Talk:Pioneer Courthouse Square/Archive 2

Protection
This page should not be semi-protected. People (like me) want to edit it. Please unblock —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beenturns21 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The recent "edit war" was over issues directly discussed on this page. Therefore, this discussion is manifestly relevant and should under no circumstances be "archived." I have moved the relevant discussion back onto the talk page in a spirit of trying to resolve differences.

I have requested that these issues be mediated. Please see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_courthouse_square. Please do not delete anything until these issues have been mediated. You are acting extremely inappropriate and contrary to the aims of Wikipedia. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beenturns21 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have moved it to Requests for mediation/Pioneer Courthouse Square hbdragon88 (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hear, hear..well said Katr, I agree completely with what you've said. -Pete (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I had previously had no involvement in this article - my only edit to it has been to revert what appeared to be a partial restore on the talk page that only restored part of the discussion, leaving the counter-arguments safely hidden in the archive. As it turns out, it may have been a full restore of the text, but without the formatting, so it was not easilly readable.  After that I researched some information about the article and placed it on my watch list.  However, as I was named in the mediation request, I searched deeper through the article history and found the following issues of apparent sockpuppetry and trolling.  Given the quantity of this, I've placed it in a collapsible section that can easily be expanded for viewing.


 * I had initially posted this information at AN/I, but am also posting it here as documentation of the SPA sockpuppet accounts which have been attempting to insert the text involved over the past two years, despite it being removed by multiple established editors and admins. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Sir, I do not appreciate being called a sock-puppet of someone else. I am merely an interested observer. It was YOU who was wrong to attempt to delete this entire talk page. Shame on you. Let us now discuss these edits and how to solve this legitimate dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beenturns21 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you read WP:SOCK.
 * As to your complaint, nothing was deleted - it was properly archived. The additions lack WP:RS and are WP:OR and are not WP:NPOV.  Unless a reliable source can be provided (as has been pointed out, the prior mentioned reference does not meet the requirements of a reliable source), there's little to discuss here.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing previous edits to the discussion board, it is my opinion that the previous discussion should not be archived. Clearly there continues to be a dispute about the precise issues that have been discussed here previously. I have reverted appropriately. Fairedit99 (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's discuss
I am willing to discuss the issue of how homeless people should be portrayed in the article. While this discussion is going on please do not revert. Please be sensible and discuss this issue with me rather than punitively banning me and being highly rude as some people have been with so many editors. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beenturns22 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you say you are willing to discuss, you should discuss BEFORE reinserting the controversial content. Since the concencsus on this talk page seems to be AGAINST your inclusion, you should DEFINITELY discuss before reinserting it.   WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's Pretend
Let's pretend to assume good faith about the pack of timewasting and disruptive sock/meat puppets who insist on inserting material into the lead of this article against consensus.

The disputed material is this:

"There are lots of people that go to Pioneer Courthouse Square. Some are businessmen stopping for a bite to eat. Others are families out to see Portland. And some say that the square has many homeless persons who congregate there although most are harmless."

OK, first, there is a tone issue with these sentences, as they are written as if for a kindergarten primer. Second as we have stated many times, as if we were assuming good faith, these sentences need to backed up with reliable sources so as not to be original research. So, if we were to take the inclusion of these sentences seriously, I would propose that they be rewritten like this (Note that "Foo" is a stand-in word for a figure or name of a source that we don't have yet, and note also that each of these facts would need to have a citation using tags):

"It has been estimated that Foo people visit the square each day. According to Foo, Foo percent of visitors are businesspeople buying lunch from the food kiosks there, while Foo percent are out-of-town tourists, and Foo percent are local families. In a Foo (year) study, it was noted that Foo percent of the visitors to the square are homeless. Though a small percentage of visitors indicated that they were uncomfortable with the homeless presence at the square, according to Foo, the homeless population causes very few problems and crime rates remain low."

Of course, depending on the sources found the passage would not end up being written exactly this way, and I'd suggest that unless there has been a lot of press on the homelessness issue in the square, that the homelessness issue doesn't belong in the lede at all. So just in case any new editors who aren't sock or meat puppets feel that the previously blocked editors are being treated unfairly, note that this is a concrete example of the kind of encyclopedic writing and fact-based information that we are suggesting would be better than the puerile and weaselly sentences that are being edit warred over. So, go find those references, and let me know if you need help formatting the citations. P.S. Note also that the stale discussion that I archived is not adding anything to the current dispute, and should remain archived, per WP:TALK, but that the material is easily read by clicking on one of the two "1" links, either in the "archive box" or below the "talk header". Happy editing! Katr67 (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Refs for expansion

 * Google News search for "Pioneer Courthouse Square"+homeless. Katr67 (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Relevance of homeless inclusion?
Regardless of whether it can be verified in a reliable, third-party source, I question the relevance of mentioning homeless people at Pioneer Courthouse Square at all. There are homeless people everywhere, on every downtown street and at every civic square in the nation. The area under the Burnside Bridge and Old Town has many more homeless people than the Square. Unfortunately, I don't think that the fact that homeless congregate in a certain place deserves mention in said place's article, unless that fact is somehow newsworthy. Articles such as Times Square and Seattle's Pioneer Square make no mention of homeless. Perhaps the information regarding types of places where the homeless choose to congregate would be better included in the homelessness article, specifically under the Refuges for the homeless heading. pinotgris 03:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. Note that my above posts are simply for completeness sake in case we aren't really dealing with a troll, which is doubtful. I don't think anyone but the editwarring sock puppets think the homelessness really needs to be in the article, but like I said, just in case for some reason there is a great deal of notable press coverage about the issue that I don't know about, then perhaps a non-sock puppet could make a reasonable argument for including it. I'm not arguing for the inclusion of the material, just providing helpful pointers for anyone who is not familiar with the edit war who thinks we are somehow being unfair by not including the material. I doubt reliable third-party sources exist that would show the issue as it pertains to the square is any more notable than the general homelessness problem anywhere. Note that my example in the above section is also a bit tongue-in-cheek. This is my last post on the subject. I've got other things to do. Katr67 (talk) 07:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear sockpuppets
Nope, people blocked for sockpuppetry and are editing using another sock to avoid a block, do not get a voice. Also, it has been discussed here, and WP:CONSENSUS says for the info not to be included as is. Aboutmovies (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about homelessness
First of all, I'm sorry for all the sockpuppeting I did. I want to end it. I'm willing to be a productive member of Wikipedia and to end the disruption to the article. I just ask you to listen to me for a moment. I want to discuss the right way to put something about homelessness in the article. Perhaps we can use what Katr67 suggested as a model. It doesn't have to be in the lead necessarily but I would argue the article would warrant a mention on homelessness somewhere because it is a pervasive issue at Pioneer Courthouse Square. Again, I just want to end this dispute now. I am willing to stop my disruption. I tried for so long to ram my views through into the article and now I see it didn't work very well at all and discussion would be the best way to achieve my objective. Please do not block me, I am trying to do the right thing now. And I hope that after we resolve this and I prove that I am working in good faith perhaps my original account can be unblocked and I will no longer be viewed as a vandal? Clerkderk20 (talk) 07:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your newfound perspective on this matter. I'm not sure about the best course of action though -- I'm sure you can appreciate, you're up against a very long and focused pattern of behavior. I don't wish to exclude anyone from making a positive contribution, but at the same time I'm reluctant to open the door to something that might cost the community more time and trouble than warranted. So I'll be interested to hear what others have to say.


 * Also, I am not unilaterally opposed to having something about homelessness in the article. It is certainly a congregating point for the local homeless population, and that does have a certain effect on the ethos of the place. But I'm not sure what phrasing would capture that, and as others have pointed out, without a reliable source discussing the matter, we can't include it without violating WP:V. -Pete (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Clerkderk20, could you explain why Pioneer Courthouse Square should mention homelessness when, say Skidmore Fountain, Washington Park, Old Town Chinatown, Portland, Oregon, Union Station, and Springwater Corridor don't? Even Downtown Portland barely makes reference to homelessness.  What's so unique about this square?  —EncMstr (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see why it would be necessary to unblock the original account. I'll be watching this discussion, but you've tried the community's patience to the point where I don't have any good faith left. Sorry. The other editors may feel differently. Good luck. Katr67 (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Coming here with yet another sock puppet is not the approach. Take some time off, then see about getting yourself unblocked on the original account and have all you other accounts deleted (including the ones you may have created but not yet used to avoid the recent sign up issue you decided to circumvent/game the system with semi-protection). Then, contribute to Wikipedia outside of this article for a while in a meaningful manner, then and only then will I personally consider expending any effort towards assisting you in anyway, and I'm a new comer to this long running problem you created. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * AM, the difficulty there is that User talk:Pioneercourthouse is indefinitely protected from editing, so that option isn't available to him. On a closer look, I wonder if one of the two rejected requests for unblocking there was closed incorrectly; I'm going to check with the closing admin. Depending on his response, I might consider unblocking that page for the purpose of allowing one more unblock request. -Pete (talk) 23:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe one can request unblocking to the powers that be, when one's user page is protected, via e-mail. You may recall a certain specialist in longevity who was able to do that recently. If you need the details I could go dig them up. Katr67 (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Pete, I could have sworn even blocked users could still edit their own userpages, specifically so they can make an unblock request. The main point is that he/she needs to start there, at the beginning and not continue to sockpuppet. Using yet another sock to get yourself unblocked is not appropriate. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll chime in here, but I'm going to ultimately defer to the frequent editors of this page, who have borne the brunt of dealing with User:Pioneercourthouse for two years. Thoughts? --barneca (talk) 00:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's true, blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punative, but I must say, after seeing how, for 2 years, he has wasted lots of other peoples' time, a little voice in the back of my head is saying "Why should he get to start fresh? Ban him whether he's being honest now or not." I'm trying, only somewhat successfully, to silence that little voice.  I imagine that little voice is louder for the people who've been dealing with him all this time.
 * I would say Wikipedia can do without someone who's only purpose is to agitate for a POV edit on one article. However, I tentatively think we could use a reformed vandal who's willing to help the encyclopedia and respect consensus.
 * I propose to block Clerkderk20 for now, but leave his talk page unprotected.
 * I propose we unprotect the article. If the offending paragraph shows up again (and checkuser shows it is him, and not someone trying to get him in trouble), then we have our answer about whether he can ever edit collaboratively or not, and whether he can ever be trusted.
 * I propose he do penance / show evidence of good faith. We give him the option of 2ndchance, with the requirement that the edits be significant, and the article he chooses have absolutely nothing to do with Pinoeer Courthouse Square.  I think the only way he can be welcomed back is as a multidimensional user, not as a single purpose account.
 * If his response to the 2ndchance is acceptable, I propose we unblock Clerkderk20.
 * I propose a ban on editing the actual article for X months (X equals... 6 months (pulled that number out of the air)). He can edit the talk page, as long as he does so collaboratively.
 * No more than 50% of his edits can concern Pioneer Courthouse Square.
 * If all goes well, at the end of X months, he can have the name User:Pioneercourthouse back, and the page ban is lifted.


