Talk:National Civilian Community Corps/Archive 2

message: OK, lets start new. The previous talk page reached the 100 kb limit and initiated a request to archive. I've done that (thanks to Dbiel who wisely preemptively set up the Wiki infrastructure that allowed this to happen easily). Also, I made a request for protection, which was granted by an administrator. 
Unfortunately, Coterminous snuck in reverts, but those can be dealt with as the discussion furthers.
Now is the time for all of us to start new and initiate some constructive dialog regarding this article. Coterminous, now is also the time for you and I to bury past hatchets and work to make this a better article. Whether this is possible or not will be up to you. My only "mission" here is to ensure that the NCCC article remains within the purview of the various Wikipedia guidelines. I will do my level best to help you as a new Wikipedia user to understand these rules without getting abrasive, but in turn, I think you have to be receptive to the rules (which themselves are very clear), good-faith suggestions of other users that are intended to help you as a new user to understand this site and maybe concede that many of your past additions weren't appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Please, please seek out tutorials on how this site works and its intent. No one is here to 'rationalize' the rules, which is what the previous talk page devolved in to; we're simply here to make sure that they're followed correctly so the article can remain 'encyclopedic and NPOV. Either way, the discussion can now start here- fresh, new, and in good faith from all parties. Hopefully, it can remain that way. If not, we will have to go to the last step on the moderation chain, which is almost always best avoided. If we have to resort to that, someone is going to "lose" and no one wants to see that happen --LoverOfArt 04:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Talk Archived, Copy Protect Request Granted 

message: I have put together a sample of a working sub page. The links can be found at the top of this page just above the table of contents.
I chose the Criticisms of the National Civilian Community Corps section as a starting place as it seems to be the one under the most fire, but if the group would rather start with another section that is fine. This is only an example and I would like to get some feed back as to if it makes sense to go this way, or if the new pages should be deleted. Dbiel (Talk) 00:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Sub Pages 

message: I believe the article in its present state exhibits WP: Notability issues. Quotations and excessive sourcing from the parent organization is explicitly addressed by WP: Notability and discouraged. Also, singular newspaper articles and 'achievement quotes' are pretty clearly self promotion, given that they clearly don't address events that are of note to anyone other than people interested in promoting the program. Furthermore, I believe that some of the additions could be merged into a more efficient "Achievements" heading, instead of individual headings for firefighting, mentoring, disaster relief, etc. Lastly, I don't think that 'Founding Directors' should have it's own heading. I seriously question whether its relevant at all, but if we are to include it, I believe it should be under the "History" section. I believe this article is best off by following traditional Wikipedia guidelines. I don't believe there is anything particularly unique about it that would suggest we should be more lenient on soapboxing or self-promotion quotes than we would be in other articles. I'd like to hear thoughts on this. --LoverOfArt 05:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP: Notability 

message: LoverofArt:  Dbiel has agreed with my reference from within Wikipedia itself that not all citations must be external.  Rather than edit material to make it work, you remove independent, credible citations, then criticize their absence.  Your machinations are transparent to anyone who has been paying attention.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dbiel/ScratchPad/NCCC_accomplishments for numerous reliable external sources of information about NCCC that could be incorporated into this article.
I regret that detailed explanations are too much for you and try your patience.  That's your issue.  If you really want to edit complex material, get used to it, or get out.
What I take "personally" is anyone - and in this case that means you -- who uses scurrilous and unethical practices to demean something like NCCC that has been of great value to hundreds of thousands of vulnerable Americans and will be badly needed in the future.
You should hang your head in shame and back out of this process.  Find something to do where you cannot injure something of value.
Those who reflexively defend your efforts out of misguided sympathy are not doing a whole lot better.  I want no part of any editorial "team" that includes you, unless you are confined to an advisory role.  You committed plagiarism at the NCCC site, manufactured inaccurate and defamatory quotes, falsely described book content in a defamatory manner.
Unlike you, I am making statements here based on facts, not resorting to ugly name-calling as you so often have.  (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_Civilian_Community_Corps/Archive_1)
Any editor who wants to write down and communicate specific edits that make content better suited for Wikipedia, rather than simply delete that content, has my regard.  So far, I have seen almost none of that from anyone -- just vague references to one Wikipedia tenet or another followed by an ultimatum that content will be deleted, which occurs in spite of a good-faith response.
(The point about St. Martin's Press, which you profess not to understand, below, is that you abused their good reputation by using it while falsely stating that St. Martin's Press published a book with an entire chapter of criticism of NCCC.  A trifecta - you do a disservice to St. Martin's Press, to Wikipedia, and to NCCC (not to mention misleading the public).Coterminous 17:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Coterminous, PLEASE refraim from these types of comments, they do NO good what so ever and will only result in an extension of the article protection. The goal is to move forward with the article, not lock it as it currently stands. Dbiel (Talk) 17:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Screw the begging and pleading. I'm done with that. I'm going to move this up the chain now. I'm done trying to be cooperative or patient with this person. There are sinking ships where you just cannot bail the water fast enough. There are Wikipedia users who just refuse to listen to reason. What we have with this user is a three way confluence of ignorance (about Wikipedia) stubbornness, and incorrectness. When you have someone who is ignorant about what they're doing, incorrect in their actions yet refusing to accept the fact that they're wrong, there's nothing more you can do. This person isn't providing 'detailed explanations'- they're replying with long-winded psuedo-legal briefs in an attempt to rationalize their being incorrect about a simple matter of the rules (you will notice how he/she refuses to address the WP: Notability heading, instead choosing to foam and wax philosophical about everything else but). We've treaded this ground before on many other articles- sadly, it's now struck the NCCC article. A user and IP block is the only answer to this problem. Either that, or some sort of administrative intervention that "snaps Coterminous out of it" and changes his/her present course. I've contacted the admin who protected the page, and I'll start the process there. I understand that Coterminous has strong "feelings" about NCCC (as do I: after all, I'm the only one in this conversation who has given a year of my life to the program) but as we all know, Wikipedia isn't a site for rationalizing ones "feelings" about a particular issue. The criteria are clear, the criteria have been explained and this new user refuses to accept them because he/she believes that their "feelings" about the program are more important that the rules that seek to establish what is or isn't encyclopedic and appropriate for Wikipedia. Isn't it ironic; the only person in this discussion who is actually an NCCC alum is the on the side of those who DON'T support inappropriate additions, just because the speak favorably about the program. (pats self on back for objectivity) --LoverOfArt 17:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: An Advisory Role

message: In order to understand my comments above about St. Martin's Press, (for those, if any, unfamiliar with it):
http://www.stmartins.com/Footers/aboutsmp.html
"Founded in 1952 by Macmillan Publishers Limited of England, St. Martin’s Press is now one of the largest publishers in America. Best known for the strength and breadth of our list, we publish 700 titles a year, and are equally committed to finding and nurturing the first-time author as we are to bestseller publishing.  From our home in the Flatiron Building in New York, St. Martin’s operates eight separate imprints ..."
http://www.stmartins.com/Footers/aboutsmp.html
"St. Martin’s prides itself on having the largest and broadest list of any U.S. publisher, expressing the widest possible range of human experience."Coterminous 13:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish I could decipher some sort of a point to this. --LoverOfArt 16:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: St. Martin's Press (vis a vis its being falsely called a Source of a Chapter of Criticism about NCCC)

message: Please note that a Wikiquette alert has been request regarding editor behavior related to this article. Dbiel (Talk) 19:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts

message: This has been in place for a while now, but the case is still in the new file as we have not taken the next step which is the selection and approval of a Mediator.
Che Nuevara has offered his services as a member of the Mediation Cabal.  He has been active in Wikipedia for 2-1/2 years and has work on the Mediation Cabal previously.
I feel that he would be a good choice. But for mediation to work, every one must agree to it.
So this will be a simple yes / no form to see where we stand, but feel free to add any comments you would like, but limit them to the issue of Mediation, not issues with the article or other users. Note: the names of the most active users have been pre-added to the list. If your name is not listed, feel free to add it to the bottom of the list of name for both questions.
Thank you in advance for taking the time to answer the two key questions.
Question #1 - Are you open to mediation?
*Dbiel - YES
*Coterminous - Possibly - Not if CheNuevara is the mediator, however.  His comments on my talkpage demonstrate his lack of suitability for this role in this instance.  A mediator should come to this process without strong predetermined emotions about the situation.Coterminous 11:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no issues with this. We are in need of consequential mediation here. --LoverOfArt 00:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Absolutely. I'm all for this, philosophically. I would like to caveat by saying that calls for peace, civility and cooperation have already been made numerous times, yet one single user refuses to participate. I will sign on to this most recent implore for cooperation, however, when the inevitable 5,000 word reply comes and it's themed just as all the others have been in the past, how many more calls like this are we to make before we realize it's utterly pointless? I'm all for peace, I'm all for civility and I'm all for burying the hatchet, but I'm not for burying the hatchet time and time and time and time and time and time and time again and then the next time the hatchet comes up, you bury it yet again, delusionally hoping that it won't reappear (which it invariably does). In short, I'm kind of in the "Whatever" phase at this point regarding any further dialog ot structured attempts at cooperation with this user. I guess my life experience tells me that people like this just cannot be guided or made to follow procedures or rules of any kind and this user has reaffirmed that notion in spades. They're too bound up in the confines of their own mind to produce anything of value to anyone but themselves. But sure. Yeah. OK. Want to re-re-re-re-re-re-"Start Over"? OK. Let's give it a try. Ya never know. Maybe the seventeenth time really is the charm. --LoverOfArt 17:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation Cabal 

message: I am ready to start over here. Square one. Back to basics. Tabula rasa. Insert some more clichés.
Coterminous - I'm sorry you feel that way. Of course, I made it perfectly clear that I have no feelings one way or the other about NCCC. What I do have strong feelings about is incivility. But I condemn the action and embrace the actor. You'll notice that I also said to LoverOfArt, on multiple occasions, that I thought his behavior was unacceptable and reprehensible.
I bear no grudges for questionable actions. I am perfectly willing to assume good faith on behalf of any editor who professes an earnest desire to act in good faith. I have no opinions about you, Coterminous -- I don't know you at all, and I imagine I never will. I have feelings about your actions, feelings which were echoed by User:Philippe. And I highly doubt you will find anyone willing to mediate this case who does not believe that incivility and personal attacks are reprehensible and unacceptable.
All I would ask is a brief acknowledgment from every editor involved that he agrees to move forward with this process peaceably and respectfully, and then, as far as I'm concerned, this whole episode up until now never happened.
If you do not think I am neutral enough on this issue, I challenge you to find someone who is more neutral than I am. In the meantime I don't intend to abandon this article, and will continue to work with all editors who welcome my presence here. - Che Nuevara 16:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. I'm all for this, philosophically. I would like to caveat by saying that calls for peace, civility and cooperation have already been made numerous times, yet one single user refuses to participate. I will sign on to this most recent implore for cooperation, however, when the inevitable 5,000 word reply comes and it's themed just as all the others have been in the past, how many more calls like this are we to make before we realize it's utterly pointless? I'm all for peace, I'm all for civility and I'm all for burying the hatchet, but I'm not for burying the hatchet time and time and time and time and time and time and time again and then the next time the hatchet comes up, you bury it yet again, delusionally hoping that it won't reappear (which it invariably does). In short, I'm kind of in the "Whatever" phase at this point regarding any further dialog ot structured attempts at cooperation with this user. I guess my life experience tells me that people like this just cannot be guided or made to follow procedures or rules of any kind and this user has reaffirmed that notion in spades. They're too bound up in the confines of their own mind to produce anything of value to anyone but themselves. But sure. Yeah. OK. Want to re-re-re-re-re-re-"Start Over"? OK. Let's give it a try. Ya never know. Maybe the seventeenth time really is the charm. --LoverOfArt 17:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My thoughts on this 

message: [regarding a suggested "Wikipedia Regrets the Errors"; regarding the "According to ____ format for information cited; regarding mediation.] 
"This most recent 'fantasy oriented' post is emblematic of a large part of the reason why I requested this user be blocked. In addition to generally incorrect and inappropriate edits to the NCCC article all around, it's pretty apparent that we are dealing with a fairly severe personality disorder. You can start from square one with all of the patience and good faith that many of us have already extended and expended, but we've tried that (see discussion log) and it's utterly pointless. I'll renew my call for a permanent user and IP range block. --LoverOfArt 17:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: As posted at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Philippe

message: Okay, guys. This whole ordeal is getting way out of hand. One or both of you is going to get blocked if this continues this way.
There's no reason it has to go down like this. But the disruptiveness and personal attacks need to stop, without condition or qualification, on both sides.
The most reasonable conclusion to this would be if everyone involved puts the breaks on personal attacks and disruptions and starts engaging all other editors in a civil and peaceable fashion. I'm not going to ask anyone to agree to do this. I'm simply going to say I expect it of everyone. It's Wikipedia policy, and it's not negotiable.
Every editor has the right to expect civility from every other editor and has an obligation to be civil to every other editor. - Che Nuevara 16:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Affirmed and endorsed.  My patience with this discussion is now exhausted.  The very next personal attacks and/or inuendo and/or disruptive editing out of either of the parties in questions will be met with the gravest possible consequences.  - Philippe | Talk 16:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, good. So we've all arrived back on the same page that we've all already been on for the past week. Hooray. Can we get back to working on the article now? --LoverOfArt 17:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  please put on the breaks 

message: If we combine leadership and funding under a "structure" heading, how about adding some sort of a "teams" heading that would outline the corps member "team" structure? There's a lot written about the teams, and since they are the central component of NCCC, I think that a "teams" subheading would be appropriate under the "Structure" main heading. Clearly, we would have to avoid the addition of anecdote and irrelevant "quotes" - ie- "According to Bozo Jonze, Professor Emeritus of Feel-Good University..." but I do think we could add a substantive "teams" subheading using existing WP:RS. --LoverOfArt 18:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would work best if you simply edited the structure page to indicate what you are talking about Dbiel (Talk) 18:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The admin requested that we not use the other page. I personally disagree with this as the structure page seems to make the most sense, but it was a request and I'll abide by it. --LoverOfArt 18:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The request was not to use the other page to discuss the issue, in fact that page has actually been deleted.  What is left is a working page to display the changes, discussion should happen here, but testing can be done there Talk:National Civilian Community Corps/Structure Remember the main page is protected. The sub page gives use some working space. Dbiel (Talk) 18:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dbiel is correct -- the request was not to make a mediation subpage. We're not doing that. Obviously, with the article locked, any editing progress naturally needs to be made on a temp article, which the subpage allows. This is standard practice. - Che Nuevara 19:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, OK, good. I'll start with some ideas there. --LoverOfArt 19:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Also, since we are re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-"Starting Over", does anyone have any objections to my archiving this talk page so we can all start fresh and new with quality discussion about the article itself? --LoverOfArt 18:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Last call for objections regarding archiving this talk page and starting with a new one? --LoverOfArt 19:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure