Misplaced Pages

@Activist:@Elinruby:Elinruby wrote, This case is also at the OR noticeboard, but no outside editors have commented yet and the other editor keeps editing in the OR. This is really becoming more a matter of behavior than lack of knowledge of WP policy, as I originally assumed.

I am the other editor involved in this situation. I disagree that I have a lack of knowledge of WP policy. This dispute is a mostly a result of a difference of opinion about how to properly use primary sources.

Elinruby wrote, The sort of very angry line-by-line refutation of the smallest details you see there is another. Almost every attempt to discuss has gone off into the weeds.

I agree. Most of our discussions have gone off into the weeds. But there is a good reason for this. Elinruby has a highly biased POV, and does not appear to be emotionally stable. Repeatedly I've been called a name. Nothing too bad, but when I point it out, Elinruby minimizes it, refusing to retract it or apologize for it. There have even been claims that I've done the same thing, called other editors names. This is simply not true. Elinruby claims that I've called her a liar, and such a claim is absurd. At worst I've 'awarded' Elinruby "Pinocchios," a polite way to say that someone is wrong, either factually, based on a false premise or emotion, or is simply being careless. If requested, I can demonstrate several instances of this.

Elinruby wrote, A few of the current concerns, which may require attention today:

repeated reinsertion of, essentially, an OR refutation of the prosecutor's opening statement. These are studies the editor went out and found on his own.

My insertions on this are about as far from OR as one gets. I've cited a very well respected, very well researched issue of a newsletter, published by the Force Science Institute. I have no idea why Elinruby thinks that there's something inherently wrong about my finding this source on own. I've known about it and used it for many years.

Elinruby wrote, possible outing of another editor, @Activist, and stark refusal to delete the material from his page, because, he says, he wants to prove how ignorant that editor is.

The other editor wrote some replies to some of my questions on his own page. He said that when I and Elinruby had read it he planned to delete it. I read it and copied it to my Talk page, telling the editor that I wanted to preserve it in the event he tried to change his answer to any questions that I might ask at a later time. It's IMPOSSIBLE to out him because there is absolutely NOTHING OF A PERSONAL NATURE that would enable anyone to find him in his information. Conveniently both that editor and Elinruby forget that ANYTHING that is posted on WP stays here forever.

Elinruby is unable to tell the difference between a comment made about something that's written, and a personal attack. That editor seems to think that when a written comment is attacked, the editor is personally attacked. I've pointed this out several times, to no avail. At least some of the disagreement is due to the fact that neither Elinruby, nor Activist has any education, training, or experience in law enforcement matters that are a large part of the incident under discussion. I've been trained and worked in these matters for many years. And so they make assumptions about what happened based on this inexperience and lack of knowledge. Elinruby interprets this as being called ignorant.

Elinruby wrote, Needless to say we don't see that editor on the page any more very much at all.

I've invited him back. I've pinged him repeatedly. He hasn't put in an appearance in quite some time.

Elinruby wrote, he likes the word ignorant and uses it a lot

I don't know what a lot means, it's quite vague. As are many of that editor's messages on the Talk page. I've asked dozens of questions of Elinruby to try and clear up inconsistencies or when vague references that can't be followed are made, but Elinruby refuses to answer them. At one point, after I'd asked about a dozen questions trying to clear up misunderstandings and vague references, and not even one of them had been answered, I asked why there hadn't been any answers to my questions. Elinruby denied that I'd asked any questions! And so I listed them one by one. Even then, answers were not provide for many of them. Since then, the number of unanswered questions has climbed to over 50 and they are just ignored, making communication difficult, if not impossible.

Elinruby wrote, editor has said he knows he is right and primary sources are acceptable if used carefully. "Careful use of primary sources" in this case is, per that editor, a courtroom exhibit briefly seen on a YouTube video. I am inclined to believe the video is genuine and there is such an exhibit but the sources do not use terminology he wants in the article; his contention is that the accuracy of the terminology is obvious from the exhibit.

This is old business. The point is moot because I've found and cited a secondary source that gives the information, but Elinruby will not let go of it. At question is the description of a knife used by a suspect who was committing aggravated assault with a deadly weapon against several police officers. Many secondary sources state that the knife was a folding knife with a blade about 3 1/2" long. The knife was a lock−back type and the blade of the knife was partially serrated, but none of the sources had written these last two descriptions in the news stories about the incident. The knife however, is shown in a still photo on some video footage that comes from Court TV, a live TV camera in the courtroom during the criminal trial of two officers who were involved in the incident. The knife is shown in a still photo against a scale, to show its length.

It's my contention that any "educated person, without any specialized knowledge" could look at the photo of the knife and see that the blade is partially serrated. This does not take any interpretation, only observation. This takes it out of the realm of Original Research, and makes it a BlueSky matter. REPEATEDLY I've pointed this out to Elinruby and at least one other editor, but they've not replied to that comment. Once Elinruby said that the average person would not recognize that the knife was a lock−back from looking at the photo and perhaps that's correct. But the knife is described that way in one of the reputable secondary sources that I've cited. Elinruby also disagreed that the average person would recognize that the knife was partially serrated. But if you showed three knives to the average person and one of them was serrated, I have no doubt that they could pick out the serrated one from the other two. This is common knowledge, it doesn’t take a knife "specialist" or "expert" to see that a knife has a serrated blade. But Elinruby does not respond at all when I've pointed this out. Instead, the entire argument about OR is restated, as if we had not discussed the matter repeatedly.

Elinruby wrote, editor has said he doesn't care what I or any other editor say about this.

I carefully considered the opinion of this editor when it was first proposed. I closely read the policy on Original Research, closely examining it. I do not think that this matter requires interpretation. It only requires observation. I think this editor is wrong on this and has added nothing new to the discussion, since it originally came up.

Elinruby wrote, there was some sort of rant about BS yesterday, which, as best I can determine, refers to a prosecution witness' testimony.

As with some of Elinruby's other references, I don't know what is being referred to here. This is typical of some of the comments that this editor makes. When I ask for clarification so that we can discuss what is being referred to, I do not get a response, making progress towards a solution, impossible.

Elinruby wrote, editor has said he has "inside sources"

I do have some sources inside the law enforcement agency under discussion. But I have no idea why Elinruby brings this up. I have not used any unattributable sources in the article, only to enlighten the other editors in the Talk section.

Elinruby wrote, there are COI discussions open re the city of Albuquerque

I thought that this had been settled. After I answered repeated questions, stating that I did not have any COIs about the Article under discussion, Elinruby responded that it was understood that I did not have any COIs. To repeat, I am not, and have never been an employee of any entity under discussion in the Article. That includes the City of Albuquerque, the Albuquerque Police Department, the attorneys involved in the case, and the police union. Elinruby was under the impression that I had said that I had done some work for someone involved in the court case, but I've never said anything of the kind.

In our last exchange on this matter of COIs I wrote this, As it says, I am not, and never have been employed by anyone or any entity mentioned in this incident. NO, I was not involved in this case. I can't say this with any more clarity and if you don't get it this time, too bad – I DO NOT HAVE ANY COI'S HERE. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC) and Elinruby responded, ok then not an employee not a contractor not a witness. Got it. but that entry was not signed so there is no date and time for it. But it sure appears that it was clearly understood that I do not have any COIs in this matter. But now it comes up again. This is an oft repeated situation in editing this Article and dealing with Elinruby. We discuss something, it appears to be settled, but then it's brought up again, as if the previous discussion had never occurred.

Elinruby wrote, editor makes wild and unfounded accusations

Such an allegation without supporting evidence is worse than worthless. It's character assassination of the lowest kind. If Elinruby wants to be believed on this then those unfounded accusations should be presented so that I can address them. Until that happens, I'll deny making any.

Elinruby wrote, editor makes remarks about other editors. All the time, non-stop, and assumes bad faith.

This is just about identical to the last accusation. I'll deny it until evidence of same is presented. But I'll STRONGLY disagree with the bad faith accusation. IN FACT, both Elinruby and Activist have accused ME of acting in bad faith, several times in both our discussions on the Talk Page and in editing the Article. I've only made such a remark when it's been obvious. As mentioned before Elinruby can't tell the difference between a remark made about an editor's writing and one made about the editor himself. I've made many of the first and none of the second, except to reply to such a comment made about me.

Elinruby wrote, editor, when asked directly if he has a contract with the city of albuquerque, editor replies that he is not a city employee

This is an excellent example of this editor's redundancy and inability to understand simple statements. Just a few paragraphs above I quoted Elinruby as stating, ok then not an employee not a contractor not a witness. Got it. But here it is again, as if it had never before been discussed. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Looking over their contributions, every edit in the last week has been utter nonsense: including poorly sourced and OR lurid details or longwinded explanations all meant to justify the actions of the police. -Darouet (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Everyone's a critic, but this is simply twaddle. I've placed several comments that were either neutral towards the police, or were against their interests. When I started editing this page, there was nearly a complete lack of anything that supported the officers in the case. It was a highly biased article, against the police. I did nothing but provide balance, the NPOV that WP requires. Here we have more accusations without any support for them. My sources are reputable and properly cited. There are no lurid details or longwinded explanations. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

pretty much. I am just sticking my head in the door and can't do the promised diffs just now, but I will follow up by morning. He does make some useful contributions now and then but the signal to noise ratio is very low, and generally you have to go through a few rounds of being called stupid before getting any substantive answer. I have only persisted thus far because I think the article is important. Albuquerque police have a LOT of issues and this is the only one that has been documented to any extent on wikipedia. So part of my discussion with Beanyandcecil has been "ok, I understand that that this is not the usual best-practices protocol for making contact with the mentally ill, but that is sort of the point."

James Boyd was minding his own business on a mountain with a knife in his pocket and wound up dead. The knife was legal and at worst Boyd was committing an infraction of a municipal ordinance. Death is not the desired outcome for this in my mind so how did this happen? There are a lot of sources, although there are also a lot of errors and contradictions. But, and this is according to New Mexico attorney-general Hector Balderas as reported in many many RS, APD filed criminal charges against the DA for "political reasons" after she filed criminal charges against these officers. I did not make that up. The other editor did not make that up. It is established fact widely reported in RS. There are very valid grounds for concern about retaliation, for example, whether Beanyandcecil believes he is endangering the other editor or not. If the other editor lives in a small enough town the information Beanyandcecil is trying to use to prove the other editor is stupid -- and why is he trying to prove the other editor is stupid anyway? ---might well be identifying, especially if the incident happened someplace in New Mexico like say Hatch for example. Gotta go, back later Elinruby (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC).

Elinruby wrote, pretty much. I am just sticking my head in the door and can't do the promised diffs just now, but I will follow up by morning. He does make some useful contributions now and then but the signal to noise ratio is very low, and generally you have to go through a few rounds of being called stupid before getting any substantive answer.

Here we have an excellent example of Elinruby's inability to accurately recount facts. I have NEVER called any editor stupid! This is a deliberate attempt to deceive any outside editors who may be reading this. It's reprehensible and disgusting!

Elinruby wrote, James Boyd was minding his own business on a mountain with a knife in his pocket and wound up dead. The knife was legal and at worst Boyd was committing an infraction of a municipal ordinance. Death is not the desired outcome for this in my mind so how did this happen?

I find it amazing that some people will summarize a situation like this in such a manner. Yes, Boyd was minding his own business on a mountain with a knife and wound up dead. Conveniently Elinruby has omitted vital details that wound up with Boyd being shot and killed by the police. Commensurate with his violation of camping (for over a month) in an area where no overnight camping was permitted, and subsequent to a call by a local resident complaining about him, the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) dispatched two officers assigned to the area to deal with the situation. When they approached Boyd, who was under a make−shift shelter constructed from a sheet of plastic he confronted them with a knife, threatening to kill them if they touched him, escalating the violation from one of a misdemeanor (illegal camping), to a felony, (aggravated assault with a deadly weapon on a police officer). Naturally the officers called for backup. Boyd was known to the officers who responded to the second call as a violent mental patient who had slashed someone with a box cutter, broken the nose of a APD officer, and who had spit jalapeno pepper into the eyes of a jailer.

It turned into a stand-off lasting about 3 1/2 hours, during which the police called in mental health professionals to deal with Boyd. Negotiations were unsuccessful at having him put down his knives and he continued to threaten to kill anyone who tried to take his knives or to take him into custody. When it was clear that he was not going to comply with commands to put down the knives and darkness was fast approaching, they formulated a plan to use less lethal force to take him into custody. That plan failed and two officer shot Boyd to save the life of a police K−9 handler who was in close proximity to Boyd who, at that moment was armed with two knives. There was a trial that of the officers for open count murder (later reduced to second degree murder) that resulted in a hung jury, voting 9-3 for acquittal. Just a little bit more than the killing of a harmless camper that Elinruby described.

Elinruby wrote, There are a lot of sources, although there are also a lot of errors and contradictions. But, and this is according to New Mexico attorney-general Hector Balderas as reported in many many RS, APD filed criminal charges against the DA for "political reasons" after she filed criminal charges against these officers. I did not make that up. The other editor did not make that up. It is established fact widely reported in RS.

No matter how many RSs repeat the statement that the APD filed charges against the DA for "political reasons" it's still nothing but an opinion, and one clearly driven by politics. I have no problem with adding that to the article, but it's not been done! I have no idea why Elinruby brings it up at this late date. But if so, then it's only reasonable to provide NPOV to counter the statement with one from another source, perhaps the police union, that the charges were appropriate and correct. In fact, the entire DA's office was removed from the case, requiring the appointment of a special prosecutor, lending some credence to the opinion that there was an obvious COI in the DA's office. But of course, you won't hear that side from Elinruby.

Elinruby wrote, There are very valid grounds for concern about retaliation, for example, whether Beanyandcecil believes he is endangering the other editor or not. If the other editor lives in a small enough town the information Beanyandcecil is trying to use to prove the other editor is stupid -- and why is he trying to prove the other editor is stupid anyway?

I'm sorry but this is so much nonsense. Activist provided the information himself. There is nothing of a personal nature contained in the message. And I've done no research to find any material of that nature at all. As WP describes, "Personal information can be anything that can be used to identify an individual, not limited to but including name, address, date of birth, marital status, contact information, ID issue and expiry date, financial records, credit information, medical history, where one travels, and intentions to acquire goods and services." There is a vague description of an incident and some vague background information that Activist supplied. WP states that if an editor has supplied personal information himself that it's not considered to be harassment. This occurred on the 10th or 11th of this month. Activist voice his complaints to me and I responded that by keeping his message to me, his responses to my questions that, per WP policy and rules, I had neither harassed him, nor was there information to "out him" in the material THAT HE HAD PROVIDED. I thought the matter closed. Activist basically 'took his ball and went home' refusing to take part in the editing of the article any longer or to respond to pings, but Elinruby continues to bring it up occasionally, as now. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I have to run as well, so I'll be quick. I've been interacting with Activist on this site for years. Unfortunately, he may have outed himself by posting to other sites under his real name and talking about the same topics with the same level of detail than he does here. I'm going to be respectful and leave it at that. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Since Activist has apparently outed himself as shown by RadioKAOS, it appears that his concerns about me 'outing him' are just so much nonsense. I have no personal information that would allow this, nor would I be interested in such a thing. It appears that Activist, along with Elinruby, simply do not want me to provide a NPOV, and that this section started by Elinruby is nothing but another attempt to prevent that. Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

That may be so, and I think it is up to @Activist to pursue the attempted outing as an attempted outing if he chooses to do so. Nor do I know if is in New Mexico. But Beanyandcecil by the same token doesn't know that he is not, and is waving around a legalistic and cherry-picked citing of the policy in order to leave it up.

My primary point in bring this up however is the level of contentiousness shown by Beanyandcecil in posting the exchange to his talk page to somehow prove...something... and then refusing to remove it.

Activist wrote, "There is no basis for posting personal information about myself that I took pains to clearly restrict solely to both of you." *There was no "personal information" about yourself in your message.

If an editor feels his privacy is at risk who is BeanyandCecil to question that? Chilling effects doesn't begin to cover it; APD is known for killing people for crying out loud. *I* feel intimidated by this action and have removed some identifying details from my account because of it. But this is not the forum for that discussion and I would out myself and perhaps endanger other people if I explained why. Let's just say "Beanyandcecil has a contentious editing style" and leave it at that. It is also important to realize the context -- and yes I will provide a diff -- Beanyandcecil was saying since neither of us was an LEO who has used lethal force we should not edit the article, as we were doing, to reflect the trial. I disagree of course; police officers charged with homicide seems notable to me, regardless of whether I approve. Back shortly to flesh out the NPOV items, need food first tho. Elinruby (talk) 03:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it is up to Activist if he wants to pursue the matter. But there is no, as Elinruby claims, an attempted outing. ACTIVIST put the information up and there is NO PERSONAL INFORMATION, per WP definition, in it. It makes no difference where he lives, it's impossible to determine his identity by what he wrote.

There is going to be, as Elinruby wrote, contentiousness in an article like this, particularly when one editor or more, allow themselves to become so emotionally invested that they lose sight of the fact that fairness and WP policy require a NPOV.

Any reasonable person may question the opinion of anyone here. That's the way that this works. Activist may feel that his privacy is at risk, but in fact, it's not. There is no personal information, as defined by WP or by any other standard for that matter, contained in Activist's message. Identification of him is impossible from it. AND both Activist and Elinruby seem to forget that contrary to Activist's wishes to delete the material, WP keeps it forever. This is clearly written in the policy page on this. Activist might think that he's being stalked by Bigfoot, that the moon is made of green cheese and that the Russians have tapped his phone. But that does not affect reality.

It's unfortunate that Elinruby has such a degree of paranoia that those feelings could only be dealt with by remov some identifying details from account ... But those details should never have been there in the first place. WP makes this extremely clear. Keeping such information from appearing on the Net is little more than common sense. Elinruby's obsession is so severe that she fears that APD will kill her for daring to post on WP!? Good grief, could there be any deeper emotional involvement? Get a grip.

Perhaps I do have a contentious editing style. But unlike some, I manage to stay polite and professional, until the personal attacks become too egregious to bear, then I return like for like. Contrary to Elinruby's statement, I've not called anyone names or committed any personal attacks, as she's done to me. My comments have all been aimed at the comments of other editors, NOT at the editors themselves.

But I will have to award ten Pinocchios to Elinruby's claim that Beanyandcecil was saying since neither of us was an LEO who has used lethal force we should not edit the article, as we were doing, to reflect the trial. I've NEVER said this, or anything close to it. I challenge Elinruby to bring that statement here to support that claim. I have NEVER said that ANYONE should not edit the article ... to reflect the trial. This is a complete and utter fabrication. But the converse is true. Elinruby has, several times, told me that I should not insert material that provides NPOV. I will be happy to bring those statements here, if requested.

And finally, Elinruby is challenged by simply keeping to facts and being accurate in editing. "Homicide" is the killing of a human being. It's not a crime, but simply a finding of fact. It's a general term. NO ONE is charged with homicide as Elinruby has just claimed. IN FACT, the two APD officers were charged with "open murder" meaning that they could be convicted or either first or second degree murder, depending on what the jury decided. IN FACT the jury voted 9-3 for acquittal, and a mistrial was declared when they dead−locked. Beanyandcecil (talk) 07:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I found that very hard to read and I actually mostly know what he is talking about. I am itching to slap a hatnote on that mess but I think someone else should do that if in fact it is appropriate.

One of the things I need help with is keeping my temper.

Another is trying to explain NPOV to Beanyandcecil, because he is sure not listening to me, and I have been working on this for more that a week full-time, and come on, that is ridiculous. He has said he doesn't care what I or anyone else thinks of his OR, because he is sure he is right. Perhaps he will listen to several of you. Whatever you do though, do not attempt to explain anything inline as he will inline-answer your explanation to tell you how wrong you are and ping you for each inline alleged refutation.

Let's attempt a different format. I have promised diffs on the issues in the weeds and am late on that. But I feel a need to address, as one uninterrupted train of thought, the most recent astonishing pronouncement from Beanyandcecil. Perhaps he should ask the Kari Brandenburg about his certitude that APD does not engage in retaliation. I'll pursue my own privacy issue through the proper channel, but the important point here is that Beanyandcecil is dismissing safety concerns about which he has no information whatsoever. I will not be bullied into exacerbating them, nor will I be bullied into letting Beanyandcecil distort the account of this homicide on Misplaced Pages.

