Talk:Misconduct in the Philadelphia Police Department/Archive 3

Thomas Bray
I stumbled across a piece in this article that made serious, unsupported charges against living people. In checking that section, it was an earlier addition {{u|PhiladelphiaInjustice]] added to Philadelphia Police Department.

I see nothing in any of the sources cited (such as they are) that supports the claims made.

As the other editor told me not to discuss it on their talk page and to bring it here, her we are.

The sources cited:
 * Source 1: This is a primary source (a lawsuit filing) that we generally will not use and certainly cannot use for the claims made. Further, it is focused on discovery material (specifically, material related to experience and competency) related to the Coast Guard personell involved in the operation, not the PPD.
 * Source 2: A philly.com article, published the day after Bray's death, mostly about Bray's death.
 * Source 3: A philly.com article, published two months later, mostly about the earlier disciplinary hearing.
 * Source 4: The "Officer Down Memorial Page", an unreliable source that gives a brief summary of Bray's death.
 * Source 5: The Philadelphia Police Memorial Museum, an unreliable source that gives a brief summary of Bray's death.

Here are the claims:


 * "whistleblower" - Weakly supported by 3, not mentioned in 1, 2, 4 or 5.


 * "hero cop" - WP:NPOV.


 * "died in a mysterious on-the-job scuba diving incident" - - Not discussed, mentioned or implied in any of the sources. All sources say it was an accident.


 * "the day after he testified" - Not discussed, mentioned or implied in any of the sources.


 * "against (name redacted due to WP:BLP concerns]]) at a disciplinary hearing." - Not discussed, mentioned or implied in 1, 2, 4 or 5. 3 directly dismisses any connection.


 * "a marine unit diver decorated for bravery" - Not discussed, mentioned or implied in any of the sources.


 * "(knowing Bray) was a possible retaliation target" - Not discussed, mentioned or implied in any of the sources.


 * "whose diving equipment may have been sabotaged" - Not discussed, mentioned or implied in any of the sources.


 * "Bray's fellow law enforcement officers" - 1 discusses only Coast Guard personnel. 2 directly states it was "the crew of 18 aboard the cutter and eight more Coast Guard officers on two other vessels attempted a rescue" (i.e. not PPD officers at all). 3 doesn't say who was involved in attempting to rescue Bray, only that the PPD officer was not there. 4 & 5 state it was PPD officers and the U.S. Coast Guard.


 * "delayed in responding to his calls for help...and likewise waited before bringing him to a hospital." - Not discussed, mentioned or implied in any of the sources.


 * "Bray's mother sued the city and federal government in federal court" - Not discussed, mentioned or implied in any of the sources.


 * "settling for an undisclosed amount" - Not discussed, mentioned or implied in any of the sources.

