Talk:Las Vegas City Marshals: Difference between revisions

Line 115: Line 115:

:::::::::::I think that tones it down far too much. I removed the statement from the lead that is SYNTH and based on the document uploads and worked on rewording some stuff in the legal issues section to remove the non-neutral language.

:::::::::::There’s still very non-neutral language in the last paragraph of the section, but it would take more to reword that. I’ll see if I can try [[User:Katzrockso|Katzrockso]] ([[User talk:Katzrockso|talk]]) 07:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::@[[User:Katzrockso|Katzrockso]] Can we please do this, only to save us both some time; Revert to my preferred diff, and I will be more than happy to work with ”you” on expanding the lawsuits section, which I don’t disagree could be, carefully. The article still cites the doccloud and has other erroneous language outside of that section. ”'[[User:MWFwiki|MWFwiki]]”’ ([[User talk:MWFwiki|talk]]) 07:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

::::::::“extensive and admitted use of LLMs”

::::::::Two comments on two different talk pages is not extensive. [[Special:Contributions/~2025-37353-01|~2025-37353-01]] ([[User talk:~2025-37353-01|talk]]) 06:44, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

The legal issues section of this page presents a one-sided view of the current lawsuits against the Las Vegas City Marshals. The Las Vegas City Attorney has filed a full-throated rebuttal to the allegations made by Derek Myers that is publicly available and has been covered in the local media. The rebuttal makes it clear that Nevada Revised Statute sections give City Marshals full, concurrent jurisdiction with the metropolitan police department (LVMPD) and that marshals have no geographic restrictions when enforcing city ordinances related to traffic violations. 76.72.19.223 (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two separate lawsuits filed by two separate groups who are uninvolved made almost identical claims against the city. There are also supporting documents from a Supreme Court brief filed by the city, multiple legal opinions, written by different attorneys, including the police union own attorney, all of which are in opposition to the position of the city. While, the city certainly is going to try to dispose of the lawsuit as quickly as possible, the motion that they filed did not address the jurisdictional argument that both lawsuits raised. Instead, the motion simply listed a plethora of other Nevada laws that allow peace officers to make arrests. neither lawsuit claimed that the officers could not make arrests, they just claimed that the arrests were made outside of their jurisdiction. The motion that the city filed did not address the jurisdictional argument at all. 2600:1011:B050:BB39:A3:1E82:6BF:B139 (talk) 03:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The city’s response directly addresses the jurisdictional argument and specifically addresses the fact that there are no geographic restrictions on marshals as long as they are within the city boundaries of Las Vegas 2600:387:F:53:0:0:0:6 (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The jurisdiction section states the position of plaintiffs against the city of LAs Vegas as a 100% certainty, despite the fact the lawsuits are ongoing and the city has forcefully responded, stating that the Marshals have broad jurisdiction. To truly be accurate, the whole article must be clear that there are active lawsuits that are unresolved. Until judges rule one way or the other and appeals are exhausted, there is no certainty on these issues. 2601:204:C200:3143:459A:F62:8B0B:2761 (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite correct. This page has some pretty egregious NPOV violations and I will be attempting to correct it. MWFwiki (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The number of lawsuits has risen to eight so far this year. That is a huge number for a department that has around 100 officers. The legal issues section needs to be large and it needs to be well documented with all of these lawsuits. So far, only three of the eight lawsuits are named in the section and they are very well sourced. ~2025-36450-46 (talk) 08:14, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~2025-35835-93 Alright, so you reverted my edits, with a revert reason of: “Revert. Most of what was posted is completely false and contrary to the sources. LVJC marshals have nothing to do with this department and do not patrol “city” courthouses.” I’m assuming what you take issue with is the following:

The LVDPS also manages the LVDPS Corrections Division (which operates the Las Vegas Detention Center) and the LVDPS Animal Protection Services (the city’s animal control service),^[1] though these are not connected to the LVCM and its duties. Also separate from the LVCM is the Marshal Division of the Las Vegas Justice Court, which provides security policing services to city courthouses.^[2]

As you reverted it to: The LVDPS also operates corrections officers, court marshals, and the city’s animal control service, though these are not connected to the LVCM and its duties.

1. While primary sources certainly aren’t preferred, they are preferred over zero sources; Your reversion contains zero sources.
2. “Most of what was posted is completely false and contrary to the sources.” What, precisely? Does the LVDPS not run the Corrections Division and Animal Protection Services? Is the LVCM not separate from the LVJC Marshal Division?
3. You assert “LVJC marshals have nothing to do with this department and do not patrol “city” courthouses.” Yes, that’s why I wrote: “Also separate from the LVCM is the Marshal Division of the Las Vegas Justice Court[.]” Your assertion that LVJC marshals fon’t patrol city courhouses is countered by numerous sources. For example, LVJC Marshals… provide court security and related services. You can also see a good secondary source here.
4. How does “The LVDPS also operates corrections officers…” make any sense? They operate them? Like machines?
5. With your revert, you also added uneeded, NPOV-language to the article.

I would ask that you refrain from reverting and please discuss changes you’d like to see made here so that we may achieve consensus.

MWFwiki (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2025 (UTC) MWFwiki (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with some of your changes, however, I do not see any NPOV problems. This is a highly embattled police department with a significant number of negative news stories, lawsuits, allegations, and a very troubled history. There really isn’t a lot of positive content to balance out the article available. Of course, except from the department itself who seems to be hell bent on essentially gaslighting what the truth actually is. If you watch one of the news stories from KTNV, the investigator reporter literally shows in her story where the City website would say one thing, she would ask questions, and then the city would change the website the next day. The city website just simply cannot be used as a reliable source, and there are no sources that seem to have anything positive to say about this department. ~2025-36450-46 (talk) 08:18, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Figured I’d respond to both of your replies here, in one spot:

1. Primary sources may be utilized to support uncontroversial statements of fact; E.g. what an employee’s official duties are, etc. It may also be used to provide a source for a quote.

2. LEAs usually have several to dozens of lawsuits pending at any given time. It is not unusual; That said, it is not our job as Wikipedia editors to attempt to quantify and contextualize these lawsuits. There could 80 lawsuits against the LVCM and I would still be arguing the same thing, particularly when they are unresolved. If the, for example, jurisdiction lawsuit(s) go the way of the plaintiff(s), I will be the first one to happily edit the article to reflect what the LVCM’s authority is, as li g as the suit settles that question. Lastly, your assertion that the lawsuits are “well-sourced” is only true on its face. There were five local news sources, all saying the same thing, reporting the same story. WP:Citation overkill is a thing. Regardless, we could have had ten sources, and it wouldn’t have made the language any less non-neutral.

3. Wikipedia is not the place to “right great wrongs,” no matter how tempting it may be.

4. You state you find no issue with the language prior to my edits?

“No criminal charges were filed against Myers[…]” – Myers was indeed charged (admittedly, this could have just required an update, and not necessarily have been an NPOV issue)
“The investigation showed videos of Marshals arresting people throughout the city and county, which they found to be illegal arrests.“ — Who is “they?” KNTV? KNTV is not the arbiter of legality
“[…] and that victims were being brutalized[…]” — This is far too strong of language to not appear as a direct quote
“Another investigation by KTNV in 2025 revealed a troubling picture of the Las Vegas City Marshals’ conduct: they aggressively detained an innocent man despite not knowing who committed the alleged act, body-camera footage shows officers boasting ‘it doesn’t matter… you’re still going to jail,’ and their report appears riddled with misrepresentations — yet the city refuses to clarify whether any real discipline occurred, leaving one marshal badge-less and another allegedly relegated to desk duty with little transparency or accountability.” — This is an encyclopedic article, not a KNTV exposè. The language here is wildly inappropriate. Apart from which, the sources only confirm that one marshal resigned and another was assigned to another duty; There is no confirmation one was “left badgless” [from the incident] and another was “relegated to desk duty.” We only report what we know, not what we think we know or what we believe to be implied, even by multiple sources.

Just on a personal note; I think there is something rotten going on inside the LVCM and it seems to be acting as the city’s “shadow” LEA which doesn’t need to follow the same chain-of-command as a “normal” LEA. However, we don’t editorialize and we certainly don’t prime information with from certain angles or with a certain intent. We are not KNTV. KNTV can be as passionate as they would like to be about this (and I wish them the best for it); As Wikipedia editors, we must “rise above” it and deliver neutrally-worded facts. What is important is that these issues are mentioned in the article and there are still clear sources (including to KNTV). Enquiring minds will be able to readily investigate further. The article is not here to serve as a mouthpiece for Myers or any other plaintiff, though (again, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:NOTASOAPBOX). MWFwiki (talk) 10:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that detailed explanation. As far as #1 “uncontroversial statements”, almost everything the Marshals have said is controverted. On #2, they are a very small department and have a unusual number of lawsuits pending for a small, limited jurisdiction department, so I think it should be given greater weight. As of today, I count 8 lawsuits filed against them in federal court alone this year…all saying similar facts. Plus, the ACLU lawsuit should carry some greater significance as it’s not a lone person making the accusation, it’s a large well-funded organization. On #4, the court has already ruled on the jurisdiction issue..although not directly. The same federal judge handling the Myers case ruled last month in another case that they are indeed limited “Unlike the general jurisdiction of Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, the marshals’ jurisdiction is limited geographically and in scope” per https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.166550/gov.uscourts.nvd.166550.41.0.pdf and quoting https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.166550/gov.uscourts.nvd.166550.23.1.pdf.