 * Can I propose some possible appropriate edits to include on homelessness in the article? To answer several questions previously made, I think it's important to mention bums because they are such an integral part of the square in a way that they aren't elsewhere . If you click on the newslinks above posted by kat67 you will that there is a long history of bums in the square, including stabbings and murders and them also just sitting around. Clearly, "most are harmless," although I know nobody wants that particular phrase in the article. If you allow, I will propose some suggested sentences. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clerkderk20 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * They don't do those things elsewhere? What's your citation for that silly claim? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As a longtime editor of this page and someone who has been dealing with this nonsense since it started years ago, I'll just add my two cents. The fact that homeless people congregate in many different places is, in general, not noted on those places' Wikipedia pages. Furthermore, phrases like "most are harmless" violate WP:NPOV, and the rest of the phrasing of the edit, as it has been repeatedly inserted, is not encyclopedic in its tone. I am sick and tired of dealing with this single issue editor, as I have been, for years now. This material should stay out and Pioneercourthouse and all his/her sockpuppets should be banned because this editor is clearly in violation of WP:SOCK and has been for years. This has gone on for two years now. That's way too long. Just go away and leave us alone, so we can get back to writing this encyclopedia. Stop wasting our time. --Makaristos (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said, the "most are harmless" quote does not need to be in the article because it seems unnacceptable to be people like you. I am trying to be reasonable, Makaristos. Banning me and vilifying me will not solve this problem. I am attempting to solve it in a positive way. Rejecting people who attempt to reform themselves is not smart because it is inviting recidivism. Bums are an integral part of pioneer courthouse square. I am merely suggesting we find a way to put a statement that they are present at pioneer courthouse square into the article. It does not need to dominate the article, just be mentioned, perhaps with citations to some of the stories kat67 linked to above. Thank you. Please do not be vengeful but be appreciative that I am TRYING to change my ways. But condemnatory language like Makaristos uses does not help matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clerkderk20 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There is nothing special about the homeless of PCS as compared with the homeless elsewhere; and the "most are harmless" is a relative and unverifiable judgment that just as easily applies to humanity in general; so, so what? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Wrong. The homeless people there play a very large (possibly extreme) role from time to time. I propose the following single sentence be added somewhere in the article: "Pioneer Courthouse square is known to be popular among hobos. Most commit no crimes although there have occasionally been murders." We would link to this article: http://www.kgw.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D875TLI00.html . The story points out the murderous nature of a small minority of the homeless and also points out that the square is very popular with bums. It is a legitimate news source and should meet the WP reliability requirements. One key reason for the relevance of homeless people in this entry is that they have committed many crimes there and are very widely known to congregate at pioneer courthouse square. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clerkderk20 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You're wrong, and you're also obviously trying to push an agenda of some sort, which will not be permitted. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, that story you linked to was about something happening across the street from Pioneer Courthouse Square, at the Meier & Frank (or whatever it is now), not in PCS. Minor point, I know, but isn't it kind of relevant here? --Makaristos (talk) 04:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, it's close enough when you're trying to "prove" a bogus point. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I have given some concrete suggestions and instead of stimulating a discussion of how to make my idea better, I have been met with offensive and mocking derision. This conversation makes clear that it is very difficult to be a good faith editor because there is a small minority who can do nothing but be rude and mock ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clerkderk20 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That's because your idea, that there's something "special" about the homeless of PCS vs. other homeless in other cities, is thoroughly bogus. Baseball Bugs ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up,

Doc?]]'' 12:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, as was pointed out earlier, after two years of this stupid edit war, we, the legitimate editors, have zero good faith left. --Makaristos (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As recently as Oct 14, you referred to editors who edited according to both Wikipedia policies and the consensus as "vandals" and "trolls" in edit summaries in the article. Using another sock, you posted to this page on the same day and dismissed the long, exhaustive previous discussion, which ended in consensus, as something you didn't intend to pay attention to (as shown by the comment "should not have been reverted without discussion".) Two days later, you posted the first comment in the current discussion. What happened in those two days to make you eager to start following Wikipedia policies, and to respect the opinions of other editors? --Bonadea (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Bonadea's question is the only relevant one right now. There is no compelling content issue to discuss, and the only person who disagrees is someone who needs to focus on his editing behavior and relationship with the Wikipedia community before getting back to anything content related. -Pete (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The guy crosses out his apology for sockpuppetry on the grounds that he wrote it "accidentally". Like he nodded off for a few seconds and his fingertips randomly touched the keys that spelled out those words. He's missed his calling. He should be writing for Saturday Night Live. Or maybe The Muppet Show. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion
WP:RBI. Learn it, love it, live it. Katr67 (talk) 07:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Latest sock blocked, in partial penance for believing for 5 seconds that this leopard was going to change it's spots. --barneca (talk) 12:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you only "accidentally" blocked him. But accidents do happen when you're typing. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * :) --barneca (talk) 12:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh. I think I've found my favorite edit summary: (I deny ever sockpupetting. This was accidentally written but I did not mean it. It was an accident.)


 * That's good stuff. -Pete (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It needs to be added to the joke page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

New user wants to contribute
Hi could someone please unprotect Pioneer Courthouse Square. I am a Portland native interested in editing in. Thanks! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poter99 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Poter99, due to recent vandalism, the article is locked. Feel free to post your edits here and we'll be happy to add them for you. tedder (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless they have to do with that bogus stuff about the homeless. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What's the "bogus stuff about the homeless?" Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poter99 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it Poter99. If you are serious about editing, your contribution to this talk page will be evident. If you aren't, it'll show up too. tedder (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Um I would like to know. What if I write something that touches on this supposed "bogus stuff"? How can i know what is "bogus" if nobody tells me? I don't want to get caught up in some stupid wiki-dispute. I am just interested in editing Wikipedia. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poter99 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's easy. Just write right here, what you would like to add to the article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It has taken me several weeks but I have painstakingly reviewed everything in the archives and the whole history of this most idiotic dispute. You should really try to find a compromise instead of fighting about such stupid topics. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poter99 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine. Now, what was it you wanted to add to the article? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Stop talking to me in such a disparaging manner. Have a little respect for your fellow wikipedians and a good faith editor. I have noticed that Baseball Bugs has a bad habit of speaking to people he doesn't like extremely rudely. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poter99 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 25 January 2009


 * Asking what you want to add to the article is a reasonable question. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * yes as long as you don't do it in a snide backhanded manner. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poter99 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that your bad attitude and the uncompromising, assenine attitude of other admins has only contributed to this controversy. You ought to be ashamed. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poter99 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You started this thread by stating that you want to add content. As it's locked, only admins can currently edit the article.  That's unlikely to change anytime soon due to the persistence of the vandal who has been trying to force POV content into the article for quite some time now.


 * You were asked what content you would like to add back on January 7th, and you still haven't posted it. If you have content or changes you would like to see, the only way to make that happen will be to request it here.  Given that you've been told that a few times now, his question was perfectly reasonable.  What was it you wanted to add to the article? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

In addition to Barek's wise words above, I'd like to point out that personal back-and-forth is not appropriate for an article's dscussion page. If you two feel you have something to work out, please either resolve it on your own talk pages, or use the dispute resolution process. -Pete (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * He can resolve this issue by answering the question. Which he won't, because he's just another of PCH's many socks who wants to add the bogus stuff about the homeless. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * See?! This is an example of what a jerk Baseball Bugs is. I have nothing to do with this dispute. I have not tried in any way to add in the controversial content. You're just a rude excuse for a user. This proves my whole point. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poter99 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 25 January 2009


 * Feel free to prove me wrong, by stating what you want to add to the article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The user has been blocked. Now repeat after me RBI...RBI...RBIIIII.... Thanks! Katr67 (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For now I will refrain from editing this page further due to the extreme malice exhibited on the part of the editors. After I started posting my points here Katr67 maliciously started reverting my edits on other articles (they were reverted back by other editors). Baseball Bugs has also been extremely rude to me on here. I'll post more later. In the meantime, I haven't done anything wrong. I was just pointing out some things about the article but was viciously attacked and abused. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poter99 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please look into dispute resolution if you feel you have been the victim of incivility or bias. Good luck. Katr67 (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't start to get rude until it became clear he wasn't going to answer the question. And he still won't. He wants to find some way to put that "homeless" paragraph into the article. I think not as bad as the guy who plagued the Rick Reilly page for 4 years, but it certainly had potential. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)