I feel also the need to point out (and should not feel this need imho) that I have had a global account for almost five years, although I created this username in 2007. Before that I had some IP edits, almost all of the copywriting variety. I came to Misplaced Pages through the Open Education Repository. As noted in my user profile, my background is computer networking and internet security. I have more than 19,100 contributions on 18 projects. I usually translate and currently am working on articles about trade theory (en->fr), the appeals process in French law (fr->en) and Mexican proto-punk(es->en).

Not only do I seriously have other things to do than be schooled on What is Misplaced Pages -- much less privacy on the internet, omg -- by Beanyandcecil, I get very few complaints about my ability to communicate ;) let alone my mental stability, forsooth.

I can of course make a mistake like anyone else, but my work is autopatrolled on Wikimedia Commons and I have had an IP block exemption on English Misplaced Pages, so there have been a couple of findings already that on the whole I try to do the right thing and often actually do. I have been profoundly involved as a 3rd party mediator in big messy disputes both here at NPOV and at the RS noticeboard and on talk pages. Articles like Ugg boot, Leopold II of Belgium.

Recently I extensively contributed to Panama Papers. I am somewhat familiar with BLP policy ;) Before that, Stop Online Piracy Act (remember the day they turned off Misplaced Pages?). Yeah, I've heard of NPOV. No blocks, ever, not even any administrative contact not initiated by me, I don't think.

And ;) someone who just now broke 500 edits this month wants to explain to me that Misplaced Pages has an NPOV policy. Because I letting my emotions govern my edits. Or something.

Bah. Back to diffs, sorry about the delay there. ~~

Elinruby wrote, One of the things I need help with is keeping my temper.

And this from someone who says that MY responses are angry.

Elinruby wrote, Another is trying to explain NPOV to Beanyandcecil, because he is sure not listening to me, and I have been working on this for more that a week full-time, and come on, that is ridiculous.

NPOV doesn’t seem that difficult a concept.

Elinruby wrote, He has said he doesn't care what I or anyone else thinks of his OR, because he is sure he is right.

I really wish that you'd stop both misquoting me AND making up things that you think I've said. It's really not that difficult to go back to the page where you allege something was said and do a search for it. You not only are confused about my words, but keep telling others on this page and at least one other, that I've said things that I've NEVER said. I said quite clearly that I'd looked at the WP definition of OR and that, in my opinion I've not put up any OR. OR requires interpretation and none is required to see that the knife is partially serrated. That only take observation. It's NOT subject to interpretation, the reason that OR is not allowed. I've written this repeatedly and YOU'VE NEVER RESPONDED DIRECTLY TO IT. You just keep repeating that the description of the knife is OR, never stating why you think it is.

Elinruby wrote, Perhaps he will listen to several of you. Whatever you do though, do not attempt to explain anything inline as he will inline-answer your explanation to tell you how wrong you are and ping you for each inline alleged refutation.

If several of you means someone with authority, rather than just opinions for other editors, I'll be happy to. But if it just means more editors with more opinions, then my statement remains the same. What you call "technicalities" are what make up the rules that WP and most other institutions are based upon. One does not get their own interpretations of the guidelines and rules.

As to ping you for each inline alleged refutation, when this discussion began BOTH Activist and Elinruby pinged me relentlessly for days. I pinged them back so they'd be aware of my responses. Now, Elinruby has asked me to stop pinging her and I have. But to put this here as if I had started it, is an good example of what she's doing with this Article. She's also complained that she's unable to follow my edits on these talk pages. When I was pinging her when I'd make an addition, it seems that it would be easier than now, that I'm no longer pinging her, but that's her request.

Elinruby wrote, Perhaps he should ask the Kari Brandenburg about his certitude that APD does not engage in retaliation.

This is just paranoia run amuck. There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence that APD has engaged in "kill" anyone outside of a duty−related incident. If Elinruby has some evidence of officers killing Misplaced Pages editors that post things they might not like, have her present it here. Otherwise it's nothing but obsessive ramblings. Equating the filing of charges against a DA to prevent or in response to a filing of charges against some police officers is one thing. The stalking and killing of a Misplaced Pages editor for posting information that they may not like is quite another. This is BEYOND absurd. But this is the sort of thing that happens when people let their emotions run away.

Elinruby wrote, I feel also the need to point out (and should not feel this need imho) that I have had a global account for almost five years, although I created this username in 2007. Before that I had some IP edits, almost all of the copywriting variety. I came to Misplaced Pages through the Open Education Repository. As noted in my user profile, my background is computer networking and internet security. I have more than 19,100 contributions on 18 projects. I usually translate and currently am working on articles about trade theory (en->fr), the appeals process in French law (fr->en) and Mexican proto-punk(es->en).

Thanks for your service to the community. But I doubt that any of those topics bring out anywhere near the emotions that does the killing of someone by the police, particularly these days. And so, while I've not looked at your other edits, I doubt that there is as much confrontation over the topic as there, quite naturally is, over this one.

Elinruby wrote, Not only do I seriously have other things to do than be schooled on What is Misplaced Pages -- much less privacy on the internet, omg -- by Beanyandcecil, I get very few complaints about my ability to communicate ;) let alone my mental stability, forsooth.

Just a few lines back you told us that you needed help in keeping temper under control. I think that goes to mental stability forsooth.

Elinruby wrote, I can of course make a mistake like anyone else, but my work is autopatrolled on Wikimedia Commons and I have had an IP block exemption on English Misplaced Pages

Just as a LEO can make a mistake or purposefully do the wrong thing, these things do not guarantee that you can do no wrong. It's clear from your edits on the page under discussion that you are and you have.

Elinruby wrote, And ;) someone who just now broke 500 edits this month wants to explain to me that Misplaced Pages has an NPOV policy. Because I letting my emotions govern my edits. Or something.

I'm sorry that I'm fairly new to WP. I apologize deeply that I don't have Elinruby's experience or knowledge here. But everyone has to begin somewhere, that's just how life works. But again, I've not explain to that Misplaced Pages has an NPOV policy. She has this very bad habit of misquoting me and grossly exaggerating things I've said, that permeates her comments, her responses to me, and what she's written in complaining about me. What's happening is that Elinruby is putting up information that only presents one side of the case, in direct violation of NPOV. She is highly biased and her edits show it. I'm merely presenting the other side. Elinruby is determined to stop me from doing that. She's allowing her bias and her feelings to overcome what she knows is the right thing to do. Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

"just paranoia run amuck. There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence that APD has engaged in "kill" anyone outside of a duty−related incident. If Elinruby has some evidence of officers killing Misplaced Pages editors that post things they might not like, have her present it here. Otherwise it's nothing but obsessive ramblings. Equating the filing of charges against a DA to prevent or in response to a filing of charges against some police officers is one thing. The stalking and killing of a Misplaced Pages editor for posting information that they may not like is quite another. This is BEYOND absurd. But this is the sort of thing that happens when people let their emotions run away."

this mind you from someone who complains of being misquoted. I said APD kills people. I didn't say this; the United States Department of Justice said this, in the report BnC dismisses as "political correctness". I didn't say anyone was stalking me. I said BnC was dismissing safety concerns of which he knows nothing. He should read the DoJ report. Elinruby (talk) 06:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Since this is going to be another hat note, fine, since apparently you are not going to reconsider and ::cough:: re-read the page, let's go there. At one point I thought you might actually be capable fo discussion. I am going to try AGAIN. Anyone can post a wall of accusations, you know.

Somehow in creating this new section Elinruby managed NOT to include the comment she wrote

I was actually looking for that in your wall of off-topic refutation; thanks. Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

that drew my response which appears just below. Removing the context of my comments is something that Elinruby does with great frequency,

I suppose if the torrents of text are context (?) Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

and here, she does it again.

I thought this was about what I said? Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

This came up when she was again on a rant

please specify. I am not aware of ranting to date, although I am about to do so. Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

about how I've kept "personal information" about Activist. I have not, the information he posted contains no personal information.

OMG I've hoping you will re-read that page and stand down. Let me help you. At WP:OUTING the third word of the second sentence is "includes". Nothing there about "is limited to". I don't know this other editor but he seems to feel the information could be used to identify him. I see no reason to question that and have to wonder why *you* feel the need to second-guess it. Still in the first paragraph, the 7th sentence says "If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Misplaced Pages" so why do you think it ok? You're the one waving this policy around. Even if your actions were *not* outing, which I very much question, I fail to comprehend why you would do such a thing. He wanted to delete something he said to you. Why would you immediately jump to the conclusion that he is lying or has something to hide, which was your stated reason for posting the conversation to your page? My point is your acerbic and confrontational style. This is not considered laudable behavior on wikipedia. Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Nonetheless, Elinruby wrote this, "If an editor feels his privacy is at risk who is BeanyandCecil to question that? Chilling effects doesn't begin to cover it; APD is known for killing people for crying out loud. *I* feel intimidated by this action and have removed some identifying details from my account because of it." .

OK? where in there did I say I though anyone was stalking me? I removed some identifying details from my page. One of these things is not like the other, dude. Its very hard not to find these kinds of leaps of logic amusing ;) Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I responded, " Elinruby's obsession is so severe that she fears that APD will kill her for daring to post on WP!? Good grief, could there be any deeper emotional involvement? Get a grip."

MMM. I think it is telling that this is your interpretation of the remark. Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Her response was this, "Perhaps he should ask the Kari Brandenburg about his certitude that APD does not engage in retaliation.

Why is that silly pray tell? You can question whether she is correct, but she, a 4-term DA, is on the record as saying she was forced from office for filing charges in a police shooting. Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

AFTER THAT BIT OF SILLINESS I wrote this, "just paranoia run amuck. There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence that APD has engaged in "kill" anyone outside of a duty−related incident.

I am not going to argue that point because this is not what I said. See above, ad nauseum.

If Elinruby has some evidence of officers killing Misplaced Pages editors that post things they might not like, have her present it here.

This is a ridiculous demand. A) I did not say this -- retaliation does not have to involve murder; ask Kari Bradenburg. B) If I had, this the neutral point of view board, not the let me explain all of the ways in which I am at risk board ;) Not playing.

Otherwise it's nothing but obsessive ramblings. Equating the filing of charges against a DA to prevent or in response to a filing of charges against some police officers is one thing.

As opposed to your walls of texts :)

The stalking and killing of a Misplaced Pages editor for posting information that they may not like is quite another.

You *keep* saying that ;)

This is BEYOND absurd.

yes ;)

But this is the sort of thing that happens when people let their emotions run away."}}

as opposed to people who post long self-justifying and acrimonious commment to prove they are easy to get along with?Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

In the first part of the highlighted sentences you say you said it. In the next sentence you say you didn't say it. So which is it?

They said it. I quoted it.Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Elinruby wrote, in the report BnC dismisses as "political correctness".

Ya know, Elinruby has claimed several times that I've called her a liar. I have not and the closest I've come is to award her some "Pinocchios" when she was inaccurate, prone to exaggerate, wrong, or careless. I even said that I didn't think she'd ever exhibited the intent to deceive the readers or other editors, that lying brings with it.

Pinocchios = pants on fire, told you that before Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

But she so often misquotes me, when a simple search would reveal the truth and the reality, she's getting closer to it, simply by refusing to verify such claims before she makes them. Here is what I ACTUALLY wrote on this, The police department for the city that I live in ... suffered through several riots, and at least one ... consent decree from the DOJ. They too were told that they had patterns or practices of racism and using excessive force ... Occasionally the charges made by the DOJ was accurate, but more often the DOJ was 'engaged in a pattern and practice of political correctness,' and lacking in reality. That is just one reason that incidents involving UOF must be judged on an individual basis, not the results of a DOJ report that speaks to generalities.

So I'll give Elinruby another ten Pinocchios for her claim that I "dismissed" the DOJ report in Albuquerque as "political correctness."

I bring up one report, you reply with your anecdote about your personal experiences. That's how you've been rolling. Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

It's clear from what I wrote that I was referring to ANOTHER DOJ report, one conducted where I live. But it's really irrelevant to this shooting incident. The DOJ report did not examine the incident discussed in the Article. It occurred after the DOJ had completed their investigation. They only referred to it by mentioning a comment made by the Chief. My point back then was that each incident of this nature, officer involved shootings, need to be investigated on their own, to determine if it was justified or not. They should not automatically be classified according to a DOJ report, or any other.

heh. Classified as what, out of curiosity? I said you should *read* it, omg ;) Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Elinruby wrote, "I didn't say anyone was stalking me.

The insinuation was clear. And you were concerned for your own safety to such a degree that you removed some personal information from your WP profile. It probably shouldn't have been there in the first place, but you did tighten up your security.

I am amazed at how quickly you attribute hysteria to other editors. I note that you switched to calling me "she" when you started this, also. Hmm. See previous concepts about preconceptions ;)

Elinruby wrote, I said BnC was dismissing safety concerns of which he knows nothing.

still do. Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

He should read the DoJ report.

The DOJ report did not address this shooting so it's irrelevant to this discussion.

Yes it did. It said that the police chief's remarks illustrated the nature of the problem. Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I can confidently say that it does not say that APD has any history of retaliation against WP editors.

I hope you have had fun with this little straw man. I will be escalating these claims if they reappear though. Don't bite the newbies only goes so far. Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Such an investigation is only useful to show general tendencies and what happened in the incidents that were actually investigated. Any such report should NOT be used to judge all officers, all shooting incidents or anything other than incidents that were actually investigated.

Nobody said anything about "judging". Except you. But when there's a finding that a police department regularly kills mentally ill civilians who pose no danger to anyone, and that it unnecessarily escalates incidents into SWAT situations then this is indeed relevant to an incident in which a mentally ill man who was doing what he had been doing for a month suddenly had sniper units fighting over who gets to be lethal cover. Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

But some will do it anyway, painting anyone who wears a police uniform with the same brush.

Again, (9th or 10th repetition) this is insulting. I have included a fair amount of material that reflects well on individual officers, and would have added more by now if I weren't tied up playing silly-buggers with you Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The report IS quite useful for inflaming the emotions of a few. Beanyandcecil ([[User talk:Beanyandcecil|talk]]) 04:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

You're the one with the exclamation marks and accusations. Now can I explain some thing to you? We are on the neutral point of view noticeboard. The question is whether your single-minded focus on showing this to be a completely valid shooting, and that there is nothing wrong with shooting random civilians, can be addressed. It is not the Elinruby is mentally unbalanced board or the press is ignorant board or the Department of Justice is mean to police officers board. I am trying really really hard to work with your here, and taking a lot of abuse from you in the process. Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Removing the context of my comments is something that Elinruby does with great frequency,

I suppose if the torrents of text are context (?) Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they are. I'm sorry that you don't like my style of writing or my habit of taking your paragraphs apart to enable me to reply to you point−by−point. I've noticed that you've copied that style in this message. Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I thought this was about what I said? Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

It is. It should be obvious that when you remove the context of an editor's comments, that the meaning of your responses lose their meaning and there may be confusion as to what you're talking about. That's one of the reasons that I quote you so much. So that the context of YOUR comments remains and it's obvious what I'm talking about. Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

This came up when she was again on a rant

please specify. I am not aware of ranting to date, although I am about to do so. Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

This rant is about the same as previous ones. About the same misinformation. About the same statements. About the same selective quoting of WP policy. Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

about how I've kept "personal information" about Activist. I have not, the information he posted contains no personal information.

OMG I've hoping you will re-read that page and stand down. Let me help you.

The biggest help you could be would be to stop making these vague references such as re−read that page ... There are MANY pages about this part of the discussion being considered, so I have no idea which one you want me to re−read. I've asked for this kind of clarification when you have made such vague references in the past and you've never replied with that information. I have no reason that this time will be any different, but I'll keep trying. Please tell me what page you want me to re−read by linking to it or otherwise specifying it. I've asked you well over 50 questions between the three Talk pages that are running now. You've only answered a few of them. Many of them are questions like this, trying to determine what you're referring to. Your refusal to answer these questions, makes it impossible to communicate with you. At one point, when I'd asked you why you weren't answering my questions, you replied that you were "not aware of any unanswered questions." in response I posted a list of approximately 20 questions that I'd asked you. You responded to some, but still did not answer most of them. Now the count has climbed quite a bit. I pinged you for most of those questions when they were asked. But recently you asked me to stop pinging you. But I'm pretty sure that most of them were asked before that occurred. You've yet to answer more than just a few of them. Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

At WP:OUTING the third word of the second sentence is "includes". Nothing there about "is limited to".

Here's what it says, "Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, other contact information, or photograph, whether any such information is accurate or not." There's nothing in his message that even remotely resembles ANY of this material. Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know this other editor but he seems to feel the information could be used to identify him. I see no reason to question that and have to wonder why *you* feel the need to second-guess it. . Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know him either. I think his FEELING is unreasonable. I decided to retain it because I've seen people change their story about their background. If this was to occur, I'd have his own words to use to impeach him. If Activist thought that there was information that might allow me or anyone else to 'out' him, he should never have posted it. He should know that WP retains EVERYTHING that's written here. He should know that even though he pinged you and I, that ANYONE could have gone to his user talk page and seen the material. Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Still in the first paragraph, the 7th sentence says "If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Misplaced Pages" so why do you think it ok?

I suggest that you read WP's definition of "personal information." Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

You're the one waving this policy around.

Actually, BOTH of us are "waving around." The difference is that I actually understand what it says. You, OTOH, are cherry picking the words that you like and ignoring the rest. It's my opinion based on 30 years of doing investigations that there is nothing there that would allow Activist to be outed, and I have no interest in doing so, even if that information was present. Let's not forget that even if I were to remove it, WP keeps it. Have you and/or Activist demand that WP remove it? Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Even if your actions were *not* outing, which I very much question,

Retaining comments made by another editor is *not* outing by any standard. Sounds like you're accusing me of acting in bad faith. Is that what you're doing? Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I fail to comprehend why you would do such a thing.

Explained just above. Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

He wanted to delete something he said to you.

He's free to do so from his own page, in fact, I think we've discussed this already, and he has deleted it. Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Why would you immediately jump to the conclusion that he is lying or has something to hide, which was your stated reason for posting the conversation to your page?

Another ten Pinocchios! I have NEVER said that Activist was lying or that he had something to hide. Since you've made this claim, that this was my stated reason for posting the conversation to page please find the message where I said that Activist was lying or has something to hide and show it to us. I deny that I've said anything of the kind. THIS is the sort of character assassination that you've engaged in for quite some time. Twist something that was said or imagine that something was meant, and run with it. Talk about "bad faith!" Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

My point is your acerbic and confrontational style. This is not considered laudable behavior on wikipedia. Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't start out that way. But after dealing with you and Activist, that's what it became, but I didn't start it, I only returned it. Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

OK? where in there did I say I though anyone was stalking me?

You insinuated that APD was going to kill you and in order to do that they'd have to find you. That 'finding' would be the stalking. So that people don't forget, here's what you wrote, "If an editor feels his privacy is at risk who is BeanyandCecil to question that? Chilling effects doesn't begin to cover it; APD is known for killing people for crying out loud. *I* feel intimidated by this action and have removed some identifying details from my account because of it." . Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

If Elinruby has some evidence of officers killing Misplaced Pages editors that post things they might not like, have her present it here.

This is a ridiculous demand.

Yes, I know. It's about as ridiculous as your statement that you feel intimidated because I won't delete the statement that Activist made. Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

A) I did not say this

Yes, I know. As I've said many times now, you insinuated it by your inclusion of the statement APD is known for killing people for crying out loud. immediately before writing I feel intimidated by this action. Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Otherwise it's nothing but obsessive ramblings. Equating the filing of charges against a DA to prevent or in response to a filing of charges against some police officers is one thing.

As opposed to your walls of texts :)

I much prefer my walls of texts to your obsessive rambling. But as I said, "Everyone's a critic." Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

But this is the sort of thing that happens when people let their emotions run away."

as opposed to people who post long self-justifying and acrimonious commment to prove they are easy to get along with? Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Yep, long . It's necessary to respond to your messages. Self−justifying No need for such a thing. Acrimonious Most often it's in response to your rancorous messages. Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Ya know, Elinruby has claimed several times that I've called her a liar. I have not and the closest I've come is to award her some "Pinocchios" when she was inaccurate, prone to exaggerate, wrong, or careless. I even said that I didn't think she'd ever exhibited the intent to deceive the readers or other editors, that lying brings with it.

Example text Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, let me try to clear this up. Here's what it looks like if I were to call you a liar. I'd say, simply and directly, "Elinruby is a liar!" But I've never done that and unless I can prove that you purposefully intended to deceive, never would. But you HAVE exaggerated, been careless with facts, twisted my words, completely misquoted me and been inaccurate, or simply, factually wrong. Those can occur through carelessness, allowing emotion to override good sense or simply by a mistake of fact. So awarding you Pinocchios is NOT the same thing as calling you a liar, no matter how much you try to twist my words to make it appear that I'm calling you a liar. Here's one of the MOST EGREGIOUS statements you've claimed I made. Beanyandcecil was saying since neither of us was an LEO who has used lethal force we should not edit the article, as we were doing, to reflect the trial. I've NEVER said anything even close to that. Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I HAVE said "I find it amazing that someone who doesn't know the difference between a rifle and a shotgun is passing judgment on LE tactics on a barricaded suspect and LEO interactions between the police and mentally disturbed, dangerous, assaultive suspects. But I see it quite a bit. I guess I shouldn't be surprised when people with no expertise do this, but I always am. I wouldn't ask my plumber for a second opinion on my heart surgery, my landscaper for advice on what siding to put on my house, or the burger flipper at McDonald's for advice on how best to train my dog. But that doesn't stop, or even slow some folks down from what we see here." Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Your comment in response was, Welcome to Misplaced Pages.

And I have said this, (in reference to people who know nothing about LE tactics or methods) "... it displays an astounding arrogance that these folks know better than people who have been trained and educated for this job and, many of whom, have been doing the job for decades." Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

In response Elinruby wrote, He has repeatedly ranted on about the arrogance of those who would question the rights of policemen. I've asked the meaning of her statement, the rights of policemen a couple of times, but she's not answered. And ACTUALLY she's wrong, it's another of her many exaggerations, I had used the word "arrogant" exactly ONCE, previous to that statement, contrary to her claim that I've ... repeatedly ranted on about ... it. Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

So I'll give Elinruby another ten Pinocchios for her claim that I "dismissed" the DOJ report in Albuquerque as "political correctness."

I bring up one report, you reply with your anecdote about your personal experiences. That's how you've been rolling.

I'm reminded of the little story that Activist told us. Except that my anecdote actually was on topic.

It should be clear from what I wrote that I was referring to ANOTHER DOJ report, one conducted where I live. But this DOJ report done on APD is really irrelevant to this shooting incident. The DOJ report did not examine the incident discussed in the Article. It occurred after the DOJ had completed their investigation. They only referred to it by mentioning a comment made by the Chief. My point back then was that each incident of this nature, officer involved shootings, or other UOF, should be investigated on their own situation and facts, to determine if it was justified or not. They should not automatically be classified according to a DOJ report, or any other.

heh. Classified as what, out of curiosity?

Classified in the same way that they claimed for the shootings they examined. Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I said you should *read* it, omg ;)

You keep saying this, but the report has nothing to do with this Article. They didn't even investigate this incident! Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I am amazed at how quickly you attribute hysteria to other editors.

You're the one who was so intimidated that you changed your profile. If you think that's hysteria, apparently the shoe fits. I've never attribute hysteria to any editor. Since you've made this claim, please show us my statement. Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I note that you switched to calling me "she" when you started this, also.

You're the one who SEVERAL TIMES called me a "mansplainer." Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. See previous concepts about preconceptions ;)

Looks like another of your, now infamous, assumptions. Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The DOJ report did not address this shooting so it's irrelevant to this discussion.

Yes it did. It said that the police chief's remarks illustrated the nature of the problem.

Maybe on some other planet mentioning some remarks made by a Chief of Police is the same as investigating a shooting incident, but it's not the case here. And while the report does reveal some problems, it has yet to be shown that it affected these officers in this situation. Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I can confidently say that it does not say that APD has any history of retaliation against WP editors.

hope you have had fun with this little straw man.

I did. When you insinuate such an absurd proposition as you did, expect people to run with it. Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I will be escalating these claims if they reappear though. Don't bite the newbies only goes so far.

You can only work with what you've got. Let's see. You've repeatedly called me a name, even going so far as to use it in the title of a new section that you created. You've misquoted me repeatedly, you've claimed that I've called you a liar, when I have not. There's more, but for someone who claims such massive expertise and experience as a WP editor, you've hardly set the bar. Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Such an investigation is only useful to show general tendencies and what happened in the incidents that were actually investigated. Any such report should NOT be used to judge all officers, all shooting incidents or anything other than incidents that were actually investigated.

Nobody said anything about "judging". Except you. But when there's a finding that a police department regularly kills mentally ill civilians who pose no danger to anyone, and that it unnecessarily escalates incidents into SWAT situations then this is indeed relevant to an incident in which a mentally ill man who was doing what he had been doing for a month suddenly had sniper units fighting over who gets to be lethal cover.

The part of your message that I've emboldened, is called "{{tq| judging." You don't have to use the word to be guilty of doing it. As I've said REPEATEDLY, shooting incidents and other uses of force have to be judged by themselves. AND here we have you applying the findings of the DOJ report to THIS shooting, basically doing that judging thing again, even though they made no such finding in THIS incident. I do love your use of the term sniper units though. APD does not have any sniper units. They have a couple of specialized units and ONLY the SWAT team has snipers. ANOTHER try at an emotionally leading statement. I find your reference,who was doing what he had been doing for a month, hysterically funny. Basically you're insinuating that since Boyd broke the law for a month, he gets a free pass. You conveniently overlook the fact that the Open Space Officers who initially contacted him were only going to ask him to move out of the city's Open Space area and into the adjacent area, where it was legal to overnight camp. Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

But some will do it anyway, painting anyone who wears a police uniform with the same brush.

Again, (9th or 10th repetition) this is insulting.

There are people who will be insulted by a "Good morning." I've done nothing to insult you, but you see insults at every turn. Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I have included a fair amount of material that reflects well on individual officers, and would have added more by now if I weren't tied up playing silly-buggers with you

No one is forcing you to write these comments. Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

You're the one with the exclamation marks and accusations. Now can I explain some thing to you? We are on the neutral point of view noticeboard. The question is whether your single-minded focus on showing this to be a completely valid shooting, and that there is nothing wrong with shooting random civilians, can be addressed.

The internal investigation found the shooting to be justified. A jury leaned towards acquittal by a vote of 9-3. We'll have to wait for any other investigations to be completed, but so far the score is 2-0. No UOF is pretty and no tactical situation is perfect. But I do LOVE how you've characterized this incident as saying the officers shoot "random civilians" as if they were just standing around shooting anyone who happened to wander by, conveniently ignoring the facts in this case. Boyd was about as far from "random" as it's possible to get. This is the sort of comment that destroys any argument you make that claims that you are presenting a NPOV. And you do it throughout the article, you minimize the danger Boyd presented to the officers who were only going to ask him to move along, until he committed a felony, an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon on them. And filling the article with emotional language, when just describing the scene would provide the required NPOV. There's no doubt that Boyd needed mental health care, but until they made the situation safe by disarming him, nothing of the sort was going to happen. You refuse to acknowledge that simple and obvious fact. Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

It is not the Elinruby is mentally unbalanced board or the press is ignorant board or the Department of Justice is mean to police officers board. I am trying really really hard to work with your here, and taking a lot of abuse from you in the process.

You're not "taking abuse from " than you're dishing out. And since you're the one who started it, if you want it to stop, then stop. I'm just responding to your messages, and their tone, both on this Noticeboard and on the other one, as well. Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• "he's an idiot" -- in reference to a police officer's testimony, probably one of the three dueling supervisors at the scene
  • could be SwAT supervisor James Fox or Field services supervisor Jason Carpenter
• "the officer with the hurt feelings" -- in reference to the CIT officer, Mikal Monette
• "not knowing the details" unspecified other editors
• "bias" ditto
• "some people seem to want to believe"
• "the truth is some do not understand"
• "bias and emotions"
• "would that people could set their emotions aside...but this is virtually impossible for some folks"
• "why would you not want to leave your message up for all to see? Is there something there that's untrue? Is there something secret that you don't want others to know? I plan on placing this on my Talk page, and not deleting it." -- with reference to another editor's personal information
• "I prefer that you NOT "erase part of comments. They show a lack of knowledge of what actually occurred during this incident and perhaps a bias"
• "Conjecture, mistatement and shambles" - first thing BnC says on the Talk page
• "You have the facts and the timeline completely wrong. I suggest that you review the video, paying close attention to what it shows." - to another editor
• "Before I found the article, it was quite one sided"
• "he's gotten some facts wrong and I think that his emotion has crept into the editing" - refers to me, answering another editor
• "It doesn’t appear that he's closely watched the video"
• "I don't understand how you can continue to make this egregious mistake. It's especially troubling since I've described the details in depth in my writing on this page." -addressing another editor. I am not sure what the egregious mistake is; possibly thinking that de-escalation was possible.

Elinruby (talk) 09:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

BnC clearly has not looked at the articles I mentioned, which deal with alternate versions of history and genocide, and cultural appropriation versus paid editors. And SOPA less controversial? Panama Papers? Get outta here. Elinruby (talk) 07:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of "assumptions," Elinruby made one when she wrote, "BnC clearly has not looked at the articles I mentioned" In fact, I looked at both of them. I didn't bother to look at her "edits," She quoted my statement but then tried to twist it.

Here is ANOTHER excellent example of how Elinruby tries to twist my words to her own ends. I said, very clearly in the statement that she quoted to start this section, "But I doubt that any of those topics bring out anywhere near the emotions that does the killing of someone by the police, particularly these days ..." Elinruby changed the discussion so that she could talk about "controversy," not emotions, which is what I was talking about. Online piracy may be controversial, but based on results, it does not bring out the emotions of some editors as has this topic, the killing of a civilian by a LEO. We don't see rioting in the streets, people throwing bricks at LEOs, arson and looting over the Panama Papers or Online piracy. Elinruby is trying to inflate her own importance in dealing with "EMOTIONAL" topics by switching the conversation to one where she's discussing "controversy." Mere controversy usually does not have people becoming irrational and imagining that people are going to stalk and kill them for their messages here, an emotional topic, as we've seen, may have that effect. Now let's look at her statement.

you're going further and further into the weeds with this. Do you realize how off-topic you are? This is legislation from several years ago, and nobody has edited the page recently because the legislation was defeated. Doh. Misplaced Pages and Google both went on strike over this there was a discussion on Misplaced Pages with hundreds of participants. And that was only some of the protests. It's bad enough you don't listen to other editors -- stop adding personal attacks to the issues. And use Google before you accuse people of lying. Elinruby (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk pages are where editors are supposed to work out differences in edits. They will reflect, to some degree, how controversial the Articles in question are. The tone of those messages may (as in this case) also reflect how emotional some editors are about those disagreements.

Take a look at the talk page for SOPA. − Seven headings in the table of Contents, and #6 and #7 are the same. NOT ONE entry by Elinruby! The entire talk page is less than six screens long.

Now take a look at the Talk Page for Panama Papers. − It's so small that the editors haven't even added a Table of Contents! It's only seven screens long. Doesn't look like there's been too much "controversy" to me.

only a few overturned governments ;) and a *lot* of criminal investigations. For your information, a lot of the ramifications have spun off and/or have been moved in other pages; the effects on David Cameron's career being an example. The controversy there usually takes the form "offshore shell companies are legal" vs "how does Vladimir Putin's best bud wind up with a billion dollars?" For your information. I am sure you'll soon explain how wrong I am about that though. 23:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

By comparison, the Talk page for the Shooting of James Boyd. – There are 16 headings in the Table of Contents and the Talk Page is about 35 pages long. I'll concede that much of that length is due to my method of replying by quoting the author so that everyone knows exactly what I'm referring to. Nonetheless, it's not even close to the "emotionalism" of the articles that Elinruby just mentioned.

yes and all of that from one obstructive editor, eh? Who'd a thunk it?Elinruby (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is ANOTHER excellent example of how Elinruby tries to twist my words to her own ends. I said, very clearly in the statement that she quoted to start this section, "But I doubt that any of those topics bring out anywhere near the emotions that does the killing of someone by the police, particularly these days ..." Elinruby changed the discussion so that she could talk about "controversy," not emotions, which is what I was talking about. Online Piracy may be controversial, but based on results, it does not bring out the emotions of some editors as has this topic, the killing of a civilian by a LEO. We don't see rioting in the streets, people throwing bricks at LEOs, arson and looting over the Panama Papers or Online Piracy. Elinruby is trying to inflate her own importance in dealing with "EMOTIONAL" topics by switching the conversation to one where she's discussing "controversy." Mere controversy usually does not have people becoming irrational and imagining that people are going to stalk and kill them for their messages here, an emotional topic, as we've seen, may have that effect. Beanyandcecil (talk) 14:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

In addition to WP:DUE, WP:BALASP and WP:EXCEPTIONAL may also apply. EXCEPTIONAL says, "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." In my view this accusation rises above what EXCEPTIONAL means by "exceptional claim", so the requirement should correspondingly rise above "multiple high-quality sources". This is not an allegation of, say, wife beating. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

That said, I don't know whether EXCEPTIONAL refers to the woman's "claim" that the rapes occurred or our "claim" that she made that claim. If the latter, I withdraw the EXCEPTIONAL part of the argument. There is little question that a lawsuit is pending, so that is not at all exceptional. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

We now have multiple witnesses and a court taking the case seriously. This is not some nuisance or frivolous claim. There is no doubt that the case exists and is being covered in reliable sources. If leading metropolitan dailies are treating this as valid, who are we to say otherwise? The truth or otherwise of the allegations will be tested in court. We are not a court. --Pete (talk) 07:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

They are taking it seriously because it is linked to someone already convicted, who had ties to a high-ranking member of the British Royalty. It has yet to be determined if it is nuisance or frivolous, but the circumstances are probably why its not being shouted from the rooftops. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

We are not a court. - I agree, and I don't propose to be a court. I'm looking only at amount of coverage, which has nothing to do with the merits of the case. You're the one looking at the merits, with the statement, This is not some nuisance or frivolous claim. How can you or anyone else besides the woman herself, Trump, probably Epstein, and maybe a few more people know that? Were you present during the rapes? ―Mandruss ☎ 08:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should look at the amounts of coverage. Firstly, we have a court case. Secondly, we have several reliable sources that report the court case. That should be enough. The case is clearly relevant to the article. I think a court case is more significant than a media interview. The consequences are greater for both sides. As discussed at the article's talk page, we don't exactly know why some media outlets have ignored the story. But I don't think that's relevant. If there was no reliable source, that would be different. But given that we have reliable sources, how can the article ignore an allegation that has come to court? Even if you think the allegations are false, that is not a reason to ignore it.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if that's a generic you but I have no opinion about whether the allegations are true or false. If I did, I wouldn't bring it with me to Misplaced Pages. In stark contrast, many involved editors clearly have an opinion, and too many of those do bring it with them to Misplaced Pages. This is not some nuisance or frivolous claim. This is a not necessarily a reference to you, but if the shoe fits... ―Mandruss ☎ 10:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Skyring: Basically the only reliable sources that have analysed it are treating it as a nuisance claim. WaPo: "Lawsuits like that offer a chance at getting unconfirmed (or false) information into the headlines." The Guardian: "Lawsuits accusing Donald Trump of sexually assaulting a child in the 1990s appear to have been orchestrated by an eccentric anti-Trump campaigner with a record of making outlandish claims about celebrities." Vox: "So most media outlets haven’t written about the Katie Johnson lawsuit. The allegations seem so likely to be untrue that even writing the words “Trump” and “allegedly raped a 13-year-old” in the same sentence feels sort of icky." Madshurtie (talk) 09:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I think this cuts both ways. If the claim is valid, it obviously harms Trump. But if the claim is groundless it could harm those making other allegations against Trump. Either way, I don't think that Misplaced Pages, being neutral, should exclude it.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: I don't think that's how we normally treat WP:BLPGOSSIP (assuming it's agreed this is gossip). Madshurtie (talk) 12:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

It does seem to be BLPGOSSIP, assuming by "source" it refers to Ms. Doe. We can't know anything about her reliability, one way or the other. But I hate that we're stuck using the word "gossip" in this case, as it seems to trivialize the allegation. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

1) Should content be included if only 16% of key mainstream media has picked up the story? 2) If it is included, because of the nature of the story and the uneven reporting, should we tone down the verbiage, such as eliminating the word "rape" and mention of Epstein and his parties?--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Its only being treated seriously because its related to Epstein. Presenting it without that context would be pointless. I dont think it should be in there at all really, but if you remove any link to Epstein it lacks the appropriate context. More than 16% of the mainstream media have picked up on it, but they are overwhelmingly treating it as 'likely bogus'. Which is another reason not to include it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

How to we know why it is or isn't being treated seriously? Do we have quotes from editors or journalists of the newspapers covering/not covering the story?--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I've only seen Vox comment on why other news outlets are leaving it. I guess that fact that both the other RS that have discussed it are very skeptical is some clue. Madshurtie (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

"I have essentially proposed limiting our "universe" to 18 of the highest quality sources for the purpose of judging WP:DUE. The alternative is to expand the universe to all reliable sources, research all of them, and then calculate a new percentage who report it. That would be completely unworkable for multiple reasons." Well, yes. So don't impose self-created rules that are impossible to enforce. Multiple reliable sources cover the rape allegation, the tie-in to Epstein, and an impending court date. Misplaced Pages is not censored and both WP:V and WP:RS are satisfied. Not really seeing why this is an issue, of course it should be included (in neutral language (but not hiding the fact that it is rape that is alleged) and without sensationalising it. Bastun 15:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

How about when the three reliable sources discussing it seem to consider it WP:BLPGOSSIP? Madshurtie (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

While correct, that covers 'can it be included'. At this point editorial judgement kicks in and the question is 'Should it?'. If the sources were less obviously treating it as rubbish I would say go ahead, but as Madshurtie points out, the reliable sources are treating it as bogus. We do not *have* to include every piece of information available even if it is sourced. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

We all apply editorial judgment every day. If we rejected things because they have not been done before, nothing could ever be improved; no new ideas could be brought forward to benefit Misplaced Pages. Please don't oppose things simply because they are new to you. I'm certainly not proposing any "rules" or proposing to "enforce" anything. Not really seeing why this is an issue - I can see that. both WP:V and WP:RS are satisfied - How about WP:DUE, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and WP:BLPGOSSIP? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

"The three reliable sources discussing it seem to consider it WP:BLPGOSSIP" Do they? Even if that were the case, and even if that were to preclude inclusion, what about these reliable sources do not. There are many more such reliable sources. Bastun 18:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bastun: Do they? I said they seem to, but, based on BLPGOSSIP, they seem to. Apart from the Washington Times, you've cited two tabloids, a social news site, and an Independent article that is citing Buzzfeed and LawNewz. I had missed the Washington Times article, though it barely discusses the case, and if the best other source you can find is the Washington Times, you've got a lot of convincing to do. There are many more such reliable sources. Prove it. Madshurtie (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I think there are good arguments both for inclusion and exclusion. It is indeed widely covered, as everything about any hyper-notable person such as a US Presidential candidate is widely covered. However, as a matter of WP:DUE it is clearly not covered as widely as most of the other allegations of impropriety in that article. Any attempt to create numerical thresholds is going to fail because you can't really compare sources that way. But I do think the sources are applying their own equivalent of BLPGOSSIP, downplaying the story considerably because it is more salacious than the others and not nearly as well documented. Our standards are higher than theirs, and unlike the news sources we have no deadline, so on balance I would excluded it. If anything comes of it we can reconsider. If nothing further emerges, no charges are brought, it is not verified by credible investigative journalists, no case proceeds far, it is not a turning point in the campaign etc., then in the end it would not be includable. So let's not jump the gun to include it now. Just my opinion here. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Whoah. Five different conditions for inclusion (none of which are backed by policy, obviously). Are you sure you've done enough to rule any possible mention out, there, Wikidemon? :-P It's a civil case, not a criminal one. Investigative journalists don't normally cover court cases, that's left to court reporters. The next hearing takes place after the election. Not as well documented - we get to see in December, then, possibly, in 2017, if the case proceeds. The facts are an allegation of rape has been made and a hearing will be held on the case in December. That has been covered, neutrally, by multiple reliable sources, and not including those facts would be pretty blatant censorship. Bastun 20:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Madshurtie: sorry, missed this earlier. Yes, apart from the reliable sources I listed, there are indeed others, which you admit you had missed. I found mine with one quick Google search. I do not have to "prove" anything here... Bastun 21:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

It's all backed by policy. I stand by every last thing I said. You happen to disagree, apparently. Crying censorship isn't really going to advance a content argument very far. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bastun: You found one reliable source. You said there are "many more" that have discussed it. You have not demonstrated that. Madshurtie (talk) 08:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

A note to interested editors, this content is in a section titled Legal proceedings, where there is a link to the Main article - Legal affairs of Donald Trump, where this same content (with more details) is in a sub-section titled Rape claim, which is sourced to - The Daily Mail, HuffPo, National Review, LawNewz, NY Daily News, Snopes, and primary documents. So even if the consensus is to remove and/or reduce the material from this particular article, it still remains in another article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

There are good points on both sides of the issue, but it isn't clear how we can come to a conclusion or compromise. As a previous voter to keep the section as-is, may I throw out a compromise proposal until we know more, using articles by reliable sources that specifically refer to this case (versus the articles that are a list of accusers)

"Trump has been accused of sexually assaulting a 13-year-old. Now a woman, she has filed civil lawsuits against Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. A case filed in California was dismissed and an October 2016 filing is a third attempt made to litigate the allegation in New York. Federal Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered a status hearing for pre-trial or settlement preparation on December 16, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Lawyers for the plaintiff, for Trump, and for Epstein are to appear This case has only been picked up by a small percentage of the mainstream media and the claims are denied by Trump and his lawyer, who state that the claim is untrue, an "obvious publicity stunt", and a "hoax". It was reported in June 2016 that this case is connected to a former Jerry Springer producer Norm Lubow, as well as to an anti-Trump activist. Libby Nelson of Vox states that this is the reason why the story has not been picked up widely by the media.

References

1. Chelo Rivera. "Video: APD releases HelmetCam footage of shooting". KRQE NEWS 13. KRQE NEWS 13. Retrieved 4 October 2016.
2. ^ Pilkington, Ed (October 12, 2016). "Trump lawyers given court date over lawsuit alleging rape of 13-year-old". The Guardian. Retrieved October 14, 2016.
3. Greene, Leonard (June 20, 2016). "California woman's rape lawsuit against Donald Trump resurfaces in New York court". Daily News. New York. Retrieved October 12, 2016.
4. ^ Nelson, Libby (October 12, 2016). "The sexual assault allegations against Donald Trump, explained". Vox. Retrieved 21 October 2016. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |website= (help)
5. Carmon, Irin (October 13, 2016). "The Allegations Women Have Made Against Donald Trump". NBC News. Retrieved October 15, 2016. After 11 months of turbo-charged rumors and worldwide publicity over their separation, Donald and Ivana Trump were granted a divorce yesterday.... Mr. Trump's lawyer, Jay Goldberg, said "I do not see any alternative but a trial."
6. Swaine, Jon (July 7, 2016). "Rape lawsuits against Donald Trump linked to former TV producer". The Guardian. Retrieved October 21, 2016. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)

This solution doesn't meet the request to "keep" it as-is or to "remove" it, but it is a point in between that acknowledges that that there is an allegation, without using the word "rape", and states that there are doubts about the claim.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Another option is to make this footnote to the applicable sentence in the intro.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The relevant pollicy is "Balancing aspects": "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." Since the story has received minimal coverage in proportion to all coverage of Donald Trump, it should be left out.

If we decide to place a different emphasis on topics than mainstream sources do, then articles will emphasize a different "point of view", which is against the neutrality policy. Neutral in Misplaced Pages of course does not mean neutral to the information, but reflecting the balance used in mainstream sources. Of course Misplaced Pages could have a different criterion for inclusion, but it needs some criterion otherwise editors could never agree on what to include. There is nothing for example in the Hillary Clinton article about Juanita Broaddrick's claim that Clinton threatened her to remain silent about an alleged rape, that she laughed about her defense of a child rapist, or that according to someone claiming to be Bill Clinton's ex-lover, Clinton had a "lumpy body...her fat ankles and her thick calves covered with black hair".

TFD (talk) 02:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

You can't compare this to the Hillary Clinton article, TFD. We are talking specifically about an article related to sexual misconduct.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Jack, you've lost me. It was just an example of "balancing aspects". I have been a voter for keeping something in the article, and this is making me question that.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps not the best example. But consider NPR's article, "1 More Woman Accuses Trump Of Inappropriate Sexual Conduct. Here's The Full List", which is extensively used in the article. There is no mention of the child rape allegation. And bear in mind that while one could argue whether the writer is neutral or hostile to Trump, no one could argue that she is a Trump supporter. I do not know why most reporters ignore the child rape allegations, but I do not think we can rebalance what mainstream sources write, unless we change policy. As thinking people, all editors must question what the media choose to emphasize, but similarly we could never agree among ourselves what they should emphasize. Conservapedia was founded to specifically to redress mainstream bias to a U.S. conservative perspective and there have been similar attempts to redress it to other viewpoints. None of them though have the same following as Misplaced Pages, so there must be a demand for Misplaced Pages's approach. TFD (talk) 03:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: My problem with BALASP is that it could, not unreasonably, allow "just a little" content about an allegation that Trump repeatedly raped a 13-year-old girl. That's not going to work for me. Put it this way, if this situation doesn't warrant complete omission, what kind of situation would? ―Mandruss ☎ 06:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

But suppose the story had never received mainstream coverage and we decided to cover it in Cruz's article. We would then be disseminating a story to a wide audience that would otherwise never have heard about it, without explaining how reasonable the theory was. We would put Cruz in the position of having to deny the story and push it into mainstream media or ignore leaving some Misplaced Pages editors believing it to be true. Its role would then be the same as news media, deciding what is or is not important and driving coverage in other news media. That is beyond neutrality, which is to merely reflect what is reported, rather than driving what is reported.

TFD (talk) 07:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

There is a court case. This is fact. This is not gossip. This is not a fringe theory. This is not a claim. How can we not mention this case in such an article?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Because there is no policy or guideline that says something should be included because there is a court case, it is fact, it is not gossip, it is not a fringe theory or it is not a claim. And policy says to exclude it. If you want the story to reach a wide audience of readers, then persuade NPR and mainstream media to cover it. Why are we supposed to accept your opinion that the information is significant and reject the judgment of mainstream sources?  ::Incidentally, an unproved, unsubstantiated allegation that has received little media attention is by definition fringe.

TFD (talk) 07:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Jack Upland - I totally understand where you are coming from; I have felt the same way - which is clear from my suggested compromise approaches earlier today. Two things. 1) The longer the conversation has gone on, the more I've questioned why this hasn't been picked up widely by mainstream media - especially since all the allegations came out after October 9. 2) Most important, since we have guidelines that prevent content being added in these kinds of situations, it seems we should follow the guidelines. Filing a lawsuit does not mean that the claim is true. For fun, here's a screenshow of crazy lawsuits.--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The court case is fact. And there is plenty of mainstream media reporting:, , , , , , , . It's being reported all over the world. It's just that some American sources have avoided it. Filing a lawsuit doesn't make it true, nor does giving an interview to a journalist make it true. I would rather give an interview than front court. But we don't have to make a judgement whether the claims are true. In fact, we shouldn't.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Two of the sources have been identified as unreliable: DailyMail and Independent. The list of all the media outlets that are not covering the story would be a much longer list - per the discussion at the very top of this section.--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

What??? They are major newspapers. Anyway, I was responding to TFD's comment about that mainstream media did not cover it. The list of all global media not covering any story would always engulf those who did. Misplaced Pages is not American. It is not a mirror site of the New York Times.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: You think the Daily Mail is reliable?? The Independent one is unreliable because it mainly cites Buzzfeed and LawNewz. To add a third, the Daily Mercury is a Queensland tabloid. Also note that three of the other sources only have a few sentences on the case in list articles on the general accusations. That's why I didn't consider them reliable sources that actually discuss the case. Thanks for adding the Sydney Morning Herald though. Madshurtie (talk) 08:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• So we agree that mainstream and reliable sources report the case.
• It's pretty obvious that the proposed exclusion of the Jane Doe case is not neutral. It seems to be motivated by the idea that this case could detract from the other allegations. Well, that is not neutral. Don't hide behind "BLP" when you're pushing your own agenda.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: In response to your comments:

• There's never been a dispute that reliable, mainstream sources have reported on Jane Doe. Most of the coverage, though, is in connection with the list of accusers and often has been limited in the information that is published. There are a few stories just about Doe even though there have been lawsuits filed throughout this year.
• Doesn't it seems a bit strange to you that "16.6% of our current universe have reported it. 83.3% of our current universe, 5 times as many, have deemed it not newsworthy." from the review of a universe of top mainstream media? During a presidential campaign? One in which sexual assault or other misconduct has been reported in a frenzied manner? And, that there wasn't much reporting on this until October?
• Please note that there have been a number of attempts to add content that is unflattering and offensive about the accusers. The reasoning was the same as yours as to why it should have been included.
• What changed my mind about removing the Jane Doe section is the Balancing aspects guideline--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: So we agree that mainstream and reliable sources report the case. So we can agree that mainstream and reliable sources are mostly ignoring the case. We can also agree that there is a lot of doubt among the remainder. So far people have produced only eight reliable sources that have covered it. Three of those eight barely mention it in list articles, three of the the remaining five are very skeptical, and the last two are lower calibre sources.

Who said we should exclude this case because it would detract from other allegations? You've talked about it; I haven't yet found anyone else. Madshurtie (talk) 09:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

It is not "obvious" that the exclusion of the Jane Doe story is not "neutral" as defined in Misplaced Pages policy. Neutrality does not mean that we should provide equal weight to different details, but that we should apply the weight that mainstream sources do. And yes, that makes Misplaced Pages "a mirror site of the New York Times." If a Misplaced Pages article contains all the facts and opinions that one would expect to find in a New York Times article on the subject, then it passes neutrality with flying colors. If you think that we should have a different standard for including material then write up a proposal and get it approved. The accusations may be really, really important or trivial. But we defer to editors of mainstream news media to make the call. TFD (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Most legitimate news outlets have picked up the story, so the argument of UNDUE seems silly at this point. Something that has been bothering me about this discussion is the inherent discounting of a rape accusation. It doesn't matter who its leveled at, its serious and those sorts of accusations should always be taken seriously. If we have sources, that should be the sole point governing whether to include or not. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian I have felt the same way until late last night / early this morning and that may be clear by my attempt to come to a compromise to have some content about Jane Doe in the article. I now believe that there's a reason why 83% of the universe of reliable sources didn't report it - and that falls under "balancing aspects", which I was not aware of til last night. I absolutely agree that any claim of rape should be taken seriously by the police, the court, and the media. TFD's comments that are already posted speak to why we should consider that the majority of the media doesn't report this case.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

CaroleHenson That was a part of the discussion that threw me. The percentages of outlets reporting, and the list of "official" news outlets. I hadn't seen such a list before. I consider news sources to be like Reuters, BBC, Agence France-Presse (etc.) as wel as most news and television news outlets that are not pointedly partisan. It seems like a different scorecard is being used here. Might I have a link to said scorecard? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian It's at the very top of The lawsuit didn't receive much coverage / Remove Jane Doe? and a list of sources developed on the talk page is on this subpage--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

CaroleHenson seriously? Some self-selecting group editors decide now, on a subpage of an article, what is and isn't a reliable source? And use their list of approved sources to determine what can and can't be included? Jebus... I don't think so. Bastun 19:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Bastun Let's back up about three steps. This wasn't created willy-nilly - there was a chain of events that led to be it being included:

• There was an initial discussion before the article was started to attempt to use Fox News, NPR, and LA Times - due to POV issues that came up on this subject on another DT page. i.e., this page was created knowing that there were going to be POV and a lot of other claims to have the entire article or sections of the article deleted.
• After the article was created, the list was compiled due to several claims in the article including POV and use of non-reliable sources. At the top of the page is the link directly to the archived discussion.
• I reviewed the article and found that, indeed, there were sources that I found in RSN archives had POV issues with: Politico and Huffington Post. Since we'd already agreed not to use sources with POV issues, it seemed best to replace them.
• There were also Independent and another source I cannot remember at the moment that RSN deemed was not a reliable source
• So, I cleaned up the article and started a list using the sources that have been used in the article. People provided feedback about the list of the sources. For instance, I thought Guardian was not a reliable source - based on previous experience years ago. RSN was checked to verify the sources and there was some additional input.
• The last line of the list of sources is exclude "* Anything else not on the "use" list unless it's a known reliable source (search noticeboard)" Meaning don't use Jezebel (which has been tried a lot with inaccurate stories/content), other tabloid newspapers, etc. without ensuring that they are a RS.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian, the fact that legitimate news outlets have picked up the story, does not make the argument of UNDUE seems silly. First, UNDUE is about reporting opinions, but the concept is similar. The fact something has been reported does not mean it belongs in an article, it must have received prominence in reliable sources on the subject. NPR carried a "Full List" of the women accusers, and did not mention Jane Doe. That's how prominent she is in mainstream sources and how prominent she should be in the article. If the fact something had been report was sufficient to include it, we would not need UNDUE. So long as it met RS (reliably sourced) it would be good to go. TFD (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with what Jack Sebastian and Bastun said. I've been editing Misplaced Pages for more than a decade, and I've never seen a list of approved sources or an an analysis of percentages of coverage.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Fine. I have already said enough about why the list of sources was created - which was only intended as an aid and to help resolve a POV claim, nothing more than that. There's tons of commentary already about how and why the analysis of the number of sources was done. Which is what led to the RfC so we could get votes instead of having a lot of circular conversations.

Did you vote, Jack, on the article talk page, by the way?--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

CaroleHenson I am a little bowled over at your note of Politico's as biased. During the election, it has been the only one to consistently act as fact-checker, calling out each party when they "fib". It only looks like they are biased because there are so many "fibs" on the part of the Republicans and their nominee (you can blame that on Karl Rove, btw). That Fox was even considered a neutral source is likely the source of your traction problem. Fox News is about as biased as you can get in America, apart from some of the more racially-charged altnews groups. Huffington post does have a liberal bias, as it was created to counter the Drudge report (and yeah, it is pretty effing sad that we have to create biased news sources to counter other biased news sources). I get that maybe you were trying to source-balance the story left (LA Times), right (Fox News) and center, but NPR has a specific and very public pro-feminism stance - they cannot be considered neutral in any discussion of the treatment of any woman.
That's why NPR doesn't identify the rape suspect, The Four Deuces; the rape accusation is treated as if the victim is still a minor, even if they are past the age of majority. NPR will always respect the privacy of a rape victim, and esp. an under-aged one. Basing an argument of UNDUE based upon NPR's respect of privacy is, imo, a mistake. We aren't reporting an opinion: its a court filing, so its well past the 'opinion' phase. It isn't just one outlet breaking the story and the others following suit. Different media outlets are covering it from different angles, and that's where we take our sources. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Lastly, if this discussion is going to continue further, can someone drop in some arbitrary breaks, so I'm not scrolling trough a wall of text to try and find a reply I was notified about? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian No kidding about the breaks of this long discussion!!! To your points, Jack, that didn't come from me, it came from the RSN and, I think because we've tried to not be biased, no one disagreed about RSN's assessment of Politico or Huffington Post. It wasn't that Fox was considered a neutral source, it's that there's often a claim that most mainstream media is biased towards liberal perspectives. Ironically, although we intended to have FoxNews as a source for balance, I don't think it's used much - perhaps not at all. Although there has been interesting coverage by Megyn Kelly that I think has been fairly balanced about this issue and Judge Jeanine (I think is her name) for Trump. It sounds like it would have been helpful to have had your input when we were working the POV and unreliable sources claim. I will be signing off of DTsma conversation for the moment, hopefully what I've had to say explains how we got to the list. If you think the list needs to come down, you can remove it by editing the top of the page. It's the last of a series of boxes before discussion begins.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

CaroleHenson "there's often a claim that most mainstream media is biased towards liberal perspectives" - Carole, the only people who ever say that are Republicans and conservatives who think they are entitled to their own facts (in addition to their opinions). Anytime facts are championed over innuendo and opinion, they are labeled liberal. Sorry - I get to deal with that sort of daily knucklehead in likely the only conservative neighborhood in Chicago (mine is the only house without a Trump sign littering it in the neighborhood). Next time you come across a discussion about that, please drop me a line. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian, there is a POV discussion about the article that has started at the bottom of the page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Cool!

I just had my comments on the talk page reverted. I put them back in but made two sections: 1 for the review and the 2nd for a side conversation that I am closing out. I had actually typed an FYI in here awhile ago, but decided that noone would care, and it's best tp close that chapter. Soham321, Please don't revert comments that I make to the talk page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 12:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

See ―Mandruss ☎ 12:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I am too biased wrt Trump to be a good reviewer. I have tried to limit my contributions to this article to BLP issues involving other people than Trump. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

CaroleHenson, I am aware of talk page etiquette and would not have reverted you but for the fact that you closed the discussion on the talk page which was following immediately after i gave a link to this discussion on the talk page. You were closing not just your comments, but the comments of other editors, including myself, and you are very much an involved editor in this discussion. I still find it objectionable that you should close the discussion on the talk page which is related to this discussion which continues to take place here, given that you are very much an involved party. Soham321 (talk) 12:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Yours was the WP:BATTLEGROUND reaction to a WP:BOLD edit. That is not how disagreements are peacefully resolved. Your decision to take a break from the article is a good one in my view. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that it was a battleground reaction. I just made one revert, and i have not reverted Carol again leaving it for other editors to do so if they wish to. There seems to a pattern in your editing behavior: of mixing up content disputes with conduct disputes. Only a short while back you have requested an Admin to place a ban on Zigzig20s after you had a content dispute with Zigzig on this very page we are disputing. You and Carol are welcome to take me to ANI if you wish to, but do watch out for the boomerang. As far as my talk page message to Carol is concerned, it was just a polite way (the opposite of battleground behavior) of telling CaroleHenson that i did not wish to interact with her on my talk page on this dispute after she made this edit on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Soham321&diff=745744878&oldid=745743728 ; and i did take a break from the article after telling her i would do so. Soham321 (talk) 12:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Again you're incorrect. I sought a discretionary temp block against that user because they were being disruptive, not because of any content disagreement. And I got strong support from two other experienced editors, one by email. Of course you would fail to recognize disruption, it's your m.o. as well. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why I am constantly getting pinged here. I only wanted to add referenced content about the lawsuits to protect the Wikimedia Foundation. I don't have time to read endless Wikidrama. Several editors agree with me that this content should be included, so please understand that this content is not about me--if anybody is finding themselves thinking about me, please forget me, I am a nobody. Just focus on the content as per weight of reliable third-party sources. Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Soham321 Is there anything that I've said here that would make you think that I didn't understand and support this review? How many people do you know who self-report in a situation like this, specifically ask people not to come to their defense, and leave themselves open that way? You're offended because I closed that question out? I just didn't want anyone else to be pulled into any more drama than necessary.

Please WP:AGF and talk about things. So much gets smoothed out that way - and so much festers if you don't talk things out, which can then lead to unconstructive efforts and animosity believe the other person is evil .

Just so I can understand, what is the benefit of leaving that open?--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC) (UTC) ping and sign again

Based on your responses, I wonder if you read it. Did you see this: Paraphrasing, I also hear that a bit of distance from responding to a lot of the content issues would be good. I'm "way cool" with that. And, I look forward to feedback from the NPOV approach.--CaroleHenson (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I reworded the last sentence in this portion of the blurb to: And, I look forward to feedback from the NPOV approach. on the article talk page and this discusssion--CaroleHenson (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, let's move on. Yesterday, I had a knee-jerk reaction and exceeded my quota of more than one mistake a day . So, let's just move on. I reworded the section a little and identified a place where people can put comments. By the way, about one quarter of the feedback that I received is in the collapsed box.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I support collapsing everything from my "Cool!" exclamation at 12:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC) to this point, since it is not in keeping with the goal of this page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done ―Mandruss ☎ 17:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)