to Mexico. This has resulted in considerable controversy."  (From Project Gunrunner Wiki page).  It may be difficult to accurately report on the single operation, since details are lacking and kept deliberately fuzzy by our friends at ATF.  There may be even more operation names which have yet to surface.  This is not meant to discourage you, but only to offer some perspective.  Computer Guy 2 (talk) 02:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

ATF agents "harassing" firearm owners
On 21 June 2006, the following verbiage was added by an anonymous user:


 * Once Prohibition was repealed the ATF was forced to occupy the time of their now idle agents, the answer for this came when the National Fireamrs [sic; "Firearms"] Act was passed. Now all of these agents could occupy thier [sic; "their"] time by harassing firearm owners.

I removed this verbiage. This is blatant non-neutral POV and, as an unsourced statement, is unverifiable for purposes of Wikipedia. Sounds like a statement of opinion by someone with a bias against ATF agents. This is an encyclopedia. Let's keep it encyclopedic. Yours, Famspear 18:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. We can quote all day on the bad that the BATF has done, with verifications;  and the good it has done, with verifications. But. this article isn't the place (though I agree they are bastards.)68.231.184.217 (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Slight addition
Martee 99 on 08/21/06.

I did some minor editing to smooth the flow and condense some of the text. I added the reference to ATF predeccessor agency Alcohol Tobacco Tax Unit (ATTU) in the organizational history. I further enhanced the info regarding the agency' reassignment from Treasury to Justice Department.

With respect to the "Criticisms" section of the article, I find the passages not only poorly written and somewhat jaded, I contend that this whole section should be eliminated altogether. This particluar entry should neither be a forum for allegations of inappropriate government actions nor should it tout successful ATF investigations and convictions. Those events are more thouroughly documented in their respective articles, all of which presumably have links to the ATF. This article should merely served to inform the reader of ATF's governmental function and its position within the Executive Branch of government.

But I will defer to other editors to see if they agree with my opinion. I hate to see Wikipedia degenerate into a dumping ground for innumerable advocacies.

I've re-titled and rewritten the "Criticisms" section so that it at least has the patina of neutrality, but I concur that, notwithstanding my edits, it needs more, or should go. More deplorable still is the section that follows; basically one random ATF operation (that someone doesn't like) and one random ATF detractor group (that, oh, coincidentally is selling something). These two things together say nothing about the agency's work. Blondlieut — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blondlieut (talk • contribs) 16:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Flash powder-->"Explosive"?
The BATFE seems not only above the law (writing what they choose and pulling a "sovereign immunity" (??)-- that seems to only apply to Monarchies--to prevent Lon Horiuchi's  prosecution over Ruby Ridge); they seem to be able to rewrite Chemistry texts as well. They recently redefined Flash powder (Generally Aluminum powder with Sodium chlorate, or Magnesium powder, or any like mixture) as an "explosive". Any chemist will tell you this is a Propellant. Propellants (like gun powder and flash powder) are deflagrant Mixtures; they simply burn fast. They go off at generally less than the speed of sound. They simply go Poof when fired in the open. An explosive, by scientific definition, goes off at equal or greater than 3,000 feet per second, and are almost always one substance, that is, one type of molecule. They need no confining to blow a hole in the ground. (High Explosives like Nitroglycerin, TNT, PETN, etc,): (From Fireworks Island:) "Before you send me an e-mail message arguing that flash powder is a high explosive, here is further discussion of that subject. By flash powder, I mean the chemical composition inside an M-80, which is a mixture of various substances, including potassium perchlorate. The scientific community defines a high explosive as one that detonates when unconfined. A low explosive is defined as one that deflagrates - not detonates - whether confined or unconfined. The distinction between "detonate" and "deflagrate" is the key difference here. A low explosive, that deflagrates, generates pressure waves in the air that are slower than the speed of sound, while a high explosive, which detonates, generates pressure waves that are higher than the speed of sound. In the scientific community, according to Dr. Ken Kosanke, flash powder has not been shown scientifically to detonate when unconfined. It deflagrates when unconfined. So the prevailing opinion in the scientific community is that flash powder is a low explosive. However, the U.S. federal government is also in the business of classifying materials into different explosives categories. The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATFE) is one of the agencies involved in this. They have chosen to classify flash powder as a high explosive, in spite of the scientific community's opinion that flash powder does not fit the definition of a high explosive. So there you have it. Flash powder is not a high explosive from a scientific standpoint, but it is from a legal standpoint - in the U.S. anyway." Tintinteslacoil (talk) 01:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Any section on "Criticisms" of the BATF is incomplete without mention to this 1982 Senate Judiciary Report on that agency. http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html

One citation of many: [quote]Complaints regarding the techniques used by the Bureau in an effort to generate firearms cases led to hearings before the Subcommittee on Treasury, Post Office, and General Appropriations of the Senate Appropriations Committee in July 1979 and April 1980, and before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Senate Judiciary Committee in October 1980. At these hearings evidence was received from various citizens who had been charged by BATF, from experts who had studied the BATF, and from officials of the Bureau itself.

Based upon these hearings, it is apparent that enforcement tactics made possible by current federal firearms laws are constitutionally, legally, and practically reprehensible. Although Congress adopted the Gun Control Act with the primary object of limiting access of felons and high-risk groups to firearms, the overbreadth of the law has led to neglect of precisely this area of enforcement.[/quote] Tintinteslacoil (talk) 01:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of ATF Criticisms
This page doesn't make sense at is, three individual agents being arrested for unrelated crimes and not even being convicted of them takes up much more space than events like Waco. I completely agree with the points below that it just appears to be a spiteful attack on the organization that lacks any balance.

Incidentally, one poster mentions public opinion with regards to ATF, but they are ranked higher than every other federal law enforcement agency with regards to US news best places to work. They also apparently arrest mode people than the FBI and send them to prison longer.. What's not to like about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.8.157 (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted several edits by computer guy 2. The enumeration of every single offense alleged against employees of this agency seems overly crass and makes the article poorly balanced and needlessly long. By comparison, the FBI had over 50 employees arrested for felonies last year and the DEA had over 20, yet not a single mention is made on the respective articles for these sister agencies while each and every one is listed on this one. The same holds true for the United States Marshal's Service, ICE, and the Secret Service. Either these six articles need to be brougt in line by articulating each and every arrest of an employee every year or the said listing of ATF's needs to be discontinued. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.85.14 (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your statement is false. There are certainly far more offenses by ATF employees than were posted.  Only the more egregious were posted, with citations and are verifiable.  Certainly, the current Operation 'Gunwalker' scandal is especially appropriate.

You assert offenses by FBI and DEA without support of any citations and are not verifiable. If you feel ATF is being singled out, you are welcome to post appropriate criticisms in those articles - with the appropriate authoritative citations. It appears your sole purpose as an editor on Wikipedia is to remove criticisms to ATF, which may be considered vandalism. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You claim to only be linking "egregious" examples? Individual employees charged with isolated criminal or administrative offenses are now "egregious" examples of misconduct notifiably enough to merit inclusion in a mere encyclopedia article of a 5,000 member organization that has been around in some form for almost eighty years?  That rational is so patently ridiculous to not even merit further discussion.
 * For me to levy such criticism against the other agencies and contaminate their own pages with the minutia you allude to would make me as bad of an "editor" as you are, or perhaps worse considering the demonstrated hypocrisy I would be embodying. However, to prevent being accused of spreading falsehoods-
 * (Just in the past year)
 * FBI Agent arrested in murder for hire scheme; http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/dallas/headlines/20100825-Former-Dallas-FBI-agent-arrested-1982.ece


 * FBI Agents arrested for running drug and steriod distribution ring;  http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fbi-agents-including-female-bodybuilder-arrested-alleged-steroid/story?id=11648462


 * FBI Agent arrested for sexual offenses- http://www.kold.com/global/story.asp?s=6572538


 * Ah yes, the infamous cheating scandal that dominated national news for weeks and still doesn't merit consideration in their article- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/28/fbi-cheating-scandal-just_n_661744.html


 * And, of course, countless other vehicle manslaughters, DUI's with injuries, Domestic Violence offenses, etc just in the past year.


 * To list them all would be pointless, though, and perhaps you understand that now. Quod erat demonstrandum.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.85.14 (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * While you may have a point that the emphasis upon various agents illegal activities may have WP:UNDUE considerations upon the article, it is a fallacy to argue that other "similar" articles should reflect the same issues (or not) per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. All articles should be considered on their own merits and in accordance to WP policies and guidelines - you (and that is both of you) will note policies and guidelines, because there is very little being used in the "discussion" above. For the first part, there is WP:CONSENSUS - where any content that remains for a while can be considered as having consensus. WP:Consensus can change, though, either by discussion or removing or altering the content and not having it WP:REVERTed. Once a change to consensus is reverted, then the WP:Bold, revert, discuss cycle takes over until consensus (one way or another) is achieved - what is not needed is an WP:Edit war, which is considered WP:DISRUPTive WP:VANDALism. I trust that the two of you will discuss how to improve the article, regarding whether there is too much or two little emphasis on less than optimal actions by individuals employed by the BATFE, and properly format your discussion while doing so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Response to anonymous 71.203.85.14. To repeat:  "It appears your sole purpose as an editor on Wikipedia is to remove criticisms of ATF, which may be considered vandalism."  If you would like to post positive ATF accomplishments, please do so.

I don't think it is necessary to articulate all of the positive ATF press, as you can find over 45 articles just on different major gang investigations just this year. As I have stated, it would be make an already unbalanced and needlessly long article far, far longer by completely overshadowing the criticism section, which I agree should be in an article (in any organization, in fact). However, only criticism that fundamentally defines an organzation or fundamentally modifies the organization or the public's perception should be included in these articles. Otherwise, in telling an 80 year story we either objectify the present at expense of the past or completely unbalance and article, which is exactly what has been accomplished here.


 * In the meantime, which of the following criticisms do you object to, or which do you not object to? Regardless of an 80 year history of the agency, all appear to objectively demonstrate some form of ATF corruption or incompetence.

Certainly three (the middle three) of the five have absolutely no place in this article, as they merely discuss individual acts of individual employees. The Clark story could be worth a mention as it does provide some national relevance, is very recent, and fundamentally altered the way the United States supports the VI. However, even there you have a very biased point of view, making no mention of the fact that the United States Congress issued a motion- not only finding no fault with Clark's actions but completely exonerating him and hailing him as a hero. In fact, the real reason why Clark likely merits mention on this page is due to the fact that the story fundamentally changed the way the United States government operates in one of her own territories- with all federal agencies now pulling their agents out of the VI and refusing to support the territory in any law enforcment operations due to "gross and malicious prosecution".

I agree that the Gun Runner merits comment, though I doubt at this point it should have more depth and substance than Ruby Ridge or Waco, as it is in the present. It is a major, developing, national news event. "ATF during the 2010s

2011, January. William (Bill) Newell, Special Agent in charge of the Phoenix ATF Office was quoted by ABC News in May 2008 "When 90 percent-plus of the firearms recovered from these violent drug cartels are from a U.S. source (a false statement according to the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General), we have a responsibility to do everything we can to stem the illegal flow of these firearms to these thugs."[13] Nevertheless, under Operation "Fast and Furious" and "Too Hot to Handle", indictments filed in federal court show that the Phoenix ATF Office, over protests from the gun dealers and some of the ATF agents involved, and without notifying Mexican authorities, allowed and facilitated the sale of over 2,500 firearms (AK-47 rifles, FN 5.7mm pistols, AK-47 pistols, and .50 caliber rifles) destined for Mexico.[14][15][16][17][18] Many of these same guns have now been recovered throughout Mexico,[19] and one specific gun is alleged to be the weapon used by a Mexican national to murder Customs and Border Protection Agent Brian Terry on December 14, 2010. ATF has denied all such allegations.

2011, January. The Office of the Inspector General Department of Justice is investigating ATF Special Agent Clifford Posey of the ATF Norfolk, Virginia Field Office for allegedly selling more than $20,000 of seized cigarettes to an undercover buyer over several months. Posey was immediately placed on unpaid leave.[20]

2010, May. Former ATF agent Brandon J. McFadden was charged with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, cocaine, and marijuana; possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute; possessing a firearm during a drug trafficking offense and money laundering. McFadden entered a plea of guilty to conspiring to distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine. McFadden also acknowledged that he abused his position of trust with ATF in order to help his drug trafficking offenses.[21]

2010, October. ATF agent Steven Campbell of Cleveland, Ohio, was arrested, charged and convicted with stealing money from a house during a drug raid. Agents confronted Campbell, who was handcuffed and later searched. Bundles of money were found in both of Campbell's front and back pockets and a sweatshirt pocket. Money also fell out of each of his pant legs.[22] Campbell was immediately put on unpaid leave, and has since been fired.[citation needed]

2010, October. Nine-year veteran ATF Agent William Clark, was charged with second-degree murder and tried in a 2008 killing of his neighbor Marcus Sukow in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Clark previously intervened in arguments between the couple, but this time, Clark emptied his gun on Marcus, [Note: This is paraphrased from the citation] shooting him once in the back and four times in the chest. Defense lawyers made a motion to dismiss the charges on a technicality that the proper procedure was not followed in identifying the body of the shooting victim. The judge dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning he cannot be tried again.[23] The original judge on the case, Brenda Hollar, was forced to recuse herself due to her bizzare courtroom behavior and improper outside discussions of the case with prosecutors.[citation needed]"

Computer Guy 2 (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Further response to anonymous 71.203.85.14. Now, I had nothing to do with it, but are you 'starting' to get the hint that public opinion is running against you?  How many times has your edit been reverted? Computer Guy 2 (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The revert warring by 71.203.85.14 has been reported to the Edit Warring Administrators' Noticeboard. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * To anonymous 71.203.85.14. I was looking forward to a constructive discussion with you when you began this edit war with the other editors.  You cannot get your way with edit wars or by bullying editors - either now or in the future.  If you want to edit, you must comply with Wiki rules, provide authoritative citations, and sign your posts - which you failed to do in the above paragraph.


 * There is no question that ATF is a troubled agency, as is clearly evidenced by http://www.cleanupatf.org/. It's now facing Congressional Inquiries from both the Senate (Senator Grassley) and the House (http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/IssaLettertoATF_031611.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody).  It's not appropriate to use this Wikipedia article as a public forum for ATF propaganda from it's Public Affairs Office (just in case you were intending to do that).  Nor is it appropriate to try to overwhelm this article with ATF press releases.  I've been attempting to strike a balance between the official functions of ATF (what they're supposed to be doing) and where they've fallen short.  Is it perfect?  Not by a long shot.


 * If, as you mentioned on the discussion page, you would be satisfied with the removal of the following entries regarding corrupt agents:


 * "2011, January. The Office of the Inspector General Department of Justice is investigating ATF Special Agent Clifford Posey of the ATF Norfolk, Virginia Field Office for allegedly selling more than $20,000 of seized cigarettes to an undercover buyer over several months. Posey was immediately placed on unpaid leave.[20]


 * 2010, May. Former ATF agent Brandon J. McFadden was charged with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, cocaine, and marijuana; possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute; possessing a firearm during a drug trafficking offense and money laundering. McFadden entered a plea of guilty to conspiring to distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine. McFadden also acknowledged that he abused his position of trust with ATF in order to help his drug trafficking offenses.[21]


 * 2010, October. ATF agent Steven Campbell of Cleveland, Ohio, was arrested, charged and convicted with stealing money from a house during a drug raid. Agents confronted Campbell, who was handcuffed and later searched. Bundles of money were found in both of Campbell's front and back pockets and a sweatshirt pocket. Money also fell out of each of his pant legs.[22] Campbell was immediately put on unpaid leave, and has since been fired.[citation needed]"


 * then I have no particular objection, as they are incidental to the major criticisms of ATF. However, we should work on gaining a consensus of the other editors.  Any other opinions?
 * Computer Guy 2 (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

As stated back in March, 2011, I personally had no particular objection to removal of these paragraphs. However, since the original version had editorial consensus over time, and no other editor came to defend the removal, then these paragraphs should remain intact. If other editors concur with the removal, then I won't object. However, such is not yet the case. Considering the difficulties ATF is experiencing right now, it is important to let the American People know that these incidents occurred. It would be desirable for the Public to know the final outcome of each case. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no other "editors" seem to be involved with this specific page on any sort of regular basis, I think you might be surprised how little traffic it gets. But to the issue- silence in this regard isn't any form of consent and the fact that nobody else (which isn't true, as I will address later, but for the sake of argument here) challenged your edits is not a categorical affirmation of them- by Wikipedia policy or any other objective standard.

To the point, however, there are numerous other editors on this page (Ballsport, Famspear, etc) who have commented on the "Criticism" section and how non-neutral POV and unbalanced it is. In fact, I'll flip the tables on you and challenge you to find a single editor, outside of yourself (who are responsible almost entirely for the whole section) who support it.

In any case, what is going on nationally with ATF has nothing to do with the individual criminal and administrative acts of agents (and in some cases, even non- law enforcement officers). This isn't the standard used on any other LEO pages- again you could point to 40 or so FBI agent arrests or issues over the past year.

I'll revert it again, and if you are determined to keep with this line I will attempt to balance the page by injecting a section on the success of ATF- I found about 60 news articles about how elite their SRT is, the numerous home invasion cases they have taken down nationwide, the fact that they are deployed to Iraq and Afganistan on a constant basis, the numerous gang cases they have taken down in LA, Cleveland, Daytona Beach, Miami, OK City, St. Louis, Detroit; the huge national initiative last June that netted the arrest of over 300 gang members nationally on the same day, the PSN stuff they are doing right now, the fact that they arrest more criminal than any other federal agency per capita, have the longest and hardest training, and are probably the most exclusive (they hired 40 agents last year out of over 7,000 applicants), etc. In short, I'll just bury the criticism with the opposite effect to bring balance....and we can make the article ridiculously long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.23.207 (talk) 02:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Response to anonymous 71.226.23.207. To repeat once again:  "It appears your sole purpose as an editor on Wikipedia is to remove criticisms of ATF, which may be considered vandalism."  It's difficult to consider you a serious editor when you continually hide behind different anonymous IP addresses.  As stated previously by other editors, if you want to be considered a legitimate editor, register a name and sign your posts.  Otherwise, you may be considered only a disruptive vandal.


 * I've given consideration to your diatribe and find your arguments specious. Obviously, you have an intense personal interest in extolling the virtues of ATF, and your threat to "bury the criticism' is totally inappropriate.  Nevertheless, I've personally reviewed the section in question, and found it to be a bit cluttered with too many incidents of ATF individual corruption - which dilutes the impact.  Therefore, at this time, I won't revert your removal.


 * ATF has many good agents and employees, and it does much good work. However, the 'attaboy' side of the ledger seems now to be overwhelmed by the 'awshit' side - "Fast and Furious" being a prime example.....  Computer Guy 2 (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Well thanks, I guess. This article still needs plenty of work and much of the critical componants need to be addressed (namely William Clark, you make no mention of the fact that the Congress of the United States found his actions to be consistent with the situation and labeled him a "hero". But I'll add that stuff later.  Suffice to say you still have issues, especially with comments like the ledger being unbalanced by one field office and its investigations surrounding a few defendants- when ATF prosecuted over 30,000 violent felons last year across the entire country.  But we'll start working on it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.23.207 (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

There are literally half a dozen complaints about the non neutral POV and the unbalance on the page, due to the specific lists of criticism given. Individual acts made by members of an organization are not relevant to the organization as a whole. This is not a standard used by wikipedia for any organization (you don't see the page for the US Congress enumerating every single contraversy that has touched a member, for instance, nor should you) and is such inconsistent and unbalanced by Wikipedia standards on its surface. Therefore, unless you can drum up a consensus for keeping the material I will be deleting all entries- sourced or otherwise- that deal with mere individual acts that do not affect the agency as a whole. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.23.207 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the non neutral POV complaints you mention are some five years old, and were posted long before the criticism section was posted. Therefore, all these criticisms are totally irrelevant. Whether any other Wiki article has similar entries is also irrelevant to the issue. Further, your demand for drumming up a consensus is also irrelevant and inappropriate. Your threat to engage in an edit war to intimidate posting is completely inappropriate and contrary to the principles of Wikipedia. This will be reported to administrators. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually they are not, there are several comments from this year. An wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and article formatting is a tenet of the program. No articles about organizations list specific non-work related individual incidents. Not one, this is the outlier. Again, if you find a consensus among editors that such material is relevant to an article about an organization then we can discuss its inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.23.207 (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Further, I would draw your attention to numerous violations of Wikipedia policy with regards to the "Criticism" section. WP:UNDUE explicitly states-

"An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

For frame of reference, this section- which outside of two events in the 1990's has been entirely constructed and edited by one editor (you) is 85% of the length of the rest of the article in its entirety, which clearly violates the expressed policy and intent. On top of that, almost all of the material deals with mere individuals and not issues that pertain to the organization in question on ANY level outside of employment. Which brings us to the next contravention of policy-

Wikipedia clearly states in Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is Not that articles are not "exposition of details". It further enumerates that an article should only be a SUMMARY of general knowledge on the topic at hand, in this case a law enforcement organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.23.207 (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Unsigned anonymous postings have no weight nor validity. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

That's not wikipedia policy, either. And your silence on the content is taken as consent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.23.207 (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Anonymous IPs are allowed to post, I don't agree with it, personally, but those are the rules of the House. The Clark section has no bearing on this article aside from the fact that he was an agent.  Including it here is akin to including Lee Harvey Oswald in the USMC article.  He didn't murder while doing his duty or shoot any dogs or burn anyone's house down.  Why not list that info in the White Guy or Irish American articles if you're going to put it here?  Unless I'm missing something like the agency tried to cover it up or he actually murdered a whistle blower/informant/mole.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Mike: Interesting observation.  However, Oswald doesn't apply (he was no longer a Marine).  Acts of individual agents, (on or off-duty) are highly relevant to illustrate the attitude within the agency.  Clark was a veteran agent who, according to Virgin Island authorities, used excessive (lethal) force to subdue (kill) a neighbor - when he could have simply driven away with the 'threatened' woman.  Instead, he emptied his five-shot revolver into the man (one round in the back), killing him.  ATF maintained that Clark acted reasonably in the situation, which directly reflects on the agency.


 * The real question here is whether Clark should have attempted non-lethal action rather than immediately killing the guy? Do ATF agents have an absolute "License to Kill" with impunity even when off-duty? If so, is this acceptable law-enforcement behavior in the United States?  Computer Guy 2 (talk) 05:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"Acts of individuals agents are highly relevant, etc" is merely a statement of your opinion and is obviously not one supported by the majority of editors. I could (and would) argue that there could be nothing more IRRELEVANT than the acts of mere individuals in a 5,000 member organzation with regards to the organization as a whole.

You are also factually inaccurate- the US Department of Justice, the FBI, and numerous other organizations affirmed Clark's actions- not just ATF. http://abcnews.go.com/International/Blotter/wireStory?id=11996421 And again, US Congressmen labeled the guy a hero. I think you're just a bit too biased negatively on this issue.


 * No, I'm not factually inaccurate. You're the one with the problem.....  "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."  If your chosen citation doesn't support your statement, it will be removed.  If you post a proper citation, then it may not be removed. Read (and understand) your own citations!  Keep your facts straight and use citations that verify your statements and you'll be ok.  You cannot post original nor unverified work.  You may think you have your facts straight, but your post will be removed if not verified by your citation.  Get with the program!  And, you've been instructed more than once, so sign your posts!  (Like every other legit editor!)  On the other hand, if you're just an ATF shill, then bring it on! Computer Guy 2 (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You argue "there could be nothing more IRRELEVANT than the acts of mere individuals in a 5,000 member organzation (sic) with regards to the organization as a whole". I hate to break the news to you, but organizations consist solely of individuals.  All actions of organizations are, in fact, actions of 'mere' individuals within organizations.  Organizations do not exist without the human element.  Every action of every individual employed by any organization, reflects on that organization - particularly when that action is sanctioned (explicitly or implicitly) by that organization.  Computer Guy 2 (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Your blustering is quite paradoxical and certainly irrelevant, particularly in the context that you cannot even follow your own 'guidelines', such as they are. Your edit(s) dated August 7th removed sourced material regarding the congressional resolution entered on behalf of Clark, and the mere context and biased demonstrated "emptied his gun", "friends at ATF", "deliberately unclear", etc continually demonstrated by you with reference to the subject matter at hand show the decided un-academic and subjective agenda you are promoting here.

On the one semi-content related "point" you address- if you do not understand and cannot discern when an individual action is part of a systemic issue with an organization as a whole or just the actions of the individual in question you are past helping. If you believe that everytime a Walmart employee is arrested for DUI is indicative of some fundamental issue at play with regards to Sam Walton's company, and subsquently merits entry on the Walmart wiki page, then you are just too far gone for any rational discourse in this regard.

What does remain to be seen is if ANY of the material in this section- outside of the notable negative events in the agency's history like Waco, Ruby Ridge, even F&F- have any relevance in this article from a majority point of view. The vast majority of editors, either implicitly or explicitly, have voiced concerns over the undue balance and lack of relevance in this section. Being that the entire section in question was put together by one lone editor- wyou- then it seems the discussion should shift to whether ANY of the other entries deserve mention.

I don't believe that mere employment gives the appropriate nexus in the context of this discussion. If the offenses were similiar and/or widespread it might, but most of the criticism listed in this section simply involves the arrest of individuals who are committing criminal acts on their own accord.

On the Clark issue, the citations that list very relevant factors should not be left out and it seems very puzzling why an editor would delete them. Obviously witnesses did report that Sukow had a deadly weapon and was utilizing it in some fashion against the female and/or the agent. Why would that be left out, unless an editor is trying to paint a one sided picture of the event. Multiple organizations showed support for the agent, why is this not mentioned? In fact, almost all the news articles on Clark paint his actions in a very positive light, why is this not addressed? Why are links that show a resolution in the US Congress that credit his actions and call him a hero repeatedly deleted? This are but a few questions that need to be addressed to provide an objective account of this act.AceD (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Contrary to your statement, none of the citations were removed, and anyone who wants more detail can go to the links for additional information. The article is about BATF and this paragraph was being turned into a cluttered narrative about the shooting and trial.  It is not the intention to re-try the case in this article.  If you want to create a separate article on Clark, feel free to do so, and go into as much detail as you like.  The paragraph now succinctly mentions the incident and the dispute between the ATF and the Virgin Islands with a NPOV.


 * I've reviewed both positive and negative news reports about Clark, and there was a glowing Congressional Resolution proposed, but there was also a negative resolution. Witnesses reported Clark as being threatened, and others report he had ample time to simply drive away from the threat.  The 'dispute' will probably not be resolved (which is the reason for the block), and there is no reason to avoid improving the article. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You could take your same line of thinking- "anyone who wants more detail can go to the links for additional" and apply it to the whole scenario, which actually falls in line with "Mike's" thinking above about scrapping the whole Clark issue on the page. But being that it is included, and certainly included in a section entitled "Criticisms", any mitigating issues that would invalidate the event as a negative have merit. I am merely re-adding sourced material with my last edit today, per the 3RR, and would suggest that if you want to remove sourced material you do so via buidling a consensus against the material, or call into question the whole inclusion of Clark based on lack of relevance. AceD (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: Users AceD and Computer Guy 2 warned for 3RR. Try discussing here without reverting one another, please. In good faith, please follow BRD without making changes until consensus is reached. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  20:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Fresh start
In good faith and following BRD, I propose to revise the paragraph on ATF's William Clark by reducing it to the essential elements with all the citations, while succinctly presenting both sides of the issue. I see little point in re-trying the case in this venue.

"2010, October. Nine-year veteran ATF Agent William Clark, was charged with second-degree murder and tried in a 2008 off-duty killing of his neighbor in the U.S. Virgin Islands. ATF investigators found Clark “was acting within his scope of employment and authority. [His] actions were in compliance with ATF policies and procedures including whether the use of deadly force was necessary." Virgin Island prosecutors contended that the shooting was unwarranted and rose to the level of excessive force. The judge dismissed the case with prejudice (meaning he cannot be tried again) on a technicality that the proper procedure was not followed in identifying the body of the shooting victim." Computer Guy 2 (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your tone and will meet it in kind. I do not think that we are far off, but your suggested passage is word for word your last revision outside of the sentence about the shots that hit Sukow. Again, this is something you are posting as a "criticism" of an agency so mitigating or outright contravening material should be included if available. Your post leads one to believe that only internal ATF investigators found Clark acted in good faith and, as such, the incident could be a "cover up". This is clearly not the case based on all of the different organizations that supported Clark. If you think that discussing the opposing viewpoints is too argumentative then I would again question whether or not the incident merits mentioning. If this is nothing but a contraversial use of force incident with which all of the things that make it unique- namely the fact that the United States government and most of the national law enforcement orgainizations could not protect an agent that believe had acted in good faith by removing the case from a territorial soverign- is deemed irrelevant then it has nothing unique to provide to begin with.AceD (talk) 01:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I waited several days with no comments on my proposal and only then posted it. Strictly speaking, it is not word-for-word.  Nevertheless, it was written (as was the last one) to be a concise brief recap of the issue.  Please return the courtesy by not reverting the revised version until we have a chance to discuss it - unless you intend to commence another edit war..... which will be immediately reported.


 * No "cover-up" is implied. Elaborate discussion of the opposing viewpoints will not improve the paragraph.  Each point has a corresponding counterpoint.  Even the woman involved rescinded her original statement.  As written, it now clearly illustrates there are two sides to the issue, without bringing out all of the conflicting testimony.  Whether Mr. Clark is a hero or not, the basic facts are shown.  The key points are:  While off-duty, he killed his neighbor - and was fully supported by ATF - but not by the V.I.  I'm not passing judgement either way - just stating the fundamental facts as they are known.  Whether any other organizations supported Clark is irrelevant - because there are other vested interests at work.  (Immunity of Federal Law Enforcement certainly being a concern of the organizations)  The primary issue was between the VI and the ATF (which is still not resolved), and the paragraph should not be clouding the issue.  Computer Guy 2 (talk) 05:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all, YOUR edit is the "revision", revising back to the way the administrator left the page isn't commencing an edit war- it is following wiki policy and the mandate from the administrator. Waiting two days when the article is neither reviewed or edited a single time isn't exactly engaging in "a discussion". Feel free to report yourself if you think the policy is being violated.

Your "brief recap" just doesn't hold water. You utilized more text in describing an non-law enforcement ATF employee's arrest in Houston that nobody paid attention to than in describing the Clark case, which was followed by media outlets for months. On top of that, you make many factual errors (ATF agents are never off duty, there are no "disinterested" parties, there were multiple fact finding organzations and representatives of well regarded organizations who supported Clark, etc) in your opinionated commentary. At the very least, mitigating evidence (threatened with a flashlight, reviews of his actions which found a different conclusion (i.e. a United States Congressmen labeling him a hero, etc) should be included when an event is being proffered as CRITICISM.AceD (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * In fact, it was four days - not two. Rather than discussing the issues and suggesting ways to improve the paragraph, you immediately reverted my posting.  As I clearly stated above, "Please return the courtesy by not reverting the revised version until we have a chance to discuss it - unless you intend to commence another edit war..... which will be immediately reported."  It's now clear you intend to engage in an edit war, and I am again formally requesting your cooperation rationally discussing the paragraph to build an acceptable paragraph.  Please follow In good faith guidelines and follow BRD. I am again warning you for 3RR. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

That's fine and dandy, I welcome a discussion on the topic. However, you are the one engaging in edit warring by attempting to revert an entry after being warned by an administrator not to until some agreement is made on the matter. Reverting the page back to the entry established by the administrator prior to making said agreement is not "edit warring", by any definition. To the point of the matter, however, I stated in my last post what content I believe needs to be contained, at minimum, to the Clark entry. In truth there could be far more added. I see no reason to repeat myself in this postAceD (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Please respond with a new reply instead of editing a post after it has already been responded to, it makes following you even more confusing. Again, you have edited an entry in which a wikipedia administrator asked you not to edit until some accord had been reached. I have reverted this edit accordingly, and will continue to do so per BereanHunter's request. You did not wait four days, and you certainly did not engage in any form of "discussion" in the matter. I will gladly discuss ways the paragraph may be improved, but as you have demonstrated you are only interested in reverting to a paragraph that is substantively similiar to the entry you made and were warned about for edit warring.AceD (talk) 23:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Your threat to continue an edit war in order to bully and intimidate posting is completely inappropriate and contrary to the principles of Wikipedia. ("I have reverted this edit accordingly, and will continue to do so...")  I previously warned you about 3RR, yet you reverted the post a third time within 24 hours. Your actions have been reported to administrators. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 03:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You were previously and repeatedly warned not to edit this entry by an administrator, yet you did. Your continued persistence in removing sourced material posted by myself as well as disregaring the BRD policy mandated by a wikipedia administrator makes you the one guilty of edit warring, as well as takes away any credibility you might have to espouse wikipedia policy. If you want to discuss ways to improve the paragraph by objectively presenting the material in a manner accepted by all parties, then we certainly can and will. But the page will- as mandated by the administrator- stay in the current revision until we do so.AceD (talk) 11:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * (Sigh).... Here we go again.  You are attempting to twist statements to serve your own objectives.  There was no "warning not to edit".  There was a warning not to engage in an edit war - which you are currently doing.  There also appears not to be an "acceptable to all parties" - rather the dispute is coming from you.  Following BRD guidelines, I proposed a revision to the paragraph on the talk page and solicited comments on how to improve it.  You did not do so, and you continually reverted my later edit of the article, flamed me on the talk page and have attempted to bully me into accepting the old version of the paragraph - which, contrary to your assertion, was not "mandated by the administrator".  You make it abundantly clear that you are unwilling to accept a condensed paragraph which would be more concise and objective.  If I'm wrong, please correct me.  Computer Guy 2 (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, some of your edits, which you are resisting removing, are false and not supported by the citations:


 * You falsely stated: "Subsequently, the United States government pulled all Special Agents for all Departments from the Islands and withheld millions of dollars in federal funding support".  The citation only refers to ATF agents (not all federal agents) being pulled from the Islands, and makes no mention of withholding any federal support.


 * In addition, you state Sukow threatened Clark with a "fourteen inch metal flashlight", which is not supported by the citation. The citation clearly mentions a foot-long flashlight.  Other citations (and witnesses) indicate Sukow did not threaten Clark with a flashlight.


 * You also state: "A resolution was introduced in the United States Congress praising Clark for "exemplary service" and hailing him "a hero" for his actions". It appears this resolution never passed.  The Congresswoman from the Virgin Islands (Donna Christensen) wrote a letter to all Representatives stating, "While I understand Rep. Lee’s passion in defending his constituent and supporting law enforcement, the facts do not support his portrayal of the events surrounding the incident and the actions taken by the Virgin Islands criminal justice system as regards this case." and "The Virgin Islands Attorney General and local and federal courts have determined that Agent Clark was not acting within his authority as a federal agent when the incident occurred."  Maybe Agent Clark is a hero, but Virgin Island authorities disagree, concluding that the Agent Clark acted with excessive force.  Who's right?


 * These discrepancies were uncovered with only a superficial review of the paragraph version you are insisting upon. In your passion to defend the actions of Agent Clark, how many other inaccuracies have you introduced?  Computer Guy 2 (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow. First of all, you make a categorical lie- you state there was no "warning not to edit".

Berean Hunter's exact statement, listed not six inches above your absurd claim, was "follow BRD WITHOUT MAKING CHANGES until consensus is reached".

With regards to who is disputing what, that comment doesn't even merit a response since you are solely responsible FOR EVERY entry in this topic save Waco and Ruby Ridge. Past that, your edits and your "proposed paragraph" are fundamentally congruent with the exact paragraph you proposed before your last warning for edit warring. Yet you continually attempt to remove sourced material to get back to that position to promote your agenda, NPOV as it is.

And finally, I have let you bluster and moan and let your repeated inaccuracies pass for quite awhile now, but if you are going to start accusing me of making errors (which aren't even in fact errors, as I'll show below) you are going to be held to a strict liability about the inaccuracies you seemingly cannot get away from. No longer will statements like "ATF investigators found Clark" when it was a multi-agency review team headed by FBI S/A's and consisting of every agency in Justice and "I waited four days" when you waited three, etc. be given deference. I could fill the talk page up with your inaccuracies, like you claiming it is only a "foot long metal flashlight"- (In fact, it was reported as 18 inches by CNN-(http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/10/25/virgin.islands.atf.agent.case/index.html?hpt=T1).

In fact, I'm not so sure more mitigation shouldnt' be added to the paragraph, particularly in light of the fact that most of the elements are undisputed by either side (namely Sukow having several different narcotics in his system, over three times the legal limit of alcohol, long history of domestic violence, the fact that the car WAS damaged, the fact that the flashlight WAS recovered etc.) I'll make those editions at a later time.

But stop being a hypocrite. Don't post a long paragraph about a non-law enforcement ATF employee, then claim you want to leave all mitigating factors off other paragraph you opined (at nearly twice the length at its genesis) for brevity and "objectivity". Stop whining about your edits being revised when you were warned by an administrator not to edit a section and you revised it anyway. Stop complaining about edit warring when your wikipedia history is LITTERED with it, and well before this dispute began with NUMEROUS editors. You know what they say about if you have a problem with everyone, then YOU are the problem, not everyone. And finally and most importantly, stop outright lying to promote your biased agenda.... particularly when you are projecting said conduct on others.AceD (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you can explain how your posting (complete with flaming, 'shouting' and name-calling) is helping reach consensus?


 * I may have confused your postings with those of 71.226.23.207. If so, it was a natural mistake.  You picked up right where 71.226.23.207 left off (without skipping a beat) and your writing styles are nearly identical.  If you are not the same person, then I sincerely apologize.


 * Perhaps you should go back and re-read "Berean Hunter's exact statement".... Note: "Users AceD and Computer Guy 2 warned for 3RR. Try discussing here without reverting one another, please. In good faith, please follow BRD without making changes until consensus is reached."  Somehow you missed the section about "without reverting one another", and it appears you didn't read the BRD guidelines - which I was following.  I posted the revision on the talk page, received no comments and only made changes in the article on the fourth day.  Contrary to the administrator's request, you immediately reverted my posting without discussion.


 * Sorry to burst your bubble, but I am not responsible for every entry in this section. While it's accurate that I wrote most of it, other editors have participated.  Regarding the errors I pointed out in my last posting, if you didn't write them, then by reverting my posting, you re-introduced them.  If the article statement or assertion isn't supported by the citations, then it's an error by Wiki standards. As it clearly states on the edit page, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."


 * Your statement "I have let you bluster and moan and let your repeated inaccuracies pass for quite awhile now..." is totally out of place on Wikipedia. It is not your place to "let" me do anything.  I do not have to seek your permission to post.  Can I be any more clear?  I will not be bullied nor intimidated by your statements such as this.


 * Regarding the inaccurate statement of the length of the flashlight. The Wiki sentence stated it was a 14 inch flashlight.  The citation states it was a "foot-long" flashlight - which makes the 14 inch statement unverified.  And, of course, other (uncited) sources list the length anywhere from 12 to 18 inches.  From a Wikipedia point of view, it doesn't matter (and it certainly doesn't matter to me), so long as the citation accurately verifies the statement.


 * As to the "multi-agency review team headed by FBI S/A's" (as you stated).... You may have personal knowledge of this team, but again, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."  If you can find an authoritative source for your statement, then, by all means, use it.  Until then, it's unverified and cannot be used on Wikipedia.  According to Eduardo M. Halley, ATF Supervisory Special Agent, in a court document, it was an ATF Investigative Team (as I stated) from the ATF Miami Field Office.  No mention was made of FBI nor any other agency. http://www.mainjustice.com/files/2010/08/ATF-Internal-Inquiry.pdf


 * Regarding my statement of four days.... Although I have no obligation to explain this to you, I posted the proposed revision on the talk page on 19 August (day 1).  I'll spell it out for you.  20 August would be day 2, 21 Aug is day 3, 22 August (when the paragraph was posted in the article) is day 4.  So, your statements that it was two days (or later, three) are without merit and false.  Does that make you a liar (as you called me)?  I won't go that far.


 * Your other statements, while interesting, have not been verified. You state: "(namely Sukow having several different narcotics in his system, over three times the legal limit of alcohol, long history of domestic violence, the fact that the car WAS damaged....)".  The point is not to argue these issues. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."  Why do you wish to retry the case on Wikipedia? ...and in an article about ATF?  If you want to write a Wikipedia article about the Clark case, then do so!  Why clutter up this paragraph?  Obviously, you have some intense personal interest.....


 * Regarding your last paragraph where you take it upon yourself to point out that (in your opinion) I'm biased, a hypocrite, whiner, complainer and liar. Did I miss anything?  It is not your place to lecture me on anything.  Nor is it your place on Wikipedia to make negative personal comments about anyone - including myself.
 * In good faith
 * Computer Guy 2 (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

 

For the benefit of the untold thousands following this discussion (a joke), I would like to point out:

1. AceD registered on 5 February 2006, made one post, then was silent for over five years.

2. Not until 9 August 2011 did AceD make 8 minor posts before immediately engaging an edit war and reverting legitimate edits by the undersigned. Since then, he has continued posting exclusively with this article, reverting no less than 11 times out of his 23 postings on this article. Many of the non-undo postings were also reverts.

3. The day before AceD began reverting this article, 71.226.23.207, who was engaging in an edit war on the same subject, stopped posting - after being warned. 71.226.23.207 has posted only one additional time since then (by accident, it appears), continuing AceD's discussion.

'''I submit that AceD and 71.226.23.207 are the same editor - utilized to continue an on-going edit war. I also suspect this is not the first sock puppet utilized by this editor.' Per Wikipedia,  "A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception."   Further, "the use of multiple accounts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards – sock puppetry – is forbidden.''"

In good faith

Computer Guy 2 (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I have never claimed to be two people. You advised me to get an account (as did others). I did.

You did not follow, nor have you ever really followed, BRD. The way you throw it around and run off to the admin board makes it clear you don’t even truly understand the principle. You consistently revert edits to material before engaging in a discussion on the matter. Note that BRD isn’t reserved for multiple edits, conceptually it is to be utilized before re-editing a SINGLE revert. Your long history of edit warring and your demonstrated willingness to make multiple reverts on a topic sans responding on the talk page clearly show that you have no respect for the BRD process and make it hysterically hypocritical for you to claim otherwise.

Further, you seem to be very confused about “consensus”. You were instructed not to make a change without reaching a “consensus”. Three days of “dead talk” is not a “consensus, by any standards. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Consensus after you finish brushing up on BRD- or BRRRD in your case. If there has been any “consensus” with regards to the Clark case, it’s probably more along the lines that the entry shouldn’t even be listed.

As a brief aside, because you seem to need them at periodic intervals- the 19th to the 22nd isn’t “four days”. To claim otherwise is like saying noon until 1500 is “four hours”. Mercy. Understanding your confusion of BRD and Consensus and notwithstanding your eight day weeks, you have completely disregarded the administrator with regards to the topic at hand, and as such your erroneous edits have been justifiably reverted. Further, you continually remove sourced material from the paragraph to “avoid cluttering the article with needless details”. In and of itself this is clearly not grounds for removing sourced material. And this is on a topic you introduced, no less.

To that end, your claim that I am in error with my assertion that you alone are responsible for EVERY entry sans Ruby Ridge and Waco is either yet another mistake or another blatant lie. I hate to waste space, but it seems enumeration is always needed to keep you from squirming away from your falsehoods-

You added the 80’s Senate hearings on Jan 6; on the 21st of Jan you added the OIG entry (without adding its report to the other agencies listed page, interestingly) and Truscott material, between the 24th and 27th of Jan you added the Clark, Van Werf, the 40 year old incident where two non-law enforcement officers allegedly took some guns, and the Iowa FO entries. On 6 Feb you made the Chojnacki and Sarabyn entry, and on 1 July you made the Virginia State Police gun show entry.

It is clear by your single issue and hostile history you have some sort of agenda against the Bureau, along with the numerous outright reverts of over 15 different editors you have made just in the past year- almost all without talk entries.

To your “point” about verifiable material. Sukow did have a flashlight, as listed in the article. It is undisputed that he had a BAC of over .26, as reported by CNN, ABC, and numerous sources. It is undisputed that he had narcotics in his system, that he had a criminal history, etc. Did you even read the citations already linked?AceD (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Quote without comment: (In the words of an ATF agent, posted today, and quoted from:  http://cleanupatf.org/forums/index.php?/topic/257-letter-to-congressman-issa/page__pid__3372#entry3372)


 * "Over the years we at ATF have seen so much corruption, incompetence, and vicious retaliation from our so-called leaders, that where the rest of the world is shocked at the current disaster, many of us are not. What we are is exhausted. Until there is true accountability in the leadership of ATF, I’m afraid there will always be another Ruby Ridge, Waco Texas, or Fast & Furious. And I don’t just mean accountability for those who are currently involved in the latest disaster, I mean a new system of accountability for their buddies who are waiting in the wings to replace them and who will just continue to use this agency as their own personal sledge hammer to destroy anyone who would dare stand up to them when they violate the very laws they took an oath to uphold. At ATF, you better not even suggest something may be a bad idea if it’s not what HQ wants to hear. So basically, we don’t have our best and brightest making very critical decisions. The best and the brightest aren’t even allowed to have input if it’s not what ATF leaders want to hear....."

In good faith

Computer Guy 2 (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

And again, your silence on the issues put to you is but another form of consent.

Thanks again for the quote, from an individual employee griping about his supervisors in a 5,000 person organization. It demonstrates, far more than you know, your true purpose as a single purpose editor on this objective encyclopedia.AceD (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll respond... at a time of my choosing - not yours. You're a never-ending source of entertainment, Ace.....


 * In good faith
 * Computer Guy 2 (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope so, and I hope you truly understand what the BRD cycle means to this point. It's a lot to respond to, "entertainment" aside.AceD (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, Ace. Anytime you are willing to drop the personal attacks, stop calling me names, and are willing to attack the "Content" of the paragraph (as we, as editors, are supposed to do) instead of attacking each other, I stand willing to work with you to develop a decent paragraph.  As it now stands, the paragraph is half-assed - a pitiful example for a Wikipedia article.  Citations are needed and others are now improperly noted. Other statements are incorrect or otherwise unverified.  I'm willing to work with you (or anyone, for that matter), sentence by sentence to build a Wikipedia-quality paragraph.  What say?  What do you have to lose?  We might even arrive at a consensus.....


 * In good faith
 * Computer Guy 2 (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm game. I think we have some fundamental issues to address- the prism we see the agency as a whole are quite different and our perception of the agency and all things relating to it derive from that. But perhaps we can review those beliefs as well. I certainly agree that the article and the "editors" could benefit from working together.AceD (talk) 05:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't know if we'll be able to find consensus on the Agency as a whole - although I'm not as negative about it as you might perceive. As I side note, I certainly know the Agency and the agents do some very fine work....taking bad guys off the streets.  On  the other hand, the Agency does some really stupid things (as do some of the employees - in their official capacity).  For example, for Firearms Technology to rule that a piece of string is a machine gun (I have a copy of the ruling) was really stupid - even if the ruling was later rescinded.  So, there are at least two sides to the coin.  Of course, stupidity isn't exclusive to ATF, but this article is.  I have no interest in ranting and raving about all the stupid or illegal acts by ATF employees.  On the other hand, when such behavior is officially endorsed or supported by ATF management, then this reflects directly on the Agency.


 * Believe it or not, I strive to maintain a neutral pov, but I also don't shrink from pointing out the warts or stating that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes. I can only hope that you will share that viewpoint.  I will not be 'politically correct' to only post positive press from ATF's public relations office, but will point out the warts where it's appropriate.  I would do the same if I were editing an article on the FBI.


 * In the Controversy section, I only provided enough to establish the pattern, and didn't include anywhere near all the incidents I uncovered.


 * Regarding Clark; At this point, it is an undisputed historic fact that Clark killed his neighbor.  All other issues aside, what is your position on the Virgin Island actions against him in a Wikipedia historic entry?  Should it be noted?  or not?


 * In good faith
 * Computer Guy 2 (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

My main problem with the "controversy" section was there was (and is) no pattern. The entries don't share any commonality, essentially there are acts that were committed- whether on the job or no- by an employee or small group of employees. If you look at any organization this size that has been around for eighty years you will find similiar, if not more egregious, behavior. I don't think that says anything fundamental about the agency.

As a lifetime NRA member, I also think some of the rulings from ATF in the past (as well as some of the ticky-tack regulatory prosecutions) have been stupid. However, in the case of the rulings I do understand that ATF has been given a very difficult task and is mandated to enforce laws that have been deliberately left vague through compromise to protect gun owners. As stupid as it sounds, if a piece of material is solely utilized (a lightning link, drop in sear, or even a properly utilized shoelace) to convert a weapon to automatic fire then you could certainly argue that the item is a machine gun itself, under the law.

I guess my biggest issue with even going down this whole road is that it is such a small part of what ATF really does. Sure individual agents might push a prosecution that is borderline at best at times, but if someone is indicted and prosecuted the fault is surely more on the US Attorney's Office responsible for the case. I know that the gun lobby saber rattles and would have you believe that the agency exists solely to prosecute good gun owners, but even rudimentary research shows that well over 95% of ATF prosecutions are violent crime and/or arson and explosive related. I believe this has consistently been the case since the Senate hearings decades ago, and ATF accordingly has gotten a reputation within law enforcement to be one of, in not the best, federal agencies out there. Those regulatory violations- even the vast majority which everyone would agree needs to happen (straw purchaser sending guns to gang members, etc) are such a small portion of what the agency does. The Syracuse website does a good job of tracking the prosecutions.

With regards to Clark, I'm inclined to agree that he should be listed just because the case did have a large media impact and did address the issue of federal immunity in a territory for the first time. But so much of the issue and fire surrounding the case is due to so many individuals, organizations, and other parties deeming the prosecution to be erroneous, or even worst, vindictive. The CNN article I listed discussed the "multi-agency review team", which is basically a review that HAS to happen when a federal LEO kills someone in order to make sure there is no "color of office" offense to be brought to the United States Attorney. An accurate telling of the Clark story must involve the issues surrounding his case, the mitigating factors that have lead most of the people who are aware of the facts to be shocked at his potential prosecution, and the issue of immunity that only derives because the United States saught to move the case to federal court to dismiss the charges.AceD (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, we agree on a couple of positions.... The majority of LE work done by ATF is positive, and mention of the V.I. position regarding Clark is appropriate.


 * It also seems that ATF's firearms work has been troubled. Have you been following the "Fast and Furious" situation?  ATF's denial hasn't helped.  I understand there is a 'white paper' circulating at Justice proposing how to distribute ATF's workload to other agencies.  Don't know if it will fly, but it indicates the Agency may have a difficult future....


 * BTW, as I recall, it was V.I. federal court that rejected moving the case....


 * I'm a bit short on time right now, but will discuss more soon.


 * In good faith
 * Computer Guy 2 (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether or not the Clark entry belongs, it's WHY it belongs. If it was simply the incident and whether or not he committed manslaughter (objectively it is hard to argue that the murder charge was supported in a legitimate justice system with the lack of premediation and malice aforethought) then you wouldn't have all of the outrage and media attention and would be hard pressed to argue its inclusion longterm. The mere fact that you do have all the attention and that the case is so notable stems from the outrage over the case and the overwhelming support for Clark from so many different entities.

It was a federal judge in VI and the 3rd Circuit that rejected moving the case. These rulings were merely based on standing as opposed to being a negative evaluation of Clark's actions, had this situation occured anywhere other than VI (or perhaps PR) this would be much more straight forward. Certainly in any state of the Union. VI is a perfect storm based on the lack of peace officer status (which makes Clark acting as only a citizen on any crime he takes enforcement action on that does not have a federal nexus- i.e domestic violence) given to federal LEO's and the fact that immunity is apparently not a standing principle in a "territory" like it is everywhere else. These are some of the more noteworthy aspects of the case.

Due to all this- and I know this isn't part of the article because it isn't reported by media outlets- you have had a drastic reduction in the number of agents located in the Islands. ATF may be the only agency that has pulled all, but I can only tell you that ALL agencies have pulled at least some. Again, I know it really isn't that relevant directly to the article but I only mention it to show that the outrage of the Clark situation is almost universal from the entire law enforcement community, and specifically from the federal law enforcement community. FLEOA, who represents 25,000 agents directly and pretty much the entire federal law enforcement community indirectly, sharply criticized the prosecution and its effects on federal law enforcement's future in the Islands.

I will humbly ask what your opinion on the VI justice system is, before I espouse mine and information I may or may not have. Do you know anything at all about its system and the state of violence in the Islands? Have you heard and seen all of the criticism about their violence, lack of prosecution, lack of professionalism, and the impropriety that has been alleged based on who gets prosecuted and who does not? In short, the "Animal Farm" justice system, as it has been called? Did you read the Judge's ruling in Clark's case, and have you ever read ANY judicial opinion from a "bonafide" United States or state judge anywhere near the low level of decorum and lack of diction in that ruling? What, if anything, does that tell you about their justice system, in your opinion?

I have followed the Fast and Furious situation, and yes I think mistakes were made (while also believing that there is more to the story than the drive by approach might lead you to believe). It is true that some of the "firearms work" can be troubled, but relatively what are we talking about? ATF prosecutes more than 10,000 cases a year, probably less than a few hundred are part of the "firearms work" you reference and even then an overwhelming majority of those cases are problem free- prosecuting firearms traffickers, etc. And even in the very few cases there are issues with, an overwhelming majority are executed in good faith. The cases you refer to, and no doubt the ones that given ATF its stigma truly are probably less than one in a thousand(s). What blows my mind is why a US Attorney would ever file on such a case, given their propensity to turn down great cases on habitual felons, and why the blame on those select few doesn't fall more on where it belongs.

I'm not sure anybody would have an issue with ATF being merged into other agencies, except those people who would likely push for it. It used to be all academic but the government now has set precedent and shown they will do it (US Customs and INS, for instance). As non-excepted 1811's, all of the agents would be guaranteed their capacity in another agency. The new agency responsible for enforcing the same laws would likely be better funded, larger, and be free of any of the negative history between the gun lobby and the agency.

The NRA and other organizations would hate it though. Instead of some agency they have gotten used to having some influence over legislatively and even executively, they would be faced with an agency who is likely a steamroller. If it is the FBI then it would likely be their worst nightmare, even Congress seemingly cannot influence that agency. And then you would have the added problem of the demographics. Most ATF agents are prior military and almost 90% of ATF agents are prior law enforcement. Most are pretty conservative people, "gun strokes" if you will who are likely NRA members themselves. The average FBI agent is a prior accountant, IT specialist or from the foreign languange career speciality (CS), and as a general rule are pretty far removed demographically from gun owners. That could make the transfer doubly bad, from the gun lobby standpoint.AceD (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for the NRA, although I am a member. What I do see, is an agency, with some excellent agents, apparently driving down a road to self-destruction, with a corporate culture of "damn public opinion" and "damn Congressional inquiries", "we know better than anyone else how to run this agency".....  Lying to Congress and the American People is not a viable way to run an agency.  Maybe for the short-term (under this administration), but not for the long-term.  You've hit the nail on the head.  The Agency does a lot of very good work, with (I understand), a lot of convictions of bad guys, so why would they find it necessary for management to deny, then lie and do a little soft-shoe around "Fast and Furious" and other such programs?  Did they think the American People are too stupid to figure it out?  Why, too, did they find it necessary to organize a little taxpayer-funded "celebration" for the implementation of the multiple long gun reporting requirement (just revealed) - in defiance of existing law?  It's a very curious situation.


 * You have a good point about the V.I. judicial system.... Although, I personally can't seem to come to grips with Clark "emptying his revolver" into the guy.  OK, it was only a 5-shot revolver.  But he was a trained agent.  Was he not trained in non-lethal techniques?  I know it's second-guessing, but a single round through the shoulder (non-lethal) might have eliminated the flashlight threat.  Right?  I wouldn't say it was murder, but excessive force?  Looks like it to me - and to others.


 * Yeah, dumping ATF functions into other agencies may be a case of "out of the frying pan, into the fire"...... And if they rescue and transfer the rogue managers, then we'll be right back where we started - maybe worse.  As the agents in www.cleanupatf.org keep saying, the Agency needs a good housecleaning.  If that could be accomplished and the the bad apples in management removed, then that might be a step in the right direction....


 * In the meantime, it seems appropriate to continue to point out the warts in the agency.....

In good faith

Computer Guy 2 (talk) 02:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The curious thing is, you keep talking about CleanupATF, yet the criticism levied by that site is quite different from the one you espouse here. Even the most passionate adversary of the Bureau's management would likely be appalled at you painting the organization with a broad brush based on individual acts. That site- whether you give credibility to that very small minority or no- does fixate its criticism on management and things that are far more administrative in nature that what has (and is) being discussed here.

I don't think we need to keep up these long diatribes though, this isn't a message board. I will address what you are saying with regards to Clark as succintly as I can. Universally law enforcement officers are trained to shoot for center mass and to continue shooting until the threat is gone, which normally doesn't process until someone is one the ground. Being that I can tell you firsthand 16 rounds from a Glock can be fired in about three seconds in such a situation, I have little doubt that Clark fired his five rounds before he probably even realized he had fired one.

Also, not to be crass but if you really want to pass judgment on LEO actions understand the policies and best practices that are universally employed by those individuals (for example, you wouldn't speak with authority about cars without possessing the technical knowledge to do so). I challenge you to find a single law enforcement organization that trains officers to shoot in a deliberate less than lethal fashion, save the very rare situation that involves either a warning shot, a breeching shot, disabling a vehicle, etc. Accordingly, LEO's that operate in alternative position to patrol or other uniform functions do not typically carry less than lethal equipment, and that fact alone gives even more latitude for such an officer to use lethal force (Graham V Conner).

