User talk:Jonawebb

Welcome

Hello, Jonawebb, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Newcomers help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kukini 15:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of cases of police brutality in the United States

We've had discussions on what should be on the list. Most of what you're adding doesn't meet the generally agreed upon consensus. The only thing close is the one where an award was made, but the amount (119k) is really fairly low, a fraction of what the ones we retained had awarded. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled by what your standards can be, when someone who is left paralyzed for life after getting shot during a traffic stop doesn't make it, or when someone who is so brutally beaten on videotape that the police chief where the beating took place provides it to the media. Perhaps you could point me to the standards for this page. Jonawebb (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the standard I think it's clear that some simple edits to refer to the sanctions which were applied to the officers make these articles meet the standard -- except for Leon Ford, which is still pending. You could have checked the articles yourself before deleting the edits, BTW. Jonawebb (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd visit the talk page, you'll see the discussions. This isn't a question of what you or I call brutality, it's about an objective standard for inclusion. You can call something "brutal" (which is a subjective), but we need a yardstick to measure it by, since opinion isn't really sufficient. In general, if the officers weren't convicted of a crime that indicates brutality or if there isn't a significant civil award, it doesn't get listed. Yes, dollar amount matters. Frequently suits are settled for small amounts as a cost saving measure and no wrong-doing is assigned. So a 100k award doesn't look like much next to a 1m award. No standard is being applied to your edits that hasn't been applied elsewhere on that list. There's no conspiracy and it's not about what I personally feel about any case listed. It's trying to be consistent. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. I'd be happy to discuss the individual edits on the talk page. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any standard that doesn't judge as brutal paralyzing someone at a traffic stop is just absurd. I know that you somehow decided not to include incidents of police brutality where the officers got away with it -- but that doesn't make the definition correct. The system is designed to excuse police brutality as much as possible; that's why we have it. It is as if you decided not to include incidents of political corruption in a list if a country's government had not ruled it was corruption.
And, by the way, I notice you deleted the entry on Jonny Gammage -- by you own standard I think you're showing incredible bias; he was killed, a coroner's jury recommended homicide charges against the officers; three of the officers were charged with manslaughter. Why delete it?

Please don't ask the same thing in multiple locations.

Actually, I did not remove the Gammage case. It was there, just further down. Any removal of it would be accidental. The case clearly belongs on the list and has been there for years. So you can drop your allegation of bias and maybe even apologize for your error.Niteshift36 (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are simply deleting all my edits and leaving the page in a bad state; it is not even in chronological order. If you want to make changes in line with the standard for the page, I can understand that; but you are acting out of anger now. I would expect that you would read the individual cases I added and edit or, possibly, delete them if they did not match the standard -- preferably noting what information was missing -- but undoing everything is bad form. Jonawebb (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And, by the way, if you look at the history you will see that the Gammage case was not on this list until I added it. There has been a Wikipedia page on the case, but it was not here.

I didn't remove it when you were stating. However, I was incorrect in leaving it there. I mistakenly thought there had been a conviction. The charges were dismissed. So it doesn't belong either. And I removed each one, singularly, noting why. You reverted me en masse. I don't need to keep repeating why. You can't just declare consensus void and ignore it. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jonawebb, two things. Please don't engage in personal attacks. Comment on edits if you must, not on the editor. The other thing: we are an encyclopedia, not a forum or a directory, so certain criteria must be set before stuff can be added--and those criteria will be decided to have been met based on reliable, secondary sources. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really like to know what those criteria are. There are some rules listed below. The Jordan Miles case, another well-known police brutality case in Pittsburgh, meets all of them. I've cited it properly, as I show elsewhere on this page. But Niteshift36 keeps deleting it. Why? Jonawebb (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I said criteria must be set, so obviously I can't say what they are. I'm not sure what rules below you refer to. As for Niteshift36's edit, I assume you're talking about this one, but I don't know what Niteshift's argument is. Mine would be that a well-established criterion for inclusion is that the person/case is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Simple. Your violist does not seem to meet that threshold, but again, I can't speak for Niteshift. BTW, just imagine what kind of a list this would be if every single case in the US were included--a monument to police brutality, perhaps, but at the same time an unmanageable article. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HELP!

I am a relatively new and unsophisticated Wiki contributor. Another contributor is trying to decimate the article, Misconduct in the Philadelphia Police Department. I have spent hours contributing to this article using the standard that included cases must have an official finding of wrongdoing, such as a criminal conviction, large ($100,000-plus) lawsuit settlement/judgement, termination, or even just a suspension (only in the most egregious cases). However, the other editor's argument is that NO such cases should be listed in Wikipedia unless they have their own separate article. Also, he claims that my criteria are not criteria. Any assistance that you could give on the article's talk page will be greatly appreciated.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]