Talk:Misconduct in the Philadelphia Police Department/Archive 1

Eugene Sullivan 3 and Eugene Sllivan 4
This source indicated ES3 was convicted on 26 November 1985 and his son was convicted in January 1986. You have ES3 being convicted in 1985. Kindly check and see if an adjustment is needed. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 07:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

1976
Take a look at the Robert Wilkinson incident.[] Paul, in Saudi (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Lede paragraph
"The history of the Philadelphia Police Department (PPD) includes numerous cases of police misconduct by its officers. Some of the cases have been proven in a criminal court, while others were merely allegations." The first sentece creates a category, "cases of police misconduct". The second sentence says the category is comprised of "cases...proven in a criminal court" and "(cases that) were merely allegations." We should not say or imply that "allegations" were cases of police misconduct. "Allegations" applies to those which were later proven and those which were never proven. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Criminal convictions are no longer allegations, they are officially-proven charges. That is why the summary paragraph read, "Misconduct" followed by the modifying explanation, "...some of the cases have been proven in a criminal court, while others were merely allegations.".--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Those that are "merely allegations" cannot be called "cases of police misconduct". The sentence I edited says "There are A. Some A are A², other A might or might not be ''A'".
 * How about ""The history of the Philadelphia Police Department (PPD) includes numerous accusations of police misconduct by its officers. Some of the cases have been proven in a criminal court, while others were merely allegations."? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Perfect!--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Biased deletions
Another user has recently deleted most valid contributions to this article yet contributed none. Said user appears to have a close connection with article's subject. In other words, he/she may be a Philadelphia police officer and/or have another relationship with its department. As such, the user has violated Conflict of interest and Neutral point of view. Other police departments, including New York City's, have admitted making massive edits to their own Wikipedia misconduct articles. I request that a more experienced editor revert his edits and restore the article to its prior form.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 14:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * TBH, I think you should be careful about making accusations. Your own username implies that you believe there is endemic injustice in Philadelphia and many of your edits seem to promote this idea. You also behave very aggressively towards other editors who take a different approach and who challenge your approach to these issues. I would simply draw WP:BOOMERANG to your attention.
 * Please do not tell me what my agenda is based on my username. I have contributed heavily to the PPD's accomplishments and line-of-duty deaths in its main article. My above comment says that the referenced user "may" have a close connection with the PPD. Your hypocrisy is laughable as you have already decided that I "believe there is endemic injustice in Philadelphia and many of your edits seem to promote this idea." Misconduct is an important part of the PPD's history. I am only interested in making neutral contributions of both the good and bad.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not telling you what your agenda is. I am telling you what your name implies to others. To me the banner "PhiladelphiaInjustice" implies that there is endemic injustice in Philadelphia. And many of your edits and reactions to people who question them reinforces that inference. And again, you misread and then respond aggressively. Please cool it. Harry Let us have speaks    14:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I repeat, while my username choice may be misleading, my sole agenda is to make neutral contributions to the PPD articles, which have included not only misconduct entries but also posts about line-of-duty deaths and PPD accomplishments. Also, if you label my responses "aggressive", how do you refer to those of the editor of those who has gutted this article? I do understand where you are coming from but trust me, I mean no malice and have no axe to grind.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have not looked in depth at the parts of this article that seem to be causing disagreement, but it seems to me that in cases where there is no finding of fact, we cannot say that misconduct took place. A finding of fact is a court verdict in either a civil or criminal case. Cases that were settled out of court, or where officers resigned etc. with no finding of misconduct, should not be included. Where such cases are included in the article, I would support their removal. Harry Let us have speaks    14:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Almost all of my entries involved a conviction, termination, or lawsuit judgement/settlement. A settlement is as good as a judgement in the eyes of many Wiki editors.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, because you can settle a lawsuit without any admission of wrongdoing. Only an admission or finding of wrongdoing = proven misconduct. And certainly nothing that is at the allegation stage should be included. The India Torres paragraph is an example. Where is the finding or admission of wrongdoing there? Harry Let us have speaks    14:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if your stricter standard applies, most of the article should have remained. I agree that the Torres entry should have been deleted. What are your thoughts about reporting an officer being fired for alleged misconduct, sans any other finding?--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think, for example, if reliable sources report that and officer was fired for (say) embezzlement, then we can say that, even if no charges were brought. But there has to be a statement from the authority responsible for the firing that this was the reason. And I would hope that for balance we would include any statement that the officer made in his/her defence. (It is not unheard of for people to be set up.) So we do have to be careful, and where WP:BLP is an issue, extra careful. Harry Let us have speaks    14:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the info. The problem is that many entries have met that standard but were recently deleted anyway. How do you suggest that I get them reinserted? What arguments should I use? I am not a Wiki expert and have no intention of reading through hundreds of pages to become one, only to have my arguments challenged anyway.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Latest BLP Edits
I think I like this large edit. We need to be very careful with BLP. One solution would be to just remove the names. "In July a police office was charged with... " But better still to just leave this stuff out. It is not like we lack material. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Why would you want to leave out out serious felony accusations that have resulted in a termination, lawsuit judgement/settlement, suspension, or other official finding of wrongdoing? There can be no civil liability on the part of the contributor, as all entries are neutrally sourced and all claims made are true. I wish that you would have spoken up sooner before I had wasted hours upon hours contributing to this article, using the same criteria that other police misconduct articles are using.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You have included numerous cases where there is no sourced finding of any kind. They are not verifiably examples of misconduct.
 * Material you submit to Wikipedia can and will be edited by other users without regard for how much work was put into it. Articles are created, deleted, expanded and shortened on a regular basis. Yesterday's major project may end up in the dust bin tomorrow. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have a cite of a finding of misconduct, put it in. If we only have cites of accusations, then we ought to leave it out, or at least not include anyone's name. As I said, there is no shortage of really first-rate material here. As for your work being edited and scrutinized, that is just what Wikipedia is. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 05:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * According to other police misconduct articles, findings of police misconduct include terminations, suspensions, government-sanctioned study results, and the like. Please show me even a single entry on the PPD misconduct page that does not have at least one of the aforementioned findings. As per the Wikipedia founder's "60 Minutes" interview that was aired Sunday, Wikipedia is intended to help people and sometimes includes articles that do not belong according to its policies, but get published anyway because they benefit the public. Philadelphia has a serious problem with police wrongdoing. The fact that, for instance, "tens of thousands" of black and Latino males are illegally stopped and searched annually should be publicized so that potential visitors or residents know the score and are thus warned away. It is not as if Wikipedia is hurting for space.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, other articles exist. What they include or exclude have no bearing here.
 * You want "even a single entry" without "terminations, suspensions, government-sanctioned study results, and the like"? Please explain "On August 8, 1988, Officer Denise Stewart committed suicide. Stewart was the second city cop to kill herself on police property in three months." There are plenty more.
 * Wikipedia is not a tool for "publicizing" anything. Wikipedia does not exist to warn anyone of anything. This is not a question of space. It is a simple matter of understanding what an encyclopedia is. If you would like to right great wrongs, you will need to find some method other than Wikipedia to do it. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have already conceded that you are well versed about Wiki's policies. I have chosen not to spend untold hours educating myself about them - and actual articles to understand how they apply. However, a quick check of other articles about police wrongdoing has uncovered the "List of controversies involving the Royal Canadian Mounted Police". Many of the cases listed do not even meet my suggested minimum standard of an official finding of wrongdoing. Apparently, I am not the only contributor who feels that articles about police wrongdoing belong in an encyclopedia. I would suggest changing the title of the PPD misconduct article to "Misconduct and controversies in the PPD", but you would then cite Wiki precedent and/or policy which proves that is a terrible idea.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am slowly concluding that you have no intention of having policies and guidelines stand in your way of righting what you perceive to be a great wrong. Yes, other articles exist, they are not relevant here. An accusation of wrongdoing is not "misconduct". A settlement is not a finding of guilt. The criteria you have created and subjective as it is, but apparently not subjective enough to meet your desired outcome. -  Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What you are "slowly concluding" is "irrelevant". You are not the boss, but I do respect your right to vent. Please do not incorrectly tell me that I am trying to right a wrong. I am merely attempting to list major cases in a police misconduct article. Million dollar lawsuit settlements are a de facto admission of guilt by a legal authority (the city solicitor, in the PPD's case). No expert lawyer is going to hand over a cool million to settle a frivolous lawsuit. All other Wiki articles about big city police misconduct that list cases include those with six figure lawsuit judgements/settlements, even though criminal convictions are not present. I am not going to spend hours researching Wiki policy to determine why those editors allow the cases to persist in their articles. Their presence alone suggests to me that they belong. I doubt that dozens of veteran contributors are wrong. Besides, you would find excuses to debunk their reasons, if history repeated itself.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Settlements are not findings of misconduct. Allegations of misconduct are not instances of misconduct Words like "serious" and "major" are not objective. You are not trying to list major cases of misconduct. You are trying to preach to the world that, in your opinion, "Philadelphia has a serious problem with police wrongdoing." You feel that recenct cases must be "publicized so that potential visitors or residents know the score and are thus warned away." Wikipedia is not intended to publicize your opinions of the current PPD, train Philadelphia firefighters, etc. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your whole argument is based entirely on only those Wiki policies cited by you and your letter-of-the-law interpretation of them. However, I am trying to figure out what the other Wiki policies are that other editors have used to justify their contributions to police misconduct articles that are similar to mine.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, my whole argument is based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Good luck with your quest, if not your crusade. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Editors of other police misconduct articles disagree with your interpretations and thus already use my proposed criteria which you allege are not criteria.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:WAX. Again and again and again. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Heavy POV
The source says, "Coleman, in issuing the shorter term, called the incident an aberration on Corcoran's 10-year career. Corcoran, however, has a history of police brutality complaints, some of which were resolved in his favor." In the rush to [[WP:RGW|publicize a perceived "serious problem with police wrongdoing...so that potential visitors or residents know the score and are thus warned away", this was translated to "Corcoran is the recipient of several prior formal and informal citizen complaints and had faced multiple lawsuits over his alleged brutality and corruption, certain of which were settled out of court."

So where are the "formal and informal citizen complaints and had faced multiple lawsuits over his alleged brutality and corruption, certain of which were settled out of court"? Well, I have no idea where "formal and informal came from". Yes, there were lawsuits against him. "The 2008 and 2009 cases were dismissed with prejudice by federal judges and the 2011 case remains open....In addition, at least two civil lawsuits have been brought against Corcoran...In each case, the defendant was eventually cleared in court of criminal charges." So, were are using dismissed cases and being cleared in court as findings against him -- which is not out-of-line with a crusade, but far from neutral, encyclopedic writing. Yes, "Both suits were settled for an undisclosed amount in 2010, before they went to trial." Again, no finding of wrongdoing of any kind, no judgement, no "serious misdemeanor", no "$100,000 or more", just the crusade.

In the present case, he was found guilty of obstruction for releasing the vet "without filing the required paperwork or noting the stop in his activity log." This becomes "The conviction involved an on-duty incident between Corcoran and a war veteran that happened on March 31, 2013. In March 2014, Corcoran was fired (via a 30-day suspension process) and arrested on several counts in connection with the Easter morning encounter, which was captured on video." The more serious allegations (unlawful restraint and false imprisonment) involve what was captured on video. That the officer was found not guilty on those charges, however, does not help with the crusade, so that is omitted. Instead, we are told he was guilty, leaving out the inconvenient balance.

Say all you want about, "OMG! Soooooooo much smoke, there must be lots of fire!" That is your subjective judgement. Even the proposed criteria for inclusion here (which are faulty is so many ways and biased toward including as many recent cases as possible) so not support inclusion of this case, much less in its current, heavily biased form. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * All of the claims made in all of my contributions are factual and reliably sourced, although I cannot speak for other editors' entries to this article. There is no chance that I could be successfully sued because the truth is an absolute defense against libel (and slander). The fact that other lawsuits have been filed against a policeman who has already been terminated and criminally convicted screams volumes about his character and should thus be included in any article about him, even an encyclopedia's. These are no doubt contingency-fee suits, which of course means that a plaintiff's attorney (an expert about civil liability) has agreed to eschew a defined, upfront fee in exchange for a guarantee of a percentage of a judgement or settlement (if any). Such lawsuits are thus very credible. Since you like analogies, Wiki's article about celebrity Mario Lopez includes a mere allegation about a rape, even though he was never even charged with it. Why is this allegation allowed? As I have no intention of learning Wiki's policies because such a process would be too tedious, painfully boring, and counterproductive (as there will always be editorial disagreements), I am relying on educated editors like YOU to teach me. What are YOUR suggestions for the inclusion criteria that would meet your demanding standards and interpretations?--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 13:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That you believe you cannot be successfully sued does not mean the material belongs in Wikipedia.
 * That other articles exist and may have problems does not mean the material belongs in Wikipedia.
 * No, you cannot twist facts, omit facts that are contrary to your your crusade and inject your POV throughout. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view.
 * The reason I have not suggested inclusion criteria that would meet our policies and guidelines, especially (but not limited to) WP:LSC, is that no such criteria exist.
 * Your entire defense is that you want to include the material and therefore should ignore anything that gets in the way. Your crusade simply does not belong here.
 * This specific entry, written with obvious bias and a deliberate anti-PPD slant does not even fit your own proposed criteria. I am removing it. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Publishing facts about police misconduct, alleged or not, is not a "crusade" just because you say it is. I suspect that over 90% of editors contribute to articles that interest them. Are they on crusades, too? How do we know that you are not a cop, just like the NYPD cops who earlier this year have admitted to editing their own misconduct article? Perhaps it is YOU who is on a "crusade".--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This article is not "facts about police misconduct". This article is biased accounts of events that you wish to call misconduct. That is your crusade. My crusade is very different. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, the definition of police misconduct has already been established at other articles by their editors who are as equally knowledgeable about Wiki policy as you.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. I think I may have mentioned once, perhaps twice, maybe a dozen times that other articles exist. Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. So just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and listed it for deletion yet. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have already given valid reasons about why this article should remain intact, such as Wiki's policies regarding ignoring the rules, rules not being carved in stone, and using common sense, but you have responded with your subjective interpretations of other policies to dispute them. Also, in several posts herein, you have violated Wiki's personal attack rules. Hypocritical much?--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you post information about "good" things that police officers and departments do? Or just what you term "misconduct"?  Your username suggests you are here for a single purpose, as does the fact that you have said these things should be "publicized so that potential visitors or residents know the score and are thus warned away.".  I can't say I disagree with what SummerPhD is saying. 331dot (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do have a policy that policies and guidelines can be ignored. That is not a reason to ignore them. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Police officers are expected to do good things, so their kind acts do not belong in an encyclopedia like their (counterintuitive) crimes do. I have already defined misconduct in prior posts. Also, I have heavily contributed to the list of PPD officers killed in the line of duty, but SummerPhD nuked my partial list thereof from the PPD's main article. I have unsuccessfully tried to change my username, as it is misleading.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Police officers are neither expected nor required to save ducklings from storm drains, raise money for after school programs, buy specially equipped bikes for disabled children, etc. We an certainly ignore all rules and begin a crusade to include "significant" acts of kindness and "serious" fundraising. Such a list, like this one, would violate WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:LSC and numerous other policies and guidelines aimed at excluding the material on this list. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, only your interpretation of the noted Wiki policies would prohibit the referenced list. I have previously explained why other Wiki guidelines allow it.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You have not explained how you feel my interpretations are incorrect, only that you feel we should ignore WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:LSC, WP:CSC, WP:NOT and anything else that gets in the way of your crusade. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do not say that I am on a crusade. I am merely trying to include facts in an encyclopedia, not preach. I have asked for YOUR criteria that would meet YOUR interpretation of Wiki's standards, but you have not presented any.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You are presenting biased reading of a biased selection of facts with the stated goal of convincing readers of your POV. There are no criteria here that meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines because the topic is not encyclopedic. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, it is you who is biased and on a power trip. You are editing the article based on your own personal preferences. You are harassing me as opposed to experienced editors because they will fight back with better ammunition, as they are well versed on Wiki policies. My criteria were entering all cases of obvious misconduct, proven or alleged, which was reported by the media and resulted in a significant official finding of wrongdoing, such as a termination, lawsuit settlement/judgement, or conviction.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Obvious misconduct" is your POV. "Significant" is POV. "Alleged" misconduct is not misconduct. Settlement is not an "official finding" of anything. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently, your POV is far more pertinent than mine. I have already explained my reasoning in prior posts, but you have chosen to dismiss it based on your own biases.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Subjective terms are always POV, no matter what your reasoning may be. WP:NPOV is one of our 5 core policies. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You could argue that any term is subjective. You are well read on Wiki policies, I am not, so you have won the editing dispute by default. --PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You clearly MAY have a connection to the PPD, hence your gutting of their misconduct article.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. Feel free to take it to the Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard or drop the claim. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do not edit comments once they have been responded to, as you did here]. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I included an explanation and mea culpa with the edit. I had meant to include "may" and then copied and pasted the errant post. Please do no put words into my mouth and then hide behind technicalities.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * . - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As definitive PROOF that I had meant to include the word "may", refer to my PRIOR posts on this page, including the headline, "The Philadelphia Police Department may be editing its own misconduct article". I RESENT the fact that you have implied that I am a liar.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Timeline -> prose
This article is mostly a chronological list of cases. This list is, by design, heavily biased toward recent cases. The cases have been primarily selected by one editor who feels that "Philadelphia has a serious problem with police wrongdoing" and that recent cases must be "publicized so that potential visitors or residents know the score and are thus warned away." This is not an effort to build an encyclopedic entry, this is a biased effort to "right great wrongs".
 * WP:RECENTISM - By intentional design and as an artifact of several issues, this article is heavily biased toward recent events.
 * Bias - As discussed above, this article was created as a deliberate attempt to demonstrate the editor's POV. As anything earlier than 2000 or so does not fit this agenda. The article is mostly focused on 2008 forward, has some content from the 1990s, very little from the 1980s and 1970s and nothing at all prior to that. The Philadelphia Police Department is over 250 years old.
 * "Summary web search" - This was proposed as a selection criterion. Obviously, older events are far less likely to show up on such a search.
 * Judgement or settlement >$100,000 - Due to inflation, this proposed criterion almost certainly excludes most cases prior to the mid 1990s and certainly would include absolutely nothing prior to the 1960s or so, when your grandmother bought a loaf of bread for 2 cents and a house for $2.98.
 * WP:OR - Many of the included cases and proposed selection criteria are based on original research.
 * Accusations/charges/settlements/convictions involving felonies and serious misdemeanors - This is a proposed selection criterion. As the vast majority of sources do not use such terminology, we are left with legal decisions from editors. The main creator of this article, for example, believed that suicide was/is a crime. It apparently is not.
 * WP:POV
 * "Serious misdemeanor" - This proposed selection criterion calls fir a judgement.
 * "Egregious cases" - Same as above.
 * Presumption of guilt.
 * Biased writing - Numerous write ups of of individual cases are clearly biased. One officer was described as being found guilty of a case captured on video and having a history of brutality and misconduct charges, including settlements against him. He was actually found not guilty of a list of serious federal charges (based on the video) and found guilty of failing to file proper paperwork. All of the lawsuits against him had been dismissed, with no civil or criminal judgements against him.
 * Any charge will do - Settlements in two of the cases mentioned above (with no dollar amounts) are taken as an obvious sign of guilt. All arrests, charges, filed lawsuits, complaints and settlements are assumed to be true. This is not how the legal system works and certainly not how Wikipedia works.
 * "Fired (via a 30-day suspension process)" or "fired and placed on paid leave" - Holy crap, no. The first one is used when a source says "30-day suspension with intent to dismiss" and we don't know what happened. In these cases, we do not know what happened. Intent to dismiss is not a way of saying "fired". It is a way of saying the intended to dismiss the officer. The idea that someone is at once "fired" and "on paid leave" is apparently not based on any definitions of words that I am familiar with.
 * List selection criteria
 * The proposed criteria were created out of whole cloth, they are not based on reliable sources.
 * Police misconduct includes some things you might not expect and excludes some things you would expect to be included, depending on who you ask. It is not an objectively defined term
 * We generally construct "list" articles in one of three ways:
 * Complete lists: We won't knowingly create a list with a reasonably finite number of members (i.e., "List of mayors of Cityville") and leave out any members. This clearly will not work here.
 * Lists of notable members: This is the "List of people from Cityville" type article. We don't list everyone from Cityville, we list people from Cityville who have their own articles. There are very few cases in this article that would fit here and they would certainly be mentioned in a prose article.
 * Lists with sourced selection criteria: Deaths at the Berlin Wall comes to mind. We have reliable sources making the judgement as to which cases belong and which do not. We do not have sourced criteria here.

Long story short (way too late on that one...), this is not a workable list. We do not have a source for concrete, objective criteria. Instead, this article should be restructured as a prose article discussing corruption and/or misconduct in the PPD, depending on what independent reliable sources have to say. There are a few sources already in the article that will be useful. There are clear gaps: The Frank Rizzo years (both as police commissioner and as mayor) blending in with racial unrest in the 1960s +/-, Prohibition, nativist riots, the Civil War, riots and unrest relating to slavery, the Revolutionary War, etc. I have not researched what should go here, but I recognize that most of this does not belong here. Restructuring the article will take time and a lot of work, but it needs to be done. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You conveniently cite Wiki policy, and your interpretations thereof, that bolster your argument while simultaneously ignoring those that do not. I repeat that other editors disagree with your position by default of listing cases in their misconduct articles that you claim are prohibited.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Less than a day ago, you asked me to help you find policies that would allow this material to remain. Now, suddenly, you have policies that I am supposedly ignoring. Which policies are those?
 * Oh, there are other articles? Really? Here's a hint: Text that looks like this links to other material. In many of these cases, I'm linking to a policy or guideline, such as WP:WAX, that seems to apply. I have repeatedly linked to WP:WAX. You show no sign of having even glanced at it. You should. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have already given valid reasons about why this article should remain intact, such as Wiki's policies regarding ignoring the rules, rules not being carved in stone, and using common sense, but you have responded with your subjective interpretations of other policies to dispute them. Also, in several posts herein, you have violated Wiki's personal attack rules against me, although it does not bother me. Hypocritical much? You are wasting your talents on Wikipedia. You could be using your superior knowledge/memory and bulldog determination/motivation in a positive way, such as by applying it to running your own business (you could be a millionaire), instead of in a negative manner by trying to delete others' contributions. And yes, this post probably violated a Wiki policy, so there is no need to cite one yet again. There has to be a way to preserve a police misconduct article that lists actual cases thereof. It really is that simple.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, we "can" ignore rules. We "can" serve ice cream with chunks of rotten Brussels sprouts, shave the hair from the left half of our heads and change our names to random strings of letters and numbers ("Hi, 577678iyuggoi34ewt9fvguidjbaq0eigh, how are things?"). That we can does not mean we should. You would like to present a biased, subjective list based on criteria you have made up. Feel free to do so on a blog or any other website you would care to create. It does not belong here. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree for the reasons that I have already mentioned. Your analogies are invalid.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Our core policies > your strongly felt need to warn people of a department you have an apparent grudge against. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Why would I fight to retain a list of line-of-duty fatalities in a department which I have a grudge against? Please refrain from putting words into my mouth; I have no grudge. Misconduct is an unusually important part of the Philly PD's history, so it should be mentioned in a bigger way than you believe. By the way, it is YOU who deleted the PPD fatality list (most of which I wrote) from the PPD's main article, so perhaps it is YOU who has the grudge, possibly against anyone who disagrees with you. You also deleted such a list from the Philly FD's main article.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

This list is, by design, heavily biased toward recent cases selected with the intent to demonstrate that "Philadelphia has a serious problem with police wrongdoing" and that recent cases must be "publicized so that potential visitors or residents know the score and are thus warned away." This is not an effort to build an encyclopedic entry, this is a biased effort to "right great wrongs". - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, I am simply trying to present an important piece of the Philly PD's history. I neither have a "grudge" nor am I trying to right any wrongs. I have also heavily contributed to the positive aspects of the PPD's history in their article, such as to the list of serial killers caught by them. It is all about significant history, so stop putting words into my mouth.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You clearly MAY have a connection to the PPD, hence your gutting of their misconduct article.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you've made this baseless assertion before... - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do not edit comments after they have been responded to, as you did here. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I included an explanation and mea culpa with the edit. I had meant to include "may" and then copied and pasted the errant post. Please do no put words into my mouth and then hide behind technicalities.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is your "assertions" that are "baseless". I have already given you valid reasons as to why most of the article should have remained intact, but you found excuses to delete most of it. In my opinion, you may have a connection with the article's subject. In other words, you may be a PPD cop or civilian employee. That suggestion does not seem so far fetched, given that the NYPD has admitted to massively editing its own misconduct article.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether or not someone has a connection to something is not a matter of opinion. Your definition of "connection" is your opinion.
 * Though in no way required to do so, I have stated without equivocation that I do not now -- nor have I ever in the past -- have any meaningful connection to the Philadelphia Police Department. Full disclosure: While I have met members of the PPD, I do not know any of them by name. I have received parking tickets (some are PPD, others are PPA, I believe). I was nearly arrested for civil disobedience as part of a planned protest in Philadelphia, on one occasion, close to 20 years ago. I have called 911 to report abandoned cars, open air drug dealing and such. As part of my work, I have written (or been involved in work which generated) reports, published articles and a small number of books. While none of them directly dealt with the PPD, other than passing mentions. I was an academic adviser 5 or so years ago for a Master's level student working on a project discussing, in part, racial unrest in Philadelphia. To my knowledge, this work was never published (which is a shame -- particularly some firsthand accounts of the Rizzo years). Her work -- which I read and commented on -- discussed police actions related to various riots and such in the city (abolitionist marches, nativist riots, general strikes, race riots, various MOVE issues, etc.) and I have written articles or contributed to articles here about some of them.
 * If you feel that this constitutes a conflict of interest, you will need to take it to Conflict of interest/Noticeboard as I have no obligation or intention to discuss it further with you in this venue.
 * Failing that,, I will regard any further claims that I have a more substantial connection to the PPD as personal attacks and handle them accordingly. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In prior posts, you have falsely accused me of having an anti-PPD agenda and a non-neutral POV, yet threaten me because I have suggested that you MAY have a connection with the PPD based on YOUR edits. I did not say that you do, I said that you MAY, and I still believe that. You have deleted major, neutrally sourced, officially-sanctioned cases from a police department's misconduct article. As such, I believe that my suspicion is reasonable, although I have already debunked your allegation of my "bias" with empirical evidence. Again, I used the word MAY.

--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You absolutely stated that I have a connection with the PPD. I responded that I did not. Now you have edited your comments to add "MAY" and insist you did not say what you said. You have been told the proper venue for your claim that I have a conflict here. Take it there or drop it. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, I had meant to include "may" and then copied and pasted the errant post. Please do no put words into my mouth and then hide behind technicalities.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You said that you had said "MAY". You hadn't. Then, rather than correcting your comment ("Oops. I meant to say 'MAY'."), you went back and changed multiple comments to include it. Do not change comments that have already been responded to. It can change the meaning of another person's response. I did not "put words in (your) mouth". You said several times that I have a connection. I responded. You then changed your comments. There are neither "technicalities" nor "hiding". You meant to say one thing. You said something else. Life goes on. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As definitive PROOF that I had meant to include the word "may", refer to my PRIOR posts on this page, including the headline, "The Philadelphia Police Department may be editing its own misconduct article". I RESENT the fact that you have implied that I am a liar.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Former officers
Actions by former police officers cannot fit any sourced definition of police misconduct. Comments? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that the former cops have committed terrible crimes is a reflection of their poor character and suggests that they may have committed similar or worse crimes whilst cops but were immune from prosecution as such. Thus, their cases belong in this article.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have independent reliable sources that identify the actions of former police officers as "police misconduct"? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously, there is no official definition of "police misconduct". As such, you could argue that NO police wrongdoing belongs in any Wiki article. I have previously proposed criteria for the referenced article, but you claimed that they were not criteria. I disagree with your theory.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 11:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There are no established, sourced, objective criteria for this article. Please see WP:LSC. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "Former police" are by definition not police so anything alleged activities or crimes that 'former police' may have done should not be in a 'police' article. Only activities while on duty as part of a police force should be included. 331dot (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 11:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Organizational issues
This article is not about misconduct in the PPD. In large part, it is a randomly selected, chronological list of cases of police brutality, corruption and a random selection of other cases which likely do not fall under "misconduct" (such as the 1994 incident). Classifying events involving incompetence, negligence or mistakes as "misconduct" raises the question of what this list considers to be "misconduct". This list does not have inclusion criteria. We do not have an operational definition here, we're basically making it up as we go. As a result, this is not even a random list of cases of misconduct, it is a random list of cases that some editor at some point felt were misconduct. Additionally, the list is clearly biased toward recent events ("recentism"). The ONLY PPD misconduct prior to 1974 was one case in 1967? That is laughable. Compared to the listings since the growth of the Internet (circa 1995), the Frank Rizzo years were apparently an idyllic era of calm and serenity. 1967 - 1980 (with Rizzo as Commissioner or Mayor), we list ONE case and two reports that it was a huge, on-going problem... Take the same length of time from today back to mid 2000, we list over 200 cases. Some of those cases, though, are quite puzzling. We have officers who committed suicide, which someone apparently believes is "misconduct". We have various cases where police committed or were alleged to have committed crimes completely unrelated to the PPD, which we've still decided are "misconduct". Notably absent from the list are discussion of selective enforcement, police perjury, abuse of power, procedural violations, etc. The current article is a random, biased collection of incidents involving PPD officers. As a result, it is largely worthless. IMO, this article should be a discussion of what independent reliable sources have called "misconduct" in the PPD over the years. Those two reports I mentioned in the Rizzo years (and similar bits and pieces scattered about in the current article) are a good place to start. Comments? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This list is unique, the only place I know of that lists PPD misconduct. It has value. I hope you are able to provide cited examples of earlier misconduct, these are surely needed. But of course before just recently, nobody was making a list like this so I suppose a lot of the data has been lost. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The list is indiscriminate. This is not a list of all cases of misconduct in the PPD. Such a listing is impossible (were it somehow possible, it would be long enough to be worthless). As a result, the list must have inclusion criteria that are unambiguous, objective and based on reliable sources. At the moment, the inclusion criteria are:
 * a Wikipedia editor saw the source
 * a Wikipedia editor decided the event is misconduct
 * These criteria are ambiguous, subjective and based on the whims of individual editors.
 * For comparison, there are numerous "Featured lists", all of which have unambiguous, objective inclusion criteria based on reliable sources. List of Eagle Scouts includes only notable individuals who are or were Eagle Scouts. List of deaths at the Berlin Wall does not include whatever deaths a Wikipedia editor found a source for; it uses unambiguous, objective criteria based on reliable sources. This article, OTOH, is incorrectly titled and has no such inclusion criteria. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am eager to see your improvements to this little project.Paul, in Saudi (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Notable Eagle Scouts have nothing to with the criminal acts of PPD officers. Earlier PPD misconduct cases are not available from summary Internet searches. The theory that no cases should be listed just because some cannot be found is illogical. The referenced article is not an "indiscriminate" list of PPD misconduct cases, it is a list of significant cases that could be found via a summary Web search. Significant cases include those that are egregious and have had an official finding of wrongdoing, such as a conviction, lawsuit settlement, or termination. Only felonies or serious misdemeanors are listed, whether they are merely alleged or have been proven in a criminal court.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * List of Eagle Scouts is a featured list article, one of the best list articles on Wikipedia. I listed it along with other featured lists as examples of articles that follow our criteria. List of Eagle Scouts does not include all Eagle Scouts that some editor found "via a summary Web search" as that is not a valid list inclusion criterion.
 * This list does not currently have inclusion criteria. Officer suicides are neither "egregious (cases with) an official finding of wrongdoing" nor are they "felonies or serious misdemeanors". - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You have missed my points entirely.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Still no reliably sourced objective criteria. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)