(As an aside, how do we archive this? The text is getting to be quite too much to sort through...)AceD (talk) 03:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Protected
This article has been fully protected for two months due to a very long-running dispute as to whether misdeeds of individual employees are notable enough to mention in the article on the agency. I perceive that the account User:AceD was revived on August 9 after semi protection was imposed to carry on the battle previously waged by an IP editor. Neither side of this dispute has shown much interest in reaching consensus or following the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Please follow the advice given there. The full report of the edit warring case is here. Protection can be lifted if consensus is reached. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Melson resigns
We need to update the page to reflect Melson's resignation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristophanes2 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As of 8/31/11, the new acting director is B. Todd Jones. http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2011/08/083011-doj-departmernt-of-justice-announces-new-acting-director-of-atf-and-senior-advisor-in-the-office-of-legal-policy.html
 * The page needs to be updated to show that Melson resigned because of Operation Fast and Furious. His resignation already took effect http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-atf-director-resign-20110830,0,2535299.story — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.8.239 (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want the article to be changed, please present the actual new text that you want to include. Then use the editrequest template to get an admin to look at it. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Ken Melson has now been replaced by Todd Jones. I'm not qualified to make this change, but someone needs to ... the page is now quite out of date

Fresh Start Continued
You make a couple of interesting points. However, do not be confused.... I am not a mouthpiece for CleanUpATF.Org, but they do offer some degree of insight into ATF.

Regarding training of LEOs: Surely, the non-lethal devices carried by LEOs aren't just for looks? Batons, Tasers, etc.? If law enforcement is training officers only to shoot in a lethal manner, then we have a major problem in law enforcement.... If what you're saying is accurate, then we are training law enforcement officers as executioners.

Emptying your revolver into a perp coming at you with a gun, is a far different situation than emptying your revolver into a drunk druggie swinging a flashlight.... And, by the way, ATF Agents aren't "always on duty" as you said earlier. They are always "available for duty" - which is an entirely different concept.

In good faith

Computer Guy 2 (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Taking your points in reverse- you are making a distinction when none exists. ATF S/A's are empowered to carry (without a civilian concealed carry permit) a firearm at all times (outside of periods of intoxication) because they are always on duty. LEAP makes 1811 position salaried and responsible to work from 50 to an unlimited amount of hours per pay period, and essentially self activating. As such, even if you could argue that Clark was "off" when he encountered Sukow the minute he took action he was "on".

And in this case, that argument doesn't even exist. Clark was going to the gym, so per policy he was on "HIP" time and fully "on duty".

There is no fundamental difference from a use of deadly force perspective from "a perp with a gun" and a "drunk with a flashlight". As various courts have stated ad nauseum, "In Morgan, we held that “a car tool, knife or other hard object wrapped in a sock and used as a bludgeon or club to assault a person” was a deadly weapon" (this specific citation is from Morgan vs State of Tennessee). The court continued in Morgan by stating that such action could be "the manner in which it is used or attempted to be used"

Further, the lead law enforcement training organization in the United States- PPCT- identifies a flashlight as an intermediate impact weapon that MUST be met, per most department's force continuum's, with deadly force (the +1 theory).- http://www.laaw.com/leuoft.htm

Law enforcement officers past, present, and future- have only been taught to utilize a firearm by shooting center mass. The mere thought of any alternative is sheer Hollywood fantasy, and is frankly is so absurd as to not merit discussion. Suffice to say that (A) in a dynamic environment hitting center mass can be hard enough for world class shooters and (B) hitting an extremity can be just as "deadly" as center mass, hitting an individual in the shoulder and severing their brachial artery can result in death in less than a minute.

http://gothamist.com/2010/10/22/why_cant_cops_shoot_to_wound.php http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Safety/articles/3468102-Shooting-center-mass-The-dangers-of-denial/ http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/middle-class-guy/2011/aug/6/stupidity-complaints-about-police-shooting-armed-c/

And incidentally, while trying not to be crass, this perspective by you is the very reason why the question of whether or not a policy officer utilized force proportionately and properly should only be "based on a totality of the circumstances....the objective reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a REASONALBLE OFFICER on the scene" (Graham v Conner). Graham notes that the objective reasonableness standard only applies to LEO's and such a standard must be evaluated from the perspective of an officer who has ostensibly received traning and experience that a standard civilian had not. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Deadly+Force

In this case, I am sure Will Clark has (as I have) seen multiple videos in his training environments where an individuals have killed other individuals with flashlights and other impact weapons, and understands the terminal nature of such an object far better than you do. Accordingly, his actions should only be evaluated on the standard on whether his actions are congrument with what individuals who have received similiar training would have done in that scenario. If you peruse the Internet for what LEO's are saying about Clark's answer unanimously, I think you'll have your answer.

Non-lethal devices aren't just for looks, however non-patrol officers are not issued and do not carry them. As such, he had to make a use of force jump from officer presence and/or empty hand control techniques (not feasible vs a impact weapon) to deadly force. Note the lack of availability of non-lethal or intermediate weapons is another "Graham factor" which legally gives Clark even more of a right to use deadly force than he might have otherwise.AceD (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You have presented interesting arguments why Clark may have acted properly in killing his neighbor, which may have been persuasive in a court of law. On the other hand, the V.I. authorities maintained he acted with excessive force.  Since the case was thrown out, there will never be a legal decision (regardless of your opinion on the V.I. legal system).  What we do know, is that Clark was not trying to arrest his neighbor, and, rather than leaving the scene, executed him instead (perhaps justified).


 * The use of deadly force by police is clearly subject to heightened responsibility and accountability. Police do not have a "license to kill", although they are empowered to employ deadly force when justified.


 * Your discussion of "must be judged by a reasonable officer", while useful for police training, is one reason police are frequently (and rightly) subject to civilian oversight. Police, subject only to peer or supervisory review, can develop into abusive agencies, as we've seen with National Socialist Germany, the former Soviet Union, East Germany, and many others.  The "Fast and Furious" operation of ATF is yet another case with deadly consequences which was (it appears) only subject to supervisory review.  Police (and police powers) must be strictly controlled.


 * In good faith


 * Computer Guy 2 (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

While police, along with our military, are (as you say, rightly so) subject to administrative control by civilians, problems arise with tactical and operational issues are decided by those who aren't qualified to sit in judgment. The Supreme Court, in Graham, validated this by determining the standard utilized to judge whether the use of force implemented by an officer is excessive or otherwise. Whether you agree with it or not, this is the law of our land and, if anything, has trended toward even less civilian oversight (Scott v State) in the last several years.

Clark didn't "execute" anyone, in the legal meaning of the word, and as a law enforcement officer he has a duty not to retreat from a situation where criminal activity is afoot. He took action against a combatant who was legally and fundamentally armed with a deadly weapon, and stopped his behavior with a far more lethal one. Which is the reason why his actions have been UNIVERSALLY lauded by law enforcement officers, organizations, and every componant of the criminal justice system in the United States that has commented on the matter.

And there has been a legal decision in this case, and Clark has been found not guilty. While you can argue all you want about technicalities, the simple fact is that anybody who is familiar with homicide investigations is aware of dozens of cases where the corpus delecti was introduced as it was in the VI trial or judicial notice was given with regards to identity. Simply put, the judge wanted to make this travesty of a case go away and did at his first opportunity to do so.AceD (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Having charges dismissed is not the same as a verdict of 'not guilty' - and you know it as well as I do. Further, as you succinctly put it, "the judge wanted to make this travesty of a case go away and did at his first opportunity to do so."  A fundamental principle of our system of jurisprudence is "A Judge shall preform the duties of Judicial Office impartially and diligently".  You put it very well, the judge was not impartial.  Nevertheless, there's no point (in this article) in belaboring the issue, nor in bringing in moral judgements, nor 'opinions' of other law enforcement officers.


 * Earlier, you brought up another interesting point.... about Clark doing what he was trained to do. According to James Moore, retired ATF SAC, ATF agents are trained to shoot for only one reason - to kill. His recall of ATF (Treasury) training is; "You shoot only to save a life - yours or someone else's.  Once that test is met, and only then, you always shoot to kill."  From that perspective, Clark was doing only what he was trained to do.


 * You previously stated, "multi-agency review team headed by FBI S/A's and consisting of every agency in Justice". The official ATF report made no mention of multi-agency.  Can you come up with a citation to back up your statement?


 * For these reasons - and many others, I proposed (and propose again) to lay out only the basic facts of the case without the histrionics as follows:


 * "2010, October. Nine-year veteran ATF Agent William Clark, was charged with second-degree murder and tried in the 2008 off-duty killing of his neighbor in the U.S. Virgin Islands. ATF investigators found Clark “was acting within his scope of employment and authority. [His] actions were in compliance with ATF policies and procedures including whether the use of deadly force was necessary." Virgin Island prosecutors contended that the shooting was unwarranted and rose to the level of excessive force. The judge dismissed the case with prejudice (meaning he cannot be tried again) on a technicality that the proper procedure was not followed in identifying the body of the shooting victim."


 * Do you dispute any of these facts? I'm not talking about moral judgements, nor opinions, but the basic facts of the case.


 * In good faith


 * Computer Guy 2 (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

"A federal government multi-agency investigation of the 2008 incident unanimously concluded the shooting was justified"

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-10-25/justice/virgin.islands.atf.agent.case_1_federal-agents-atf-prosecution?_s=PM:CRIME

There are several others, including the one I previously linked on this page.

You can parse words and argue over the semantics of "not guilty" until the cows come home, Clark was absolved of any legal culpability in the death of Sukow in the VI and was held blameless criminally by the federal government, blameless administratively by numerous law enforcement organizations and the USAO, and was universally lauded for his actions with the LEO community. That merits mention in any objective discussion of the matter.

And yes, I would "object" (as I have repeatedly to the same content, so I question why you continually submit it sans any revision) to any paragraph that by ommission glaringly fails the issue. While the facts that are discussed may be reliable and accurate, so is a narrative of the 2003 War in Iraq that tells only of a crushing and overwhelming coaltion victory and stops at "Mission Accomplished". Neither tell the whole story and do a disservice to the matter at hand.

And again, you have to ask yourself why Clark is relevant. If it is simply because of a 2nd degree murder case that went nowhere, then you would be doing several thousand of these entries a year. If it is because of the mass media attention that came about over the outrage of his treatment, the issue of federal immunity, etc- then of course you have to discuss it.

To your revised entry- I fail to see your point and you seem to be backtracking. You seemingly were not aware that law enforcement officers are universally trained only to neutralize a threat until I told you several days ago. Now you validate that, in a fashion, with a link but I am not sure to what end?!?

In any case, a retired ATF mid-manager made a comment you took as the Gospel but is factually inaccurate as an absolute (while being practically accurate and yet another verification of what I have been telling you). Yes all law enforcement officers are trained to shoot center mass (which is the heart and would almost always be fatal), a dedicated head shot in certain situations (which would also be fatal), or some combination of the two (Jeff Cooper's famous El Presidente drill for instance). These are all terminal, but yet LEO's are administratively and civilly prohibited from outright classifying them as such. In lieu of this, the language that LEO's are universally trained under stipulate to use deadly force to "neutralize a threat" or some semblance thereof.

More to the point, ATF as an agency neither has a "Use of Force" policy (it, along with its sister agencies share the Department of Justice Use of Force policy, and isn't in the Department of Treasury and hasn't authorized or empowered any agents to carry firearms under that banner in almost a decade. Get yourself a better and more timely source if you are trying to quote policy, or better yet do a little research.  That material is public and easy enough to find as it is.AceD (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Your link which only mentions a multiple agency investigation, while interesting, is a secondary source. I quoted from the primary source - the original ATF court document which made no mention of multiple agencies.  Regardless, whether an ATF review or multiple agency, this wouldn't be a case of the "Blue Code of Silence", would it?  Law enforcement investigating themselves?  No chance of "conflict of interest" there, right?


 * No Wikipedia article will ever "tell the whole story". By necessity, each is only a summary of events.


 * Despite your assertion, not all law enforcement is taught to "neutralize [i.e. shoot to kill] a threat". A cursory examination of the DOJ policy documents shows that.  If Agent Clarke was officially trained to "shoot to kill", then that could be a reason for killing his neighbor, but not an excuse.


 * You stated, "To your revised entry- I fail to see your point". Let me spell it out for you.  I've laid out the basic facts of the Clarke situation.  If you don't like it, rather than continual criticism, I suggest you propose specific changes by editing that paragraph and posting it below.  Maybe we can build a consensus?  Let's try to keep it brief.


 * In good faith


 * Computer Guy 2 (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

All LEO's are taught to shoot center mass and to stop (neutralize) a threat. You are giving the word neutralize a meaning that does not exist. In fact, I have now specifically told you several times that law enforcement officers do NOT shoot "to kill". Simply, they, universally, shoot to stop a threat to themselves or others and when they decide to shoot they shoot center mass until the threat no longer exists. It is, and will forever more, be that simple. Thank you for finding the policy I directed you to, but take some time to understand it.

The ATF court document is neither original nor exclusive. It is the product on one internal review, which is the first cursory review. It is not the product of the federal criminal investigation (which ATF has no authority to conduct on its on) nor of the DOJ shooting review policy (which ATF has no authority to conduct).

You have laid out the basic facts of the Clark situation from one side. You discuss none of THE FACTS of mitigation of the issue. ZERO. Without the mitigating factors, the entry wouldn't even merit inclusion on the page yet you continue to ignore that issue and fail to even discuss it. I have laid out the paragraph as I see it, and it exists in present form. You claim to want it short and succinct in this case, yet you are the author of considerable text on other issues of far less importance in the same section. You cannot have it both ways.AceD (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Further, your comment about "blue wall" is baseless speculation and irrelevant. As has been pointed out, the Supreme Court of the United States has said that all law enforcement actions MUST be, in the end, evaluated by law enforcement organizations. While a civilian oversight committee of some sort might exist, at the end of the day its recommendations will be reviewed by a law enforcement officer(s) in any entity before an information or indictment is brought. Simply put, civilians have neither the collective knowledge, training, or experience to provide absolute evaluate to LEO actions- as you have demonstrated yourself in this thread.AceD (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, Ace, you are an endless source of entertainment. You state, "I have now specifically told you several times that law enforcement officers do NOT shoot "to kill".", yet I provided a specific source (within ATF) that contradicted your statement.  How many times you "tell", or attempt to lecture or intimidate me is irrelevant.  Your words are chosen to position yourself as the ultimate authority on these subjects - which you are not.  In fact, you have no authority here.  Further, the extent of my authoring other text on other issues is totally irrelevant.


 * You like the "paragraph"(s) as it currently exists? Fine.  Are you proud of your work?  It's one of the poorest examples of Wikipedia editing I have seen.  Instead of spending so much time ranting against me, you really ought to learn how to be an editor.


 * By the way, you are fond of saying that "all" law enforcement is trained a certain way. Here's a quote from a Texas State law enforcement training manual:  "The law and police training specify that only the minimum level of force necessary may be used....".  I could go on.....


 * Are you denying that a "Blue Wall" or "Blue Code of Silence" exists? Or only that it cannot exist in this case?  I made no conclusion about the "Blue Wall" in this case, I only raised the question.  Your response provides the answer.  And your statement that civilians have neither the collective knowledge, training, or experience to evaluate LEO actions?  Really?  That sounds suspiciously like something the Gestapo or Stasi would have said.  Are you also against Congress (Civilians, in case you hadn't noticed) investigating and evaluating ATF's LEO action in Operation "Fast and Furious"?  Do these civilians lack the collective knowledge, training, or experience to evaluate LEO actions?  I think not.


 * Your refusal to participate in building a new paragraph using consensus is duly noted. Since this discussion has now ceased to be productive, and I'm not using a government computer or government time and getting paid by the taxpayers for railing against another editor, I'm discontinuing this discussion.  I'm needed elsewhere.  We'll see what happens when the block is lifted.


 * In good faith


 * Computer Guy 2 (talk) 03:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way Ike. I will certainly miss all of the valid points you make. As you were counseled on the other site you requested help from with regards to this argument, you and your "source" are wrong. Criminally wrong, in fact, as it would be a crime for a law enforcement officer to have the "intent" to kill an individual. More research needed, I see.

And your confusion about what someone told you about Texas aside, you are again confusing the mandate of your own reference. That discusses using only the next available force level necessary in any given event (soft empty hand control tactics vs verbal noncompliance, intermidiate weapons vs active aggression, deadly force against aggravated aggression) and not skipping levels (using intermediate weapons versus verbal noncompliance). Again, thank God that you aren't allowed to sit in judgment on such matters because you continued confusion about all matters critical to this issue is, in a word, frightening. For the record, however, Texas trains officers that when using deadly force officers should only utilize the force until the threat is no longer present. This is in line with DOJ policy that ATF utilizes and is the universal training of local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies in this country. Anything less would be ineffective, anything more has been deemed criminal.

To that point, it isn't the "Gestapo" that mandates that "the actions of the law enforcement officer must be evaluated with the objective reasonableness standard from the perspective of a law enforcement officer with similar training and experience". That was the Supreme Court of this great nation. And as this discussion shows, they could not be more correct.

Thank you for setting aside your posturing and recognizing that you are not able to compromise nor modify the paragraph past what you propose. When the ban is lifted you can edit it, and perhaps we will find a medium that consists of better formatting and different substance. But until you can gather a consensus otherwise, and objectively explain why you attempt to do so, the facts of mitigation in this event will be edited within the entry.AceD (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Controversy: does "Too Hot to Handle" belong under gunwalking?
Deborah Stocks, "17 indicted after hundreds of weapons seized", AP, abc.com, 17 Feb 2011.


 * "Operation "Too Hot to Handle" involved approximately 300 weapons seized in Arizona, Mexico and Texas."

"Too hot to handle" sounds like a typical Project Gunrunner operation: guns interdicted and seized in the US from straw buyers before they could cross the border. No apparent "gunwalking".

"Wide receiver" and especially "Fast and Furious" allowed guns to cross the border without interdiction or seizure. Naaman Brown (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

controversy section
As someone who knows a bit about the topic but has no strong feelings about the ATF as a whole, I'm confused as to the purpose of the controversy section as it is now written. First of all, controversy is defined as a prolonged public debate about a given topic. A lot of the information in that section is non-controversial by definition because the issues are not well-known or, in some cases, even debated (ie most people have similar opinions about them). Further, some of the issues discussed have nothing to do with the ATF operationally, but rather agents committing various unsavory acts without ATF involvement. In some cases, it could be argued that the ATF's reaction should have been stronger, but you could say that about virtually any organization and its employees. For a government organization with 40 years of history, devoting so much space to, for example, a middle-management guy having gay sex and being reassigned seems inappropriate in an encyclopedia article. The articles for other law enforcement organizations might make for a good template. I think the neutrality tag is well-placed. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 23:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, and have said as much numerous times on this page. The thought has been echoed by many others as well. The entire section, outside of Ruby Ridge and Waco, are from a single source.AceD (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

After giving this subject considerable thought over the past months, I've come to the conclusion that the criminal acts of individual ATF agents and employees shouldn't be included here - unless the acts were permitted or condoned by the agency itself. We have little or no evidence of the extent of any disciplinary action taken by the Agency in these cases. On the other hand, Agency-wide illegal/unethical acts, such as retaliating against Whistleblowers, "Gunwalking", lost Agency guns, Waco, Ruby Ridge and Agency actions resulting in the Congressional Hearings of 1982 remain highly appropriate and certainly continue to be controversial. Accordingly, I reposted the Agency actions, and agree with the removal of individual criminal acts. As is being posted at ATF gunwalking scandal, the Agency has some serious problems (and a history of serious problems), some yet to be resolved. [And, as a side note, an ATF middle-management guy having gay sex (which wasn't proven) was never an issue. No one cares (or should care) what he may have done in private. However, an ATF middle management guy being arrested for damaging a hotel room while on "official business" and not getting fired was the issue. Not one of ATF's prouder moments.]  Computer Guy 2 (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with the principle you express in your first couple of sentences. I'm still concerned about giving some incidents undue weight: Ruby Ridge, Waco, gunwalking, harassing people at gun shows — which of these 4 doesn't belong? (I would ask the same of trashing a hotel room if that were still included). It might help to reformat the section, so that rather than a timeline you have larger sections for the larger issues, and include the rest in one section about alleged mismanagement or something. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 14:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you've noticed that Ruby Ridge, Waco, and certainly Gunwalking are separately well covered in Wikipedia. The documented incident of harassing people at gun shows deserves to be covered.  More citizens were impacted than at Ruby Ridge.  Describing controversy at ATF is a bit like the old story of blind men describing an elephant.  There are many different ways that the Agency has abused their authority, and many aspects of controversy (and corruption) that deserve to be covered, but there is a shortage of reliable sources and facts to verify the acts.  Consequently, we post only what can be verified.  The incident of trashing the hotel room would deserve to be covered if, in fact, ATF covered up the incident and protected Vander Werf, however, no matter how suspicious, there are no reliable sources for verification.


 * I do agree that the heading "Controversy" is a bit misleading, as it implies current events. Perhaps a better heading would be "History of Controversy".  I'll run that up the flagpole and see who salutes it.


 * Computer Guy 2 (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding the paragraph on ATF retaliation against whistleblowers (2011): In addition to Vince Cefalu, this should be expanded to include Jay Dobyns, John Dodson, Larry Alt, Pete Forcelli, James Casa, Carlos Canino, Jose Wall, and Darren Gil.
 * Computer Guy 2 (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The question of what deserves to be covered in the article is a matter of opinion. I have no problem with covering the gun show incidents, but to by knowledge, Ruby Ridge was a much larger controversy than that issue was. Thus, it should be given proportionately more coverage. The fact that there are separate articles covering some issues indicates that those issues deserve greater emphasis, not less. Obviously they should still be summaries, with the standalone articles going more in-depth. By the way, are there reliable sources on all of these issues outside of government documents? If not, that makes their notability somewhat questionable, and it might be best to exclude them.


 * The current timeline format just seems more disjointed and unreadable as time goes on. What I think the section (maybe called simply "controversies" or "criticisms" would be best, actually) should look like: one subsection each for Ruby Ridge, Waco, Gunwalking, and "Investigative Techniques" or something similar. The last one would include the stuff from the 80s and the gun show issue. Anything that doesn't fall under those headings need not be included, as it would detract from the major issues and give undue weight to other issues that, to my knowledge, haven't been notably controversial. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 20:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I completely agree again Hazydan. Note that still the "controversy" section takes up almost a third of the article, and is redundant in large part due to the already established entries under most of what is remaining.  While all organizations of this size that have been around for decades have their share of criticism, it isn't logically consistent or efficient to use the forum to file a list of grievances- most of them well dated in fact, against the agency.AceD (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Please note: With the collaborative effort of several editors (and disruption by a couple of vandals), the Controversy history section has been completely reworked as of today - and represents the consensus of those editors. Any of the summary paragraphs could easily be expanded, but it appears the separate articles now adequately cover each subject. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I see you are back after recently experiencing some trouble on Wiki, Ike. Your protestations about sockpuppetry are indeed rich and comically laughable now that you have been exposed yourself.  Let me further educate you about your chosen forum to pursue these anti-ATF sentiments...This above comment again demonstrates a lack of wikipedia knowledge and policies on your part.  Wikipedia does not attain a "fixed" state, and a cursory examination clearly establishes that no consensus has been reached.  The same fundamental problems demonstrated by numerous editors- in fact almost all editors- still exist within a section that you- a self professed biased critic of ATF- are almost soley responsible for.  The section has been dramatically improved- no doubt- ironically and paradoxically by removing almost all of your own material.  That is telling in its own right, that basically removing all of your own work dramatically improved the article.  But more work certainly needs to be done, as my previous comment addresses along with the comments established by numerous other editors.AceD (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Further Ike, Solo I Fatty, Computer Guy 2, etc... I know you have just returned after being banned for sockpuppetry, and consequently I will give you the smallest benefit of the doubt with your newest egregious behavior as a subsequent finding would result in a permanent ban.  You have engaged in meatpuppetry in this entry, which is clearly established by linking your post on the cleanupatf (http://cleanupatf.org/forums/index.php?/user/340-ike/) site and the subsequent posting that arose out of that site from your "other editors" such as "Justice Wins", "Pipergrey93", and others.  Again, this is tantamount to your second attempt at sockpuppetry in just two weeks to provide the objective appearance of support to your own biased point of view.  As such, per Wikipedia policy the page will be reverted to the last established entry before the practice of meatpuppetry was engaged upon.  Any further attempts to tamper with this page through a mendacious and systematic process will result in me submitting yet another easily proven entry on your to an administrator and a resulting permanent ban.AceD (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I am under no obligation to reply to goading. A Dispute Resolution Process has been opened at WP:WQA. You are hereby notified and may participate. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 05:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Outside comment: Controversy sections are almost invariably a Bad Thing, in my opinion. I've never seen an article with a controversy section, especially one as long as this and said to myself "Wow, this is a neutrally written article". They attract POV writing in a way that makes me suspect that the weasels and peacocks mate when we're not looking. Scandals are part of the history of a group and should generally be incorporated smoothly into the history. Fundamental or philosophical criticisms might warrant a separate section, but this is not present here. Danger High voltage! 07:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a fair point Danger. By doing that, we may better be able to figure out which pieces really deserve to be in an encyclopedia article, and which parts are just more about finding complaints. On another note, I'm not sure what the issues are between Computer Guy 2 and AceD, but AceD is correct that you should be more careful about declaring that a consensus has been reached. It looks to me like there is still plenty of room for improvement. If you are a community member at cleanupatf, you are probably interacting directly with current and former ATF agents. Try to be very careful about bias. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 15:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hazydan, that's an excellent observation about the merits of combining. It does allow for a sense of perspective and, since roughly a third of this article is focused on scandals, a sense of perspective is sorely needed. Danger High voltage! 01:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

controversy section continued
There is plenty of room for improvement in the article. The consensus I spoke of should have been specifically addressed to the work that several of us had done to build the section on the Whistleblowers. AceD's sudden deletion of that section was totally inappropriate - especially after several editors had been working on it. Bbb23, telling a new editor, "don't undo this edit w/o explanation and as your only edit - discuss on Talk page if you wish to be heard" was inappropriate. Do you recall Please do not bite the newcomers? Since when do we require a newcomer to post on the talk page before he is allowed to edit? That editor may choose never participate here again. Finally, discussion of AceD's unethical guesswork and speculation on any editor's identity outside of Wikipedia is also inappropriate and a violation of No personal attacks and Harassment. I request that any editor who has discussed that issue, remove it from his posts and avoid more formal measures. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * An IP comes out of nowhere and his only edit is to restore a controversial chunk of material removed by AceD (and contested by you), and you think I should assume good faith? As far as I'm concerned, any editor (IP or registered) whose first edit is to inject himself into this kind of dispute doesn't merit good faith. If it really was a good faith edit, he can come to the Talk page, contribute to the discussion, and justify the edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * What was contested by me? Not that section.  Do you mean the removal?  Did I actually contest that?  Where?


 * Yes, you really should assume good faith - and go back and read Please do not bite the newcomers. (I'm sure AceD would have handled the revert for you.... and maybe not as nicely)  Computer Guy 2 (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all, the "consensus" you speak of only includes new accounts and IP's that posted over a two day period and have not been seen or heard from since. Per Wikipedia policy, these should only be treated as a single entity.  The general consensus among many editors both here and in other venues has been against the section in general and against the recent format specifically.  That brings us back to the position we are currently in- that there is a strong consensus against the section being included in the article from an overwhelming majority of the editors.


 * Secondly, neither this editor nor any other editor has posted any personal information about any editor on wikipedia. Personal information is defined as "legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other personal contact information" in the very policy you quote.  Further, even if any of this information had been posted by any editor (which by an adminstator's own acknowledgment, it hasn't) it would specifically be allowed if such information was first referenced or linked to by you- "unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia".  You have referenced, on your master and sock accounts, the website in question no less than three times and acknowledged your posting here there on multiple occassions.


 * Further, repeatedly accusing someone of harassment is addressed in the same policy you keep mindlessly refering to. "Accusations of harassment can be inflammatory....and can be seen as a personal attack".  I am going to formally ask you to stop referencing me in each and every post you make (as you apparently felt compelled to do in completely irrelevant fashion above), regardless of venue, and get back to content material.  For my part, I will certainly do the same when the need for these defenses cease.  As other administrators and editors have suggested, there is more than enough other material to be addressed and we can give the contentious material a long overdue break.AceD (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. "new accounts and IP's"? Bbb23? JFHJr? AndyTheGrump? Pipergrey93? (Maybe you should look at her other posting?) Computer Guy 2 (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't even understand what you're trying to say.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, didn't mean to be cryptic. AceD had stated above, "the "consensus" you speak of only includes new accounts and IP's that posted over a two day period and have not been seen or heard from since".  Along with a couple of new editors, the editors also consisted of:  Bbb23 (yourself),  JFHJr, and AndyTheGrump - not new accounts at all.  - and Pipergrey93, who also presented an interesting and valid point of view on another article.  Computer Guy 2 (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Obviously Bbb23 isn't part of any "consensus". Likewise the edits by editors such as JFHJr and others are revisions or reductions, and in no way endorse or contribute to the new material.  "Pipergrey93" has only made ATF related entries in a posting career that lasted all of 11 minutes.  The only consensus established thus far is the one endorsed by this editor, 'hazydan' calling the section "Disjointed and unreadable"; "Danger" stating "never seen a controversy section....as long as this and been seen as neutral"; "Bbb23's stated position against on multiple occassions, and the numerous other editors that have complained on this page and elsewhere about the undue weight and volume of the section, or stating that is shouldn't even be included in the article to begin with.AceD (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Pointing out possible conflicts of interest is appropriate under Wikipedia policy. If you are claiming WP:OUTING, I believe that applies to real life information (real name, address, workplace, etc), not internet message board pseudonyms. If the reference to "more formal measures" is a threat, I think you should reread some of those policies yourself. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 21:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The list
The material that keeps bouncing in and out is a list of agents that have had various problems. There's no need for a list. To the extent the people on that list are not already covered by the prose in same section, they can be incorporated into the prose. A list of this kind is (1) disfavored on Wikipedia, (2) gives undue prominence to the issue, (3) permits less context and creates sourcing issues, and (4) is at least partly duplicative of the prose itself. Until we've reached some consensus as to how to handle this, the list should remain out of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting points. Please cite your sources.  Computer Guy 2 (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean policies and/or guidelines, not "sources". See WP:EMBED ("Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain."). See also WP:WEIGHT.--Bbb23talk) 17:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I meant your sources - which I now know are the policies and/or guidelines. Thanks.  I'll review them.  Computer Guy 2 (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

From your source: "It can be appropriate to use a list style when the items in a list are "children" of the paragraphs that precede them.". There is nothing that I found where lists are "disfavored" on Wiki. If I missed it, please advise. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I quoted the relevant section above - "preferred", disfavored, whatever, the concept is there.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that a list here would be out of place foremost because of WP:WEIGHT. This is especially true when part of it already exists in the prose. A list is also not favored because prose would do at least as good a job — IMHO far better in fact — in conveying the information succinctly. In particular, I think a list of names carries things too far, based on both weight and WP:NOTWHOSWHO. Individuals' relevance to the overall subject of the Bureau is much more limited than the treatment would indicate. The very same sources could instead support prose along the lines of "since YYYY, several agents and former agents have complained of retaliation in the forms of Z,   ZZ,  and ZZZ.   " On another note, having read above, I hope readers will bear in mind I'm not endorsing the inclusion of any material at all when I rectify glaring violations of WP:BLP, but simply removing an unambiguous problem. JFHJr (㊟) 22:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

constitutional authority?
I thought that the 21st amendment devolved alcohol regulation to the states/territories/possessions of the USA, removing it from federal regulation, including federal agency control. Is it because that amendment's section two essentially says "whatever acts of transportation and possession of booze that are illegal under state law are hereby illegal by federal law too"? Maybe I'm missing the point, but i'd LOVE an explanation in the article, or maybe in the 21st Am article. Mang (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

1990s, single viewpoint issue
Just ran across this, I suspect there are other issues elsewhere: "...ending on April 19, 1993, after the complex caught fire, possibly as a result of the HRT's introduction of flammable tear gas into the compound." Possibly that I guess, or possibly an arson, or maybe something else. ONLY stating the one cause, without any references strikes me as trying to end run the inclusive truthfulness of the encyclopedia. Someone should look at this a bit. Compare to the relevant part of the article on the Waco seige for starters. 23.29.37.4 (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Report on ATF rogue tactics
WhisperToMe (talk) 06:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Diedrich, John and Raquel Rutledge. "ATF uses rogue tactics in storefront stings across nation." Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. December 7, 2013.

Controversies section is undue - not balanced
I was working on a related article that brought me here. I made some edits yesterday, mostly standardizing format and so on, but some to the "Controversies" section. I made it a little way, but realized the project is more than I can take on at this time by myself. In a nutshell, it uses mostly primary sources - transcripts from hearings - and reports on alleged problems. The section needs less of this and more reference to secondary sources that evaluate those allegations, what was behind them, summaries of what the hearings found. Summaries perhaps by the committees themselves, but also by reporters independent of the events.

I'll be hanging around this article a bit more today, tweaking as I'm able, and I'll check back here from time to time to add info and check for feedback. Lightbreather (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120304014743/http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/html/PSNFactS.pdf to http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/html/PSNFactS.pdf

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

ATF or BATFE?
Which abbreviation is more correct for use in Wikipedia articles, "ATF" or "BATFE"? They both seem to be in common usage. The official website says "ATF". Rezin (talk) 01:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Most sources use BATFE. The BATFE itself prefers ATF, presumably because it looks comparable to FBI and DEA on raid jackets.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.185.130 (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Any evidence for that claim? I see ATF as frequently as BATFE.
 * Also, why did you say that this source is so unreliable it should be deleted from the article?
 * Without knowing more, I'd guess that a book published by a university press would be a good source. On that basis, I'm going to put it back until there's a good explanation for its removal. Rezin (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems that this conversation sputtered out but my perception is that BATFE is the current term; see https://www.nraila.org/issues/batfefederal-firearms-law-reform/ for an example. Any objections to changing the terminology in his article? Brianhe (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems that this conversation sputtered out but my perception is that BATFE is the current term; see https://www.nraila.org/issues/batfefederal-firearms-law-reform/ for an example. Any objections to changing the terminology in his article? Brianhe (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The NRA-ILA is extremely biased when it comes to this bureau. I'd strongly object to relying on them for any factual issue concerning it. Felsic2 (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)