Talk:Misconduct in the Philadelphia Police Department/Archive 2

Proposed inclusion criteria
All police misconduct cases listed must involve an alleged felony or serious misdemeanor and have had an official finding or wrongdoing, such as a termination, conviction, formal federal government censuring, or lawsuit settlement or judgment of at least $100,000 (unless a case was particularly egregious because it involved a brutal assault, death, flagrant rights violation, or the like). Only actual corruption or brutality should be noted, not lesser misconduct like rudeness, laziness or ineptness. Mere controversies - with no finding of wrongdoing - should not be included just because they made the liberal newspapers (other police misconduct pages actually include these).--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We cannot simply makeup criteria for inclusion. The criteria must be based on what reliable sources consider to be "misconduct in the PPD". For example, we have List of people who have won Academy, Emmy, Grammy, and Tony Awards because reliable sources discuss people who have won that combination of awards. We do not have List of people who have won Academy and Tony Awards who are over 6 feet tall as reliable sources do not discuss this particular combination. We do not have reliable sources discussing misconduct in the PPD limited to felonies and serious misdemeanors.
 * Of course we need to have criteria for inclusion. Wikipedia is not just about republishing lists from other websites, it also involves gathering information from different sources in a single place. The criteria should be listed at the top of the article, so everyone knows what they are and whether or not an edit will be approved or rejected. The criteria proposed by PhiladelphiaInjustice seem perfectly reasonable to me -- actually, more than reasonabl since many cases of misconduct do not result in a judgment -- and can be judged based on independent sources. (I would suggest that any case should include a citation to such a source). Jonawebb (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes,, if we have a list we must have criteria for inclusion. However, we need a source for the criteria, per WP:LSC, so that we are not establishing a list based on subjective feelings. The inclusion criteria must be objective, per WP:LSC, WP:V, etc., because we do not "judge" on Wikipedia. WP:NPOV is one of our 5 core principles. The proposed criteria call for us to make legal judgements: Is the charge a felony or "serious misdemeanor"? Who says? Including cases that we decide are misconduct without a finding saying that there was misconduct is a direct violation of our core principles: We cannot verifiably state that there was misconduct. In many cases it will involve a living person. For this reason, we do not have lists of "tall" people, "ugly" buildings, etc. Without demanding a source for the criteria, we might just as well have List of ugly heads of state or List of vegetables that taste bad. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * List of people who have won Academy, Emmy, Grammy, and Tony Awards includes all people who have won the combination of awards, not just those we could find. Other lists limit themselves to notable members (such as List of people from Philadelphia. We could limit a list here to notable cases (i.e., those with existing Wikipedia articles), but such a list is likely to be very short. We cannot include all cases of PPD misconduct (however defined), as such a list would be too long to be of any value (much as we would not list all people from Philadelphia).
 * We cannot use "alleged felony or serious misdemeanor" unless the sources we are using directly call the actions "alleged felony or serious misdemeanor". Yes, there are some cases that are clear cut: murder, for instance. In other cases, this would require inappropriate synthesis or our part: conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor is a felony. A cop starts a craps game with other cops. Is that now a felony?
 * This list is, honestly, a lost cause. We should have an article about misconduct in the PPD. Such an article should use sources directly discussing PPD misconduct (as opposed to sources about individual cases that call the case misconduct). This article will require a complete overhaul to accomplish that. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You initially claimed that criteria had to be established. After I did that, you illogically rationalized that I am still wrong because "reliable sources" must determine the criteria. Who has made that rule? Actually, in a sense, the media has already determined what constitutes misconduct by default of what they report. Your use of analogies is both patronizing and illogical. Awards articles should not have the same criteria as those about police misconduct. Artists who receive awards are not being paid to protect the public as cops are, so when the latter ironically seriously harm taxpayers who pay them for protection, each case should be reported in an encyclopedia. Other police misconduct pages enter all known cases involving serious harm, according to their common sense definitions that everyone with an IQ above 60 can agree upon. Your stated goal is to delete ALL cases (that lack a separate article) except in the form of a statistic. Obviously, all PPD cases are not available from public sources, so the idea that none at all should be listed just because some cannot be found makes no sense. The PPD misconduct article does not need an overhaul just because you so proclaim it. You have no more authority on Wikipedia than I. I will appeal any changes that you make to administrators who DO have authority, and you may quote to infinity your irrelevant analogies. I let you bully me into submission on the PPD's and Philly firefighters' fatality pages because they are relatively unimportant, but I will fight you every step of the way on the PPD misconduct article.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please limit your discussion to content, not editors.
 * You alone cannot establish criteria for this article. This is a collaborative project. Yes, you stated what you feel the criteria are or should be. No, this does not mean they are the criteria. I am saying I do not believe your proposed criteria are workable or in accordance with our guidelines, spelled out at Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists.
 * Yes, other articles exist. Some of them are WP:Featured lists. Others do not follow our relevant inclusion guidelines.
 * Yes, per WP:LSC, "membership criteria should be based on reliable sources." We cannot make up our own criteria for inclusion, such as a judgement calls on the severity or an arbitrary dollar limit on settlements and judgements. Additionally, we cannot determine what the sources consider to be PPD misconduct because they do not state what there criteria are.
 * Common selection criteria, per WP:LSC, include:
 * 1) "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia." As discussed, I don't think there are very many entries that fit this criterion, so I don't think this is workable.
 * 2) "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of minor characters in Dilbert or List of paracetamol brand names. Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article. (Note that this criterion is never used for living people.)" This list contains living people. This criterion is not usable.
 * 3) "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers....However, if a complete list would include hundreds of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list." This list would not be reasonably short, useful for navigation and would certainly include hundreds of entries (or more).
 * I have not claimed to have authority. I have said that I believe this article does not follow our policies and guidelines. If we cannot come to an agreement here, I will seek a broader consensus. If, at any point, you feel I am not adhering to this and discussion doesn't seem to be doing the trick, your best options are spelled out at Dispute resolution. If you believe I am not editing in good faith or am blatantly violating our policies, I would recommend using Template:Admin help to seek assistance with our warning and blocking procedures. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, you have stated YOUR opinions and interpretations. The bottom line is that you want to delete every PPD brutality case listed (except one that has its own article), even the dozens that have each been adjudicated for $500,000-plus, resulted in a death and conviction of the guilty officer, and other extremely significant cases. It makes little sense to exclude such pertinent info from an article about a police department that is supposed to be upholding the law.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, please limit your discussion to content, not editors. I do not want to delete every case. I have stated that this article is currently, in effect, a list (though its title does not reflect that. I have stated that we have guidelines that seemingly are not being followed here. If you feel I am misinterpreting the relevant guideline here, please explain. Citing relevant policies and guidelines will be helpful to this discussion. No matter what you and I decide, another editor can come along at any point in the future and, citing a policy or guideline, make the changes that they feel are appropriate. A consensus on the talk page, backed by relevant guidelines is far more likely to result in a stable article. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I respectfully ask that you research Wiki's policies to find reasons that will allow the PPD misconduct article to remain in its current form.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A biased selection, based on your personally devised, vague, subjective criteria does not meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. That is a reality I cannot change. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Other editors disagree because they use similar "personally devised, vague, subjective criteria" for their police misconduct articles. Said criteria do not meet YOUR interpretation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, other articles exist. If there are other editors working to push their POVs in other articles, their crusades do not justify yours. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have made references to other articles because their experienced editors have adopted inclusion criteria similar to what I have proposed, not because they have done anything wrong. It is your opinion that their criteria go against policy.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, other articles exist. They might be perfect. They might be the worst articles on the project. You cannot say, "Other articles do X so we should do X here." The comparison is meaningless. We have policies and guidelines. They are not being followed in this article. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I repeat, you are not "we". It is your opinion that rules are not being followed in the PPD misconduct article. I disagree for reasons already stated.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 11:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We -- Wikipedia -- have policies and guidelines. I am following them (removing BLP violations, removing POV, removing blatant bias, etc.) because there is not a WP:CONSENSUS here to ignore every policy and guideline so that you may crusade. You still have not explained how you feel my interpretations of the policies and guidelines are wrong. At this point, I have concluded that you have no interest in anything that might get in the way of your crusade - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is you who is on a "crusade" to delete a bona fide list of cases of a police department's police misconduct, for whatever reason. It is you who relentlessly fights any legitimate reason to keep the list.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Policies and guidelines represent the established consensus. One person's opinion is not sufficient to overturn that. And don't ask about article X as a response. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do not tell me how to respond. When I have referenced other articles, it was to prove that other editors disagree with you.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:WAX. Again and again and again and again. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The Philadelphia Police Department may be editing its own misconduct article
As the title indicates, someone who may be affiliated with the PPD has been decimating the properly sourced, bona fide contributions to this article. About six of his/her hundreds of deletions were justified, the rest were clearly an effort to hide PPD wrongdoing from the public. Last month, the New York City Police Department admitted to editing their own misconduct article, so it's time for the Philly PD to do their own mea culpa if they had anything to do with the edits.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * After 9 years lying in wait, I spring my plan into action:
 * Step 1: Apply Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to Wikipedia.
 * Step 3: Profit.
 * The proper venue for this is Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. Take the issue there or drop it. It does not belong here. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Merely because you have been a volunteer contributor for nine years does not mean that you could not possibly have a connection to the PPD. I will drop the argument here if you will.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This baseless claim is harassment. Drop it or take it to Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Kindly refrain from telling me what to do. I am allowed to express my bona fide opinions. Any member of the public, including you or I, is free to edit any Wikipedia article. There are neither minimal intelligence nor educational requirements involved. Any user is free to quote Wiki policy and interpret it in a biased way which suits his argument. Just because someone does not agree with you does not make them wrong.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 11:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. You inappropriately (and incorrectly) repeatedly d that I have some kind of connection to the PPD. I do not. There is a proper venue for such concerns. I said nothing about intelligence or education. While "anyone" can edit, problematic editors are [[WP:BLOCK|blocked from editing as needed. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not a problematic editor merely because I have made bona fide contributions and disagree with your removal of them. I have proclaimed my good faith suspicions based on the evidence. Conversely, you have been relentlessly nitpicking my good faith contributions, without making any contributions yourself, in what I believe is an effort to drive me away from contributing to the PPD misconduct article. For instance, you have even deleted the post about the MOVE police bombing, which has its own Wiki article, and resulted in seven figure lawsuit settlements and official findings of wrongdoing by both state and federal authorities. You have violated various aspects of: Disruptive editing § Campaign to drive away productive contributors, Harassment, Systemic bias, Identifying reliable sources, WikiProject Countering systemic bias, and other rules and policies.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not say you are a problematic editor.
 * Yes, I removed the section about the MOVE bombing because there was nothing in the piece that fit the criteria you have suggested for "police misconduct". - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I shall try a new approach. Rather than continue to argue, I request that YOU establish the criteria for the PPD misconduct article. What are YOUR rules?--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not a new approach. You have repeatedly asked me to find/create criteria and find policies and guidelines. I have repeatedly told you I do not see sourced, objective criteria that will allow you to do what you want to do. As a result, I am left to removing individually problematic entries one-by-one, with occasional attempts to re-explain that unsourced claims are not acceptable, accidents are not "misconduct", accusations are not "misconduct", etc.
 * Oh, and I occasionally mention WP:LSC, WP:CSC, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:5, etc. to give you a chance to tell us that other articles exist and how vitally important it is for an encyclopedia to warn people about the PPD. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have repeatedly referred you to Ignore all rules, which you have invariably rejected. Misconduct is a significant part of the PPD's history, as per numerous state and federal findings listed in the original article, just as their line-of-duty deaths and accomplishments are. I have heavily contributed to the aforementioned, which proves that I have no axe to grind, as you have falsely claimed.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have repeatedly said we should ignore everything so that we can change the project from an encyclopedia into a public warning that people must be told to stay away from the Philadelphia police at all costs. When you have a consensus to do so, we can discuss how to create this public warning. Until then, this is an encyclopedia. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You are misinterpreting my words. Misconduct is an important aspect of the PPD. It belongs in an encyclopedia because of that fact.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Allow me to clarify. You want to ignore WP:LSC, WP:CSC, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:OR and numerous other policies and guidelines in order to publicize every recent event you believe might have been police misconduct "so that potential visitors or residents know the score and are thus warned away." You are trying to "right great wrongs". This is contrary to what Wikipedia exists to do. If any of that is misinterpreting you, you will need to say which part. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do not tell me what I am trying to do. I have already eliminated "right great wrongs" as a reason to include a PPD misconduct list. I am merely trying to include the list because it is an important part of the PPD's history and subculture, just as the line-of-duty deaths list and contributions lists are (to both of which I have contributed heavily, which seems to debunk your "axe-to-grind" claim against me.)--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * When a user chooses the name "PhiladelphiaInjustice", their first 500 edits are all POV descriptions of alleged misconduct by the Philly PD, they state we should publicize every recent event they might have been police misconduct "so that potential visitors or residents know the score and are thus warned away" and want to ignore every rule and guideline that stands in their way, it is damned near impossible not to see someone furiously working their ax on a grindstone. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My unfortunate choice of a username notwithstanding, it is you who clearly has an axe to grind because you have deleted most of the properly sourced cases from a police misconduct list. It is YOUR opinion alone that my entires were biased; all but two were properly sourced and met the same criteria for inclusion that other editors had established for their police misconduct articles. Also, I have already eliminated the warning angle as a reason to retain the entries, yet you continue to beat a dead horse. You perpetually nitpick and harass me about past contributions whose deletion I have already agreed to. Thus, it is you who seems to have an agenda.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your unfortunate choice of user name, unfortunate direction of your first 500 edits, unfortunate statement that your goal was to make sure "potential visitors or residents know the score and are thus warned away" and unfortunate desire to ignore any rule or guideline that gets in your way is enough. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yet more harassment and bullying, as expected. Only your reference to my username is valid; your other claims are not. For instance, I have already eliminated my "potential visitors or residents know the score and are thus warned away" argument, yet you continue to beat a dead horse.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have restored the quote you removed from my last comment. Do not edit other users' talk page comments, with the exception of very limited cases outline at WP:TALK. If you have difficulty finding the appropriate sections, please ask.
 * Quoting your openly stated reason for your edits here is neither harassment nor bullying. The "dead horse" keeps claiming it isn't a horse. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Mistakes/accidents
Mistakes and accidents do not fit any sourced definition of police misconduct. Comments? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Mistakes" and "accidents" can be subjective terms. Every murdering cop could profess that he "mistakenly" or "accidently" killed someone.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The terms are objective though determining whether or not they apply is difficult. As cops are human, they clearly will and do make honest mistakes. How do you propose we determine which were accidents? I propose we use WP:V. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the referenced words are always objective because words can and often do have more than one meaning (Semantics 101).--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 11:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "You could argue that any term is subjective."
 * Please don't "(concentrate) on semantics and technicalities."
 * We have policies and guidelines that demand objective criteria. When independent reliable sources unequivocally state something was a mistake or accident (e.g., ), it does not fit any reasonable definition of "police misconduct". Then again, we aren't using a definition of "police misconduct", we are using one created here. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, there is no "we", only you. You are entitled to express your opinions, but you speak for yourself alone. I have already addressed your objections in prior posts.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "We" is Wikipedia. We (Wikipedia) have policies and guidelines. We report what independent reliable sources have to say. If such sources say something was a mistake or accident, THAT IS WHAT WE REPORT. Nothing in your proposed definition would include mistakes and accidents as "misconduct". - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you are interpreting how Wiki's rules should be applied in a close-minded manner. I am not insulting you; I am merely stating a fact. I have not yet asked for dispute resolution because I am hoping that a compromise can be reached. There must be some PPD misconduct info that you feel should be included. Also, who decides what is a mistake/accident versus an intentional act?--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I say that WP:BLP states that contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately and that users who violate this policy may be blocked. Your reposnse to this simple statement of policy is that I should "not order (you) to do anything. You have no more authority than I on this website. Your one dimensional, black-and-white interpretations of Wiki's "not carved in stone" policies are not the law." This is policy. If you feel there is some other way of understanding it, you will need to explain. You have not done so.
 * I say that WP:LSC states that the criteria here needs to be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. You reply that "serious" and "most egregious" are objective, we don't need a source for our criteria because other articles do it (despite WP:WAX) and that it is somehow objective and encyclopedic to create a biased list to warm people to stay away from the PPD. You have not given any other "understanding" of WP:LSC, only arguments from semantics.
 * Frankly, any time I quote our policies and guidelines here, I can pretty much count on one of a few responses:
 * An unexplained claim that I am misunderstanding what I am quoting
 * An indignant reply that I not tell you what to do, statement that I have no authority, incorrect reminder that everyone has the right to edit, etc., "Wow, just wow."
 * Pointless reminder that I have been here longer and therefore know the rules better (pointless because it is not a request for help)
 * Claim that we must ignore anything and everything that gets in the way of righting a great wrong.
 * There is no compromise between WP:BLP and the kind of creative writing used in the sections described under "Thomas Bray", "Wow, just wow." and similar inclusions. None. There is no compromise possible between WP:LSC and WP:CSC and the desire to present a wp:recentism list of incidents that mistake actions of former cops, actions of off-duty cops wholly unrelated to their careers (including suicides), lawsuit claims, interpretations of unsourced cellphone videos, etc. as "police misconduct". There is no compromise possible between the aims of an encyclopedia and the desire to "warn people". - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Refocusing here, this instance] was called a mistake by the reliable source cited. It was a mistake, not "misconduct". - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Again and again you have missed the bigger picture and instead focused on minuscule details and technicalities. Ignore all rules seems to suggest that if an issue is important enough to be reported but has fallen through the cracks, the rules should be ignored. I repeat, misconduct is a significant part of the PPD's history, even more so than the line-of-duty deaths article which you have not challenged (and to which I have also heavily contributed to via contributions to the PPD's main article that were later copied and pasted there by another user). Thus, your editing suggests that it is YOU who has a biased agenda, not I as you have falsely stated.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Refocusing here on the topic of this thread, this instance] was called a mistake by the reliable source cited. It was verifiably a mistake, not "misconduct". I have no intention of ignoring what reliable sources say in pursuit of some kind of public warning. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * One source does not trump other valid sources which refute it. Again, one of Wiki's guidelines are that all of their guidelines are "not carved in stone".--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * At the same time IAR is not a license to do what you want to; it must be shown to be an improvement and consistent with Wikipedia's mission. Warning people about what you feel are problems with the Philadelphia Police Department is not necessarily part of Wikipedia's mission. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the only source cited calls it an accident. I see no other "valid sources which refute it". It is verifiable that this was a mistake by a living person. If material is restored to this article describing this case (thus calling it misconduct), I will remove it as a WP:BLP violation. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have already eliminated the "warning" aspect of my argument, yet you continue to beat a dead horse. There is no point in my making further contributions to this article because you will delete them and claim that I am a major violator of Wiki guidelines. You have won your editing war, so why do you continue to attack me?--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The topic of this thread is an incident you added that the only source cited called a mistake. You have since said there are "other valid sources which refute it" and that we should, apparently, ignore WP:V -- one of our core principles -- to include this. So long as you insist that there are sources you don't present and that WP:IAR means "do whatever the hell you want", I will tell you you are mistaken. If you don't want to hear that up is up, stop saying that up is down. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed move
--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC) This article is not about misconduct in the Philadelphia Police Department. This article is a List of allegations of misconduct in the Philadelphia Police Department and should be moved accordingly. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Some of the allegations have been proven in criminal court, so they are no longer allegations. Please construct a better title to more accurately reflect the article's content. There is no need to move anything.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The current content is problematic. It includes allegations that apparently went nowhere. Listing these allegations as "misconduct" is a serious BLP issue; they must be removed immediately. (Further, you have not proposed a mechanism for determining which allegations involve possible felonies, "serious" misdemeanors, "egregious" cases, etc.) None of your lists of proposed criteria would cover suicides; they should be removed. None of your lists would seem to cover actions by former cops; they should most likely be removed. I am uncertain how actions of cops off the clock,on leave, etc. would be covered under your various criteria.
 * I will be removing cases involving living/possibly living officers where there is no indication of a conviction. If you wish to restore any of them, please provide a reliable source for a conviction or take the issue directly to the BLP noticeboard. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? What cases "apparently went nowhere"? All of the cases listed resulted in a termination, suspension, lawsuit judgement/settlement, and/or conviction - the same inclusion criteria used for other police misconduct articles. Also, using only cases which involve a criminal conviction limits inclusion to YOUR lone subjective criterion. Please do not remove anything until this dispute is resolved.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Pretty much all of the ones you had marked with "The final outcome of this case could not be determined from a summary Internet search." "Charges were filed", "an arrest was made", etc. do not indicate there was "misconduct" (however you might choose to define it. That you couldn't find it with a "summary Internet search" does not mean we assume it was true and use it to support your POV. Perhaps the accusation was a misunderstanding, flat-out false or otherwise unfounded. In any case accusations of misconduct (however defined) do not belong on a list of cases of misconduct. If your plan is to make this a list of accusations of misconduct, please say so. Otherwise, those instances without official findings of misconduct (however defined) should be removed. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The characterization "The final outcome of this case could not be determined from a summary Internet search." was Paulinsaudi's general idea, although I changed the wording to its current form. All of the misconduct cases listed have had some sort of official finding of wrongdoing, such as a termination, suspension, lawsuit settlement/judgement, etc. Please show me even a single example to the contrary.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The bit about you not being able to find anything on the Internet is not encyclopedic in any way. Termination, suspension and lawsuit settlements are categorically not findings of "wrongdoing", let alone "police misconduct" (the subject of this article). - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Editors of other police misconduct articles disagree with you. Why do you not argue with them? Again, you are stretching your interpretations of Wiki's semantics.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, problems at other articles do not excuse problems here. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody other than you has said the referenced articles have any problems.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:WAX. You seem to believe the other articles that aredoing something similar to what you would like to do are perfect and should be emulated. There is no evidence for this. There are, of course, hundreds of thousands of police forces that do not have such articles. Maybe someone thought they shouldn't be created. Maybe they were created and then deleted. That's what WP:WAX explains. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Other veteran editors have differing interpretations from yours and thus allow lists of serious cases in their police misconduct articles. It is you who is wrong for reasons that I have previously explained.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:WAX. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:50, 15 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. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My response was to an earlier version of the comment above. Please do not edit comments that have already been responded to, as you did here. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:34, 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) 18:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I neither "put words into {your) mouth" nor "hid behind technicalities". I asked you not to edit comments that have already been responded to. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 21:44, 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) 22:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I neither said you didn't intend to include the word nor imply you are a liar (nor "put words into {your) mouth" nor "hid behind technicalities"). I asked you not to edit comments that have already been responded to. If you accept that that can cause problems and should be avoided, there is nothing further to discuss. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your entire post. If I or anyone elses make a bona fide mistake in a post and someone points it out, I or they should correct it and do a mea culpa. Thank you for alerting me to my error and feel free to continue to monitor everyone's comments for them.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 11:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Right now, I could edit my prior comment to make it sound like you disagree with absolutely anything I feel like including. This would be disruptive and unfair. If you make a mistake in a comment, it would make more sense to add an entirely new comment explaining what you wish you had said differently and why. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, I had made an error and appropriately corrected it. I further acknowledged the error in a subsequent post. Show me a Wiki policy that says that a user cannot edit out a mistake. Also, printed words do not make "sound".--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The relevant guideline is WP:TALK. Rather than possibly creating confusion, your best bet is usually to not edit comments that have already been responded to. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A brief look did not reveal any specific guideline that prohibits a good faith editing of a good faith post I just pointed to also includes a mea culpa in a later post. I did not solicit your opinion about a "best bet".--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A brief look didn't find it? It is there. If you don't want to know how to avoid possible problems, you are on your own. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The only "problems" with this article are that you have misinterpreted certain guidelines and deleted many good faith edits without first reaching a consensus.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You have repeatedly made this claim and repeatedly refused to say which ones and what they "really" mean. I just pointed to WP:TALK, so I guess you think I've misinterpreted that one. Please explain how. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no point in replying to your requests because you will just cite your interpretation of a Wiki policy that you feel debunks my position. Frankly, I am not motivated enough to argue with you.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 11:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You have repeatedly made this claim and repeatedly refused to say which ones and what they "really" mean. I just pointed to WP:TALK, so I guess you think I've misinterpreted that one. Again, you are refusing to explain how. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You have repeatedly made this claim and repeatedly refused to say which ones and what they "really" mean. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)