In short, NOTHING of substance claimed in the addition to the article came from any of the sources cited. The other editor is either using other sources without citing them or creating claims out of thin air. At rock bottom: This is essentially an unsourced allegation of murder against several people who were not involved in any way. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You are conveniently excluding the fact that litigation was filed by Tom Bray's mother and estate which seems to support the contentions. Unfortunately, detailed information about the filings is no longer available from public sources. Thus, I agree that the referenced entry should be deleted due to a lack of sourcing and have already so stated in response to your prior posts.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Litigation was filed saying the Obama is not the president of the United States because he is an alien from the Draco star system. You can sue anyone for anything. The defendants are then free to file motions to dismiss, go to court and defend themselves, ignore it and lose in a summary judgement or offer to settle the case for whatever the plaintiff will take in order to get rid of the case without bothering to do anything else. Being sued does not imply -- much less prove -- guilt. It proves someone went to the courthouse, filled out a form and paid a processing fee. Settling a suit does not imply guilt. It proves you paid something, the plaintiff accepted it as payment in full and the case is no longer an issue.
 * That you feel the existence of a suit seeking information on Coast Guard training "seemed to suggest a conspiracy" in the Philadelphia Police Department is interesting.
 * I am removing all instances where there is no court finding. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention in my last post that the lawsuit filed by Tom Bray's mother was settled out of court in her favor. As such, that meets other editors' standards for Wiki inclusion. Also, all of my contentions were alleged or seem to have been implied in court filings by various parties. I did not fabricate them. As I have already noted, I have been unable to find al of the court documents. I have previously asked you to stop insulting my intelligence with hypotheses and analogies, as I am able to understand your points without them. I am well aware that anyone can allege anything in a lawsuit, which is why I have proposed only lawsuit settlements/judgements as an inclusion criteria. And please do not repeat your silly claim that I hold a grudge. I have contributed most of the entries in the Philly PD's line-of-duty deaths in the main article (which another user copied to a separate article) as well as dozens of the PPD's positive accomplishments. I am interested only in reporting the PPD's history, which includes the good and the bad.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * PhiladelphiaInjustice, your above comments are completely unacceptable. You have been warned about these kinds of personal attacks several times in the past. I suggest that you redact the personal attack immediately, apologise to SummerPhD and give assurances that you will not engage in this kind of behaviour again. Thank you. Harry Let us have speaks    16:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have deleted my psychopath/sociopath remark, which apparently is a technical violation. I will apologize to Summer for making that comment if he apologizes to me first for continuously harassing me on my talk page (despite my repeated requests to him to stop), putting words into my mouth (such as by telling me what my motives and agendas are), and calling my contributions "absurd" and hurling other insults. I am only interested in making neutrally-sourced contributions to Wikipedia, not getting into arguments with aggressive editors who draw first blood. Frankly, the PPD Misconduct article is of little interest to me at this time. I have more interesting topics to pursue--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have restricted my postings to your talk page to standard warnings for on-going issues. When you make personal attacks, you will receive escalating warnings on your talk page. These warnings are required to ensure that you stop. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You have made numerous personal attacks and other policy violations against me. Kindly refrain from again doing so.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You cannot ignore our policy on biographies of living persons. You made completely unsupported claims that living individuals are guilty of murder based on based on sources that directly state the opposite and/or have nothing to say related to your unsupported claim. If you have independent reliable sources for the claim, please present them here for discussion. A lawsuit filing is not an independent source, please see WP:PSTS. Reading between the lines and deciding that a source is implying living individuals are murderers is not acceptable here. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You are perpetually beating a dead horse. I have already agreed to the deletions which are not presently sourced. As I had mentioned, a lawsuit filed by Tom Bray's mother was settled in her favor. At the present time, I cannot find a public source that lists it.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no source for this. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * But there was when I initially made the contribution but neglected to add it. I now cannot find said source, hence my agreement to delete the post. This is not even an issue, so why are you dwelling on it?--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do not add material -- especially contentious claims about living individuals -- without citing independent reliable sources supporting the claims. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I repeat, I had the source at the time of entry but failed to include it. I cannot now find it. Forgetting to include a source is not the same as deliberately adding lies.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not about whether or not you had an independent reliable source or not. Do not add contentious material about living individuals without citing an independent reliable source. That's all. If you understand and accept that, there is nothing more to discuss. - [[User:SummerPhD| Sum mer PhD (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, you seem to think that this entire article's inclusion criteria are about you and your opinions. I do not accept your premise that I had initially made any entry in bad faith and without the intention of including appropriate sources in accordance with Wiki policies. I did unintentionally neglect to include a key source in the Bray post, which is no longer available from public sources, hence my agreement to edit the post.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not about what you think I feel, what you think I think or what you intended to do. Do not add contentious material about living individuals without citing an independent reliable source. That's all. If you understand and accept that, there is nothing more to discuss. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree and refer you to my prior comment. I have understood every one of your comments, sans the hypothesis and analogies, but that fact does not mean that I agree with you.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 11:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do not add contentious material about living individuals without citing an independent reliable source. If you do, it will be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. This is not negotiable, whether you agree with it or not. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, do not order me 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. You have continuously insulted my intelligence, such as by suggesting that I do not understand your points merely because I disagree with them. All of my contributions have been made in good faith.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not an order from me. That is our policy. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You do not speak for Wiki. You are merely a member of the public who interpret their rules. Just because a user disagrees with you does not mean that he is wrong. My prior post suggested that you should broaden your horizons and interpret Wiki's guidelines/policies in three dimensions and color, instead of one dimension and black and white as you have been doing.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately. Users who violate this policy may be blocked from editing. That is what our policy says. If you disagree, please explain what you believe it says. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, you are missing the bigger picture. My last post referred to editing in general, yet you are still fixated on the Bray listing, which I had already agreed should be deleted because I had lost the source. Show me where I have ever said that non-sourced contributions about a living person should remain.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I said you added contentious material about a living person without citing a reliable source. You said you had a source but didn't cite it. I said do not add contentious material about a living person without citing a reliable source. You said you had the source but didn't cite it and implied I said you lied. I said the issue was: Do not add contentious material about a living person without citing a source. You replied with something unrelated about inclusion criteria and incorrectly claimed that I said you did this on purpose. I said the issue here is that you are not allowed to add contentious material about a living person without citing a reliable source. You said you disagreed, added something out of nowhere about having understood me (except that you don't get "hypothesis" and analogies) and that that does not mean you agree with me. I said: Do not add contentious material about living individuals without citing an independent reliable source. You responded that I can't tell you what to do, I have no authority, my interpretations are not "the law", said I have repeatedly insulted your intelligence and said all your contributions have been in good faith. I said my explanation of our policy was an explanation of our policy, not an order from me. You said I don't speak for Wikipedia, my "interpretation" is wrong and the policy is not black and white. I said contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and users who violate this policy may be blocked from editing. Now you are saying I am missing the bigger picture, I am fixated on the topic of this thread in this thread and demanded that I show you where you said something I didn't say you said.
 * This thread is about the Bray piece you added. It made a completely unsourced claim that there was a conspiracy to murder him. Our policy on biographies of living persons applies here. It says not to add unsourced or poorly sourced contentious claims about living individuals, that such claims must be removed immediately and that editors who repeatedly break this rule can be blocked from editing. This particular policy is one dimensional, black-and-white and straightforward: Do not add contentious information about living individuals without citing a reliable source. So long as you agree with that reading of the policy, there is nothing more to discuss in this thread. So long as you don't state that you agree and bring other stuff into this thread about the unsourced contentious claims in the Bray story, we can talk about this forever. Take your pick.
 * How can I cite a source when it is no longer available? Also, there are numerous posts all over the Web about a possible murder conspiracy. The only source that I had intended to use was a lawsuit filed by Bray's mother, which seemed to imply that something was fishy. I can no longer locate all of the filings and judgments, but I did locate some at the time the entry was posted. I have already agreed (long ago) to delete the Bray case because of the missing sources, yet you are still nitpicking it to death.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You still haven't answered. Do you agree that our policy says not to add unsourced or poorly sourced contentious claims about living individuals, that such claims must be removed immediately and that editors who repeatedly break this rule can be blocked from editing? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * When have I disputed the referenced policy? When have I not agreed to a deletion of a violation of it? When have I ever deliberately violated it?--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You still haven't answered. Do you agree that our policy says not to add unsourced or poorly sourced contentious claims about living individuals, that such claims must be removed immediately and that editors who repeatedly break this rule can be blocked from editing? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * All of the claims which I have made on Wikipedia were true at the time they were posted, properly sourced, and made in good faith. Neither your nor my opinion about Wiki's policies have significant importance; neither one of us is the boss. Because of your attacks against me, in the future I shall use extra care to remember to include appropriate sources. My Bray contributions lacked only a source about the civil proceedings, which I forgot to include. I am sure there is a way to find it now (which would probably take many hours), but what is the point, given that you are gutting the entire article?--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 11:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You still haven't answered. Do you agree that our policy says not to add unsourced or poorly sourced contentious claims about living individuals, that such claims must be removed immediately and that editors who repeatedly break this rule can be blocked from editing? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You still haven't answered. I am acting on the assumption that you now agree with my "understanding" of WP:BLP and agree that the Bray section was wholly inappropriate. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow, just wow.
"On April 15, 2013, Commissioner Charles Ramsey announced that one of his department's M16 assault rifles had been stolen by a police officer."

No, he did not say that. Instead, the article says, "'It could be an inventory issue although we are going through everything we can and we still haven't located it,' Ramsey told reporters Monday. 'The biggest fear, obviously, is that it was stolen by one of my own members.'"

Yes, it could be an inventory issue, but the POV we're trying to support here demands that we state the "biggest fear" as a fact instead. Really. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, the contributor should have more carefully read the article.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "The contributor"? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You obviously MAY have a connection to the PPD, hence your deletion of most of its misconduct article's valid entries.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your assumption is incorrect. The entries are not encyclopedic. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do not edit comments after they have been responded to, as you did here. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course you are going to say that. Based on the determinations of other editors who contribute to police misconduct articles, the deleted entries ARE "encyclopedic".--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A rifle is missing. The Police Commissioner says there are several possible explanations. You take what he says is he "biggest fear", state it as a fact, decide it is misconduct and add it here. That you "should have more carefully read the article" (your words, not mine) does not mean I have a conflict of interest. It means you made a mountain out of perfectly level terrain. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that I should have more thoroughly read the referenced article; I admit that entry was rightfully deleted. You are focusing on one wrong entry, while I am referencing the entire (mainly gutted) article, most of which was accurate. Please look at the bigger picture.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This section is about that "one wrong entry". As a result, in this section I am focusing on that one wrong entry. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You said "The entries are not encyclopedic", which is a reference to all of the listings, not just the referenced case.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I focused on one wrong entry in a section about that one wrong entry. Yes, I responded to your claim that "the deleted entries ARE 'encyclopedic'". - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And I have already admitted that an edit of the Bray case was appropriate due to the current lack of sources, yet you continue to beat a dead horse.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This section is not about Bray. This is about a missing rifle. Do you agree that this section should not have been added? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There is probably a policy that would allow the addition of the entry, but I do agree that I should have read the referenced source more carefully to more accurately describe its contents.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The entry took one of several speculative possibilities and presented it as fact. Not only is there no policy to allow this, it is directly contrary to two of our five central policies. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, I simply had read several articles about the missing guns and used one as a source to support my contribution. I then included a different article as a source. In the future, I shall be extra careful to use only appropriate sources. I disagree with your premise that I am knowingly, maliciously, and deliberately violating Wiki guidelines and/or doing anything unethical. Again, it comes down to using the sources quoted, not employing other sources which I have not listed. It should not happen again. Out of hundreds of entries, I am surprised that I (being human and not having a professional editor) did not make more errors.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 11:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not only is there no policy to allow this, it is directly contrary to two of our five central policies. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You haven't responded. I assume you now agree with my "understanding" of WP:V to mean that any controversial material must include an inline citation that directly supports the material and that this addition was wholly inappropriate. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Off duty
Actions by police officers while off duty that are not connected to their official duties are not police misconduct by any sourced definition. Comments? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Many of the off-duty entries include cops identifying themselves as police officers to their victims, which many state and federal courts have ruled meant that the officers were on duty.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am removing cases based on actions taken off duty. If you have sources stating that the individual officers were ruled to have been on duty, please add them. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 23:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As an example, Officer Frank Tepper has admitted that he had identified himself as a cop before he murdered Wiiliam Panas, Jr. Witnesses corroborated Tepper's claim. The aforementioned is in the trial transcripts. Thoughts?--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 11:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing that in the sources cited. Can you point out where that is? Also, what about the removal of clearly off-duy actions? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not there? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added a "cite needed" tag for it. If it doesn't show up soon, I will remove this one as unrelated to the PPD. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not going to waste time making any additional contributions to this article because you will just find excuses to delete them. According to various media sources, Tepper identified himself as a cop before he murdered Billy Panas, Jr. You could easily verify that fact on your own, but you do not contribute, you merely find reasons delete the bona fide contributions of others.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is your right to do nothing. Without a source, I will remove the claim. The section will no longer say anything about "police misconduct", so I'll actually remove the whole thing. Removing inappropriate material (especially WP:BLP violations) is contributing. I also have written, edited and expanded thousands of articles. Your claim to the contrary is baseless. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You are obviously upset that I filed a valid dispute claim against you, hence your deletion of the entire article in retaliation.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The only dispute claim I am (now) aware of you filing is the one at WP:DRN. It was promptly closed by one editor. Another editor tried to explain WP:AGF to you. You didn't respond well. I am removing wholly inappropriate entries from this wildly unencyclopedic list. I am sorry you spent a lot of time on this before finding out you were working against our policies and guidelines. Nevertheless, much of the material you added serves no encyclopedic purpose. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not need explanations from anyone; I know how to read and comprehend. Again, you are stating YOUR opinions just as I have stated mine. So much for Wiki's guideline that its guidelines (and interpretations of them) are not carved in stone.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 11:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You are free to explain any policy or guideline you feel I am misreading. You have repeatedly refused to do so. If you wish to ignore numerous policies and guidelines, you will need to build a WP:CONSENSUS to do so, not merely state that you are doing so. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You haven't responded. I assume you understand that unexplained claims that I misunderstand our policies and/or guidelines are not meaningful, as are claims that support for your position can be found in sources that you are unwilling to cite. Additionally, I am assuming that you accept that when reliable sources say someone was off-duty, they are incapable of "police misconduct". I am extending this understanding to include future cops, past cops and people who are otherwise not cops. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

"racially inflammatory remarks"
He "made racially inflammatory remarks on his Facebook page", according to the local news. Disturbing behavior? Sure. It does not, however, fit the definition of "misconduct" cobbled together here. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree only because there has been no official finding of misconduct. Instead of just deleting the post, you are making a major incident out of it. You are nitpicking all of my contributions as an excuse to harass and bully me. I agree that you have read and memorized the hundreds of pages of Wiki policies and guidelines, but I have not (and have no intention to). That does not mean that you are always in the right, however.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You do not have to "read and memorized the hundreds of pages of Wiki policies and guidelines". However, when you repeatedly claim that I am misinterpreting our policies and guidelines, you will need to say what you believe I am misinterpreting.
 * You have said that about six of deletions were justified. You have demonstrated no such thing. Do you accept that your figure ("about six") is absurdly low or do I need to demonstrate that it is absurdly low? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps seven at most. The justification is based on your opinions, not facts.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The "justification" is that there is absolutely nothing supporting including this under your cobbled together definition of "police misconduct". This article is not List of stuff Philadelphia people somehow connected to the PPD might or might not have done that "PhiladelphiaInjustice" wants to believe are true and warn the world about.
 * "Seven at most" is a continuation of your baseless attack. You have stated that this case and Thomas Bray were valid removals. You have accepted that former cops cannot be guilty of "police misconduct". You've also accepted that suicide is not "police misconduct". You've also said, "No conviction means no mention in Wiki".
 * I have been removing claims about former cops, suicides and claims without convictions. Do you accept that those removals alone are far in excess of "seven"? If not, you will need to support your claim. Otherwise, it stands as a baseless personal attack.
 * Heck, here are 30 I removed yesterday. How many of those were "justified"? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:51, 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 fake "axe-to-grind" claim against me.)--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The only things I said you did were accept the removal of the Bray claim and this case, accept the removal of former cops, state that suicide is not misconduct and say, "No conviction means no mention in Wiki". Which of those are you saying you didn't do?
 * Do you now accept that "about six" and "seven at most" are completely inaccurate descriptions? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Which of those are you saying you didn't do?
 * Do you now accept that "about six" and "seven at most" are completely inaccurate descriptions? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As you have not responded, I am assuming that you did do what I said you did. I am also assuming that you realize that the hundreds of removals I have made are valid unless you specifically discuss them and that claims that the vast majority of my edits are not are baseless personal attacks. Further, you have already stated that the particular item this thread was about should not have been included. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)