Talk:Pioneer Courthouse Square/Archive 2

3254:

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?

3203:

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

3712:

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.

31: 194:

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.

3790:. 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. 4027:

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 Knowledge policies, and to respect the opinions of other editors? --

3613:. 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. 3958:

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

3785:

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."

3499:

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.

2989:

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.

4026:

As recently as Oct 14, you referred to editors who edited according to both Knowledge 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

3120:

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

3386:

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 Knowledge outside of this article for a while in a meaningful manner, then and only then will I

3253:

I'm willing to be a productive member of Knowledge 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

3173:

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

193:

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

3425:

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

4660:

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

3535:

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,

3202:

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

3711:

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

3275:

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

3269:

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

4845:

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

4055:

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 Knowledge community before getting back to anything content related.

4632:

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

2874:

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. ---

116:

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.

3125:

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

3549:

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

2969:

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.

2899:

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.

4090:

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

4378:

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 Knowledge. Thanks!

3121:

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

3174:

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

4695:

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

3563:, 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. 3048:

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

4446:

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!

4488:

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!

3460:

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.

3018:

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.

4947:

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

4728:

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.

3608:

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

3755:

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?

3053:

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

226: 3665:, 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' Knowledge pages. Furthermore, phrases like "most are harmless" violate 2849:

03:37, August 12, 2007 Can't sleep, clown will eat me (Talk | contribs) m (Protected Pioneer Courthouse Square: edit warring, please resolve dispute via talk page (expires 03:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)))

2852:

19:00, September 25, 2008 EncMstr (Talk | contribs) m (Protected Pioneer Courthouse Square: Edit warring / Content dispute ( (expires 19:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)) (expires 19:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC))))

4846:

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!

2947:. 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. --- 3579:

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.

3150: 3041:

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.

3677:, 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 1100: 4585:

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!

232: 1119: 4715:

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.

3543:

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.

1106: 3068:" 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 <ref: --> 3270:

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.

1975: 600: 124:. Please do not delete anything until these issues have been mediated. You are acting extremely inappropriate and contrary to the aims of Knowledge. thank you. 2728: 2100: 1994: 1093: 619: 3536:

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.

2606: 1981: 725: 606: 377: 2846:

05:46, May 6, 2007 Alison (Talk | contribs) m (Unprotected Pioneer Courthouse Square: Per request on WP:RFPP - four months have passed - fingers crossed!)

2843:

22:25, December 26, 2006 Jayjg (Talk | contribs) m (Protected Pioneer Courthouse Square: sprotected - IP inserting nonsense, sockpuppeting, edit-warring )

2747: 2119: 1350: 4348:

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.

3182:

make no mention of homeless. Perhaps the information regarding types of places where the homeless choose to congregate would be better included in the

3130:, 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! 2734: 2625: 2106: 744: 486: 390: 268: 3227:

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

2612: 2477: 1369: 731: 381: 76: 71: 59: 1133: 1968: 1600: 1356: 850: 593: 499: 281: 238: 153: 2496: 1850: 1475: 975: 490: 272: 3987:

That's because your idea, that there's something "special" about the homeless of PCS vs. other homeless in other cities, is thoroughly bogus.

2008: 633: 2721: 2483: 2352: 2093: 1619: 869: 2761: 2133: 3307: 2639: 2599: 2227: 1869: 1725: 1606: 1494: 1225: 994: 856: 758: 718: 394: 372: 1383: 503: 285: 3179: 2510: 2371: 1856: 1481: 1343: 981: 1633: 883: 4274:

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.

3112:. Though a small percentage of visitors indicated that they were uncomfortable with the homeless presence at the square, according to 2358: 2246: 1883: 1744: 1508: 1244: 1008: 481: 263: 3527:

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

2385: 3975: 3806: 3728: 3629: 3006: 2916: 2470: 2260: 2233: 1758: 1731: 1258: 1231: 140: 105: 1593: 843: 3685:

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. --

3382:

sock puppet is not the approach. Take some time off, then see about getting yourself unblocked on the original account and have

3026: 1843: 1468: 968: 2345: 47: 17: 3387:

personally consider expending any effort towards assisting you in anyway, and I'm a new comer to this long running problem

4862: 4745: 4601: 4558: 4505: 4463: 4395: 4325: 4262: 4246:

Hi could someone please unprotect Pioneer Courthouse Square. I am a Portland native interested in editing in. Thanks! :)

2220: 1718: 1218: 4146:

Latest sock blocked, in partial penance for believing for 5 seconds that this leopard was going to change it's spots. --

1125: 4671: 3422: 3062:. So, if we were to take the inclusion of these sentences seriously, I would propose that they be rewritten like this 2957: 2885: 1087: 1080: 587: 3344:

I don't see why it would be necessary to unblock the original account. I'll be watching this discussion, but you've

38: 3303: 2829: 2570:; appears after prior sock is blocked to dispute the issue on the talk page and to submit a new mediation request 2000: 1962: 696:

block summary on Dec 26, 2006 by Jayjg: expiry time of indefinite ‎ (edit-warring sockpuppet, lying about it too)

625: 3311: 2715: 2087: 2753: 2593: 2125: 712: 368: 3139: 3010: 2631: 750: 3841:

You're wrong, and you're also obviously trying to push an agenda of some sort, which will not be permitted.

1337: 3002: 2912: 2464: 1375: 434: 136: 101: 3586: 3528: 3345: 2975: 2699:

block summary on Dec 26, 2006 by Jayjg: expiry time of indefinite ‎ (sockpuppet of User:Pioneercourthouse)

1955: 1587: 580: 477: 259: 2502: 2323:

block summary on Aug 12, 2007 by Can't sleep, clown will eat me: expiry time of indefinite ‎ (troll sock)

1837: 1462: 543: 426: 362: 325: 4705: 4204: 4061: 3971: 3802: 3724: 3625: 3505: 3431: 3396: 3285: 3259: 3236: 178: 3661:

As a longtime editor of this page and someone who has been dealing with this nonsense since it started

1712: 1625: 1212: 875: 535: 471: 317: 253: 2196: