Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law Enforcement/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Organization of Information

Intro

I am a new member to this project and a fiarly new member to wiki, perhaps half a year now and I am learning as I go. This is the first project that I have joined because I find these topics interesting; I am assuming the other members also find them interesting. I have noticed that as far as law enforcement pages are concerned i.e. highway patrol pages, local municipal police agencies, sheriff webpages etc. etc. that there is no template from for all of these agencies. I would like to start a dialog about creating such a template.

I know that a lot of these pages are probably works of passion by others, perhaps local members of said organizations, perhaps just local individuals who want to see pages about their local law enforcement branches on wiki; but I feel that everyone of these pages should have the same basic information, or some of the same basic categories for which information is organized. This will neaten the appearance of each page and will give any of the members of this project or others interested in these sorts of pages a point of reference for where they can begin to safely add information that is lacking, fix structural inconsistancies, or participate in this project without stepping on someone else toes right out of the gate.

Some of the categories that are out there are: History, Present day, Uniforms and/or Equipment, Organization/Structure, Ranks, Awards/Medals, Trivia, Fictional References, See also, External links, Chiefs of police/Superintendents, Specialized Units, Line of Duty Deaths, Mission Statement, Training and Qualificatins, Acedamy/Schooling, Jurisdiction, Duties, Auxillary--this list goes on and on and on.

I propose this structure as a beginning template (for dialogue only at this point): --this template is revised as discussion proceeds.

Organization Page Template


Info Box

{{{name}}}
Strength
Force Size {{{forcesize}}}
Local Pop. {{{localpop}}}
Operations
Superior {{{superior}}}
Jurisdiction
Area {{{area}}}
List of law enforcement agencies
See Below for addition and discussion.

Gallery

0. badges
1. ranks
2. insignia
3. medals

Main Body

0. Intro

a. Brief intro
1. location
2. founding date
b. mission statement

1. History

a. past chiefs, superintendents etc.
b. this is where special stories of interest would be placed unless it is present day
event as in currently happening-after it concludes it should be moved to history
c. line of duty deaths, wall of honor

2. PresentDay

a. current info
b. current strategies
c. critism

3. Structure and Organization

a. ranks (reporting structure)
b. units (unit organization)
1. normal
a. duties
b. jurisdiction (expounding on info)
2. special
3. divisions
4. bureaus
5. auxillary
c. recruitment
1. qualifications
2. selection process

4. Equipment

a. uniforms
1. awards and medals
2. badges and patches
b. facilities
1. initial training
2. enhanced training
3. daily ops facilities

6. Further Information

a. trivia
b. publications
c. facts, figures, statistics
d. fictional references

7. References (for info in the pg itself)
8. External links

Sorry, didn't read the entry above about an info box that was already made until after I created this template: Template:Infobox LE Organization. It is done in the same spirit. I took the liberty of filling in some of the information as an example of what it can look like. I am going to add it below to the template that was proposed and is being discussed. I look forward to comments.

Oh and if someone knows how to successfully place that box as an example on this page...I tried but my skills are still limited. Thanks. cprockhill 19:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If some could help push this box over to the left just for showing it on this page, that would probably look a little better cprockhill 19:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Template Discussion

I hope to get some good dialogue going on this issue and perhaps we can come to an agreement as to what a universal template might look like. Every page will be different. It will have different graphics, style, specific information, but that does not mean that it cannot all be organized in a similar way. Also, I tried to pick categories that fit well with most if not all agencies. I also placed sub categories where I think they should go if they are included, not that they should be included and should be blank if there is no information. Also sub categories might find themselves repeated in the categories of history vs. present day. I don't except that they would need to be repeated in other broader areas.

I look forward to hearing what everyone thinks. It was supposed to look like an outline so if someone knows how to easily fix that I would appreciate it. Thanks cprockhill 20:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Great to see such enthusiasm! A couple of thoughts on your ideas: Very good overall, I agree with most of it. However, it occurs to me that mission would be very similar for many of the police force articles (for example every police force in the states would have similar missions)? SGGH 22:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the mission is very similar for a lot of organizations; I have added a number zero which will be the brief intro text for the article, which is great place to tell when it was found, where it is located, perhaps a quick mention of size and of course the mission statement or motto...the specific mission statement.cprockhill 10:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, organisation, duties, jurisdiction, strategies, they all seem to be overlapping slightly, and also would over lap with the present day section (thought you have already mentioned that).SGGH 22:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I have combined organization and structure. The difference for the sake of explanation is structure should be used in terms of rank structure and reporting and organization should be used to talk about what units there are within the organization and how they are dispersed through the patroling jurisdiction. Again, I agree with that point and I think it really addresses the idea that we need to make sure that we make these articles and not lists of information. Having those two seperate would make it to easy to just list in the information and a prime example of that is the category of organization used on the [[1]] page. Who reports to who reports to who should probably go into a nice neat gallery of some sort--like the one I added to the template upon your urging.cprockhill 10:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
A lot of the jurisdiction might go in the intorduction anyway, for instace Avon and Somerset Constabulary states the jurisdiction in the opening sentence. These are just ideas of course, though I do something think that many police forces as so different that a standard structure would be difficult to enforce (for example, comparing the NYPD to the A&S Constabulary. Those are just my thoughts at the moment, great work! SGGH 22:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I would change the Category of "headquarters and stations" in the A&S Constabulary article to Structure and Organization and then talk about how there is a headquarters and stations with the main text of that section. The list that follows is a little lengthly and might cause me to lose sleep at night trying to figure out what to do with it to make it appear more tidy or easier to read-but this article is not my baby so I am resting fine. The NYPD article on the other hand would have their Structure [category] changed to Structure and Organization and cats 6-9 included under the new broader title. The info under the current Organization [category] would also find its way into the new broader category. I currently find it much too listy and would have reorganize it to make it more like an article, perhaps add a chart graphic if I could find one or make a side bar. So, the standard structure works for both even if the explanation is long and the two seem very different. Not all the cats or sub cats have to be there. This is guide line. We fill in the cats as needed, placing them where we all have pre agreed to put them. That is the ultimate goal.cprockhill 10:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks great; anything that encourages greater consistency in the LE articles, I support. Some random comments that come to mind:

  • It's hard to tell without seeing this applied to an article, but it looks like it might be too subdivided in a way that would encourage listing data where prose would be more appropriate, and make a huge table of contents. Mind you, the same structure and info could be included, but without sub-headings for everything.
A lot of the sub categories seem to be over lapping; I mainly just list them where I thought that sort of information might go. I agree with the comment of listing data; bad idea! I beleive that individuals will have to make judgement calls so as to avoid having their articles be a series of lists. That will have to be a point of discussion for the LE project so that we have a rule of thumb that we use internally. I will start the discussion by proposing that only the Categories and Subcats get put up into table of contents and any category beyond sub-cat will have be informational text within that area.cprockhill 10:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps a sidebar template for some of the basic information (chief, strength, emblem/badge photo, etc.) might be useful for organizing articles and would be easier to implement to articles that are already fairly developed. A standard gallery template might also be good for displaying insignia, badges, medals, etc., which several articles already have, but not in a standardized form. So I'm suggesting templates within the article template.
Added one above, I like the one on the Avon and Somerset Constabulary as jumping off point. We might want to consider also having a picture of the place/jursidiction of the organization, the population that is being policed and/or the emblem, patch, crest etc.cprockhill 10:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • If there is a featured article on a police agency, or one or two people are particularly fond of, it could maybe give us some other ideas of what works and what doesn't.
I will be making all these changes as we all agree to on the New York State Police page. I would have not problem with anyone in the project going there and making the changes before I get around to it either--some people are teritorial which is strange for an open source project like this but they are--I am not just as long as things are done in the spirit bla, bla.cprockhill 10:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I wonder if recruitment and training shouldn't be paired up, or at least the initial training. I'm also not a fan of trivia sections, and believe that type of info usually fits better elsewhere. Personally, I look for the strength of a police force if I'm reading about one I'm not familiar with. Otherwise, your categories and structure seem appropriate.
I added both a gallery and sidebar template to be discussed or edited that includes the strength. I also thought that size of population, jurisdication location and/or size would give a nice perspective of strength. I believe that a lot of the facts and figures in the Trivia section could possibly go into the main body of the article. Again the sub cats are guidelines of things that would go under main categories. I have a trivia section on New York State Police page because I just don't have enough information to flesh out a full fledge section on the uniform but I think it is very interesting their uniform color is made by the combining of equal parts of white material and black material. Interesting as it may be I just don't know where to put it so it gets lumped under a bullet in Trivia. As articles get really fleshed out the trivia will be incorporated and ultimately those sections should just die off. Concerning the recruitment and training I seperated out the two based on what it takes to join or be selected to join an organization and the first step or initial training your receive once you are in. The training facilities wouldn't really fall under a discussion of the rank structure or organization of forces. While I thought it did fit nicley under facilities. If ultimately more members of the project like it the other way then it should be changed. Perhaps we can get some others to weigh in.cprockhill 10:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with SGGH that it would be hard to implement across the board, but if the template is flexible and it's not rigidly imposed, I think the main benefit to expect would be to facilitate greater standardization as things develop over time, rather than create uniformity overnight on what's already there.

I fixed the formatting - colons are needed for indenting text; spaces create that weird box-thing. Good work/initiative! Cheers, Bobanny 05:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

We want something flexible. I gave an example how what we are working with can work for most pages. Having a template will give us a good place to start, and I don't think it will be as hard as it appears now initially. If this is truly a project then there should be some sort of overall feel to LE pages. All the pages for each State in America in Wiki have the same feel, they have the same basic structure, the same category layout. We can do the same thing. It won't happen over night, after all I am the 30th member, not the 3000th member. Having these templates, being on the same page (no pun intended) will allow us to go out there and talk to the people we see popping up and making a little changes on some of our favorite LE sites, ask them to join the LE project. If they do join they will have the tools, templates, and direction to go out there and know what to work on next. When I first started working on the New York State Police I found the difference just between that site and other highway patrol sites stagering. It will take time but we can do it. It won't work for every site (some pages in the LE project are not about the organization but a piece of equipment I suspect) but it can work for most.cprockhill 10:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh and thanks for fixing the indents...colons...hmmm...colons...yes....damn you colons!cprockhill 10:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Problems

I created this template;

{{{name}}}
Strength
Force Size {{{forcesize}}}
Local Pop. {{{localpop}}}
Operations
Superior {{{superior}}}
Jurisdiction
Area {{{area}}}
List of law enforcement agencies


It shows up fine in preview but is not there when I save the page...can someone help me?
Also when I put this preview in, in the template it specifies that the box should be aligned to the right; without changing that specification, how do you get it align back to the left just for the sake of showing it one this page? Thankscprockhill 22:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I found my own infobox that the bottom of this discussion page. I am sure someone else will notice it...if you could tell what I have done wrong I would really, really like to know...this has been frustrating me a lot.cprockhill 22:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I cannot thank you so much for the help. Now I can see where I went so terribly wrong...plus add that box to some of my pages I am working on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cprockhill (talk • contribs) 22:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

Project Wide Structure/Organization

This is good place to discuss project wide organization issues; a place for requested topics, missing topics, topics that are duplicate. Overall placement of info under what category discussion etc. etc.cprockhill 23:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

List of U.S. state and local law enforcement agencies

I propose the breakup of this list into individual states, like Nevada has done-this list is unwieldy as it is, and it's only got a handful of the departments actually out there, if for instance there are some 1700 counties in the US. Chris 06:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I just went to this site and it is terrible. I agree with your opinion and propose this; If you go to the New York State Police Site you will see that at the bottom is an Infobox for Highway patrol agencies broken down by state. I propose we break down the main categories into 5 categories
A-E
F-J
K-N
P-T
U-Z
This will make that contents box bareable to look at. Then we can make seperate links to seperate pages for each state where all the agencies available in the state can be discussed; like Nevada. If we really want to take it a step further we can make five infoboxes like the one I references above and but then under each category and nest the links in those boxes. It would look very slick and professional and clear up a great big mess (and even from my local stand point in NY, the list is very incomplete at best-I am sure it is incomplete across the board). We will be able to attract more people to add their local agencies and give better picture of all the agencies out there once the site isn't so horrible to look at. cprockhill 23:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea, please let's do it, and soon. Chris 07:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Duplication

I think that County police has some duplication with the List of U.S. state and local law enforcement agencies and is something we will also have to address probably on a wide scale. cprockhill 23:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

WPP:LE shortcut & more

I changed the main project page and the project directory to WP:LE instead of WPP:LE as it looks like this project was the only one using it? If I made a mistake, please change it back! →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 21:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I did the following concerning the projects links:

→James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 23:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

More:

→James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 00:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Missing topics lists

Although I mentioned this previously on Wikipedia:WikiProject Law, I've been working on serveral missing topics lists during the past year based on Michael Newton's Encyclopedia of High-Tech Crime and Crime-Fighting, Carl Sifakis's Encyclopedia of American Prisons, Mitchel P. Roth's Prisons and Prison Systems: A Global Encyclopedia, and Cops, Crooks, and Criminologists: An International Biographical Dictionary of Law Enforcement, Updated Edition by Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod and I was wondering if this might be any help to the project ? Also, WikiProject Crime has been proposed and, as I've been asked WikiProject Law, I was curious as to weither members of law and law enforcement related project might find such a project helpful either to law or crime related projects ? MadMax 05:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Both sound useful for this project. Something I feel this WikiProject needs to examine sometime is the scope of the project. Law enforcement inevitably overlaps with numerous other topics (true crime, criminology, intelligence/military, law, etc). If we can coordinate across projects more, I think defining those parameters will be easier, and facilitate developing and improving these areas generally. Bobanny 07:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to be chief across project coordinator, Bobanny? I think we should decide on positions for certain members of the project? And then decide on who we should have for what? SGGH 14:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to limit my Wiki-time right now because of real world stuff, so I'm not committing to anything right now. However, I tagged a whole bunch more articles with the project tag last night; man, it seems like an endless sea of police stubs still exists out there. A lot should probably be merged to create more substantial articles and less of the "Jaywalking unit of the Nowheresville police department" type. I do want to put some effort into structuring the whole lot better to facilitate WP:LE becoming more systematic in improving them. Bobanny 19:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
....so that would be a yes? I agree that the "merge" tag needs to be used in a lot of cases, but we must be careful not to step on the article creators toes. SGGH 19:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
that's a qualified yes, and not immediate. My thinking is to look at categories, and try to find a consensus here on something to guide notability judgments for LE articles specifically. Then, communicating with other projects and individuals to avoid stepping on toes. Projects for cities or countries, for example, tend to have more specific local articles, and others might be heading in that direction. I think a lot of articles are non-notable stubs that were made just to get rid of red links that not many people visit. Also, military/law/bio/crime projects have a lot of overlap with us and coordinating better with them would be useful. One example would be to develop joint project tags to unclutter talk pages.
On another subject, it would be nice if we could do some kind of collaboration, maybe on the Police article, and try to get it up to featured status. We did that on the Vancouver project, and the process was really beneficial for getting project members on the same page and getting discussion going. It would also be nice having a high quality article on a topic that in part defines the project. Bobanny 20:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats a classic "Jaywalking unit of the Nowheresville police department", its very true though, when I was in a America not too long again I went it one of their police stations and looked at the floor directory and they have loads and loads of departments like "Postal theft division" and "Accidental murder unit" (I am sorry, but last time i checked that was called "Man-slaughter" wasn't it?) So it would be a idea to merge them all.

Regards

Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 21:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


Support for SGGH

I just want to thank our administrator and all who positively contribute to this project. It's still in its infancy, but it set out to have a good Project free of conflict (which aside from one blip it does handily, and that not from a Project member), and we have a place we can throw out ideas, see what works, tinker and modify freely, and it is great to see what each brings to the project. Chris 07:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow... cheers Chris. I'm not an administrator in the proper sense if that's what you meant, I'd like to be but I don't think I'd pass an RFA just yes. And yes, fortunatly, we have only have the one conflict, and that seems to have died down. But you're right to pass congratulations to all who contribute, nothing would be working if it wasn't for a number of members here, who all know who they are :) SGGH 11:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
We have our ways......On the serious side, I think you would make an excellent Administrator, and would definetly supportJeff503 12:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again, if/when I get nominated for an RFA, I'll be sure to let you know! Though they don't like advertising :D SGGH 14:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I would support SGGH he would make a good admin, and he runs this wikiproject so smoothly and efficently. Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 15:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

PS: just tell me where to sign! lol

Well I hope my police and university work gets a reception like this when I go in May and September respectively. Cheers all, being an admin is something I would really like to be. SGGH 17:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making me feel so welcome. Cheers!Patchbook 21:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

All members are welcome that afford their fellows the respect they themselves wish to be afforded. This place is like life-a lot of what you get out of it depends on what you put into it. Chris 02:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Do I sense sarcasm from Patchbook, or was that a true statement?Jeff503 12:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately it was probably sarcasm. SGGH 12:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, just gpt through reading his user pageJeff503 12:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
However, Patchbook has joined this wikiproject now, and I look forward to his future contributions. He has a lot to bring to the project, having been a police officer for quite some time as well as a law specialist. I've mentioned before how previous conflicts should now be water under the bridge. Users who put in what they should to the wikiproject are most welcome :) SGGH 12:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Coordinators

I have been thinking, that we should have certain roles for the commited members of the project who edit regularly. Here, if you like, we could discuss what roles we need and what users could fill them? SGGH 12:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, Things like:

  • Project Co-ordinator - Which does things like makes sure all page in this wikiproject are, as I would say "up to date". (I would be happy to fill this role, but please discuss, if not see below )
  • Deputy leader - Not sure if you have already got one, but when the leader takes a wikibreak he act on his behalf etc.
  • Maintenance - Fixes/creates templates or other things requiring attention (Anyone good with wikicode?)
  • Complaints Manager - Handles complaints against members/articles (Aswell as my complaints department i could intergate one here, but please give me your views)

That was all I could think of, but if I think of a few more i will add them.

Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 16:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I though of you as complains manager as soon as I saw it there. I agree with your choices of role so far. Wait for other users to pitch in ideas before we start assigning users to roles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SGGH (talk • contribs) 18:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC).
Yea i think we should "play it by ear" lets see what others make of it. I dont mind that position of complaints manager actually Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 19:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone should check articles and make sure they are marked with WP LE, if they are in the scopeJeff503 19:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

How about a Duty manager a group of trusted people (eg. 3 or 4 people) who acts as the leader of the project when SGGH (leader) is offline. The reason we have 3 or 4 people is so that this wikiproject always has someone on duty to answer questions, fix things, etc. So when 1 goes offline another can resume control, and when SGGH is online he can resume he normal duties as leader.

Views? Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 21:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I like all the ideas so far. I am still new here and learning how to do things, but would liek to help where I can. EMT1871 21:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, i certainly nominate Bobanny, Necrothesp (if he is active enuf) and Dep Garcia for that role SGGH 11:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I would be glad to, but on main page of this project there could be some kind of box saying "The currect duty manager is: Example" Like the box below, if you can improve it, please do! Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 16:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Management team Need to talk to someone "incharge"?
1) SGGH (General Manager) talk | contribs | count
2) Necrothesp talk | contribs | count
3) Bobanny talk | contribs | count
4) Dep. Garcia talk | contribs | count | complaints
Edit


I removed the small print, cause if im online I'll just mark myself as online and it won't matter. When you go off line, just take the online tag from the table and leave your slot blank. If more than one is online, then you just have the same red tag in both those users boxes. I've filled it in at the moment the way it should be if myself and dep garcia are online and working.SGGH 16:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I have made a template you can add it anywhere you like, here is the like: {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Law Enforcement/Duty manager}} Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 16:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
excellent work. I suggest the new duty managers have this on their user page somewhere so you can easily mark that you are online. SGGH 17:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I already do :-) Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 17:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the title of "leader" to "General Manager" for SGGH as it is more formal, argee? Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 18:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Also makes me appear less egotistical, lol SGGH 22:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yea, i wonder why this page got reverted, anyway i changed our name to the "management team" ("duty manager" applies to the person) and give you a new green online status. that alright with you? Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 22:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: revert, lol it's no problem, just a sleepy user. And yeah thats fine, tho my sad minded side may occasionally change my own message to "The Doctor is in!" Or something equally annoying :P SGGH 22:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Thats fine with me :-) Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 22:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I have left a little note on the duty managers talk page (Bobanny & Necrothesp) telling them that they are a duty manager. Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 15:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to have taken a while to get back. Personally, I dislike the terms "General Manager" and "Duty Manager" - they imply some sort of formal position and some control over other editors, which is too much of an assumption of power I think. This is a voluntary collaboration project, not a body to impose its views on other editors or tell them what to do - that's just guaranteed to wind up other editors. "Co-ordinator" (and variations thereon) seems far more egalitarian and in the spirit of Wikipedia. I also feel that the "online" bit is fairly pointless - I'm certainly not going to fill it in every time I'm logged on, and I don't really think it makes any difference one way or the other - if somebody leaves a message for us we'll answer it soon enough. I'm happy to take part in the co-ordination of the project, but I think we need to get away from thinking we're a management team in any formal sense; leave the hierarchical bit for our real lives! Cheers. -- Necrothesp 16:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Even though the terms "duty manager" and "general manager" seem to imply an formal/authoritive position over the rest of the members, we are infact not, we have no powers over other members and we will not make ourselfs seem we do, all we are here for is to maintain and organise this project and provide help. Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 17:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I know that. My concern is that the titles sound too (unnecessarily) hierarchical. -- Necrothesp 22:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I havent seen the main focus of it to show who is "in charge", but more to show where people can leave urgent messages if they need help quickly. It's only in trial stage at the moment anyway, we'll see. But your concerns make sense, Necrothsp. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SGGH (talk • contribs) 22:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
How about more of a help desk thing? As in "these members are behind the help desk at the moment"? SGGH 23:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Is there really any need? Are we flooded with enquiries? I think a simple list of contacts is enough. I really can't envisage why anyone would need a help desk anyway to be honest. Help with what? -- Necrothesp 11:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, project is growing though. Larger projects have that kind of setup, maybe we will need it one day? SGGH 11:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I would be interested in why larger projects feel they need it. What is the purpose of a helpdesk? We shouldn't have one simply because other projects do, but because we need one. My feeling is that on Wikipedia our primary form of "help" is discussion. If people need help with specific queries they post it on a talkpage (like this one) or leave a message for someone whom they think has expertise in that field. I think it's far more helpful to assemble a list of people with expertise in particular fields (for instance, my specific interests in the law enforcement field are biographies of individual senior officers, ranks and organisation - I'm not so interested in procedures, equipment etc, although I will naturally edit them if I think of something) to provide advice if other editors feel they need it. I feel that is what we should be concentrating on, not on trying to form some sort of generic "helpdesk" with a rather undefined purpose. -- Necrothesp 11:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, we could do that, leave you're interests next to your name in the participants section maybe? You're comments have swayed me slightly with this duty manager thing I confess, I hope Dep. Garcia isn't too bothered. No final concensus met as of yet anyway. SGGH 12:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Im easy, do whatever you feel, although this was my idea; scrap it; rebuild it; rename it, do whatever you wanna do to make everyone happy :-) Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 12:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Cheers Dep. I still feel we need to have some sort of organisation, there are jobs to be done in this project that could be given to certain users that have expertise in that area. If we could identify those, we could allocate them as long as we avoided any hierachal appearance. SGGH 13:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Opinions? SGGH 19:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • stands up* "Yes SGGH, i have an opinion" lol. I understand and agree with the probs posted above, though personally i find it useful to know whose online. Esp. Dep Garcia, a useful one that one, lol :D. But otherwise, maybe it isn't such a useful thing. SGGH 21:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I have changed it to coordinators rather than managers. Even if the hierachy thing is an issue, I think we still need to identify which among us are responsibly for the housework, and who to direct questions to, and so on. SGGH 18:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, i have also changed the duty mananger box. to include links of where to talk to us etc. Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 21:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

category confusion

Why is this article in the unassessed articles catagory? there seem to be others as well that have been placed in this catagory despite being assessed. Could someone take a look to see what the problem is? Cheers SGGH 10:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I fixed that article it was because it was a lower case "b" it needs to be a upper case "B" to able to work for some reason. Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 15:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Cheers. Perhaps best to just use capital B's rather than try to tinker with the template to make it accept lower case. SGGH 16:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The scope of this project

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Law Enforcement/Scope (which I will soon create) where we will discuss the scope of this project, because I think we have more kinds of articles than we should have, and I want to have a place where users can see what we should have in our project and what we should not have, and also on the talk page there they can ask if something is in the scope of our project. Discuss further on the talk page of the scope subpage, cheers all SGGH 21:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Forensic electrical engineering

I started discussion on removing the WP:LE tag from Forensic electrical engineering on the articles talk page. Let me know what everyone thinks.EMT1871 23:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, the law enforcement side of it is not the dominant aspect of the article, the dominant aspect appears to be the technological side. SGGH 12:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Gait analysis

I started discussion on removing the WP:LE tag from Gait analysis on the articles talk page. Let me know what everyone thinksEMT1871 01:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Definitely agreed! SGGH 12:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Lieutenant

I started discussion on removing the WP:LE tag from Lieutenant on the articles talk page. Let me know what everyone thinks.EMT1871 03:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I suggest we take this and the others above to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law Enforcement/Scope. I don't have a definite preference, but it seems we need to clarify the parameters of the project to be consistent in these kinds of decisions (and SGGH and others seem to be on the same page). Bobanny 04:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, the vast majority of the article is not about the police SGGH 12:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles to exclude

Please drop by the project scope talk page and comment on a proposed list of subjects to exclude. Thanks, Bobanny 05:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Since a standard is being developed, thought should be given to a baseline for line of duty articles. They are the most frequent biographies targeted for deletion, like the recent Filippo Raciti probably will be, yet often the perpetrator (to say nothing of every no account rapper, video game and episode of x TV show...) has their own article. This should somehow be codified as it seems skewed badly. Chris 11:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Notability of articles on officers killed in the line of duty is a recurring problem. Often, I think the best plan of action is to merge the officers bio into an article on the event itself (if its part of a robbery etc.) as long as the event is notable enough, that way you have the weight of the officers article, the event, and the perp all rolled into one! However, if its about an officer killed in a drive by shooting or something else which is judged non-notable (no matter how we feel about such things personally) then unfortunatly there isn't much we can do when these articles come up for deletion... SGGH 11:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

For example, the article you mentioned I think could be merged into 2007 Catania football violence in order to keep it there, just as a section, thus saving the info from being deleted. SGGH 11:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I can't think of a uniform standard for notability, or what we'd do with it even if we had one, since it comes down to the labour of individual editors and Wikipedia non-notability police (separate, of course, from WikiPedia Law enforcement). Generally, merging seems the best method to save something from deletion. Grouping stubby line of duty articles would be another option if the event is non-notable, so maybe have Italian police killed in the line of duty or something along those lines. Bobanny 14:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
another point is that grouping line of duty stubby articles into one would open it up for notable context as to the danger faced by that particular force. A Canadian city police force recently lost its first member in the line of duty in its 100+ year history, and I've been curious to know what their secret is (Windsor, a small city, but right across the border from Detroit.Bobanny 14:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Me too, i start my duties in a couple of months :O SGGH 18:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Re officers murdered in the line of duty, I think context is very important, as Bobanny pointed out. For instance, police killings are very rare in Britain and so tend to make the national headlines (e.g. the Metropolitan Police, Britain's largest police force and one of the largest urban police forces in the world, only lost 34 officers to murder in the whole of the 20th century). While nobody would claim they are more notable as human beings than police officers who die in more violent countries, they are more notable in terms of newsworthiness and their names tend to be remembered, which means they probably should generally have articles on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp 23:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

True, we may have to just have "use your judgement" in each case of a police officer killed in the line of duty. SGGH 23:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD discussion

Filippo Raciti has been nominated for deletion. My vote is for a strong keep. PLease see the article's discussion page and put your two cents in. Hope you vote to keep also.EMT1871 17:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it needs much help :D definitely a keep though, the significance of his death is substantial. SGGH 20:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Members with no userpage

The military history project likes all their members of have userpages (i.e. no redlink in their signature). I've noticed quite a few in our participants list, and wondered whether any problems could be forseen, or whether anything might be suggested. SGGH 21:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think its an overrated policy. Userpages are a frill, not a core of WP. Users are distinguished by their edit history, not their facade. Vees 21:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

True true. SGGH 21:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I reckon if your not going to have a userpage you should redirect it to your talk page that way it wont be a red link. User:Glen S does this. Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 21:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I think I came across admins who said you shouldn't do that... I think my worry is just that redlinked user pages are from users who don't contribute much, but I admit thats rather unfounded. SGGH 21:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
yea the same with me, when i see a contributer with a red linked userpage i think "oh god another time waster" often i am wrong Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 21:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There are redlinked user(s) in the members section whose contributions have been nought but vandalsim... SGGH 21:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh great, we could impose a rule saying you have to have over a certain amount of good contribtions to join this project? just a thought Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 21:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I just seen that User:Achl253 is one of those vandals with no good edits Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 21:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I suspect he joined cause I issued all the warnings to him. It would be nice to have some rule to stop people like this. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 02:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
AFH- vandal warnings should be at least an hour or so apart to give the person a chance to read the message. I think a 2 min gap between vandal2 and vandal3 is a bit short. Vees 03:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess it's a matter of opinion. I issue so many vandal warnings, there is no way I can remember to come back in an hour, and see if they have been bad again. A large number of people do multiple vandalism, and (due to the over-lenient rules) they won't get blocked until they have got three warnings, that means I have to space three warnings over three hours (no way I'm going to do that). In the meantime, they can vandalize a lot of stuff. There is also a difference between issuing warnings for someone who may misunderstand how Wiki works - in whcih case a slow approacs is correct, and someone who inentionly makes several attacks of unquestioned vandalism. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 03:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Armadillo there, I don't tend to warn someone who has made slight vandalism with more than a level one or two, but if someone who is clearly attacking with unquestionable intent over several articles, I could ramp it up to the highest non-blocking warning reasonably quickly. But anyway, what do you mean he might have joined because of the warnings you've given him? SGGH 11:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Because I've had other cases where someone I warned "stalked" me and joined groups or participated in discussions where I was involved. For a new user to join a project I'm in seems to much of a co-incidence. But if he does nothing bad, I guess there is no problem. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 17:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
This group may be particularly vulnerable to this because attention seeking folks often try to be "associated with" law enforcement. Vees 18:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... groupies?!?! A few of us are law enforcement, but what you just said above is... a little weird. Though unfortunatly we can't really set a policy of not allowing people in who have vandalising history, we will just have to keep our eyes open. Prejudice agains't users with a dodgy history goes against one of the most important things I was hoping this project would represent. We can't enforce our little-tolerance policy on vandalism unitl it actually happens. SGGH 19:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Less "groupie" more "sycophant." I"m sure you know the type. Vees 19:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
hmmmm is all I can say... hmmm SGGH 19:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Law Enforcement Template

On the Law Enforcement template which is {{law enforcement}} on the very first line it says "This article is within the scope of..." I think we should change the "This article" bit to {{PAGENAME}} so if we were to place it on the Police page for example it would read "Police is within the scope of..." or something like that. But on the template itself it would look like this: "{{PAGENAME}} is within the scope of..." and we could also change the word "scope" to have a link for the project scope page Wikipedia:WikiProject Law Enforcement/Scope.

So now on that Police page it would look like this:

  • Police is within the scope of..."

And this non-article page would say:

  • "WikiProject Law Enforcement/Archive 3 non-article page is within the scope of..."

Please give me your views on this!!!!

Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 21:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Go for it is my view SGGH 22:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. Bobanny 23:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok I have done that, but left the non-article page the same for now. take alook at a random article to see how it looks Talk:Police or Talk:Resisting arrest. - Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 19:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Good job SGGH 19:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Patchbook

Folks, he's at it again, I know this project strives for no conflict, but it's brewing nonetheless. He started editing the comments of other editors at Police memorabilia collecting, a huge no-no, I reverted, so he edited _my_ userpage, changing the spelling of something SGGH wrote and then tagging it as comparing my edits to child molestation. At this point I don't know what must be done, but something needs to. Chris 08:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

OOooo no I'm staying back this time :) I don't mind appealing for calm (from both sides) but my handling of the previous situation taught me a thing or two about dealing with incidents, and I am going to take a much calmer and fairer approach this time. I will say that as of now, 20:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC), I will be trying to be as fair as possible, and that I hope all users will refrain from stepping over the mark. I hope it doesn't sound like betrayal to you, considering my position last time, but I hope you will keep your cool too Chris :) SGGH 20:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Considering all the occurances last time, shouldn't what he is doing now be considered vandalism ,and if it is shouldn't he be warned then blocked like all the others. It seems to me that if others did as is described above it would be considered vandalism.EMT1871 23:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think care should be taken regarding edits he makes on the article itself when it comes to deciding if what he is doing is wrong, because that's a sensitive area to discuss. But yes, editing other users talk pages is wrong. EMT, do you mind leaving a polite, informal note about that on his talk page? I don't want him going off on one at me for "harassing" him or something. Particularly seeing as he still has his complaint about me on his user page, and has ignorned my attemps to initiate contact. SGGH 15:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems a good idea for SGGH to leave Patchbook alone and let Patchbook make the first "abusive" comment, that way he can't say he was provoked by SGGH!! Regards everyone! Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 16:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I think WP:AGF no longer applies. It looks to me like warning that he was going to revert and referencing his earlier threat with the child molesting comment in the edit summary was designed to ruffle feathers. My suggestion is to disengage, revert where appropriate, and report if you're up to going through that process.Bobanny 19:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Child molestation? What? SGGH 19:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

He corrected a typo of yours on Chris's talk page and mentioned child molesting in the [edit summary. Presumably, this is a reference to his earlier threat, which he denies is a threat:
'When I was a policeman I had an assignment dealing with some child molesters. I got disciplined because in the course of my official duties I made a verbal commentary that it was "Nothing that a thirty cent bullet wouldn't cure".[his emphasis]
Now decades later I am retired, and that same commentary comes to mind.
Have fun with your boy scout patches.'
In my assumption-of-bad-faith interpretation, he seems proud of the plausible deniability in the wording of his threat, and so continues to evoke it to bait Chris. Bobanny 19:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well... I was hard on him before, and he came round and thwacked me with it, so I'm out this time, lol SGGH 19:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It was my pleasure to leave a note on his talk page. I tried to be as polite as I could, here is a copy of what I left
"Hi Patchbook. I am writing in reference to recent a complaint by a member of Wikiproject: Law Enforcement. The following is a quote from the wikiprojects talkpage: "Folks, he's at it again, I know this project strives for no conflict, but it's brewing nonetheless. He started editing the comments of other editors at Police memorabilia collecting, a huge no-no, I reverted, so he edited _my_ userpage, changing the spelling of something SGGH wrote and then tagging it as comparing my edits to child molestation. At this point I don't know what must be done, but something needs to. Chris 08:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)". I am not pretending to know the specifics of what happened, but if this persons' userpage was edited without his permission, that could be considered vandalism. At the very least it's just not nice. I hope that whatever dispute there is between the two of you can be resolved, and that no other edits are made that may be questionable or upsetting.EMT1871 17:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)"
Opps, you left this message on his user page not his talk page, just thought i would let you know :-)

Regards

Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 19:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

oops, I corrected it , thanks for noticingEMT1871 21:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Take two :D SGGH 00:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is Patchbooks' response to the note I left on his talkpage:

"In a discussion on the subject with Wikipedia Founder Jimbo Wales[2] last Tuesday, he confirmed that anyone who wish to participate could edit anything in Wikipedia. In fact he encouraged the diversity, and cautioned users about taking anything posted here as factual. Patchbook 00:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)"

and my response to him:

"Point taken. Your response, however, does not deal directly with what I have stated above. Another user is saying that you edited his user page, which can be considered vandalism and vandalism can get you blocked from editing wikipedia. I know your intention was not to vandalize his page, but others may not, so I left the above note on your page so that there is no confusion in the future. Also, I am not sure what you meant by your reply. One could read it like a justification for editing anothers user's userpage, or that I shouldn't take what the accuser said as fact.EMT1871 02:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC) "
Like I said in my response I am not sure how to take his statements. He seems to like to talk in circles, and is being vauge. It is my opinion that the type of edit's that started this little section are vandalism and that he is trying to start problems.I think his edits should be dealt with as such. Let me know what all of you think.EMT1871 02:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like the Chewbacca defense. Bobanny 03:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
"He seems to like to talk in circles" yes I noticed that, its very difficult to actually make him see what you mean. Chewbacca defense, I like that SGGH 12:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There has been a whole load of edits on here by him, but I can't quite work out what he did...:S .... oh not wait I got it, just took out the middle header. The whole debate started because the need for expert work on wikipedia and the need for work on wikipedia to be laid out and formatted, and reffect etc correctly kinda met head on. I tried on the article talk page to lay out a place where everyone could just discuss the article without anyone getting worked up, but I'm not seeing an easy way to accomplish a peaceful meld of both necessities at the moment, unfortunatly. SGGH 01:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, he left yet another rambling response on his talk page, and I wrote back again, anyone interested in this little conversation should check out his talk page for the latest. I am trying my hardest to deal with the issue but I either have to give up soon or risk a stroke from trying to understand his responses!EMT1871 03:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Why dont you just ignore him, and see if he goes away? Its better to walk away then have to be carried away. Meaning if you just ignore what he does, its better then getting stressed and having a heart attack and being carried away. Regards Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 11:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the concern Dep.but my stoke comment was only figurative. However, I have officialy given up after his latest rant and I left a rather lenthy, not-so-nice, "sign-off" from the whole thing and will now be ignoring him. I know we are all about the "no conflict" thing but I just couldn't take it any more and had to vent. Please see his talk page to see what I am talking about. Sorry if it offends anyone, but I feel much better now. SGGH, sorry I failed in the "polite, informal note" catagory, but I tried.EMT1871 01:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I'ts okay, I failed too when I tried to deal with it, it's difficult. SGGH 12:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes its better to sit and watch, than to be involved! Just think how many articles you could have edited without having to talk to Patchbook and then get confused with his circle talk??? Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 12:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible solution

I have an idea that I hope to sell everyone on. How about, we put an 'in use' tag on the article, and EVERYONE leaves it alone for an entire week, and only patchbook makes edits. He can make all the edits he wants without anyone else changing things, and then after that week is up, Chris and I will take a look, and wikify what needs to be wikified. In this way, we will be able to fully understand the topic itself, and then when he watches what we do he'll fully understand the wikifying side of things? Hows that? I'll leave a note on both Chris' and Patchbooks talk pages asking them to take a look at the idea. SGGH 11:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, but making all this fuss over some article that (i think) will hardly get read? I mean patchbook is acting like a little child (in my view) not a retired law enforcement officer, and the article which i think were talking about (patch collecting) i mean i get the idea of it already: you collect police patchs and look at them for a while, then put them somewhile and let them gather dust. i personally am not in favour of badge collecting as it allows ordinary civilian to be able to impersonate officers which is alot of paperwork for someone, (not me :-)) Regards (all the text i just wrote is MY opinion) Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 12:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm with you on this Dep. Garcia, he certainly is not acting as a retired LEO (and personally I have my doubts about that "fact"). I have certainly lost all of the very little intrest I had in Patchbook and his article and am begining to think he is a few cards short of a deck. ("ALL THE TEXT I JUST WROTE IS MY OPINION, ONLY!)
Thank god I had no interest. Anyway what does Police Patch Collecting have to do with Law Enforcement? apart from the obvious: Impersonating Police Officers? Is this article within are actual scope? Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 12:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Ahh i dunno! This is really starting to wind me up, I'm torn between continuing to try to help and sort things out peacefully, and deciding whether to just cut away and give it all up for lost. Ahh, the latter isn't a good tactic in general, I guess i've got to stick with it and make sure no serious rules are broken. SGGH 15:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, What are the consequences for breaking the "No Vandalism, No Conflict" rule? if there are any, follow those Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 16:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but you could say that about a load of articles on wikipedia :P SGGH 19:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the Inuse template is only intended to be used for very brief periods of time (a few hours at most). It certainly shouldn't be used for periods as long as a week. It's fine to agree among yourselves that you're not going to edit the article in question, but adding a template carries the implication that the members of this WikiProject see themselves as some sort of official authority on law enforcement-related subjects on Wikipedia (which as I understand it seems to form part of Patchbook's allegations), which we are most certainly not. Applying a template will only add substance to this view and will not be productive. It's important, I think, that WikiProject members (of any project) do not start seeing themselves in this light or suggesting, whether deliberately or otherwise, that they do. -- Necrothesp 20:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Suppose, if we take out the template do you still think its a good idea? It's certainly my last idea on the topic, if it fails then I don't know if it can be rectified, as Patchbook is refusing to budge. SGGH 20:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
As I said, I think it's fine to agree among yourselves to stop editing for a while and see what he does. Frankly, I'm not entirely sure what it is he wants. If he wants to revert a wikified version to an unwikified version then that's vandalism. If he'll only accept a version that he has written himself and wishes to wipe out anyone else's contribution then that is claiming ownership of a page and is also effectively vandalism. Both are violations of Wikipedia policy and will be dealt with accordingly. -- Necrothesp 21:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I sense high blood pressure, please breath slowly in through your nose and out very slowy through you month, in other words: take a deep breath :-) Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 21:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're referring to me, you couldn't be further from the truth. I have no interest whatsoever in the article, the editor or the dispute, but only in the integrity of Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp 21:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if it sounded like i referred to you, as it wasn't mean't to. I dont either have any interest in this "dispute" because if this article was on fire i wouldn't p*ss on it to put it out!!! All this fuss over some editor who doesn't like people editing 'his' article, and making everyone including SGGH (i pressume) stressed and highering their blood pressure. Regards Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 22:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, *ruptures* SGGH 23:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, in any case. I feels like a complete waste of my time, if Patchbook doesn't start responding positivly to my most recent comment on the police patch collecting article then I don't think he will ever be pursuaded. This whole thing has soaked up an entire articles talk page and reams of chatter on this talk page too. We have more important things to take care of, so if he doesn't respond positivly this time, I vote to enforce the hard line of no vandalism and no conflict that is what we enforce everywhere else. SGGH 17:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
You are supported by me!!!!!!! Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 17:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I say that if he does'nt respond positivly then maybe we should remove the article from the project and cut all ties with Patchbook. Furthermore, if he does anything like edit someones userpage or anything else that can be considered vandalism, we report it as such.EMT1871 18:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, with a look at the new scope we will see if it falls into our project. We could remove it from our project regardless of Patchbook's reaction, because his reaction wont make it more or less part of our project. If its a negative reaction we can just leave him a neutral toned message informing him that we aren't going to involve ourselves with him anymore, and that he will recieve the same treatment as anyone else, any furture poor behaviour from him that we discover will be dealt with the same as anyone else. But we must make sure that the neutral tone is kept. Let's not give him more ammunition (thats a note to myself as much as anyone else). And thanks for your support! I've had further support on my talk page, it's all been a pleasant turn in this patchbook thing.

Oh, and after its all dealt with, lets archive the talk page both here and on the patch collecting article don't you think? So its not going to be staring us in the face the whole time? SGGH 19:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yea great idea and yes lets archive this talk page as it is rather annoying that you have to scroll down 50 miles worth of text!! Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 20:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
It all sounds good to me, It's probably best I don't write the note on his talk page, I'm not vrey good at the "neutral tone" thing!EMT1871

Articles for Deletion

The article on Kevin Beary, an American sheriff who heads a department of well over 1,000 officers, has been proposed for deletion with no more reason than a bare assertion that he's "unnotable". Personally, I would consider any chief of a department of this size to be notable. If you agree, then I would ask you to voice your opinion. Incidentally, I had no hand in the creation of this article, but I don't think articles on chiefs of large law enforcement organisations should be deleted. -- Necrothesp 03:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The result of the AfD was: Keep. Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 12:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Law_Enforcement_Archive_3_10f1.html"