Talk:Pioneer Courthouse Square/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Protected

This page has been protected due to persistent efforts by what was either one sockpuppeter or a tightly organized small group of people to edit it against consensus. Yes, this is inconvenient, but not nearly as inconvenient as having to revert every 20 minutes. If anyone has edits to propose that are likely to be uncontroversial improvements to the article, please do indicate them here on the talk page, and if there is consensus there should be no problem finding an administrator to make the edit in the article itself. - Jmabel | Talk 23:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, we need to add back that bit about how the homeless in the Square are mostly harmless, except for the occasional murderer. If only there was a citation about it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Actually, I'd like to suggest that we change to semi-protections. Now that the sockpuppetteering (or tight collusion, as you suggest) has been well established, any further efforts lead to a quick block. So at least until demonstrated otherwise, I think that allowing autoconfirmed editors to edit the page is reasonable. If we do that, I will personally commit to watching the article closely (as I do anyway), and issuing warnings or blocks as necessary. -Pete (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The sock has a proven track record of getting around semi-protection to the article (see edits from Oct 1 to Oct 14th of this year while semi-protection was in place, and the edits by Beenturns22 (talk · contribs), Beenturns23 (talk · contribs), Undelope32 (talk · contribs), and Phlembowper99 (talk · contribs)). But if you're willing to play whack-a-sock and will monitor the article daily, then I have no other objections. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... that not good, Kemo Sabe. Maybe keep it fully protected a little while longer. It's not like there's any serious breaking news around the Square. And if there is, it can be fixed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought full protection might be excessive, though I have no strong opinion either way. It could be worthwhile to try semi-protection and see how it goes. Surely that guy knows he won't be able to get away with anything, as this page is watched closely. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(de-indenting) Our sockpuppet is back. There are some reasonable edits on the account, but the one to this article matched the existing MO. I reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedder (talk • contribs)

And s/he is as courteous as ever. No question but it's a sock. --Bonadea (talk) 09:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It be blocked. I wonder where it was for the last 3 weeks? On vacation? I didn't realize inmates were allowed furlough. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI, these socks usually make a series of unnecessary but fairly harmless minor edits in order to get autoconfirmed. This means that the accounts are also at least 4 days old. And don't forget to ignore. Katr67 (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Full protection is good, as it thwarts the vandal's efforts for a few months. And it's not that there's likely to be all that much new information about the square. And if there is, an admin could always post it on request. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed edit

This is what I would like fixed in the article: There is a sentence that discussed KGW and states "The station plans to broadcast its morning and noon newscasts from the studio upon its completion, scheduled for summer 2008." Summer 2008 long ago passed but the article is written as if it is occurring in the future. Is KGW broadcasting from there now? Either way it is vitally important that this be clarified in the article. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poter99 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't open but I can't find any sources that says when it is going to open. Right now they are still working on construction as is apparent on their webcam. I'd prefer if the press release be cited: {{cite press release | title = KGW NewsChannel 8 Announces "Studio on the Square" | publisher = KGW | date = Jaunary 29, 2008 | url = http://www.pioneercourthousesquare.org/documents/KGW_Press_Release.pdf | format = PDF }} Cacophony (talk) 04:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

In any event, it cannot be scheduled for summer 2008 since that timeframe has already passed. If this article were unprotected it would be much easier to simply make this change. As it is, countless people will read the false information and likely be rather confused. Please immediately correct this major problem. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poter99 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done I also fixed the citation and added an update. —EncMstr (talk) 04:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The new sentence is worded extremely confusingly. Please fix. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.133.135.50 (talk) 05:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Is that better? If not, perhaps you would be so kind as to suggest revised wording. —EncMstr (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggested rewording (please use current refs):

Portland's NBC affiliate KGW announced in January 2008 that the station planned to build a high-definition news studio at the square, taking over the space previously occupied by Powell's Books. The studio was originally scheduled to open in summer 2008, but construction did not begin until early November 2008. The station expects to broadcast its morning and noon newscasts from the studio upon its completion.

It's possible we don't really need the play-by-play about the scheduled opening vs. the actual opening, unless there is something notable about the delay. Katr67 (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Enc, can you update the coordinates template when you get a minute? Thanks! Katr67 (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

What sort of update? The location seems spot on.... As for updating the rest, how about

Portland's NBC affiliate KGW is building a high-definition news studio at the square to broadcast its morning and noon newscasts, taking over the space previously occupied by Powell's Books.

—EncMstr (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The coords should be fine--I didn't check--but I thought the geolinks template in the el section was deprecated... Katr67 (talk) 04:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Unblock?

Would an admin please unblock the page so well-meaning users can just make appropriate edits/changes? This is ridiculous and cumbersome and is all because nobody can handle the supposed "vandal." It is ridiculous to fully protect this page for months and months because of just one person. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.133.135.50 (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have a specific edit you would like to see, use the {{editprotected}} template. From the instructions on the template usage: "It should be accompanied by a clear and specific description of the requested change. Providing the new sentences or code in your request, if possible, will expedite the process."

Other means of dealing with the confirmed sockpuppet/vandal were tried for over two years; the full protection was done as a last resort due to their persistence. Yes, this is more difficult than editing other pages; but we were forced into this extreme measure due to the on-going POV pushing of the sock/vandal. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The phraseology "supposed vandal" automatically throws suspicion upon the IP address's motives in this matter. However, it was nice of Poter to give away his IP address. That should make any questionable edits easier to check in the future. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Bugs? Please? Thanks. Katr67 (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

There have been several recent cases (unrelated to this one) where vandalistic users have inadvertently given away their IP addresses, and it proved helpful in rooting them out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If you people are going to remove my "personal attacks" against Baseball Bugs (which are really just me defending myself against his insults) why are his personal attacks not similarly removed. He has repeatedly attacked me in a very vile manner on this discussion page for no discernable or supportable reason. Please remove his personal attacks as well. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poter99 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

None of his comments are attacks at all, much less "very vile" ones. Natalie (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

He has repeatedly accused me of being a sockpuppet of some other person. If you look through the archives there are similar insults there. It is unconscionable that some would advocated "punishing" me when I have done nothing wrong. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poter99 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've followed the discussion here. They do not read as attacks to me. Considering the history of the page, asking you exactly what you wanted to add to the article is a completely reasonable question. Speculating that you, perhaps, are a sockpuppet doesn't exactly rise to the level of an attack. Natalie (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pioneercourthouse proves Poter99 is what we thought he was. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, in Marriage licence, Poter99 has been reverting POV vandalism, against an editor who argues much like the Pioneercourthouse socks have done here. --Bonadea (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Restore full protection?

The article's edit history of the last day or so speaks for itself. Wouldn't it be a good idea to restore full protection to decrease the amount of nonsense? --Bonadea (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've submitted a request at WP:RFPP. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. He'll have more time now with his other obsessions. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Until the next time someone decides to be lenient and lowers the protection level again. --Finngall ^talk 10:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This page sure has been blocked a long time. Seems like now is the time to unblock... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smratlik (talk • contribs) 04:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a change you'd like to suggest? tedder (talk) 04:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really. It just seems like it might make sense to give unblocking the article a try. It sure has been blocked for a long while. Geeze. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smratlik (talk • contribs) 04:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath waiting for the page to be unprotected. A very persistent vandal—for more than a year—will add unsupported assertions as soon as it is unprotected. In the mean time, request any changes to be made here. —EncMstr (talk) 04:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record - unprotecting the article has been tried mutltiple times. Originally, semi-protection was adequate, and the article was protected from 26 December 2006 to 6 May 2007. However, the vandal forced full protection be applied from 12 August 2007 to 12 September 2007. Semi-protection again had to be re-applied on 25 September 2008, and was forced to escallate to fully protected on 14 October 2008.

Protection was then reduced on 18 November 2008, but the vandal forced full protection restored on 29 November 2008; protection was reduced again on 21 December 2008, and again the vandal forced the return to full protection on 24 December 2008; and the most recent attempt was to reduce protection on 3 February 2009, and the vandal forced full protection again restored on 7 February 2009.

As a result of the persistent vandal, it's unlikely that the article will have protection reduced anytime soon. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In the past, I've advocated for relaxing the protection on this article. I no longer think that's appropriate. The vandal has made it clear that he's on a mission to take advantage of any foothold we give him; while unfortunate, I believe this article should be kept fully protected indefinitely. -Pete (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

While some would argue that violates policy, the IAR principle might apply here. That, along with the low probability of any new information coming along. Semi-protection won't work, because he'll just wait it out. This guy is persistent. He's been doing this since October 26, 2006. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wording confusion

An original archway and gatework from the hotel were conscientiously made part of the square's design and are found today on the south side of the square.

Eric Ladd, an "early pioneer of…sustainable living," built the wrought-iron gateway on the eastern edge of the Square in the 1970s, out of scrap salvaged from the Portland Hotel

Which is it? South side or east side? Also, which side of the square is this "archway"? I see the iron gate on the east side of the square, across the street from the courthouse, but I can't see any archway... ? --Ragemanchoo82 (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the archway is the part going over the gate (aka the gateway), which is there. The gate itself isn't there, or it's embedded in brick (right?). Not sure about whether it is salvaged or original. Maybe it's in my books. tedder (talk) 02:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Yeah I think so, too. The actual ironwork is visible in the panorama photo. Its basically just a decoration on a raised brick bench area, not an actual gate, per se. At least, that's what I'm thinking. --Ragemanchoo82 (talk) 03:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Portland Hotel photo needed!

This is already an image on wikipedia, for the Portland Hotel's article. It ought to be featured in the Pioneer Square article, too, unless somebody wants to add a better photo.
http://www.ohs.org/education/oregonhistory/_files/_doc_files/Portland%20Hotel%20FSDM2.jpg
^Here's a good one. Since it pre-dates wikipedia's magic 1923 rule, it would be eligable, right? --Ragemanchoo82 (talk) 03:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Depends on when the picture was published. Was it published before 1923, or just taken or even just developed before 1923. Without a publication date (basically held out to the public), then the copyright status is unknown, and the 1923 rule would not apply. On the other hand, you might be able to do it via fair use, as the building is no longer in existence, but you would want to read the fair use guidelines (for instance the fact that free versions exist might be a problem). Here is a pre-1923 version that is small, but would pass the copyright test. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The image is too small. :( Who in Portland would one email to ask about a free-use image of the hotel? The courthouse? Until we can get a nice big photo of the hotel, I think we ought to use the flier at right, since its already been added to wikipedia for use in another article. --Ragemanchoo82 (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

What does Portland Hotel have to do with Pioneer Courthouse Square? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blenkidink (talk • contribs) 23:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The Portland Hotel previously occupied the block where the Pioneer Courthouse Square is today. tedder (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

So could we add that photo at right to the article? Or better yet, an old B&W photo of the hotel? Surely there must be some out on the net we could get permission to use. --Ragemanchoo82 (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes to the one on the right, its old enough. Anything else depends on the copyright status. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

So yeah...when are we getting that photo? --RyanTee82 (talk) 08:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

remove line

Can one of you wonderful admins please remove the line "In July 2006, an LCD screen was raised in the square for the viewing of the semifinals and finals of the FIFA World Cup of soccer."? It has questionable notability, especially since the fact tag has been on there for ~18 months. tedder (talk) 00:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Agree on all aspects. —EncMstr (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

tangential discussion of sockpuppetry

It appears to have been added on June 3, 2007, by an editor who hasn't even been on in a year. [1] Doesn't appear to be one of the socks, but you never know. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hang around here long enough and everything starts smelling like stinky socks, eh? tedder (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Must be the ones worn by all those homeless folks looking for a square meal. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In any event, it seems rather odd that this page is still protected after all this time. I suggest we unprotect it and see if it's still necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blenkidink (talk • contribs) 16:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Not odd at all, given the history - extended full protection was forced upon this article by the vandal. If you have an edit you want made, then use the {{EditProtected}} template. Also, nothing personal here, but given the past strategies of the vandal to try tricking the community into removing the page protection - I think it's unlikely that a suggestion to remove full protection would be considered unless it originates from a long-established editor with a history of productive contributions.

As pointed out in an earlier section: unprotecting the article has been tried mutltiple times. Originally, semi-protection was adequate, and the article was protected from 26 December 2006 to 6 May 2007. However, the vandal forced full protection be applied from 12 August 2007 to 12 September 2007. Semi-protection again had to be re-applied on 25 September 2008, and was forced to escallate to fully protected on 14 October 2008.

Protection was then reduced on 18 November 2008, but the vandal forced full protection restored on 29 November 2008; protection was reduced again on 21 December 2008, and again the vandal forced the return to full protection on 24 December 2008; and the most recent attempt was to reduce protection on 3 February 2009, and the vandal forced full protection again restored on 7 February 2009.

As a result - extended full protection is still quite necessary at this time. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Based on the history of this page, I wonder if we should routinely request a checkuser every time a new user raises that question? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd support that, per WP:ABF. It would save Barek's and others' time explaining the situation over and over again. It's easy enough for anyone to read the talk page history to understand the situation here. If checkuser doesn't pan out, then we can feel free to answer the question. On a related note, this should be added to WP:LTA so we can have more editors aware of the situation. Katr67 (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't appreciate this accusation that I am somehow a vandal. Please perform a checkuser to absolve me of any suspicion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blenkidink (talk • contribs) 03:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobody said you were, all references were to the longtime vandal, so unless that's you, nobody said you were. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

And by the way Katr67. WP:ABF is meant as HUMOR, you blubbering buffoon. It was never meant to be used on innocent, unsuspecting users such as myself. I am a longstanding editor with several good edits to my name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blenkidink (talk • contribs) 13:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Longstanding since March 24th of this year: [2] :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

My sense of humor is subtle, dear Blenkidink. And why so defensive? Anyway, no personal attacks please. That guideline is no joke. Katr67 (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Fear not. The Oregon duck quacketh yet again, and he be gawn. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

AFLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKKKKKKK.......... 16:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Interlanguage link

{{editprotected}} Realizing that an interlanguage link to ja:パイオニア・コートハウス・スクウェア needs to be established, I found the English Wikipedia article currently blocked from editig. I don't suppose some administrator could add this interlanguage link? Thanks. --Occhanikov (talk) 08:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Done - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The last paragraph is missing a "to." It should be "to pay tribute to".... or alternatively "paying tribute to." Thank you for fixing this egregious error... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlefaceblembay (talk • contribs) 14:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it was fixed, thanks for letting us know. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

• There's a mention that completion of the Portland Hotel was delayed due to "a recession". Any reason why the specific recession isn't mentioned? (This can be verified with Kimbark MacColl's The Shaping of a City: Business and Politics in Portland, Oregon 1885 to 1915.)
• No mention that Tri-Met had/had their offices in the Square. (I used to buy my monthly bus passes there.)
• The Square has/had their own security guards to keep order there. As a result, no reported violence, & AFAICR no murders.
• I think it's relevant to mention that Willard Martin died in a hang-gliding accident shortly before the Square was officially opened. (His daughter & I worked in the same office at the time.)
• Beyond a brief mention that their shop there closed, Powell's presence there needs to be improved. A single sentence would be enough, something like: "One of the first tenants was Powell's books, which operated a travel book store." BTW, the KGW studios in the Square have been operational for a few months now, so that sentence needs to be updated.
• Portland personal Telco set up a free wireless hub in the Square (in 2002, IIRC). They ran into a problem with Starbucks who was running a pay wireless hub because both wanted to use the same channel. (The conflict made the news at the time.)
• A few years back, a number of people gathered at the Square on New Years' Eve, expecting that there would be a public celebration. I believe this was in 2001, because the city had thrown a fairly extravagant celebration the prior time -- which is why they thought there would be one. When they learned the truth, they left the Square & vandalized a number of store windows. (Okay, so there's been one documented case of public disorderliness related to the Square, but none of them were homeless -- just jerks.)
• A last note: the mascot of University of Oregon is "the Ducks". Calling this obnoxious troublemaker "a Duck" or similar Anatidan terms inadvertently implies that the U of O teaches sockpuppetting as one of their courses. I suggest we come up with another term for this person who needs to find another hobby.

I'd make some of these edits myself, but I want to respect the fact this article is under protection. -- llywrch (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Llywrch. I don't think we've ever crossed paths, but it's nice to know someone has some additions for this article! If I get some time, I'll do some research on the topics you mentioned. tedder (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Tedder, I'm surprised you two haven't "met." Llywrch is sort of our elder statesman...after a couple pints he's been known to recount tales from the days when Wikipedia was stored not on vast RAID arrays, but in a rather untidy pile of cocktail napkins in an overlooked silverware drawer. And he knows Oregon history pretty well, to boot.

And Llywrch, if you haven't noticed, Tedder's been one of the most active WP:ORE folks lately, doing good work on a pretty wide variety of articles. He's been teasing us that he might come down to a WikiWednesday event sometime soon.

Llywrch, it's nice of you to post to the talk page, but the page protection really is entirely based on our favorite hobbyist's activities. I'd say feel free to edit this article as you would any other. And these are generally good points, I'm familiar with some of these incidents but not others. -Pete (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought that the protection had been removed (although it appears that move protection was left active) now that WP:ABFIL is in place for the issues. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What Barek said. Hi Llywrch! As far as the "recession" I think that bit was written before I started the article on the Portland Hotel, mostly because the number of stories of the structure was under dispute. In that article it mentions the Panic of 1884 as the partial cause of the hotel's financial troubles. I don't know if we need that level of detail about the hotel in this article, but it couldn't hurt. As an alum of the UO, I'd say there's quacking and then there's quackerbacking and I don't mind the similarity between the guilty and innocent. I think attaching some other nickname to our friend besides %$#@*! *&%$#@ would give the %$#@! far more attention than s/he deserves. Katr67 (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I dunno Katr67. "Jerk" works fine for me. Although we may end up inadvertently giving these people more attention with long, rambling threads over which jerk we mean. ;-) And Pete, Wikipedia wasn't on cocktail napkins back in the beginning, but on a second-hand steam-powered mainframe which Wales & Sanger used to take turns shoveling coal into. -- llywrch (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Protected again

Our long-term abusive editor has been using aged socks to edit, so I've full-protected for a period of time while, hopefully, the sock drawer is cleared out. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Another admin, Wknight, changed it shortly after to an indefinite protection length. Semi-protect for the indefinite future is a tad inappropriate I think, so I changed it to a month. There are more than enough editors and admins to keep tabs on the situation. Steven Walling 22:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

An argument can be made that as a reasonably mature article, full protection isn't that big of a problem. There are plenty of folks watching this page who will quickly add reasonable material that is suggested via the talk page. I'm not going to wheel war on the protection length, just offering my opinion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Steven Walling: This page has been a battleground for the one vandal for over three years now (yes, someone really is pathetic enough to spend three years repeating himself just to annoy people here). So you're not going to outlast him. Your one-month duration is totally arbitrary. Why not two weeks? Or two months? It's not based on Pioneercourthouse (talk · contribs) so what is it based on? Further, there have been almost zero good edits by non-autoconfirmed editors going back a year or more. There's no reason not to leave it semi-protected but three years of reasons to leave it. Wknight94 ^talk 00:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The only significant edits made, or attempted, in this article in the last couple of years have been by the troll. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Two other points to consider: (1) the vandal in question is a bit obsessive about this topic, and (2) they have figured out how to circumvent semi-protection using a new account. I agree that indefinite full protection is warranted in this particular case. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

First off, I know about the problem and that it's been going on for years. I've had this page watchlisted since 2006. I don't have a problem with full or semi protection, but jumping to indefinite protection of any kind is something I don't think should be done lightly. We seem to have a handle on combating the problem thus far, and this isn't exactly the George W. Bush article. It's just one troll for pete's sake, if a persistent one. That said, I'm cool with several months of semi protection, if we want to switch to that. On another note, it was told to me (by Baseball Bugs) that a lot discussion about this has happened off-wiki. If that's true, you can see the problem, since I had no idea whether there was any consensus for any kind of protection. Steven Walling 00:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The best way to control it seems to be indefinite semi-protection. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The other way in which it's not George W. Bush is that no one cares when it is semi-protected. I've never seen an {{editprotected}} request here. I haven't heard an answer as to why one month is a good protection time. Is the one loser going to lose interest in one month? Are a bunch of IPs going to want to make legitimate edits in one month? I don't see the logic. You're right, it's one troll, but that one troll makes up 100% of the non-autoconfirmed edits. Wknight94 ^talk 01:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason hardly anyone is making non-confirmed edits is because the article is so often under protection. And as for {{editprotected}}, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the kind of person who wouldn't bother with an account wouldn't know how to make a request to edit a protected article. As for one month, I chose it because it gives us time to discuss a good long term solution. It's obviously not a permanent answer, but neither is indefinite protection. You can't disregard the possible contributions of anons for the indefinite future. Steven Walling 01:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Be honest. Discussion wouldn't take a whole month. You've obviously made your final decision ergo discussion is unnecessary ergo just unprotect it now. Then we can start a pool on how long it will stay unprotected (put me down under "one week"). Wknight94 ^talk 01:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to get it. I don't care if we protect for a month, or six months, or whatever. I just don't think indefinite protection without group consensus is appropriate. Steven Walling 01:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

"Whatever" indeed. Well, you've got me, Baseball Bugs, and Ohnoitsjamie above (the latter advocates indefinite full protection), and admin EncMstr when I first put it at indef semi. Opposed is just you and Pioneercourthouse (talk · contribs). How many did you need for consensus? Wknight94 ^talk 02:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

As Wknight94 said, there's an implied group consensus here, based on experience of dealing with that idiot sockmaster, and Steven should know that, because he was in the thick of it last February when it was unprotected by another optimistic admin, on February 3rd. Four days later, there was a fury of that same old change attempted by that same old jerk, and a corresponding fury of reverts; and by the end of that day, the 7th, the protection was put back on. What we saw a couple of days ago was a repeat of the same thing, and it's 8 freakin' months later. He will not stop. You can protect it for any finite amount of time, and he will wait for it to expire. Meanwhile, he will create as many "sleeper" socks as he can. This is a low-traffic article. Anyone can ask for anything to be updated, but there's really nothing to update. It's a stable article. Virtually the only one who ever asks is the puppeteer. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Not-so-arbitrary break

Okay, deep breath, folks, and don't take it quite so personal. There was an offlist discussion thread about PCH and our sockpuppet friend. As usual, the discussion revolves around whether we should indefinitely semi-protect the page, mainly. No worries, and it's outdated and not as consensusish as this thread should end up being. To be pedantic, though not to take sides, there's been at least one good IP edit, which is more than zero. tedder (talk) 02:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

My usual take when someone wants to lift protection this way is to say, OK, then the one who wants the protection lifted is REQUIRED to defend the page BY HIMSELF all day. Then maybe he'll "get it". →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Tedder: That's not a good IP edit. It's an unsourced edit about a non-notable event. This isn't a calendar of events. Anyway, I'm done discussing. Pioneercourthouse (talk · contribs) has had enough of a laugh here at my expense. Feel free to send me communication offline. Wknight94 ^talk 02:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wk94, it's a good faith edit that is actually very notable- and an expanded version of that event is on the page now: Pioneer Courthouse Square#Events. tedder (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

What in the world are those sources?! Three blogs and two oregonlive links? That's the source that Pioneercourthouse (talk · contribs) uses, so why isn't he allowed to use the same source for his homeless claim? I better take this page off my watchlist before I start agreeing with him....... Wknight94 ^talk 03:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

To that very interesting point, I can only say this: [3] →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wk94, there's a difference between a blog and a news source that is being output onto a blog. If you have concerns about the sourcing or about that sentence, it's probably worth discussing in a new section. tedder (talk) 03:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Like Wknight94, I'm thinking I will also take this page off my watch list. An admin comes along, oblivious to the situation despite having allegedly watched the page for as long as the troll has been trolling it, and decides on his own to shorten the block. Fine. He can deal with the troll when the block expires. The rest of us have already wasted too much time dealing with that troll. Now it's Steven's turn. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, I know how you feel, but that's why the LTA entry was created. It's a pretty unusual event, and it's part of why I have knighted you Wikipedia's king of sock-sniffing. tedder (talk) 04:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll probably come back in a month and see how things are going. :) →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me be clear about this: I downgraded the protection because it wasn't clear from this talk page that there was any consensus for an indefinite protection, which is a drastic move. All I wanted was clarification of intent before we move to indefinitely prevent newcomers from ever editing an important Portland article. Obviously there are plenty of people who feel intensely personal about it for some reason, so I'll just rack up the protection level again. In the future I would ask all involved to have a little more patience. The world did not end here. All we did was talk more while the vandalism went nowhere. Steven Walling 04:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Egads! I bet Sir PCH is having a good ol' laugh about how his actions have got us all at each other's throats :) We're all just volunteers, doing all sorts of things. Sometimes a little extra explaining is needed, sometimes asking a couple extra questions is a good idea...like Steven said, the sky did not come crashing down here. If anybody feels that watching this page has become a burden, please...by all means, take it off your watch list, and go forth with your head held high. You've done good work here, but you're not obligated to continue...the 'pedia will survive, by hook or by crook.

Okay, it's Saturday night and I'm editing here instead of drinking beer with my friends. I think I oughtta change that. -Pete (talk) 04:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Was just thinking the same. :) Steven Walling 04:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ship Ahoy if you wanna join..could even be persuaded to pick you up. -Pete (talk) 04:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Bottom line: Indefinite full protection may seem excessive, but so far every measure short of this has proven to be insufficient to prevent the vandalism, as has been proven for the 3.84 × 10⁶th time with the latest protection downgrade. Do we have to keep repeating the process, one soft-hearted admin at a time? --Finngall ^talk 15:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I would be fine with full protection, but he will just move to another article anyway. We can't full protect everything. So, hope checkusers can do something or hope we get flagged revisions or some variant soon. Wknight94 ^talk 16:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Addition request

Please add something about this event to the article: http://www.katu.com/news/local/65919412.html It was a big deal in Portland and in Pioneer Courthouse Square. Thank you very kindly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballaucus (talk • contribs) 01:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No one has responded to my previous message. Please add something about this event to the article. It is a significant and noteworthy event: http://www.katu.com/news/local/65919412.html Thank you very kindly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballaucus (talk • contribs) 16:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that doesn't seem that noteworthy. Dozens of events are held there every year, many bigger than this one. We don't want to list every gathering that takes place there. --Leivick (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to add a third opinion: I agree that it isn't noteworthy for this article. The event itself has its own mention at 350.org#International Day of Climate Action, which is the more appropriate location for that material. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

While I strongly disagree, I accept this decision of the community. Thank you very kindly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballaucus (talk • contribs) 03:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Protection

I'm concerned that this article is "permanently protected." Perhaps we should have a discussion about whether this is really necessary. Keegan23 (talk) 02:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It's necessary. Feel free to make suggestions here, and an admin will be glad to add material to the page when consensus is reached. Dayewalker (talk) 02:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Keegan23. What's the harm in discussing this matter? It does seem odd to protect the page for so long. Why not unprotect and see whether protection remains a true necessity? Pelnerk99 (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest changes. It will not be unprotected or discussed further. tedder (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Why will it not be protected or discussed further? Is there some sort of history here that I am not aware of? Are there ever circumstances in which it will be unprotected? I deeply appreciate your clarification Pelnerk99 (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)