There has also been new reporting on this controversy since this article was published that say basically the same conclusion: https://lasvegas.citycast.fm/podcasts/what-do-las-vegas-city-marshals-do and https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/why-lawsuits-claim-las-vegas-operates-a-shadow-police-force. ~2025-36650-86 (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this article does not exist to be a soapbox. It’s an article about the agency, not its controversies nor lawsuits. They are mentioned and there are sources which those that are curious may investigate. Until final rulings are made, as of today, they should not be given more weight beyond that. You state that they are subject to an “unusual number” of lawsuits. Anecdotal, but; I worked for an agency with a chief, lieutenant, sergeant, a corporal/FTO (me), and perhaps 8 full-timers and perhaps 10-12 part-timers and auxiliary officers. At any given time, this agency was subject to 1-2 lawsuits. Scaling for size, we would have actually had more lawsuits than the LVCM. All of this, despite it being a generally well-regarded agency in a particularly low-crime area of one of the lowest-crime states in the nation (though 95%-plus of these cases would be tossed).

Regarding the use of primary sources, for better or for worse, they are still a governmental entity. Additionally, them being subject to a lawsuit (or one hundred lawsuits) does not infringe on their ability provide job descriptions and the like, nor does it change the fact that they are still a governmental entity.

Regarding the court documents, none of these things are settled, and no rulings have been made. I’ll be honest, I’m very skeptical of the jurisdictional lawsuit. A federal court does not get to “decide” the jurisdiction of a municipal or state agency, not unless a state or municipality (or whatever entity controls the LEA) agrees to abide by the court’s ruling.

I digress; The order you linked is not ruling on the jurisdiction of the LVCM. It is ruling on a seperate matter, and, quite frankly, I’m not sure why the court added the sentence regarding their “general jurisdiction.” Regardless, the court was simply explaining what the LVCM is. Their general jurisdiction is indeed property directly controlled by the city, etc etc. However, their jurisdiction as Nevada category I peace officers is unlimited within the state (or municipality, as the case may be), or at least that is what the city contends. And they are indeed category I peace officers, and category I LEOs do indeed appear to have “unrestricted” authority under the NRS. Another way to explain it; The first agency I was with, state law (admittedly, not Nevada) specifies that sworn law enforcement officers have jurisdiction throughout the state. However, my “jurisdiction” was still the municipality I worked for, as the municipality was not paying me to police the neighboring town. We didn’t need to be sworn by the neighboring town when we worked details there. Now, not every state does this, but from my reading, Nevada has a similar swearing scheme. My state also had categories of officers that were indeed restricted in their jurisdiction and sometimes their authority, but the law clearly spelled this out. One of the arguments I’ve seen — I believe it was one of Myers’ attorneys, though I could be misremembering — was “well, why would you have two agencies with unlimited jurisdiction within the city? You would just have one agency.” This argument is akin to stating “why have a municipal agency when you already have a state police?” Their primary jurisdiction and duties will differ, that’s all, but their authority may be the exact same. Not to mention, several cities across the U.S. have similar arrangements, with a main municipal agency alongside a security policing agency for city properties. [EDIT: Upon further digging, I’m even more-so convinced that the jurisdictional question will be settled in the LVCM’s favor. NRS 280.125 – the NRS which authorizes the marshals’ existence — explicitly states “Except as otherwise limited in subsection 3, the jurisdiction and authority of any units of specialized law enforcement established pursuant to subsection 1 is concurrent with the authority and jurisdiction of the metropolitan police department.” Except as limited in “subsection 3” merely states that they may NOT investigate category A felonies (crimes punishable by life in prison or by death) per NRS 171.1223, and even then, there are exceptions.]

All of that being said, when the cases are properly settled, I promise you that I will add a more significant write-up, especially if the plaintiffs prevail (if the LVCM prevails, I probably won’t change much of anything, apart from adding a blurb about the case being dropped [or whatever] in Month/Year). And, again, from what it sounds like, it would seem that plaintiffs may have a good case, at least with certain claims. However, as-is, with multiple ongoing lawsuits, Wikipedia cannot be seen as a mouthpiece of either side. We present their basic claims, and that’s it. I have PACER access, and will monitor 2:25-cv-00562-GMN-DJA (and the other cases) closely, you have my word. MWFwiki (talk) 03:13, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I’m glad that you know more than the 20+ lawyers who are on these cases. I’m glad you know more than all of the legal researchers and investigation and thousands of hours that have gone into this case. I’m glad you know more than the million-dollar+ litigation funds that have backed the class action lawsuit. Thank you for coming to our city and our community and telling us what our laws are and what they mean. So it is clear, that your editing of this article is not impartial, You are editing it from a pro law enforcement perspective and giving your own legal analysis into the case, Thus injecting bias into your edits. Your legal analysis is not only wrong, it is uncorroborated by any of the researchers and legal scholars that have been hired by the plaintiffs firms in these cases to extensively analyze the case before they spend millions of dollars litigating it. Your legal opinion is also the exact opposite of the former District Attorney who is now the union attorney for the Las Vegas Police Protective Association, who issued an official opinion on this matter. He did not side with the city, he reached the same conclusion that every other lawyer has reached. NRS 280.125 is the ONLY controlling statute at play here. This nonsense about “primary” jurisdiction and “general” jurisdiction does not appear anywhere in any statute and is just propaganda spread by the city to support their Illegal activities. “The authority and jurisdiction of a unit consisting of marshals or park rangers is limited to: The enforcement of state laws and city and county ordinances on real property owned, leased or otherwise under the control of the participating political subdivision.”

That’s it. There’s nothing more at play. When there is a restrictive statute, it is going to override a more general statute. Since you have access to PACER, read the motion to dismiss in the Myers case and the Plaintiffs responses. Read the same motion to dismiss in the ACLU case and the ACLU response. The city is basically making sovereign citizen type arguments. Ignore the statute that restricts them, but look at all of these other random statutes all over the place that they can attempt to rely on. Further, Nevada POST has already issued an opinion stating that No level of training or certification is going to be able to override the law. I have a Nevada drivers license, On the back of that Nevada drivers license, it says “Restrictions: None”. Per the statute, I have “unrestricted” driving ability. If you Take your logic and the logic that the city attorney is trying to use, That means I don’t have to follow speed limits, traffic laws, or any other laws that restrict my behavior. Since I have an “unrestricted” license, I am “unrestricted” in my abilities And other laws just simply don’t apply to me. Obviously, that isn’t going to apply in court and it is going to get laughed at by the judge. And that’s exactly what’s going to happen to them when they attempt to argue their motion to dismiss. If you can just get an additional training or certification and override the legislature and their clear restrictions, Then the laws would mean nothing.

I’m almost convinced at this point that you are making sovereign citizen arguments yourself. You cite NRS 280.125 and subsection 3. It’s literally in the same statute. You don’t have to go to another statute. subsection three states that they only have Authority and jurisdiction On City real property. The category A felony statute is yet another restrictive statute on them. So even if a category A felony were committed on city property, they still couldn’t investigate it. We have added a plethora of citations. All of the sections of this article. I’m happy to post more legal analysis and citations here if you would like to do more research. A significant amount of research and a significant amount of money has been spent on these cases. These aren’t just Pro-SE plaintiffs with handwritten lawsuits. These are big law firms that took these cases on contingency and are funding all of the research and investigators and their time in order to win at trial. As an example, here is one legal analysis performed by one of the law firms On one of the cases Give it a read before you Jump to conclusions. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25556822-research-notes-myers/ ~2025-36699-05 (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dude. I’m not reading this. We’re not a court. I shouldn’t have offered my own opinion. Please don’t disruptively edit the article any further. We will see how the courts rule and proceed from there. MWFwiki (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one disruptively editing the article based on your pro-police bias making false claims of NPOV issues, when the article was completely compliant to begin with, and has been for months…until you showed up. And the other user on this page that commented about NPOV, their IP address resolves back to the subject of the article. So you are the only one causing problems. ~2025-36939-24 (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you for your input. EDIT: In the future, I would also request that you please remember to assume good-faith and also recall that an interest is not a conflict of interest. MWFwiki (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed all of the negative content except for a few sentences, and then you have Added An entire paragraph response from the police. You have reduced eight different federal lawsuits to A single sentence Yet you have left in the entire paragraph in the city’s response. Your bias is so obvious. You also claim that the links to the police union opinion as well as the Document Cloud documents are not reliable sources. That’s nonsense. You can clearly see on Document Cloud that the Documents are official city policies and They were uploaded by a well known local journalist. Only journalists that have been vetted by document cloud are allowed to upload documents, the general public cannot upload documents to that website. So, you are willing to use the city’s own documents and responses as official sources, yet you won’t use a city document that is negative against the city as a source. Further, you have added incorrect information that is blatantly false And original reporting regarding categories of peace officers. This article needs to be restored to its original state, and if you are Wanting to add some balancing text regarding the city response, You are free to do so. But you are not free to remove a plethora of well-sourced Content only to add. One-sided biased content from the subject of the article. Additionally, your attempt to have the page protected after you’ve made these edits is deeply troubling and shows an attempt on your part to. Silence other points of view and leave the article as pro police. A review of your edit history shows that you seem to be only engaged primarily in the editing of law enforcement articles and giving a pro police slant to all of your edits. ~2025-36848-36 (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good-faith and also recall that an interest is not a conflict of interest. No viewpoints are being “silenced.” Wikipedia is not a courtroom, nor a soapbox, nor a place to “right great wrongs.” Additionally; You have made very serious accusations against me, and I will no longer be engaging with you. Thank you for your time. MWFwiki (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There has been a noticeable increase in edits to this article throughout this year, largely resulting from new policies enacted by the Las Vegas City Marshals that have generated significant public controversy. Several of these newly implemented policies appear to conflict with multiple Nevada state laws as well as provisions of the Las Vegas Municipal Code. As a result, at least eight civil lawsuits have been filed against the department alleging various unlawful actions. These developments have been heavily covered by local media outlets.

Of particular note, KTNV-TV has conducted its own investigative reporting and repeatedly concluded that several actions taken by the department are unlawful. The station has published numerous video reports online, and collectively these videos have received over 5 million views, drawing substantial regional and national attention to what is otherwise a relatively small police agency.

Because nearly all recent coverage has focused on allegations of misconduct, failures in oversight, and potential legal violations, the article currently reflects a predominantly negative portrayal of the department. This is not due to editorial bias but rather the lack of positive or neutral coverage in reliable sources. Under Wikipedia’s core content policies—Neutral Point of View (NPOV), Verifiability (V), and No Original Research (NOR)—content must summarize what reliable, independent sources state. As the overwhelming majority of reliable coverage is negative, the article necessarily reflects that coverage.

It should also be noted that multiple attempts have been made by individuals with an apparent conflict of interest—such as current or former police officers or people with an expressed pro-law-enforcement bias—to alter or remove well-sourced content. Wikipedia’s policies, including Conflict of Interest (COI) and Undue Weight, require that such edits be scrutinized to ensure neutrality and adherence to sourcing standards.

In its current form, the article is well-sourced, compliant with WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR, and accurately reflects the state of publicly available reporting. While the tone of the article is negative, this aligns with Wikipedia’s obligation to summarize reliable sources, not to artificially balance coverage when such balance does not exist in the source material. ~2025-36732-95 (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. For transparency, I have an open Protection Request and an open Conduct Report. [The TA keeps arguing the ANI report was closed; Their ANI report was closed, not mine]

2. Long story short, I would argue that the LVCM article should be reverted to this diff. I assuming the temporary user involved would like it to remain where it currently is.

3. I believe both of our arguments are summarized in the above “Reverted Edit” section. However, I am happy to summarize my points (sorry that section is so long, I really should not have gotten into the legal minutia!) and argument, if so-requested.

4. I would request that special care be taken, as there are ongoing lawsuits concerning this agency, and I believe there may be attempt at soapboxing/litigating via the article by parties possibly directly-involved. I make no accusations, obviously. The diff I have proffered discusses the lawsuits while avoiding unnecessary expounding and still permits those curious to follow the sources and learn for themselves, without being “primed” towards a certain viewpoint. It also avoids making unfounded (a union president’s opinion and random documents uploaded to cloud sites are not RSs) assertions, and merely repeats what the city of Las Vegas, the Nevada Revised Statutes, and the plaintiffs have claimed, roughly with equal WP:WEIGHT.

MWFwiki (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again. This user has filed a report here against me, and a counter report was filed, and it was closed as a content based editing dispute. I guess the user wants to give it another swing, trying to get his version of the article published and only his version. Here are the facts:

this dispute centers around the Las Vegas City Marshals article. They are a law-enforcement agency located in Las Vegas, and the smallest law-enforcement agency in the county. Nevada law granted them very, very limited jurisdiction, basically they only have jurisdiction on city properties and city parks. Despite this, earlier this year, they began a campaign of wide, reaching law-enforcement action throughout the city. They began conducting traffic stops and arresting drivers for a multitude of misdemeanor and felony offenses. Several of those drivers and citizens filed lawsuits alleging that the arrests were illegal and outside of their jurisdiction. Those lawsuits were then picked up on by the media. Every single television station in the Las Vegas area has reported on the lawsuits. The local newspaper and several local podcasts have also reported on the lawsuits. One of the television stations, KTNV, assigned an investigative news reporter to the story and she has published many different news stories that are super well researched and sourced, and has conducted a wide ranging investigation into the particular issue.

as of the date of this writing, eight different federal lawsuits have been filed this year, alleging illegal, and improper arrests by this particular police department. The news stories that were published by KTNV have around 5 million views total on YouTube. There have also been several other high profile news stories done on this particular law-enforcement agency, the most noteworthy being from a lawyer that runs a YouTube channel called “the civil rights lawyer”. Based upon the significant number of media and news stories, a flood of edits came this year to the Wikipedia article. The article has largely been dormant for the past 10 years. All of the media attention caused dozens and dozens of edits in the first few quarters of this year. Then the media attention died down, and there have not been any meaningful edits to the article in about six months.

Then, user MWFwiki seems to find the article. He proceeds to remove large sections of content that were properly sourced from the many news reports that have been published this year. From his user page, he states that he is a career law-enforcement officer. His edits on the page have been overwhelmingly positive towards the Police. He has removed almost all of the sections of article that mention the large lawsuits and controversies surrounding this police department and reduced them to a single sentence. However, he has taken content from the police department’s version of the lawsuits and published that statement in its entirety, representing an entire paragraph. Some of the paragraphs of content that he has removed had as many as five different sources.

further troubling is the fact that the user has done his own legal research and drawn his own conclusions in relation to his edits. He has stated on the talk page that he feels that these lawsuits will be found in favor of the police department. He has also reached conclusions on what he believes the “primary” and “general” jurisdiction of this law-enforcement agency is, despite that being at the heart of all of the controversy and lawsuits. He has made edits to the article that are simply not accurate, such as stating that the police department has “unrestricted” law-enforcement authority, despite the fact that Nevada law clearly states that their “authority and jurisdiction” is limited to taking police actions on City property, as has been reported by all of the different media outlets and respected journalistic organizations that have been cited as sources.

The user has now filed reports for Wikipedia administrators to intervene and block the other users and request page protection to keep the IP users from editing the page so that his point of view is the only point of view that will be shown in the article. This attempt should be seen for what it is. This is a purely content based editorial dispute from an editor who appears to have clear bias and has done original research on the issue, despite the overwhelming amount of verified and reliable journalistic sources, which stated the opposite of his position. ~2025-36886-64 (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I’m going to have to respond again since you edited your original post to add additional text at the bottom.

Your reference to “a union president’s opinion” is a distortion of the facts. The letter that you are referring to is a legal opinion issued by the former Clark County elected district attorney who is now the general council for the Las Vegas Police protective association. It is an official legal opinion on the matter at the heart of the jurisdiction question. Interestingly enough, that union actually represents the Marshals at issue and is advising them of their legality. It is not just some document to be disregarded, and in several of the media reports it has been referenced.

Second, your reference to “random documents uploaded to cloud sites are not RSs” must be a reference to the official Las Vegas City Marshals policies that were requested by local media journalists as part of their new stories that were uploaded and posted to documentcloud. As the official City website does not have these documents, the only other place that they appear is on documentcloud. That does not make them any less significant or any less valid. In fact, the Wikipedia entry for document cloud says “ Since its launch in 2009, it has been used primarily by journalists to find information in the documents they gather in the course of their reporting and, in the interests of transparency, publish the documents.” It simply does not support your point of view. Your point of view appears to be that City Marshals have statewide jurisdiction. A official policy document of a City Marshals policy which states they have jurisdiction only on City property is not invalid simply because it does not support your position, no matter what website it is hosted on. ~2025-36934-42 (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-36934-42 Is this document uploaded on documentcloud accessible by means other than that website? And has the document been mentioned/analyzed in the media? Katzrockso (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All documents that are used as references have been liked in the article as sources and appear in news reports. For example, this document:

http://davidroger.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/CityMarshalls.pdf

It is in the KTNV story here: https://www.ktnv.com/13-investigates/second-civil-rights-lawsuit-accuses-city-of-las-vegas-marshals-of-abusing-their-authority

Story says “Our investigation revealed Nevada law limits marshals’ authority. David Roger, the union’s (including marshals) own lawyer, wrote a legal opinion in July 2023 saying, “City marshal jurisdiction is limited to Fremont Street Experience, city parks and city buildings.”

The lawsuit that was linked in the news story also says: “David Roger, Esq., the former elected District Attorney for Clark County, in 2014 as

General Counsel for the Las Vegas Police Protective Ass’n issued a memorandum outlining the City

marshals as limited in territorial scope. In this memo, Mr. Roger specifically acknowledged that “Deputy City Marshals may enforce state laws and City and County ordinances on city property.”

He further explained that because of the statutory limitations on the jurisdiction of city marshals that

interlocal agreements may not be enforceable as such agreements could not enlarge the statutory

jurisdiction limitations on the marshals.”

The other documents on documentcloud appear to be uploaded by this local journalist who has covered the subject: https://x.com/DougRroberts. The documents are all official policy documents from the police department that appear to be obtained through a FOIA request, and he references in his reports. In the KTNV news story, there is a video shot of the reporter with a table full of documents showing her research and it appears that these are the same documents uploaded to documentcloud:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25509002-adm-1030-organizational-structure-positions-and-terms-no-redation/

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25509013-adm-1010-basis-in-law-for-authority-to-act-no-redactions/ ~2025-37109-35 (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that “appears to be the same documents” is… not an appropriate argument. This is blatant WP:OR and WP:SYNTH — also what about the other documents? Random documents uploaded by a random Twitter user do not a RS make. However, I would be more than happy to add the mentioned KNTV source to my preferred Diff as a cite. Beyond that, we’re litigating the case. MWFwiki (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously, they were published in a news report somewhere in order for them to have been uploaded to document cloud by that journalist and whoever edited the article many months ago linked to them as references. So I doubt that someone was just taking a blind guess when they used the document as a reference. Regardless, it would still qualify as a reliable source under WP:ABOUTSELF as it is a document authored by the subject of the article. Even if you were to remove all of the document cloud links, there are still 15 other sources in the article that can be used. I don’t think that simply because a document is hosted on document cloud makes it any less reliable than anywhere else. If that’s the case, we can throw out all sources from YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, or any other platform. ~2025-36705-63 (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we absolutely try to avoid those, if at all possible.

“They obviously were” is not an answer, it is WP:OR.

Your WP:ABOUTSELF claims fail under points 2 and 4. And for the dozenth time, you’re seemingly attempting to litigate these cases via this article or at least sway public opinion. All of this needs to be addressed in that context, not alone, in a vacuum. MWFwiki (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then find some sources and add some material and content that sheds light on your side. Just be sure to use reliable sources as I have done. The more content the better! ~2025-37186-45 (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we can’t use random documents of unknown provenance on Wikipedia. If we use them as a primary source, they need to come from an official source (e.g. a government website) or have been linked in a secondary source (news article, other type of report). I’m not saying this is the case, but we have no way to confirm that this document isn’t fabricated/fake. Even if Doug Roberts were to publish a story on his website and then mention these documents, there might be more of an argument here. But we can’t rely on something uploaded to a website. @~2025-37186-45. Katzrockso (talk) 03:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Katzrockso just to be clear, would you support me reverting the article to my proposed Diff? Regardless; Thank you for your time and input MWFwiki (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be opposed to removing the document cloud references if that is the only material dispute. Very little of the content is supported by only a document cloud link. However, reverting to your proposed diff is an extreme measure and removes probably 90% of the content which was well written and well sourced. ~2025-37325-36 (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m going to keep this brief, as with an open conduct report concerning you, I’m not going to re-hash all of this and I’m about ready to drop the stick.

The cloud documents are hardly the only issue. I would strongly recommend reviewing WP:VOICE, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, among other policies and essays.
The lawsuits have not been removed in my proffered diff. They are given appropriate weight, particularly given that they are unresolved. There is a very real concern that someone associated with the cases could be attempting to litigate or otherwise sway opinions via Wikipedia. No one is hiding the cases and no one is preventing them from being mentioned.

MWFwiki (talk) 05:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The conduct report is irrelevant and is a distraction. That’s the reason why it is going nowhere. All of the content on the page is written from a neutral point of view and is compliant with all of the policies that you have mentioned. I just went through the entire page again today and went to line by line. Besides the content that is a direct quote, everything else is neutral. The fact that the lawsuits are unresolved is even more important why they should remain there. It is a current event and is of current interest to readers. If there was a lawsuit that was resolved years or decades ago, it would be less relevant to the current state of affairs at this particular police department. In your proposal, all of the numerous news articles and lawsuits and problems with this police department have been relegated to a single sentence. However, the response that the police department gave has been posted in full. If anything, there is undo weight being given to the subject matter and no neutrality. If someone associated with the litigation is attempting to sway the article, obviously that would be improper. But, we haven’t seen that. We have seen the exact opposite. In the beginning of this year, the article was edited by an IP address directly owned by the city of Las Vegas. I have searched for the article content on the Internet, and I see that there are even more and more recent news articles concerning the litigation that the department is in. There has been a more recent lawsuit, filed by a lieutenant at the department, alleging, misconduct, and discrimination. That was reported in a recent article. There has also been a podcast by Citycast Las Vegas as well as a article by “the Nevada independent” that goes into detail about the department. Neither of those have been incorporated into the article. If they would, it would give even more weight to the negative problems with this department. As I have said before, I have no problem with editing the article to balance out the coverage. I have no problem with adding more content to the article that is positive. The problem is, there just isn’t any available. It’s all negative. ~2025-37325-36 (talk) 05:32, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support removing any content solely cited to the documentcloud documents that have received no verification by secondary sources. From what I can tell, not all of the content that was removed was cited solely to those documents and there was material sourced to news articles removed too. I’ll have to take a closer look @MWFwiki @~2025-37325-36 (sorry it gets confusing when the temporary account keeps on changing). Katzrockso (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I was not aware that it was changing every time I made an edit. That is not intentional. ~2025-37389-70 (talk) 06:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t mean to impugn you, I just realized when I tried to tag you there were a bunch of different accounts! Kinda a negative effect of the new temporary account system but interesting nonetheless. Katzrockso (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Katzrockso No worries. To be entirely fair, I’m not entirely against looking at re-writing the section in-question, at least once we achieve a good baseline; I wish to go to my proffered diff as that baseline. My primary concern is that we have someone litigating. Edits only began after the lawsuits. They appear to have access to documents that they cannot explain where they pulled them from that someone directly or indirectly involved with the cases (or a journalist) may have. This would indicate to me an apparent COI, which is as serious as a an actual COI.

Secondly, we have some outrageous language on the article right now, and we are outright denying the city’s position (multiple times), and asserting “Marshals have jurisdiction here but not here” which is the topic of the largest of the suits.

I understand that my preferred diff may look a bit “light,” but it is weighted towards neutrality. I would be happy to include some of the sources which I had otherwise removed, but beyond that, I don’t feel policy justifies anything; That is the the compromise policy supports, I would argue. Given the other user’s conduct and extensive and admitted use of LLMs, I don’t feel I can give their suggestions much weight, unfortunately. MWFwiki (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, it appears that the majority of the edits appeared after the bulk of the news stories, not the litigation. KTNV has posted three different news stories that have over 500,000 views each on YouTube. Obviously what they put on TV and other social media and on the web would put the number of viewers of this subject in the millions. I also looked back at the City Marshals Facebook page. There were almost no comments on any of the posts until these news stories started to be spread. So, a lot of attention was placed on this department for negative reasons and that coincides with the edits to this page. Further, one of the lawsuits that was in one of the YouTube videos was actually filed in 2024. There were no edits made to this page around that time. So it does not appear to me that people are involved with the lawsuits while simultaneously editing Wikipedia.

I agree that we should include the City position. Go ahead and add that to the article. It would help a balance it out and remain neutral. I’m just very opposed to removing any content. We should not deny that their position exists… even if they are the only ones taking that position against eight different law firms that are litigating the opposite position against them. ~2025-37353-01 (talk) 06:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to understand the edit history. @MWFwiki which version of the article would you prefer, from the editor history. And the same question to you @~2025-37353-01 Katzrockso (talk) 06:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Katzrockso I would prefer Special:permalink/1324493958 and I would presume the other editor would prefer the page remain as-is. MWFwiki (talk) 06:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that tones it down far too much. I removed the statement from the lead that is SYNTH and based on the document uploads and worked on rewording some stuff in the legal issues section to remove the non-neutral language.

There’s still very non-neutral language in the last paragraph of the section, but it would take more to reword that. I’ll see if I can try Katzrockso (talk) 07:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Katzrockso Can we please do this, only to save us both some time; Revert to my preferred diff, and I will be more than happy to work with you on expanding the lawsuits section, which I don’t disagree could be, carefully. The article still cites the doccloud and has other erroneous language outside of that section. My preferred diff solves those issues so that we can collaborate on the more important section.MWFwiki (talk) 07:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“extensive and admitted use of LLMs”

Two comments on two different talk pages is not extensive. ~2025-37353-01 (talk) 06:44, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^ “Public Safety Department”. Official website of the Las Vegas Department of Public Safety. Archived from the original on 5 March 2025.
^ “LVJC Marshal Division”. Official website of the Las Vegas Justice Court. Archived from the original on 20 March 2025. The LVJC Marshals are responsible for the security and safety of LVJC Judges, Hearing Masters, staff, civilians, an in custody defendants. LVJC Marshals are category I Peace Officers that: Provide court security and related services[;] Prevent or address disturbances[;] Respond to emergency situations within the Justice Courts[;] Remand persons to custody as ordered by the judge[;] Provide first aid and CPR as needed[…]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply