Talk:Killing of James Boyd/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Response to Beanyandcecil

/* Outing continued POV pushing */

• • @Elinruby: @Cecilandbeany: I haven't had time to spend on dealing with issues that have come forth here, as I've spent days driving well over a thousand miles and attending a convention. Before I left I posted some personal information about myself and my history on my own Talk page with my clearly stated intent that as soon as you two read it, I would immediately remove it. It was only meant to contribute toward the context of the discussion. I did not want it preserved. That's my prerogative. I have no obligation to justify my intent with C&B. Unfortunately, Cecilandbeany chose to do quite the opposite, moving it to that editor's own page upon reading what I'd posted, and contrary to my stated intent. That constitutes a violation of Wikipedia policy as below. I've consulted with prominent WP community leaders who confirm that my opinion is absolutely correct. In my opinion, there is no explanation for C&B for doing so, save for purposes of "Outing." Secondly, this or any article do not exist for purposes of serving a particular personal or collective viewpoint. There should not be a "pro" or "anti-" law enforcement perspective here, and the task of editors is to reflect what is available and covered in reliable sources, not to propound a political position in an article. There is no basis for posting personal information about myself that I took pains to clearly restrict solely to both of you. I would like C&B to delete any information which I posted that was clearly intended to be kept private and was only done so for the purposes of advancing thoughts between the three of us. I have no interest in arguing points with any editor whom I feel has been less than collegial and disrespectful of my clear intent. I have no obligation to stop whatever it is I am doing to answer questions that have been put, in particular in an adversarial context and within a format that was not conducive to easy response. I won't be responding to any past or future questions or comments put by C&B because I feel that it would not be productive toward the construction of this or any other article. I've posted the Wikipedia policy below. Thank you. Activist (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Posting of personal information[edit] Shortcuts: WP:OUTING WP:PRIVACY WP:DOX "WP:OUTING" redirects here. For the alternate meaning of outing, as in excursion, see Wikipedia:Meetup. "WP:PRIVACY" redirects here. For the Wikimedia privacy policy, see Wikimedia:Privacy policy. See also: Doxing Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. 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. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside their activities on Wikipedia. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors.[under discussion] Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently. Any administrator may redact it pending oversight, even when the administrator is involved. If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia, although references to still-existing, self-disclosed information is not considered outing. If the previously posted information has been removed by oversight, then repeating it on Wikipedia is considered outing. Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable on a case-by-case basis.[disputed – discuss] The fact that an editor either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for posting the results of "opposition research". Dredging up their off-site opinions to be used to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be. However, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums. If redacted or oversighted personally identifying material is important to the COI discussion, then it should be emailed privately to an administrator or arbitrator – but not repeated on Wikipedia: it will be sufficient to say that the editor in question has a COI and the information has been emailed to the appropriate administrative authority. Issues involving private personal information (of anyone) could also be referred by email to a member of the functionaries team. If you see an editor post personal information about another person, do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information. Doing so would give the person posting the information and anyone else who saw the page feedback on the accuracy of the material. Do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts for the same reason. When reporting an attempted outing take care not to comment on the accuracy of the information. Outing should usually be described as "an attempted outing" or similar, to make it clear that the information may or may not be true, and it should be made clear to the users blocked for outing that the block log and notice does not confirm the information. Unless unintentional and non-malicious (for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions), attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block. Threats to out an editor will be treated as a personal attack and dealt with accordingly. Nothing in this policy prohibits the emailing of personal information about editors to individual administrators, functionaries, or arbitrators, or to the Wikimedia Foundation, when doing so is necessary to report violations of confidentiality-sensitive policies (such as conflict-of-interest or paid editing, harassment, or violations of the child-protection policy). Only the minimum information necessary should be conveyed and the minimum number of people contacted. Editors are warned, however, that the community has rejected the idea that editors should "investigate" each other. Posting such information on Wikipedia violates this policy.

• • • Activist (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Activist:@Elinruby:*First things first. The name is Beanyandcecil, not Cecilandbeany. I'll change the title for you. But I'll not bother to change any errors in your message. You seem to be HIGHLY emotional about this exchange, not a good place to edit from or to carry on a polite and professional discussion.

Activist wrote, "Before I left I posted some personal information about myself and my history on my own Talk page with my clearly stated intent that as soon as you two read it, I would immediately remove it. It was only meant to contribute toward the context of the discussion. I did not want it preserved. That's my prerogative. I have no obligation to justify my intent with C&B. Unfortunately, Cecilandbeany chose to do quite the opposite, moving it to that editor's own page upon reading what I'd posted, and contrary to my stated intent. That constitutes a violation of Wikipedia policy as below. I've consulted with prominent WP community leaders who confirm that my opinion is absolutely correct."

I suggest that you read what you posted below about the Wiki Policy. I'll disagree that what I've done is a violation and here's my argument on this. Here are some pertinent quotations from the policy that you posted, along with my comments. I've emboldened some text to draw your attention to it. I've also placed some information that came from these pages, https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy

I'd be willing to bet that in your conversation with the "community leaders" you described what you posted on my Talk page as "personal information." It's not, as I'll show you.

• "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information" The only information that I have is what you posted. Therefore it does not meet the definition of "harassment."

• "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" I have NONE of that information, so obviously I could not post it.

• "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." Again, I have none of that information.

• "Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside their activities on Wikipedia." Nothing in the information that YOU POSTED, places you "at risk of harm."

• "Any administrator may redact it pending oversight, even when the administrator is involved. If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia, although references to still-existing, self-disclosed information is not considered outing." You did not post what Wikipedia consider to be "personal information," therefore this does not rise to a violation of their policy.

• "Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently." Since there is no way to "out" you from the material that you posted, it needn't be removed.

Here's what Wikipedia defines as "personal information."

• "(a) your real name, address, phone number, email address, password, identification number on government-issued ID, IP address, user-agent information, credit card number"
• "(b) when associated with one of the items in subsection (a), any sensitive data such as date of birth, gender, sexual orientation, racial or ethnic origins, marital or familial status, medical conditions or disabilities, political affiliation, and religion; and"
• "(c) any of the items in subsections (a) or (b) when associated with your user account."

Here's something else from the Privacy page. "When you make a contribution to any Wikimedia Site, including on user or discussion pages, you are creating a permanent, public record of every piece of content added, removed, or altered by you. The page history will show when your contribution or deletion was made, as well as your username (if you are signed in) or your IP address (if you are not signed in)." YOU created the "permanent, public record," not me.

And so I don't think that this fits the Wiki definition of "personal information" about you, or that it would be improper of me to keep on my personal page.

Activist wrote, "In my opinion, there is no explanation for C&B for doing so, save for purposes of 'Outing.' "

I have no intention of outing you and even if I did, I have no personal information with which to do so. You are not identifiable from the information that you posted. No name, address, email address, phone number password, ID number, etc. NOTHING of a personal nature.

Activist wrote, " Secondly, this or any article do not exist for purposes of serving a particular personal or collective viewpoint. There should not be a "pro" or "anti-" law enforcement perspective here, and the task of editors is to reflect what is available and covered in reliable sources, not to propound a political position in an article."

I agree. I have not placed any such material here. I've posted ONLY what is "available and covered in reliable sources." Since you seem to disagree, please point out where it's happened.

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.

Activist wrote, "I have no interest in arguing points with any editor whom I feel has been less than collegial and disrespectful of my clear intent."

If you refuse to discuss editing, then I guess I'll just have to post my edits without discussing them with you prior to doing so. Your choice, not mine. But let's look at the facts here. YOU were the first one to NOT be "collegial" when you complained that I "savaged" an article. I'm sorry that you're unable to handle someone who has a different opinion than yours, but that's life. Your clear intent was to delete your message from your talk page, and I suppose that you've done this, so 'Mission Accomplished.'

Activist wrote, "I have no obligation to stop whatever it is I am doing to answer questions that have been put, in particular in an adversarial context and within a format that was not conducive to easy response."

Of course you don't have to "answer [my] questions." But if you don't answer my simple questions asked directly of you, it speaks to your veracity and how much you can be trusted. How can anyone trust the opinion of someone who refuses to answer such questions? I agree that this format makes it difficult, but I manage to answer all questions asked of me with a very few exceptions. I don't answer stupid questions. I don't answer rhetorical questions, unless I feel like it. I also don't answer personal questions from unfriendlies that have nothing to do with the topic. Generally I don't answer questions from people that have refused to answer mine. I make a exceptions as the mood strikes. But I do answer every real question that I'm asked. Occasionally I miss a question, but if that is pointed out, unless it fits one of the categories listed, I will go back and answer them.

Activist wrote, "I won't be responding to any past or future questions or comments put by C&B because I feel that it would not be productive toward the construction of this or any other article."

OK, your choice. Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Activist:@Elinruby:It occurs to me that when Activist wrote this, (just above) "I won't be responding to any past or future questions or comments put by C&B because I feel that it would not be productive toward the construction of this or any other article." that he's abrogated the duties and obligation as a Wiki editor. Editors have a responsibility to discuss differences of opinion as to the editing of articles, and with this statement he's said that he won't.

This is done for personal reasons, and is completely inappropriate. Of course Activist is not required to participate in the discussions about editing. It's just Wikipedia's policy for how editors should arrive at a consensus. Beanyandcecil (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that @Activist: seems to feel he is being outed, which is the primary consideration in my mind. You said yourself you were going to post his comments to your page to prove his lack of knowledge, or something of the kind. That does seem like an attempt to intimidate. He is not required to be a subject matter expert; just to attempt to follow wikipedia policy in good faith, which you on the other hand appear to be struggling with. I do also btw feel that some of your remarks to me could be construed as bullying. Please take a deep breath and post about one thing at a time. Elinruby (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Activist:@Elinruby:Activist can feel any way that he likes, that's on him. I'm not responsible for his feelings. But such a feeling, that he is being outed, is completely unreasonable. You saw his message, it contained absolutely no personal information so there's no way that he can be "outed." He's just throwing a hissy fit because he didn't get his way in demanding that I do something. I know that he's not required to be a SME, but he was writing as if he was. That rarely ends well. As to bullying you, I think it's IMPOSSIBLE to bully an adult in this medium. A child, yes. A young adult, yes. But an adult who claims to be mature, nope. Beanyandcecil (talk) 04:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Sheer blood loss

In the section on "Shooting" this appears, "Forensic pathologist Sam Andrews, a prosecution expert witness, testified at the preliminary hearing that Boyd died from gunshot wounds and sheer loss of blood."

I didn't see, in any of the citations for this, anyone using the word "sheer." Did I miss it? If not, I plan to change it to read. "Forensic pathologist Sam Andrews, a prosecution expert witness, testified at the preliminary hearing that Boyd died from gunshot wounds resulting in loss of blood. Beanyandcecil (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Activist:@Elinruby: In another section Elinruby wrote this "on "sheer loss of blood" - if you change that I will revert you and seek help with your behaviour; at a minumum this requires discussion."

At that time I responded, "I put the query in the talk section so that it could be discussed. You've provided a source that uses that description, so I'm fine with leaving it as it is."

Now I've had the opportunity to take a look at the source that Elinruby provided. I didn't hear anyplace that the witness used the phrase "sheer loss of blood." Did I miss it? Can you point out where on the video this statement is made please?

A few paragraphs later Elinruby wrote this, "I don't think you've listened to the entire statement. Please provide a link for what you're talking about so I can verify it's even the trial testimony, not the preliminary hearing."

I didn't look at the trial testimony of the forensic pathologist because you didn't link to it. Instead, you linked to the preliminary hearing testimony. That is what I watched. Can you please link to his trial testimony, putting the link, and the time on the video that this is discussed here, and in the Article as well?

Earlier Elinruby wrote, "Boyd died from blood loss. The blood loss was caused by the gunshot wounds yes, but the reason those killed him was the amount of blood he lost before he even got to the hospital. Watch the video of his testimony all the way through."

I'll be happy to watch the video of his testimony. Can you please link to it and give the point on the video where the part that I've placed into bold (in the paragraph just above) is discussed? Beanyandcecil (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

that long paragraph where you argue with the prosecutor

I understand your point, but think there must be a better way to make it. I will ponder this -- it's a lot of text for a tangential point.Elinruby (talk) 11:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing that this is aimed at me, but I don't know what you're referring to. Can you clarify please? Beanyandcecil (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

this here:

"There is no statutory requirement that mandates how long investigators must wait before interviewing officers who are involved in shootings. Each law enforcement agency sets deadlines for such questioning. Experts suggest that two sleep cycles elapse before such questioning takes place. Investigators may also benefit by taking a rest before questioning the officers. Stress and fatigue that occur after such incidents negatively affect memory. Recall of details is better after the officer is rested. While waiting too long can dilute an officer's recall of an incident, the benefit of allowing and officer to rest and emotionally relax more than pays it off in the ability of those officers to recall details. This is the general conclusion reached after two decades of research on sleep and memory recollection. Controversy about when to conduct these investigations exists due to a failure to comprehend the dynamics of sudden, high-stress, potentially life-threatening episodes. The non−profit organization, Americans for Effective Law Enforcement (AELE) recommends that in no case should an investigation of an OIS question an involved officer unless at least 24 hours has elapsed since the incident. They think it is better if 48 or even 72 hours have elapsed. An officer's memory can improve during that time period. The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) recommends that a 48 to 72 hour rest period elapse before an officer is questions about OIS incidents."

it almost seems like you are trying to provide expert witness testimony for the defense. Did any of this come up in any legal proceedings in reference specifically to the shooting of James Boyd Or even in any published account of it? Elinruby (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

in reference to your very long posts, I just spent half an hour scrolling up and down trying to find this text to get the references to appear with it. If you really feel the need to argue line by line yu don't need to repeat the entire prior post afaik -- inline is fine. To be clear, I think these are probably fine references for some more general article, but you don't seem to be talking about the James Boyd shooting here. Elinruby (talk) 02:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

References

@Activist:@Elinruby:Elinruby wrote, "this here: "There is no statutory requirement that mandates how long investigators must wait before interviewing officers who are involved in shootings. Each law enforcement agency sets deadlines for such questioning ... "

Now I know what you're referring to. You've done this a couple of times now. Could you please give some reference to the material that you're talking about in these messages? Your reference to "arguing with a prosecutor" didn't give me a clue what you were talking about. Perhaps a quotation from the material that preceded the material in question would help.

Elinruby wrote, "it almost seems like you are trying to provide expert witness testimony for the defense. Did any of this come up in any legal proceedings in reference specifically to the shooting of James Boyd Or even in any published account of it?"

It seems that you have missed the reference that this material was in response to. It came after this statement, "According to the prosecutor at the preliminary hearing, Sandy and Perez weren't separated following the incident and weren't interviewed until two days later."

This statement, made to the judge during the prelim was intended to lead the judge to believe that there was something untoward in the delay in obtaining the officer's statements and/or that they should have been separated. It's included in this article to lead the readers to the same belief, when, in fact, many experts (and I cited them) disagree. I was just trying to balance the statement. I'll await you response, for 24 hours, but I plan to revert your edit, removing this material. Beanyandcecil (talk) 07:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

yes but please show me where this has anything to do with the proceedings in the James Boyd murder trial? Did anyone anywhere say this, anyone that is not you? if so please provide a reference Elinruby (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a statement made by the prosecutor during the prelim, so obviously it was intended to persuade the judge to hold the officers to answer at trial. I was merely providing the NPOV that Wiki requires. I'm going to put the material back in. You have not provided any reason that it should not be there and it does provide balance. Beanyandcecil (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

You mean it's not obvious? If you want to put this matierial in wikipedia then this is not the article for it. This article is about the shooting of James Boyd, not how wrong you think the prosecutor's statement is. If you think this is important you can put it someplace more appropriate and link to it. Imagine scope creep if we all went through the sources line by line to prove how wrong they are. Do any of the defence lawyers talk about this? Elinruby (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Request for source

@Activist:@Elinruby:In the third paragraph of the lede it says this, "Boyd eventually said he would depart, picked up some of his possessions, and took a step downhill. Weimerskirch said "Bang him." Sandy threw a flash-bang device at him, and Rick Ingram ..."

I have not heard this on the video. The statement is not repeated in the "shooting" section, or anyplace else, and there is no source for it. I do hear someone say "Do it." an instant before the flash−bang is thrown. If no one can provide a source, I plan to modify it. Beanyandcecil (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

It's in Sandy's testimony at trial and also I think Weimerskirch's at the prelim. Actually tho on cross Sandy admitted Weimerskirch actually said "Bang this fucker right now" Or possibly motherfucker; I'd have to check. Elinruby (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Activist:@Elinruby:OK. Sounds like OR to me, and you haven't even provided a citation for it. Beanyandcecil (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Activist:@Elinruby:It's been over 24 hours since you said that you'd look into this. Have you had a chance to do so? Beanyandcecil (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

24 hours is not an extraordinary amount of time; I've allowed months. In this article. We're not getting paid for this. And I have already given you the source. Sandy said he said "Bang him". In the cross the prosecutor played the video and he had admitted the actual sentence was "bang this fucker right now". Or possibly motherfucker; that's what I would have to check, but I don't think correcting this the article's most urgent problem. If you want to fix the quote go get 'em. It might be Sandy's testimony part 6. But that is a guess. Definitely one of the later chunks of testimony, since it was on cross. I actually think we should wait a day or two for the secondary sources to catch up, personally. Elinruby (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Activist:@Elinruby:Elinruby wrote, "24 hours is not an extraordinary amount of time; I've allowed months."

I see no reason to "allow months." You're right it's not "an extraordinary amount of time." but there is no reason that an un-sourced statement, particularly one that is this inflammatory, should be allowed to stand. But if it's as you claim, that's it's on the video of someone's testimony and has not been cited by a reliable source, according to you, it's OR, and therefore not permissible to use.

That is not what I said. Elinruby (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Forty-eight hours should be sufficient.

Says who? I have seen this before as a minimum when people are edit-warring on very controversial articles like Donald Trump's biography. Hopefully we can adult better than *that*. Again, people who edit Wikipedia are volunteers and not necessarily available on your schedule. Elinruby (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Says me. Being a Wiki editor carries with it an obligation to follow through. If someone says that they're going to do something, it should be done in a timely manner and "months" is not timely. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

No, actually. Volunteer means volunteer on wikipedia. There is no obligation to do anything at all except follow guidelines as best one can. Elinruby (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to wait "months" for you, or anyone else to respond to a request for information. If something wasn't sourced when it was put up, then it should not stand. Wiki policy requires citations for such material at the time that it's posted. If an editor can't be bothered to provide required information, and then does not reply to requests for it, in what I consider to be a timely manner, I'll change it. Often that is the only thing that 'inspires' editors to do what they should have done in the first place. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

there we go, I finally found the inline inline inline argument. Let's close all these sections and start fresh. I posted a summary of where we are at with original research with this article, on the original research noticeboard. Please let me know (not here) whether you agree with it. I will go aling with any consensus that makes any sense. But getting back to this think you just pinged me on .... You don't *have* to wait months because you are free to wander off and do whatever, edit some articles about sea shells or Mozambique or police dogs or whatever you want to do. Because you are a volunteer see? except that you do still have to follow the policies of wikipedia, and in cases like this where people are disagreeing but at least answering each other and agreeing on *some* things, it seems to me we should probably do those things. To me, at least. We can always ask for other editors on the other stuff if the other stuff doesn't work itself out. But original research, I really think there is some question here as to what the policy *should be* Elinruby (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Activist:@Elinruby:Elinruby wrote, "there we go, I finally found the inline inline inline argument."

Once again, I have no idea what you're referring to. Can you elaborate please?

Elinruby wrote, "Let's close all these sections and start fresh."

I'm not sure what it means to "close all these sections." Again, can you elaborate please?

Elinruby wrote, "I posted a summary of where we are at with original research with this article, on the original research noticeboard. Please let me know (not here) whether you agree with it. I will go aling with any consensus that makes any sense."

I replied to it shortly after you posted your initial post. Nothing has changed. The description of the knife is on the video that was shot by the court TV system. The same one that you've cited at least once and perhaps more than that. It was published by a reputable source, the local TV station that both of us have used as a source several times. I put the time on the video where the still photo of the knife appears in my citation, although you've not done so in your citations of the statements of the K−9 handler, (in spite of several requests for you to do so).

The photo of the knife is NOT Original Research as you claim for the reasons that have been posted repeatedly. Instead of understanding that I was quoting Wikipedia, you took my comments personally, again thinking that you were personally attacked, which was not the case.

Elinruby wrote, "But getting back to this think you just pinged me on .... You don't *have* to wait months because you are free to wander off and do whatever, edit some articles about sea shells or Mozambique or police dogs or whatever you want to do. Because you are a volunteer see? except that you do still have to follow the policies of wikipedia, and in cases like this where people are disagreeing but at least answering each other and agreeing on *some* things, it seems to me we should probably do those things. To me, at least."

If that's what you want to do, fell free. I want to get THIS article right. I see no reason to let stand misinformation for months while you work on "sea shells."

Elinruby wrote, "We can always ask for other editors on the other stuff if the other stuff doesn't work itself out."

"[A]sk[ing] other editors" does not mean that 'the majority rules.' We still have to abide by Wikipedia Policy. It's pretty clear that my use of the video is not OR, no matter what you or any other editor says.

Elinruby wrote, "But original research, I really think there is some question here as to what the policy *should be*"

The definition of OR is clearly stated here and I've cited it several times. The problem is that instead of understanding that's what I was doing, you took personal offense in my use of the phrase that Wiki uses, "educated person." My citations follow Wiki policy. The fact that you don't like it and don't agree, doesn't change the policy on the use of OR. It CAN be used but "carefully." That's what I've done. Beanyandcecil (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Why is it OK when you do it, but when I do it, there's all kinds of hassle?

Please define "it"Elinruby (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Elinruby wrote, "In this article. We're not getting paid for this. And I have already given you the source."

Sorry but telling me where you think it was said does not constitute the Wiki requirement to provide a source. Provide a link and I'll add it to the Article to save you the time and trouble.

Sigh, please see separate section below. I've lost track of the times I have

Elinruby wrote, "Sandy said he said 'Bang him'. In the cross the prosecutor played the video and he had admitted the actual sentence was 'bang this fucker right now'. Or possibly motherfucker; that's what I would have to check, but I don't think correcting this the article's most urgent problem."

There's no reason that more than one correction can't be done at one time. If my reference to the "partially serrated blade" is OR, and is prohibited, certainly, so is this.

you're equating a photograph to differences in transcription. One of these things is not like the others

find a transcript that says it then, or a secondary source. But I don't think you can use an image.Elinruby (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Activist:@Elinruby:If you can find some Wiki policy that prohibits the use of a photo that's in a video, then please show it to us. Ditto for the requirement to find a transcript. Absent that, it's perfectly acceptable. And your statement that you "don't think [I] can use an image" is interesting, but unless you can support it with a Wiki policy, it's meaningless. The photo is part of a news story and part of the description is given in the body of the text. Just because the photo is shown in a video, does not negate its use. The photo does not require any interpretation. Any educated person can clearly see that the knife is serrated without doing any specialized research. 07:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

yeah? Associated Press and at least one television station are not educated according to you, since they confused a rifle and a shotgun. And your original description was longer than just "serrated" also. Elinruby (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

YES, that's correct. Much of the media is VERY ignorant of the topics of firearms, shooting, tactics, and equipment used by LE and the military. The use of double spaces makes your teeth hurt, but by comparison, it's nothing. When the media, with their ability to spread information, OR MISINFORMATION, around the world in a moment, make these kinds of errors, or demonstrate ignorance, it's quite something else again. I expect confusion between "shotgun " and "rifle" from the average person. I don't expect it from the media, given their power. But they disappoint me continually. It's especially egregious when their ignorance leads them down the wrong road and they end up giving out bad information that leads their listeners astray. Such misinformation accompanied by speculation, feeds into the fear, ignorance and at times, hysteria, of the public.

Journalism used to be an honorable profession who primary guidleine was 'The three most important characteristics of journalism are accuracy, accuracy and accuracy.' Sadly it's now become 'if it bleeds it leads.' Combine this drive to 'out−sensationalize' the other news outlets and to sell advertising and you get a horrorshow.

Theodore H. White said, "The power of the press in America is a primordial one. It sets the agenda of public discussion; and this sweeping political power is unrestrained by any law. It determines what people will talk about and think about – an authority that in other nations is reserved for tyrants, priests, parties and mandarins." Beanyandcecil (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Elinruby wrote, "If you want to fix the quote go get 'em. It might be Sandy's testimony part 6. But that is a guess."

Sorry I'm not going to go do your research.

I don't understand why this is even an issue. The fact that he was given an order might even be good from a defense POV. Elinruby (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Activist:@Elinruby:It's an issue because it's inaccurate. I don't hear anyone say, "Bang him." I do hear someone say, "Do it." That being said, perhaps it was said below a level that the helmet cam could pick up. I'll be happy to look at the video you've suggested. But if, as you say I can't use the video to describe the knife as being "partially serrated" you certainly can't use the video to show that someone made a statement. You don't get to have it both ways. Beanyandcecil (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Elinruby wrote, "Definitely one of the later chunks of testimony, since it was on cross. I actually think we should wait a day or two for the secondary sources to catch up, personally."

I doubt that any secondary source will quote it. That looks like the sort of inflammatory rhetoric the press uses to drive up readership and get people emotionally involved. In any case, there's no need to wait for something that may never happen. If you can't find the source in another 24 hours I plan to delete the statement. If you find it later, you can reinstate it.

On this statement, there is no question, that it's a violation of Wiki policy to include it in this Article.

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. The guideline in this page discusses the reliability of various types of sources. The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception ..."

yes. Didn't we agree that court-published videotaped testimony was reliable? Please see citation in separate section below. Or do you dispute that this is an accurate recording? I don't understand why you are telling me this. -08:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if we agreed to this or not, but I'll agree now. But it does not have to be "court−published." As long as it's a reputable news source that's showing it, it's reasonable to assume that they've not tampered with it. Therefore it's "reliable." Hence the description of the knife that's observable without interpretation, is permitted under Wiki policy. Beanyandcecil (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

According to your citation, which I have not checked, but which sounds right to me. And court-published would be reputably punished, right? I am just spelling out the rationale, as there will probably eventually be people in here yelling about YouTube not being an RS</ref>

I'd agree that court published video is "reputably published" (although your typo is kinda cute. lol) I think if that medium is published in a reputable source it would still be "reputably published." Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh and just one more thing. I know that you asked me to use a single space at the end of my sentences and I've been doing a search on my posts after I write them to delete them, because using two spaces is the convention that I've always preferred, and have always used. But it's a nuisance, and I noticed that on the post that I'm responding to now, you ended a sentence with a double space. I'm sorry but I'm not going to be able to accommodate your request any longer. I said I'd try and I have, but given how difficult the formatting is for these messages, it's more than I want to bother with. Sorry. Beanyandcecil (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

so much for that little outburst of collegiality. Elinruby (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Activist:@Elinruby: Rudeness and sarcasm aside, you asked me to use a single space between sentences because you told me that double spaces "make [your] teeth hurt." So I acceded to your request for awhile. It's a PITA because for decades I've used double spaces. It's an accepted practice, but you just don't care for it, so to help you out, I tried it for awhile. But then, in a message here, YOU used double spaces between sentences! If YOU can't be bothered to keep your teeth from hurting, why should I? Beanyandcecil (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

alright, well, you aren't coming across as polite, if that is your impression, but ok, FINE. There's this thing called a manual of style that probably addresses this, but I don't feel like searching through it at the moment. For the record I think that a) we should standardize one way or the other and b) I'm under the impression it should be one, and two spaces require editing. Even if I myself put them there; I don't claim to be immune to typos yanno ;). Put it this way, it would be nice if we were rowing in the same direction, but if it's a matter of habit/convenience for you then do you object to someone else removing the extra space? I'd rather not but I suppose I can live with the toothache if you aren't running around behind me sticking them back in :) I am doing my very best not to bite the newbies, sigh. 17:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Activist:@Elinruby: Given how some have addressed me and dealt with me, civil is about all you're gonna get. As to manual of style, I've posted this elsewhere.

"Spaces following terminal punctuation

The number of spaces following the terminal punctuation of a sentence in the wiki markup makes no difference on Wikipedia; the MediaWiki software condenses any number of spaces to just one when rendering the page (see Sentence spacing). For this reason, editors may use any spacing style they prefer on Wikipedia. Multiple spacing styles may coexist in the same article, and adding or removing a double space is sometimes used as a dummy edit." Beanyandcecil (talk) 04:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

alright. I assume this is for my information, since I said it didn't matter. It would be more useful with a link, since the point has arisen elsewhere. I didn't know mediawiki handled this; I had noticed something similar with headers tho so I am inclined to believe it. As for civil, you aren't hitting that mark either really. I'm taking a break from insults today; I'll talk to you later. Elinruby (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

"... taking a break from insults?" You might take a look at the name calling that you've engaged in, and the disrespect shown by Activist! You folks 'cast the first stones.' You might think about following the advice of George Bernard Shaw, "Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted." Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I've found a source to support the previous description of the knives in addition to the video. I'm going to replace the full description and provide the citation. The video is from the court published video of the trial, and we've agreed that is reliable. It does not require any interpretation for an educated person to see that the knife is a lock-back or that blade is serrated. It just takes observation. It is NOT OR. Beanyandcecil (talk) 01:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

you keep saying "educated person" like you don't realize that this sets me up for another blast about how ignorant and arrogant I am if I say I see no such thing. You do have a source saying 3 1/2 inch knife. You also have the prosecutor saying it in your video, but that's borderline and you don't need it because you already have a source for that. I did however leave it there.

As for abuse, please. I called you a mansplainer. Don't tell me your feelings are hurt? If you are referring to the questions about a conflict of interest -- which you never fully answered, btw -- then well. I take it you are pretty new to wikipedia, which is why I have made an effort to try to talk to you despite your behavior. Believe me, PR flacks editing web pages does happen a LOT. And they always want to instruct other editors in wikipedia policy. And you always wind up not getting anythng done because they have a bunch of obstructive questions and edits and complaints. I am not saying you do have a conflict of interest, but given your posts and your edits I'd have been remiss not to inquire. Particularly in an article about Albuquerque; the current mayor's article was extensively edited by a City of Albuquerque employee, and the previous mayor edited his article himself ;) Elinruby (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

And now I have spent enough time scrolling around in your wall of arguments. Have a nice day ;) Elinruby (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Activist:@Elinruby:Elinruby wrote, "you keep saying "educated person" like you don't realize that this sets me up for another blast about how ignorant and arrogant I am if I say I see no such thing."

I'll suggest that you stop taking everything so personally. My use of the phrase "educated person" comes from the language that Wikipedia uses in discussing whether OR can be used or not.

"A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

Do you think that Wikipedia is "setting [you] up for another blast ...?"

Elinruby wrote, "You do have a source saying 3 1/2 inch knife. You also have the prosecutor saying it in your video, but that's borderline and you don't need it because you already have a source for that. I did however leave it there."

The still photo of the knife that's shown in the video is NOT OR. Read what I've just blockquoted from Wikipedia and you'll see that I'm right. And, as stated in my new citation, it's described in Sandy's statement to the APD investigator.

Elinruby wrote, "As for abuse, please. I called you a mansplainer. Don't tell me your feelings are hurt?"

They're not, but just because you're not important enough for me to bother. But the attempt to diminish me with your derogatory statement is enough to show your rudeness. This is certainly a "what's sauce for the goose ..." situation. Don't like it? Don't start it.

Elinruby wrote, "If you are referring to the questions about a conflict of interest -- which you never fully answered, btw -- then well. I take it you are pretty new to wikipedia, which is why I have made an effort to try to talk to you despite your behavior."

Pretty sure that I answered your questions about any conflict of interest that you think I might have. There isn't any. I've been around Wikipedia for awhile, longer than some, not as long as others. I think that despite your name calling and another editor's refusal to follow the rules of Wikipedia to discuss editing, my "behavior" has been pretty good.

Elinruby wrote, "Believe me, PR flacks editing web pages does happen a LOT. And they always want to instruct other editors in wikipedia policy."

I'm not a "PR flack," just a retired LEO with a bit of experience in doing investigations of this sort. As to instructing "other editors in Wikipedia policy," I suggest that you read what I've just blockquoted. Seeing that the knife blade is serrated and that it's a lockback knife is a simple observation NOT an interpretation, making it OK to use as long as it's used "carefully," which I've done. Your dismissal of it just because it's a primary source is both wrong and inappropriate. So, perhaps you could use some "instruct[ion].

Elinruby wrote, "I am not saying you do have a conflict of interest, but given your posts and your edits I'd have been remiss not to inquire."

Nope, still no COI. Beanyandcecil (talk) 04:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP PINGING ME EVERY TIME YOU POST HERE

If you wish to continue to enumerate the wrongs you think I have done to you, please start your own section for that. I can't find your last three complaints in all the indenting AGAIN. This is ridiculous. Elinruby (talk) 09:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

what I want to know is why you keep saying I called you names

I questioned whether you had a conflict of interest, yes. I almost had to given the context, since there ARE COI issues on the periphery of this article. As far as I can tell they haven't edited here except for, well, maybe you. I am sorry if you find that insulting. I also find it insulting to be called a liar. So. Let's put the COI thing to bed. I said you did not fully answer because I initially asked if you were with APD and you said no. Then I asked, possibly a bit indirectly, whether you were some sort of consultant. A defense expert witness for example; and if you answered that I missed it. In any event, I have now fulfilled my obligation to get you on the record on the subject. If this is the name calling you are talking about then ok, I apologize. I think you are a bit thin-skinned, but fine. Otherwise, what? I called you a mansplainer and you think that's belittling? You said one of my posts was "cute". So. If the shoe fits, dude. I don't know what to tell you.

Oh and by the way, several of the officers said that there were problems with the Scorpions staying turned on. The ROP sergeant, Rick something, he was wearing a backup belt recorder, for example, in addition to the lapelcamWhen I find a reference for that again I will add it. Elinruby (talk) 06:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Let me begin by answering the question that you asked in the title of this section. It's because that's exactly what you've done!

You keep saying that ;) Elinruby (talk)

@Activist:@Elinruby: Repeatedly you called me a "mansplainer." You even put it into the title of a section here when you wrote, giving up on the mansplainer Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Elinruby wrote, "I questioned whether you had a conflict of interest, yes. I almost had to given the context, since there ARE COI issues on the periphery of this article. As far as I can tell they haven't edited here except for, well, maybe you."

I think this will be the third or fourth time, perhaps more, that I've answered this question. I am not, and never have been, employed by anyone or any entity mentioned in this incident. I do not have any COIs here.

and you were not involved in this case? Because you keep saying that you weren't employed by Albuquerque, but that is not the question.

@Activist:@Elinruby: For the last time. 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)

ok then not an employee not a contractor not a witness. Got it. For the record, I am not involved in any way with any event that might be described as an Albuquerque police shooting. I have had contact with the police in New Mexico, several agencies, innocuous stuff like not wearing a seat-belt. I found the officers I met mostly helpful, although I met a few psychos. One guy pulled me over to laugh at my car. Anyway with luck we are done with this now.

Elinruby wrote, "I am sorry if you find that insulting."

As I've said, I don't find anything you say, "insulting." You're not important enough to insult me or hurt my feelings. But there are standards of conduct and you've not abided by them.

Nice. But you're not insulting me, huh. And you, who can't seem to grasp what is original research, lecture me on standards of conduct. Because I keep asking the question you didn't answer. SMH... well. Clearly we need someone to put this in terms you can understand....I think Activist has a point actuallyElinruby (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Activist:@Elinruby: Some people will find insult in a "good morning." You seem to be one of them. YOU are the one who has engaged in name calling, not me. Such conduct is a violation of Wiki policy THEREFORE you have not abided by the standards of conduct here. I have a clear understanding of OR. You want it banned, but Wiki says it's permissible. This has nothing to do you asking the same question over and over, getting an answer, but pretending that I've not answered it. Activist, the editor who claims that I have violated some policy by keeping material that Wikipedia also keeps? ROFL. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Elinruby wrote, "I also find it insulting to be called a liar."

I've NEVER called you "a liar." I've also never said that you've lied about anything here. I HAVE given you 'Pinocchios' three times, when what you said was factually incorrect and you had purposefully written it. Shall I point out these instances to you to remind you of them? If you don't like the Pinocchio awards, I suggest that you learn NOT to exaggerate and that you stop putting out misinformation about me and what has been written.

four pinocchios is pants on fire and you know it ;) Elinruby (talk) 05:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

There's a significant difference between being called a liar as you claimed I did, and me 'awarding' you Pinocchios. Lying carries with it a deliberate attempt to mislead, deceive, or to convey a false impression. I don't think you've ever done that. But you have gotten several facts quite wrong. Sometimes you exaggerated. Perhaps it was intentional, perhaps it was just careless. Perhaps it was based on your feelings. Sometimes you were just mistaken. But I've NEVER called you a liar. I don't think you've ever, in our discussions, intentionally told an untruth. But fact checking you shows some flaws, perhaps unintentional, because at times, it seems that you base what you say, on your feelings, not what is actually going on. Beanyandcecil (talk) 07:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Elinruby wrote, "So. Let's put the COI thing to bed. I said you did not fully answer because I initially asked if you were with APD and you said no. Then I asked, possibly a bit indirectly, whether you were some sort of consultant. A defense expert witness for example; and if you answered that I missed it."

AGAIN, I'm a retired LEO who sometimes gives expert testimony. I don't work only for the defense side.

and AGAIN, you said you had been a witness for APD before but not in this case, am remembering that right?Elinruby (talk) 05:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I've never said anything of the kind. I have no idea where it comes from. Beanyandcecil (talk) 07:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

OK Mr I-have-inside-sources Elinruby (talk)

Elinruby wrote, "In any event, I have now fulfilled my obligation to get you on the record on the subject."

I have no problem with you asking, but asking repeatedly is a nuisance. Nonetheless, I've answered every time that I've seen your query on this.

Elinruby wrote, "If this is the name calling you are talking about then ok, I apologize. I think you are a bit thin-skinned, but fine."

Asking if I have a COI is not name-calling.

ok then Elinruby (talk) 06:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Elinruby wrote, "Otherwise, what? I called you a mansplainer and you think that's belittling?"

It's clear that was you intent. You did it several times, once even putting it as a title for a section on this page! While I'm not insulted or offended, it IS an example of you calling me a name. It's just a case of 'pot−kettle−black.' You accuse me of calling you names – and I have not, all the while you HAVE called me a name, and done so several times. Would you like me to show them to you as I did with the questions that you somehow overlooked?

OK, I did laugh at you once, but you were being ridiculous. Maybe on this same topic, even...05:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Elinruby wrote, "You said one of my posts was "cute". So. If the shoe fits, dude. I don't know what to tell you."

ROFL. Yes, I said that "ONE OF [YOUR] POSTS WAS 'CUTE'" I'm very sorry that you are unable to tell the difference between commenting on something you wrote, as opposed to calling you names, but I'm not surprised, this error of logic is not uncommon. IN FACT it was an attempt to lighten the mood when you had made a typo, writing this, "And court-published would be reputably punished, right?" It was a "cute" slip of the fingers. And so, your contention that I've called you a name, is absurd.

sure. And little ole me should have let you pat me on the head and tell me to get a sense of humor, right, check that. Yes, it is cute. But I advise you not to try this at home, because calling someone cute while telling them there's just stuff they don't understand and don't need to, that pretty much is the definition of manplaining. Maybe it is a name, but so is Fred. Elinruby (talk) 05:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't call [you] cute.

OH COME ON. I never said you called my cute, omg. You are too smart to be this dense. Seriously? 08:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I said that something you wrote, a typo was "cute." How is it that you can't tell the difference between the two?

you continue to impute thoughts and emotions and weird stuff to me. I do not refer to myself as *it* Elinruby (talk) 08:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC) I can tell that now you're saying that I'm "mansplaining" but now you are not calling me names. One is a comment about something that was said, and the other is a comment about what a person is. The first should not offend, the second might. Beanyandcecil (talk) 07:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say you called me a name, I said you called my post cute. When I was trying to explain wikipedia policy. Possibly not all that well but... anyway, you said it was cute. Clearly you aren't listening.Elinruby (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Elinruby wrote, "Oh and by the way, several of the officers said that there were problems with the Scorpions staying turned on. The ROP sergeant, Rick something, he was wearing a backup belt recorder, for example, in addition to the lapelcam. When I find a reference for that again I will add it in. It being Ingram's equipment inventory. Geesh Elinruby (talk) 06:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Um, OK. I'm pretty sure that this has not been a point of contention. I'm pretty sure that this shows that the officer making such a statement is doing the right thing. Equipment supplied by the department is flawed. He realizes this and also that having a recording of what occurs on his contacts is a good thing.

Indeed. In fact, they found the car thief who shot a policeman a bit later than this, maybe a year ago, because the officer turned on his lapel cam. In Sante Fe they do audio on the belt as I recall and the recording was truly illuminating when the State Police responded to a four star hotel in downtown Santa Fe to deal with a rowdy party in the governor's suite and she is all like no occifer nobody threw any bottles and if they did that was like and hour ago...She also tried to tell them that it's all good, there is nooooothing to see here occider. Prior to their arrival she called 911 to explain that she is the governor. Swear to god. My point being sometimes the recordings make you really appreciate the control needed not to just spank certain people. Elinruby (talk) 06:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

And so, apparently at his own expense, he supplies a "backup belt recorder" (The 'at his own expense' thing is an assumption on my part – I used to carry my own voice recorder long before any department was mandating any recording equipment).

not sure, don't know. we should note it if we see it though.Elinruby (talk) 06:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC) So ::feel free to post that statement.

I would prefer it to have a secondary source but some do exist, so this will likely happen soon, then. Or you can do the adding if you see a source. I do plan to add that detail with a reference at some point. Elinruby (talk) 06:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

If it comes from a video of testimony please give the time on the video that it occurs. It's unreasonable to expect someone to view hours of video to verify a statement that you've cited. It's like quoting a sentence from a large book but failing to give the page number for the reference. Beanyandcecil (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I was not planning to do leave a bare url. At some point it might be good to standardize to cite video, but one thing at at time: yes, I will provide a specific reference if I add this to the article. Let me say it a third time. I was not planning to just cite Youtube or whatever, if that is what you seem to be worrying about. Elinruby (talk) 06:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Um ok. I share the assessment fwiw but have no intention of rushing to please you ~

@Activist:@Elinruby: OK, but I "have no intention" of letting unsourced material stand. I do not consider that the reference to over−an−hour−of−video constitutes a sound citation. If you won't tell us where on the video the statement is made, I see no reason to allow the material to remain on the page. When and if you get around to it, you can revert the deletion. It should have been sourced properly when you put it up. Your citation is a bit like saying 'the book is in the library, go look it up.' I have no doubt that if I'd put up a citation like this, that you'd not accept it either. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Dude, switch to decaf or something<--see this is what a putdown looks like. This is the talk page. I told you something I thought you might find interesting. I am pretty sure this detail is not in the article as it stands, and it is, in the frame of this incident, something that reflects flavorably on APD. That whole purchasing angle is a bigger problem of course, and as I understand it, will go to trial, but hasn't yet. I don't think we have enough sources to write that article yet; I do think there should be a separate article on the camera issue. It can wait for the fraud trial, because there will surely be a lot of coverage of that too. Elinruby (talk) 06:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Elinruby wrote, Dude, switch to decaf or something<--see this is what a putdown looks like.

Yes, I recognized it. Why you want to engage in this kind of discourse is a mystery. I guess it comes from hurt feelings, from being repeatedly corrected and having your bias revealed.

Elinruby wrote, This is the talk page

Yes, I recognized that too.

Elinruby wrote, I told you something I thought you might find interesting. I am pretty sure this detail is not in the article as it stands, and it is, in the frame of this incident, something that reflects flavorably on APD.

You did? What was it that you thought I might find interesting? There's been so much back and forth, much of it accompanied by vitriol on your part, that I have no idea what you're talking about. You've done this several times now, made some obtuse reference to something and it's impossible to decipher what you're referring to. Each time I've asked you to clarify, but generally you don't answer such questions. Nonetheless, I'll do it again. What are you talking about? What detail is not in the article as it stands ... that you think reflects favorably on APD?

Elinruby wrote, That whole purchasing angle is a bigger problem of course, and as I understand it, will go to trial, but hasn't yet. I don't think we have enough sources to write that article yet; I do think there should be a separate article on the camera issue. It can wait for the fraud trial, because there will surely be a lot of coverage of that too.

I'm guessing that you're referring to the purchasing of Taser equipment by the former Chief of Police. I don't see a connection to this article, except as a tangential issue. If you want to write an article on that, feel free. I have no such interest. Beanyandcecil (talk) 13:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

lede is way too long and does not summarize article Reply

note to self Elinruby (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

incoherent demands for precise reference for detail not in article

Since the other editor apparently does not know how to start a new section for a different topic, as requested, I am helping out and his moving the comments here. There may be other sections broken out for some of the other irrelevancies, like speculations on my supposedly over-emotional nature, or demands that I prove statements I did not make, accusations of deleting material that.... I don't even know what he is talking about. Oh and I heap abuse on him, but he won't say how. Probably time to ask for a topic ban; a week off full-time effort is more than enough as AGF -- besides he is now saying that he is aware of the policy but it doesn't say that. In any event, should anyone care to try to talk to the man, here is the latest:

@Activist:@Elinruby: OK, but I "have no intention" of letting unsourced material stand. I do not consider that the reference to over−an−hour−of−video constitutes a sound citation. If you won't tell us where on the video the statement is made, I see no reason to allow the material to remain on the page. When and if you get around to it, you can revert the deletion. It should have been sourced properly when you put it up. Your citation is a bit like saying 'the book is in the library, go look it up.' I have no doubt that if I'd put up a citation like this, that you'd not accept it either. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Dude, switch to decaf or something<--see this is what a putdown looks like. This is the talk page. I told you something I thought you might find interesting. I am pretty sure this detail is not in the article as it stands, and it is, in the frame of this incident, something that reflects flavorably on APD. That whole purchasing angle is a bigger problem of course, and as I understand it, will go to trial, but hasn't yet. I don't think we have enough sources to write that article yet; I do think there should be a separate article on the camera issue. It can wait for the fraud trial, because there will surely be a lot of coverage of that too. Elinruby (talk) 06:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Elinruby wrote, Dude, switch to decaf or something<--see this is what a putdown looks like.

Yes, I recognized it. Why you want to engage in this kind of discourse is a mystery. I guess it comes from hurt feelings, from being repeatedly corrected and having your bias revealed.

Elinruby wrote, This is the talk page

Yes, I recognized that too.

Elinruby wrote, I told you something I thought you might find interesting. I am pretty sure this detail is not in the article as it stands, and it is, in the frame of this incident, something that reflects flavorably on APD.

You did? What was it that you thought I might find interesting? There's been so much back and forth, much of it accompanied by vitriol on your part, that I have no idea what you're talking about. You've done this several times now, made some obtuse reference to something and it's impossible to decipher what you're referring to. Each time I've asked you to clarify, but generally you don't answer such questions. Nonetheless, I'll do it again. What are you talking about? What detail is not in the article as it stands ... that you think reflects favorably on APD?

Elinruby wrote, That whole purchasing angle is a bigger problem of course, and as I understand it, will go to trial, but hasn't yet. I don't think we have enough sources to write that article yet; I do think there should be a separate article on the camera issue. It can wait for the fraud trial, because there will surely be a lot of coverage of that too.

I'm guessing that you're referring to the purchasing of Taser equipment by the former Chief of Police. I don't see a connection to this article, except as a tangential issue. If you want to write an article on that, feel free. I have no such interest. Beanyandcecil (talk) 13:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

dude, IT'S ON THE TALK PAGE NOT in the article Elinruby (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

repeated re-insertion of material being discussed at the OR noticeboard

more breakdown into legibility of last night's spew of vitriol:

elinruby wrote, you still say that using an image of an exhibit in a video is not original research and have essentially told me you don't what I or any other editor says about what the policy actually is. You are supposed to use primary sources carefully to avoid the sort of stupid arguments we've been having over whether that sound is "inaudible" or "shotgun" or whatever.

YOU don't care what I say about the policy – why should I care what you think about it? You obviously don't have the final word on it, I interpret it differently. I maintain, and I've successfully shown that you're wrong on this point. The photo in the video comes from court TV cameras and is on the website of a reputable new source, one that has been cited repeatedly. You seem to think that it's necessary that someone actually say that the knife is "serrated" in print before it can be describe in the article. I disagree. It's clear from the photograph and is not subject to interpretation. Let's not forget that you've repeatedly used the same source, court TV and TV news stations yourself! AND conveniently you overlook the fact that I've used another reputable source to support the statement.

In any case, the point is moot. I've used another source to show that the knife was serrated. That hasn't slowed you down from bringing this up over and over and over and over. Please stop wasting our time. I don't see a need, at this point, to respond to this again.

• It's the same source. It is fine for "3 1/2 inches" but not "lockback" or "serrated". You keep saying it's in there and um, it's NOT IN REFERENCE PROVIDED. Also, you keep saying that policy supports you on this. Please find a link for where you see something that says it is ok to use a photograph briefly seen in a video on someone's YouTube account as a reference. Elinruby (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC) And to unilaterally act on something whether discussion has been attempted at a noticeboard. Elinruby (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

RS Comment

"elinruby wrote, Anyway, I'll try again on this one: I did not review your references for this; let's start with that caveat. But they look like law enforcement journals offhand though, impressive probably fine. for the point you are trying to make. Unless I find otherwise when I read them, I'll take that as a working hypothesis. Let's say they are RS, ie meet the definition of reliable source in Wikipedia policy.

If you think you can prove that they're not reliable sources, have at it. Perhaps instead of wasting time and space here, you could have review[ed my] references for this BEFORE making this statement?"

other fish to fry. Please note, I said that provisionally, they might be RS. You do seem to have reading issues. Elinruby (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Using material provided by the prosecution

Any information or material presented by the State (police, prosecution, etc.) should be used only selectively here, and only with attribution, cited using high quality, secondary sources. The state is an adversarial party in this case, and no declarations or information they provide can be understood outside that context. -Darouet (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

understood, and agreed. But if the defense has a witness that says the use of force was justified and the prosecution has one who says it was not, you can't just quote the prosecution witness and accuse another editor of "BS" for thinking the prosecution expert witness on use of force should be at least noted and more likely given the same weight as the defense expert on use of force. Right? Beanyandcecil keeps claiming I want to railroad the defendants when in fact I have added substantive material to the article that reflects well on them. Sandy's father. Perez' Purple Heart. The exculpatory material (possibly) concerning cameras. The fact that Perez was following his supervisor's directive. Just off the top of my head.

• I* think that former chief of police Ray Schultz and Taser Corporation have some splaining to do. But that is not for this article here, except to the extent that it might support Sandy's claim that his camera malfunctioned. However, why is the defense saying these two did what they were trained to do when the SOP manual says this is not the way to go and gee, why is it that we have *that* discrepancy? I really gotta go, More later. PS the police and the prosecution are generally on the same side, but not in these proceedings; that is not what happened here. Elinruby (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

howEVER... your general point is well-taken and when I come back I'll review the article, which has been heavily edited during the trial, for BLP concerns. But much (tho not all) of the writing is mine from the time of the incident and I am very careful about details. However we do have at least one erroneous statement backed by RS; I should make sure I got all of that and and any other errors fixed fixed per what happened in the trial Elinruby (talk)

The situation is almost certainly complicated by the fact that the state typically proceeds very differently when prosecuting police officers. -Darouet (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

let's review

• you still say that using an image of an exhibit in a video is not original research and have essentially told me you don't what I or any other editor says about what the policy actually is. You are supposed to use primary sources carefully to avoid the sort of stupid arguments we've been having over whether that sound is "inaudible" or "shotgun" or whatever.
• you still say that because you see the prosecutor's remark at the preliminary hearing that Sandy and Perez were not seperated after the shooting as some sort of insinuation of collusion, you therefore can add about 250 words on why the current thinking is that investigators suggest not to interrogate right away. (Is this a finding that is true for everyone, btw? Or just policemen?) Anyway, I'll try again on this one: I did not review your references for this; let's start with that caveat. But they look like law enforcement journals offhand though, impressive probably fine. for the point you are trying to make. Unless I find otherwise when I read them, I'll take that as a working hypothesis. Let's say they are RS, ie meet the definition of reliable source in Wikipedia policy.
• This article is about the shooting of James Boyd though.
• It may be undue weight in *this* article though If you will take a suggestion from me: put a title on that paragraph, give it a reference or two, then wikilink. There were apparently enough problems for ROP sargeant Rick Ingram to have worn a backup belt recorder on his own initiative.
• exactly how much money is the City of Albuquerque paying out to settle court cases? There's not just the police shootings. There's at least one whistleblower lawsuit and people who were killed with cars; there is the accident Keith Sandy caused in Rio Rancho, that use of force incident by APD at the Laguna casino, sexual harassment, police officers suing for their jobs back....some sort of shooting in Tucumcari (about 200 miles fr ABQ?)
• there are APD's bribery charges against the District Attorney, which should also be a different article, in which her allegation that this was intimidation is also covered (unless she has now retracted that?) Elinruby (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

elinruby wrote, you still say that using an image of an exhibit in a video is not original research and have essentially told me you don't what I or any other editor says about what the policy actually is. You are supposed to use primary sources carefully to avoid the sort of stupid arguments we've been having over whether that sound is "inaudible" or "shotgun" or whatever.

YOU don't care what I say about the policy – why should I care what you think about it? You obviously don't have the final word on it, I interpret it differently. I maintain, and I've successfully shown that you're wrong on this point. The photo in the video comes from court TV cameras and is on the website of a reputable new source, one that has been cited repeatedly. You seem to think that it's necessary that someone actually say that the knife is "serrated" in print before it can be describe in the article. I disagree. It's clear from the photograph and is not subject to interpretation. Let's not forget that you've repeatedly used the same source, court TV and TV news stations yourself! AND conveniently you overlook the fact that I've used another reputable source to support the statement.

In any case, the point is moot. I've used another source to show that the knife was serrated. That hasn't slowed you down from bringing this up over and over and over and over. Please stop wasting our time. I don't see a need, at this point, to respond to this again.

elinruby wrote, you still say that because you see the prosecutor's remark at the preliminary hearing that Sandy and Perez were not seperated after the shooting as some sort of insinuation of collusion,

Please give us some other reason that the prosecutor's remark is in the article, than an insinuation of collusion.

elinruby wrote, you therefore can add about 250 words on why the current thinking is that investigators suggest not to interrogate right away.

Yes, I can. And I did. it's called NPOV and is a requirement of Wikipedia. My word count for this addition to the article is 151 words, not 250 as you claim. You were off by a HUGE factor. Did you estimate? Did you miscount? Did you purposefully inflate the numbers to make yourself look good?

elinruby wrote, (Is this a finding that is true for everyone, btw? Or just policemen?)

Really, does it make any difference? Since we're talking about humans, and the human brain works about the same for everyone, civilians and LE alike, it is the case. The problem is that civilian witness often 'disappear' so it's important to get their statement before that happens. It's just about unheard of for LEOs, in these situations, to not be available to be re−interviewed. Proper interview technique involves contacting important witnesses later, to see if they've had any revelations.

elinruby wrote, Anyway, I'll try again on this one: I did not review your references for this; let's start with that caveat. But they look like law enforcement journals offhand though, impressive probably fine. for the point you are trying to make. Unless I find otherwise when I read them, I'll take that as a working hypothesis. Let's say they are RS, ie meet the definition of reliable source in Wikipedia policy.

If you think you can prove that they're not reliable sources, have at it. Perhaps instead of wasting time and space here, you could have review[ed my] references for this BEFORE making this statement?

elinruby wrote, This article is about the shooting of James Boyd though. It already contains a stunning amount of background information in it because there *is* no article about the Attorney-General's investigation of the city's contract with Taser for an equipment upgrade and/or the police chief's subsequent contract with Taser

That's because this Taser information has little, if anything, to do with the shooting incident. If you'd like to open up a new Article dealing with it, that would be the appropriate place for it. As someone said though, This article is about the shooting of James Boyd.

elinruby wrote, It may be undue weight in *this* article though If you will take a suggestion from me: put a title on that paragraph, give it a reference or two, then wikilink. the rules aren't like in court; you don't get to ask about this to your heart's content once somebody brings it up. Do we have a source for her saying it, even?

"Do we have a source for her saying it?" You're joking right? Her statement is almost an exact quotation from the news article. How do you miss these details? The information is right there in front of you!

elinruby wrote, exactly how much money is the City of Albuquerque paying out to settle court cases?

Don't know. Don't care. I have no idea what this has to do with the shooting of James Boyd, the topic of this Article. Sounds like yet ANOTHER article for you to write about the problems in the city of Albuquerque. Are you a resident? Are you on a political committee of some sort? Are you a community organizer or activist? Do you have any conflicts of interest? Beanyandcecil (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Boyd turning to surrender

You have mentioned several times that you are here to protect the article from fallacies like this. It's hard to tell since you are never specific, but I think you are talking about the use of force witness. Elinruby (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC) In which case, quoting him is not, as you call it, BS. Elinruby (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Since you probably don't closely follow trials like this (I frequently do) you may not be aware that they often become a case of which expert the jury finds more likable, believable, reliable and experienced. The first three are usually tied to the last. Remember that this jury voted 9-3 for acquittal.

The prosecution expert, Jeff Noble, sounds impressive on paper, he's certainly got a lot of articles published in various LE journals, but that does not make one an expert. That comes from education, training and primarily experience. Noble's experience in UOF comes from having worked in what has been repeatedly voted as the safest city in the US, Irvine, CA. He was a SWAT supervisor, I believe. I can guarantee that he didn't see much violence or uses of force in his career. I know many officers on that department and they say that while any city can "jump off" at any time, for the most part, working there is like retirement for a police officer.

OTOH the defense expert, Ronald McCarthy was a SWAT Sgt in Los Angeles, one of the busiest cities in the US, and one of the busiest SWAT teams. "McCarthy is a former LAPD SWAT Sgt., with a long history of training police for dangerous situations. He testified about SWAT techniques, and said Boyd never surrendered."

LAPD SWAT is world famous. LE agencies and military units from around world send members and trainers to them to learn their methods and techniques. That is not the case with Irvine PD. No one, not even neighboring cities, sends anyone to Irvine to learn about SWAT or UOF.

Take a look at their bios. McMarthy list dozens of assignments and accomplishments. Noble lists a very few assignments and lots of articles he's published. Publishing articles does not give one expertise.

Given that when compared to McCarthy, Noble's expertise is laughable, quoting him, while permitted by the arcane rules of WP, IS BS. Beanyandcecil (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Knife or Knives

For some reason the lede says, "When an officer tried to pat him down, he produced a pocket knife, threatening the officers with it." The source cited says this, "Boyd was sleeping or lying under something when officers approached. He came out from beneath the cover and “as the officers began to talk to him, he threatened the officers with knives."

In the next paragraph it says, "Officer Mikal Monette testified that Boyd never dropped his knife but did put it away and agree to keep his hands out of his pockets." But the source says this, "Monette spent about an hour and 10 minutes talking with Boyd, at times getting him to put his knives away and keep his hands out of his pockets. But Boyd never did drop the knives and surrender."

I'm going to change the article so that it reflects accurately what the sources say. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that and thought I fixed it. I agree with this one. Elinruby (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Moving material from the "special prosecutor" section

I'm deleting the following material from this section. It has nothing to do with the special prosecutor. I'll move it to the appropriate sections. Beanyandcecil (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

APD officer Mikal Monette had crisis intervention training and had successfully resolved hundreds of situations. He testified at trial that an APD sergeant removed him from the bargaining process, replacing him with Detective Sandy and others shortly before Boyd was mortally wounded. This was even though Monette had made some progress and had succeeded in getting Boyd, at one point, to agree to leave with him. The judge dismissed the charges of involuntary manslaughter on September 28, leaving only the more serious 2nd degree murder charges remaining. Under state law, involuntary manslaughter implies either provocation by the victim or behavior emanating from the "heat of passion." The prosecution and defense testimony concluded on October 5, 2016, with closing arguments and jury instructions scheduled for the next day.

uh... what's the appropriate section according to you? That section at the end where you've been burying things that are WP:DONTLIKEIT in your eyes? But yeah, we discussed the structure before and agreed on another one; I had the whole trial under special prosecutor because she well, she was the prosecutor, but as we discussed before, it would probably be better if we had a section for the *appointment* of the prosecutor, a section for the preliminary hearing, and a section for the trial. But yeah.... this is the sort of change we normally discuss, especially when strong feelings are involved. I will be angry if I find out you buried this crucial point.Elinruby (talk) 14:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

It was moved to the "Officers" section. That's hardly buried. It's where it belongs. It CERTAINLY doesn’t belong in the "Special Prosecutor" section. Do you think that it does belong in the "Special Prosecutor" section? What section at the end where [you claim I've] been burying things ... are you referring to? Are you angry? 09:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I initially had everything the Special Prosecutor did under special prosecutor. At the time it wasn't clear it would make it out of the preliminary hearing. And I do have other things that I do... but to be constructive, I'll remind you that we've already agreed that a better structure would be her appointment, the preliminary hearing, the trial. It's a big edit though and I need to set the time aside. But if you want you can start on that. He would come under the trial, or at least I got that account from his testimony, and have not seen any video of his actual actions. Elinruby (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Information

There is material in the "Shooting" section about the findings of the DOJ report. It belongs in the section of the article that discusses the Report, "Department of Justice Investigation," not in the "Shooting" section, and it's redundant, stating about the same thing as is stated in the proper section.

I'm going to move it and do a rewrite. Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I am suspicious of this given your opinions but I'll refrain from comment until I've had a chance to see what you did. Elinruby (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

trollish questions, answered

"::elinruby wrote, exactly how much money is the City of Albuquerque paying out to settle court cases?

Don't know. Don't care. I have no idea what this has to do with the shooting of James Boyd, the topic of this Article. Sounds like yet ANOTHER article for you to write about the problems in the city of Albuquerque. Are you a resident? Are you on a political committee of some sort? Are you a community organizer or activist? Do you have any conflicts of interest? Beanyandcecil (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)"

I have previously answered the COI questions further up the page, just last night. If you can't find it blame your own linear feet of obstruction.

I'm reminded that MANY times you asked me similar COI questions. It was many more times than I've asked you. Beanyandcecil (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Because you keep ducking the question. Based on your answers (I am not a city of Albuquerque employee) you could be one of the many many police officers who have retired since this incident, but were involved in it. A *former* employee. You could be related to the defendants. You could be a defense expert witness. You could be reputation.com, or something like it. However, the point of COI is to identify editors who can't be neutral, and you are definitely not neutral whoever you are so it almost doesn't matter. The whole point is that you can provide input on an article if you have a COI but you are supposed to be open about it. You say you don't. Well and good. Elinruby (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm ducking the question??? Good grief. On just this page I've asked you well over 60 questions and you've answered only a few of them. There are many more on the other two pages that you started to discuss this incident and discussions about it. I don't think you've got much room to talk about ducking ... question[s]. Remember the first time that you claimed that you were not aware of any unanswered questions [and claimed that I was] confused and so I re−asked you about 20 of them? Your history of not answer them has not changed.

ESPECIALLY in light that in the past I've answered questions about COI's by writing these statements.

• I'm not and never have been "an APD employee."
• Pretty sure that I answered your questions about any conflict of interest that you think I might have. There isn't any.
• Nope, still no COI.
• I think this will be the third or fourth time, perhaps more, that I've answered this question. I am not, and never have been, employed by anyone or any entity mentioned in this incident. I do not have any COIs here.

Turns out that it was the fourth time that I've said that I don't have any COI's. I have NEVER ducked the question as to whether I have any COI's.

This will be the FIFTH time that I've said that I have no COI's. No I could NOT be one of the many many police officers who have retired since this incident, but were involved in it. Because, AS I SAID. "I'm not and never have been "an APD employee." No, I could NOT be A *former* employee, for the same reason. No, I could NOT be related to the defendants, because I've written repeatedly that I don't have any COI's. No, I could NOT be a defense expert witness because I've written "I am not, and never have been, employed by anyone or any entity mentioned in this incident. I do not have any COIs here."

Now you bring up reputation.com, or something like it. No, I could NOT be a member, or something like it because as I've said, I don't have any COI's.

I do have a bias, as does EVERYONE, except you, who pretends that she does not. Your bias against the police in Albuquerque is obvious from your comments in the article, here, and on the Noticeboards. But you refuse to admit it. HOWEVER, I'm trained to ignore my bias and be neutral. Given that AS I've written, "I am a retired LEO, with 30 years on the job. I spent time on an OIS (Officer Involved Shooting team) so I'm trained in these matters. I've also worked K−9, SWAT, and as a UOF (Use of Force) instructor, and I’m trained in knife combatives. I've testified as an expert on K−9 and UOF in Superior Court. I have found LEOs to be at fault in shootings, so I've worked both sides of these incidents.

Got it this time? Any chance of putting this to bed? I shouldn't have to answer the question about COI's FIVE TIMES, especially in light of your inability or refusal to answer my simple and direct questions. Beanyandcecil (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

You mean like "Are you mad?" I am going to ignore this too. We made a decent start at cooperation below, gonna go ask the question down there that I came here to ask. Elinruby (talk)

What this has to do with the shooting, though, to answer *that*, is that Sandy's lapel cam did not record and he had one of the older ones that did sometimes malfunction. But yes, when the COI goes to trial that should be a separate article, linked to a mention here Elinruby (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I still don't see any connection between Sandy's lapel cam did not record and he had one of the older ones that did sometimes malfunction. and a renewed request to see if you have any COI's. I also don't see what the amount of money ... the City of Albuquerque paid ... out to settle court cases has to do with the Article. It seems that you have quite a vendetta against APD.

I'm wondering, when I asked for your COI's, you called my requests "trollish." Was it trollish when you REPEATEDLY asked for mine? I answered more quickly than you did. Beanyandcecil (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

NPOV

IF you quote testimony from the prosecution use of force witness (A police training expert and former Los Angeles Police Department SWAT officer, Ronald McCarthy, said that Boyd "did not exhibit those actions that police officers are trained to recognize would indicate surrender" and that there "was no evidence that Boyd was surrendering at the time he was fatally shot ... because he still had knives in his possession and easily could have pulled them on officers who approached him.") you also need to quote to prosecution use of force witness. Elinruby (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

To summarize your statement, IF you quote testimony from the prosecution ... also need to quote to prosecution use of force witness. which makes no sense. I think that you MEANT to say IF you quote testimony from the prosecution ... also need to quote the defense use of force witness. If I'm wrong, please let me know.

There is nothing in NPOV that I've seen that says that anyone must post views that disagree with one another to maintain a NPOV, unless, of course, he is the sole editor of an article and then he must do it to present a NPOV. But since there are several editors involved in this Article, and it was quite long when I arrived, we can play off each other. But since you make this claim and you think this is the case, please post the appropriate material. In this case the prosecution statement is already there. I'm providing a NPOV with a statement from a defense UOF expert that refutes it. If YOU want to provide another counter statement from the prosecution expert, you are free to post it. I'm pretty sure that I'm not required to do so. But if you can show me that I'm wrong, I'll be happy to do so.

heh. Your time in court is showing, and so is the basic problem of your attitude. You are not supposed to have one underlying ideology under your edits. But let's make this easy -- this is a generic you. *The article*, if it quotes the defense on a disputed point, should also quote the other version of events. Does that help? Elinruby (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that the the basic problem of ... attitude is yours. I think that you just don't want a NPOV and you're twisting and turning to remove the balance I'm providing and to keep me from adding more. I think that you should reread this part of your message *The article*, if it quotes the defense on a disputed point, should also quote the other version of events. Emphasis Added. That's all I'm doing with the material in question. Beanyandcecil (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Here are a couple of comments from various article on WP that I've found on this. I've found nothing that says that an editor must post two viewpoints, unless he is the only editor on an Article.

"Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight."

|yes, and you have definitely been promoting one point of view Elinruby (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

That's because the other point of view was presented to a colossal degree before I got here. Now I'm balancing the scale, providing NPOV. While doing this I've preserved and several times, clarified the other POV. Such contributions from other editors have been minor and few. 14:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

"Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties."

Beanyandcecil (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Better yet is to not have to have these discussions because the other editor on the article is impartial, hmm? It's exhausting following you around and I wish I didn't have to do it. Elinruby (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

References

repeated re-insertion of material being discussed at the OR noticeboard (V2)

This material appeared on the Talk page before the page was archived. It now appears in Archive 3. I did not have a chance to respond at that time, but I'm doing so now. Beanyandcecil (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

elinruby wrote, you still say that using an image of an exhibit in a video is not original research and have essentially told me you don't what I or any other editor says about what the policy actually is. You are supposed to use primary sources carefully to avoid the sort of stupid arguments we've been having over whether that sound is "inaudible" or "shotgun" or whatever.

YOU don't care what I say about the policy – why should I care what you think about it? You obviously don't have the final word on it, I interpret it differently. I maintain, and I've successfully shown that you're wrong on this point. The photo in the video comes from court TV cameras and is on the website of a reputable new source, one that has been cited repeatedly. You seem to think that it's necessary that someone actually say that the knife is "serrated" in print before it can be describe in the article. I disagree. It's clear from the photograph and is not subject to interpretation. Let's not forget that you've repeatedly used the same source, court TV and TV news stations yourself! AND conveniently you overlook the fact that I've used another reputable source to support the statement.

In any case, the point is moot. I've used another source to show that the knife was serrated. That hasn't slowed you down from bringing this up over and over and over and over. Please stop wasting our time. I don't see a need, at this point, to respond to this again.

Elinruby wrote, It's the same source. It is fine for "3 1/2 inches" but not "lockback" or "serrated". You keep saying it's in there and um, it's NOT IN REFERENCE PROVIDED.

The reference to "lockback" AND "serrated" were BOTH in the sources I provided. They came from the transcript of Sandy's statement to the Detective during the investigation into the shooting and from the photograph that's in the video that was cited. Neither are OR. Beanyandcecil (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Elinruby wrote, Also, you keep saying that policy supports you on this. Please find a link for where you see something that says it is ok to use a photograph briefly seen in a video on someone's YouTube account as a reference. [Emphasis is mine] Elinruby(talk) 15:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

If something is prohibited, then WP policy, will say so. It's impossible for a policy to list everything that CAN be used. Technology changes quickly, and it would be hopeless for a policy to even try to keep pace. The policy is that if it's verifiable and published in a reliable source, it can be used. Police reports of this nature are routinely admitted during trials as evidence, they are presumed to be reliable. Beanyandcecil (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Here's something I think you should read, "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." [1] Something is OR if it is a "belief or experience of [WP} editors." The fact that the knife is a lockback and is serrated are not my opinion or experience. It's an observable fact that any educated person can see in the photo in the court TV video that's I've linked, without specialized education. And it's in a transcript of an interview in a police report. The video and the transcript have both been "published" and both are reliable and verifiable. Beanyandcecil (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

If YOU can find a WP policy that prohibits the use of a photograph ... seen in a video ... please show it to us. Beanyandcecil (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

YOU are using, with great frequency, testimony from court TV, that is posted on someone's YouTube account as a reference. Yet, as has been pointed out several times, when you do it, it's perfectly acceptable. When I do it, you claim that it's OR. And ACTUALLY what you're doing is far more OR than what I'm doing is. I'm using a photograph that any educated person can look at and see that the blade is serrated. It does not require special education. And it's back up by a published, verifiable, reputable source, the transcript quotation. But your citations of the testimony on the video DO require you to interpret what is being said. THAT material is obviously OR. Beanyandcecil (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

it's pretty unusual for this much of the material to be video. But no, it's not OR to quote someone. It *is* OR to insert material to prove they are wrong. Elinruby (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

If what I'm doing is OR then CERTAINLY what you're doing is, as well. You're not just quot[ing] someone you are INTERPRETING what they are saying on a video. Unless you're quoting from a printed news story or from a transcript, what you are doing is OR. You just won't admit it.

I don't know what you're referring to with your statement, It *is* OR to insert material to prove they are wrong. Can you clarify please? Beanyandcecil (talk) 08:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Elinruby wrote, And to unilaterally act on something whether discussion has been attempted at a noticeboard. Elinruby(talk) 15:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Is there a prohibition on act[ing] on something ... [under] discussion ... at a noticeboard? If so, please let me know. But, by deleting it, haven't YOU act[ed] on something ... [under] discussion ... at a noticeboard?Beanyandcecil (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen any response from WP at either Noticeboard. How long do these things usually take? You only waited a short time before you opened up a second Noticeboard discussion, not the months that you said you've waited for other editors to respond to your queries. Beanyandcecil (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

They recognize a morass when they see one ;P The answers would not be coming from Wikipedis per se; usually it's peer help from people with other questions on the board. But right now it's us and the mess about Donald Trump, and the people working on the Trump thing have their own problems. Elinruby (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

while I am at it - helmet cam

Yes, it was a helmet cam, as per previous discussion, you are right. APD issues lapel cams but I remember we established that Perez had a helmet cam as well, presumably his own. Moving too fast for my own good Elinruby (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

hey @Beanyandcecil: when someone reverts you you're supposed to talk to them before you put the edit back in again. But never mind the etiquette, just stop for a sec. I changed "none" to "one" because it turns out that the video that was first released and that is at bottom of the page was from Perez' helmet cam. Apparently you agree since you added it.

So. The lawyer representing the family said "none" but it seems he was wrong; or, alternately, that this fact had not been made public yet. I think for a long time there was just "the video" and then as the hearings and trials got coverage other videos surfaced. I don't have a source for that handy but I think it is true and if the reference you have on that statement you added supports this --- I haven't checked yet -- then that's fantastic and we can move on. However, despite what the lawyer says in the interview that references "none", if that is indeed Perez' helmet cam video, then what the lawyer says is erroneous and we should not quote it. We know Perez shot Boyd. He was the bullet in the torso. So one of the videos belongs to someone who shot Boyd. "None" and "Perez" cannot both be true.

It's a silly little point but the story is complicated enough without adding in extra confusion. I am open to suggestions on how to fix it. The reference still supports "chaotic scene" and we do need to have a reference for that. He was saying that the APD was disorganized and the fact that they didn't have video from the shooters demonstrated this. His point is moot if it was Perez' video. We could just take out the part that says "one" and deal elsewhere with the question of what was up with Sandy's video. Elinruby (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

A minor point that seems to need correction

I put a citation needed tag on this: "Boyd was camping in the open area behind his house since February 27, 2014,". We don't know how long Boyd had been there do we? I suspect (but have't tried yet to verify) that this is the date of the first 911 call. Noting and moving on for now. Elinruby (talk) 08:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

yeah, now that I have looked at the history, this was a good-faith edit by someone who felt the paragraph was wordy but made a mistake in his edit. Needs to be fixed eventually. Elinruby (talk) 09:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

changed "since" to "on", which is accurate I believe. I will address the improper removal of the source eventually, requires a manual revert. Elinruby (talk) 10:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I haven't looked at your sources yet but they look plausible. I never did like the paragraph you got rid of about thickstun being terrified and like your version better I think... mmm basically that's all fine unless I find some other nit, but I did revert you over one nit last night, so lemme explain that one --"Foothill" was in that sentence, which I wrote, to describe the hill Boyd was on. "The foothills" is a strip of affluent subdivisions between Tramway Boulevard and the mountain. U Mound is not "the foothill area" unless qualified to say "where he was." If possible I would like to keep these details accurate as most people interested in the article are likely to know them. Boyd wasn't at the base of U Mound either. Whoever put that there -- I saw it wasn't you, and possibly it was even me as I wrote this sentence a while back, shortly after the event -- but whoever it was, was wrong. I am not sure if U mound is exactly the little hill he was on or if he was halfway up U Mound or what, but he was a good distance above street level. The guy who called the police videotaped the encounter with Open Space officers from the second floor of his house and seems to have been at about the same altitude.

Also, as a separate matter, I would like the park etiquette link to stay, although I am not certain whether I'd go to war over it. The reason is that harried reporters on deadline kept saying he was an "illegal camper" which is a decent summary of the Open Space officers' issue -- to be in compliance he'd have had to go about 300 yards up the mountain across the city boundary and into what is called the Sandia wilderness. (Although the part of that wilderness that is close to the city is really pretty well groomed and includes rangers and the aforesaid open space officers who mainly deal with incautious hikers who are having altitude sickness or didn't bring enough water.) But back to my point. I looked, hard, for the law he was breaking and all I found was that "park etiquette" link. I didn't go so far as to break out the legal databases but it's possible he wasn't breaking a law at all. That is why this primary source was on the words "illegally camping" -- I don't quite agree with them, but don't have a better idea how to express the situation, this has seeped into all of the coverage, and the article has bigger deficiencies. I am open to suggestions on the matter, of course, but until I hear a better idea I don't think you are improving the article's accuracy by removing that source. And don't wave your finger and say OR at me ;) We aren't suppose to parrot inaccuracies either, and coverage of this shooting has been messy to put it mildly. We had riots in Albuquerque because an AP reporter didn't realize that what Sandy used to shoot Boyd was a rifle not a shotgun. So if he said he was going to shoot him with a shotgun (which I think he did) then he was probably talking about the taser shotgun he had in his hands, see? *NOT* first degree murder as it might seem to be if you don't notice this. It was Beany who pointed this out and I originally said OR too but then I came across several sources that referred to the weapons as rifles and Taser shotguns. Until the trial coverage the only ones out there were primary source, albeit reputably published, but I decided that WP:COMMONSENSE trumps WP:OR. In this case at least. Elinruby (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)