Talk:St Thomas More High School/Archive 1

Archive 1

Incidents

With regard to incidents at this school or indeed with regard to any person or place, it doesn't matter whether it's one incident in 47 years or 147 in 1 year. If it is deemed worthy of note with regards to the school then it can be placed within its article. This is regardless of whether or not it shows the school in a good or bad light, as long as the information itself is related in an unbiased way then it is a valid encyclopaedic reference.

By saying a more encyclopaedic stance should be taken, what exactly qualifies? To take an extreme example, the whole Enron thing was once in however many years of service, but still it is worthy of note. The incidents, even though on a exponentially smaller scale, they are worthy of note as they did reflect on the school (it is of note, ergo, it qualifies for a position in the article). If the person has served their time, then this should be noted I concur but removal of the information could be seen as obfuscating the truth regarding an issue that hit the school and indeed creating, by their omission, Point Of View (please read Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view).

Please be ware, whether or not you like the note, whether it is a one-off or not and whether it reflects badly on a person/organisation if the article is truthful, non-biased in its nature and is a notable event then it is valid within the article. Removing it would constitute vandalism and will be reported. Drivenapart 14:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. TerriersFan 15:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

IT SHOULD PERHAPS BE QUESTIONED WHO INSERTED THE INCIDENT AND WHAT THEIR MOTIVATION MIGHT BE? the creator of the page should be contacted and asked who revised this information to include this particular incident. I was a student at the school at the time (and left in 2006). If a former student entered this to get back at a teacher, then that is questionable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tirana22 (talk • contribs)

TerriersFan added the incident about this teacher on 14.3.2007. he is an administrator. he has sent to my talk pages remarks about be being involved in an 'edit war'. Another administrator called it vandalism. I made two deletions to the 'incidents' page. The first one was not challenged or questioned or smeared with the sobriquet 'vandalism'. It is quite clearly not vandalism withing the definition of Wikipedia. SECONDLY, an administrator like terriers Fan who posted the incident about the teacher on 14.3.2007 should NOT use his position as administrator to revert his own posting. This is evidently touches on a conflict of interest. He should RECUSE himself from administering his own particular posting as he has some kind of 'interest' in this particular posting. Therefore this matter should be dealt with by a level higher than administrator. Alternatively (or at the same time) the matter should be opened to discussion - as the request for deletion was - rather than tit-for-tat deletion and reversion. If the matter is open for discussion for a period of four weeks, then the item should be temporarily suspended from the published page (it will still be viewable in the history pages by those who wish to offer a viewpoint). Knee-jerk accusations of vandalism by an administrator other than Terriersfan and the threat of banning a poster because of the three-reverts rule (in connection with a post made by that same administrator) is not an appropriate or transparent enough way of dealing with such a matter. Tirana22 12:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin myself, but I have also reverted the edits that have been made. To make a point with regard to "interest" in the article, your own admission that you were an alumni of the school shows that you yourself have vested interest in changing the piece. I, myself, have no interest other than the inclusion of facts therefore can, and am taking a neutral POV with regards to the article.

The removal of the first incident could be up for debate and indeed could be put back on the article if referenced properly. That's not the issue here. The removal of articles for your reasons "1 incident in 47 years" and "could be regarded as harassment" could be regarded as vandalism because it's removing referenced facts without prior discussion because it doesn't reflect well on the school (something which you can be viewed in the history of the article). That is vandalism because it's removal of facts that you don't like, and have stipulated that you're removing them because they do not offer a positive viewpoint.

With regard to the 3 reverts rule, that's patently transparent enough and indeed fair. It's been used on Wiki for a good few years and there is no real need to change it - you're not being targeted unfairly; this is the way things are done here. It's in the FAQ and applies to everyone. His pointing out the 3 reverts rule could easily have been made by someone else, the fact that he left the warning is due to his watching the article for changes and pointing out the 3 reverts rule before you crossed the line, which is quite courteous.

If you wish to have the section deleted, point that section out for deletion and make your case. There will be a discussion around it and action on the article will take place according to consensus based on Wiki criteria - not POV regarding the school. However, the facts should not be removed until that discussion has taken place for reasons as I've stated above. Drivenapart 08:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I note the above. Yes, I am an alumni, but my interest is not to protect the 'good name of the school'. I believe that in a previous discussion over deletion (which I opposed) the creator of the page - a current pupil of the school - said that the headmaster wanted it removed completely. I disagreed with this because the page should be an outline of facts etc., and mostly that is what it is. The headmaster should have nothing to worry about as everything is attributable. However a heck of a lot of information - both positive and negative is available not not attributable through links to newspapers etc. I have made clear that I am an alumnus of the school. I have no beef against the teacher concerned in the incident section. Nor am I a Max Clifford and riding to his rescue. I also acknowledge that it is an attributable, checkable and 'referenceable' fact. However, having made clear my alumnus status, could the person - an administrator (TerriersFan)- state his rationale for its inclusion, as well as any connection he has to the school? To an outsider, to create a page called 'Incidents' and insert one incident skews the image of the school. Does it mean the creator was lazy, couldn't think of anything else, didn't like the teacher, wanted to besmirch the image of the school....? I don't know (I repeat, I am not defending the school's image: that doesn't concern me. I have ripples of concern of someone using an incident about a former teacher, and although factually accurate [though very incomplete] it behoves the insertor of this incident to state his rationale for creating a special category and inserting one incident about one teacher.) If there were an article about this school in Encyclopaedic Britannia, the editors would raise an eyebrow about a sole, lone, incident. They would want to know the rationale of the author and what does it tell us concretely about the school. I notice one contributor in April added that the teacher stole the money to buy new books. It was mentioned in the court report, but not in that particular news article, and therefore, someone removed it.

I will post the Incident column for discussion for deletion in due course, but TerriersFan needs to explain his motive for inclusion. In brief, (and apologies for rambling a bit) either the Incidents page needs to have incidents of varying kinds, but this looks like a set-up, or revenge. At the very least, it needs a CONSIDERED explanation of the rationale for both its construction and rationale. At the moment it looks like the category 'incidents' was created specifcally to get this on the page. Tirana22 13:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Firstly, you've done yourself no favours arguing against the inclusion of an "Incidents" sub-header on the page then creating exactly such a thing on the David Amess page - sauce for the goose and all that.

Secondly, TerriersFan doesn't have to state his reasons for including the information - if it is info that can be found elsewhere, would be of interest to those looking for information on the school and is relevant to the title, that's criteria enough for inclusion. There doesn't have to be a motive - certainly my reasons for reinstating the incidents part were simply those of wanting to retain relevant data, I have no interest in the school. Coming back to my first point, I wouldn't dream iof asking you for your reasons for including that info on the David Amess page, its valid, referenced and relevant - perfeclty sound for Wiki, ergo I've no reason to question your motives. Also, TerriersFan has said that he has no link to the school, if you care to look at their reply to your message on their talk page. As for a sole, lone incident that's sadly irrelevant - thinking about it, one incident in an otherwise unimpeachable lifetime of service is even more ripe for inclusion as it stands out hugely, and sadly makes it even more noteworthy - I don't think encyclopedia writers anywhere would have a problem with that criteria. As for the removal of info regarding stolen money, if it cannot be cited against third-party information online it will be removed, which is why that part was removed (unless someone can link in the court report?). If however other information can be referenced online, then it will be included which is why the rest of that is still in the article. If there are incidents which can provide another viewpoint for the school, please feel free to include them as long as they are valid, unbiased and referenced. Certainly, if you feel like expanding the information on the teacher in question and will do so without bias, feel free. I do think you are reading far too much into the inclusion of that piece of information and would suggest that your reasons for deletion as they stand aren't warranted and do sound a little paranoid (no offence meant, but questioning the intent of an editor simply stating facts on a facts-based website and demanding a motive is a little much). If you can prove that TerriersFan or myself have issues with the school, by all means state your case when asking for deletion - but for the record I've never actually been to Essex in my life nor was aware of the school until this started. Drivenapart 14:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The reference to the David Amess in cidents page is connected with a Member of Parliament, a public figure, and widely reported in the national press, not just one truncated report in a local rag. You cannot write 'sound a little paranoid' and then write no offence meant. That's not in the Wikipedia official 'philosphy'. I didn't demand a motive: I requested one. It is still noteworthy that someone goes to the rouble to create an incidents page and selects one connected with a teacher. Terriersfan inserted this in April so he should respond to the request for an explanation. if he has no connection to the school, why did he select to introduce this incident.

• TerriersFan doesn't have to give a reason, and I really don't suspect they will. As a guess I think as part of the schools project he was looking for information on the school, found it, felt it noteworthy and included it and thus moved on. Local rag or not, it's a story that warranted a news page hence noteworthy. Nothing suspect about it. The incident on this page in question is about a school, a place of public service and any information which could be seen to reflect on that school should be made transparent, for good or bad, in the same as the info about Amess' son reflects upon him.

With respect, Wiki deals with facts not any motives and asking for them will not have them arrive. By all means ask for deletion if the stated information is in some way worded incorrectly, it's factually inaccurate/libellous or is written with Point Of View, because those are pretty much the only reasons that the section should be deleted. If you feel you would like to take this further as you have asked for previously I would suggest possibly taking this to mediation (Wikipedia:Mediation), a feature on the site. I myself will be happy to clear this up, however I cannot speak for TerriersFan. Drivenapart 15:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent analysis in the bullet point. This is not a matter for mediation it is a matter for this talk page. It is sourced, accurate and relevant so unless there is a clear consensus on here for the item to be removed, it stays. TerriersFan 15:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, I figured it to be that. I merely suggested the mediation by way of offering another avenue for the complainant, but do concur that it should be dealt with by consensus on this talk page first. I for one think the information stays for all my above reasons. Drivenapart 15:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems a slightly protracted debate about a single issue. For what it's worth, the user requesting deletion seems to have got the bit between his teeth. He has not deleted it recently I see: either he has relented, calmed down or just got fed up. Calling his first two deletions vandalism doesn't seem apposite either. My own view is that I am not entirely convinced by his reasons for deletion, but I don't want to set myself up as a final arbiter.

On the other side, tit-for-tat deletion and reversion by self-appointed administrators on an amateur encyclopaedia seems not to have been cogently argued.

I would suggest:

1. the author (or someone else, or a team effort) build a more comprehensive HISTORY of the school. This could include such incidents as those mentioned, but they could be placed in a wider context. At the moment the incidents are not contextualized and it looks amateur (I know Wikipedia is written by volunteer amateurs, but this particular paragraph looks 'amateur' in a slightly derogoratory sense of that word). I also question why they need a separate incidents page by themselves.

2. The issue should be flagged up for discussion, a time limit set, then see what consensus emerges. At the moment, you cannot have a consensus with tit-for-tat deletion and reversion. I am not formally acquainted with the procedures for deletion discussions, but maybe someone can set this in motion.

3. I have DELETED the incidents page, but TRANSFERRED the two incidents to the history page. They represent part of the recent history of the school (the first more so than the second, admittedly). I would consider the history page to be very skimpy indeed, but perhaps I am biased as my alma mater has a 127-year history, unlike the school in discussion which is a relatively recent johnny-come-lately. However, these 'incidents' form part of the recent history of the school in the last six years).

4. What I have done represents some kind of makeshift compromise: the incidents are maintained but given less prominence. Maybe what I have done will take the heat out of the situation until a consensus is reached: it is not intended as a final solution.

5. I would suggest that if these two incidents are deleted again before consensus is reached, or if they are reverted to a separate incidents page, then either party (i.e. Tirana 22 or administrators) would not be acting within the spirit of the compromise and not be giving time for a consensus to emerge. Both parties have been guilty of slightly inflammatory actions and language, questioning each others' motives etc.

My action of relocation is intended to take a little heat out of the situation. It may satisfy Tirana22 less than the administrators, but I would hope for a calm period of INACTIVE deletion AND INACTIVE reversion, and a little more considered reflection. RochfordGB 18:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

For my part, incorporating the incidents within the History section is a first class shout. As you say; it keeps the material without giving it undue prominence. This matter has been dragging on for far longer than any normal Wikipedia discussion period and no-one else has jumped in to support removal. Editorial matters are always subject to review and are never closed as such, but in the absence of any late surge of support for a change we should now move on. TerriersFan 19:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Badgestm.png

Image:Badgestm.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

History

Sourced material should not be removed from this section without consensus. TerriersFan 18:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Further

I removed this material as it is an informative article about the school and this matter needs no place in the article. The Headmaster is not happy with this matter being in the article. Olz06 19:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This is sourced material and will remain unless there is a consensus here on its removal. The view of the Headmaster is totally irrelevant. This is an informative episode in the history of the school. Please read WP:COI. TerriersFan (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

An independent editor previously moved the material from an 'Incidents' heading to 'History' to make it less prominent. I have now further reduced the impact by removing the name of the teacher involved. TerriersFan (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This matter has no place in this article. Although it may be 'sourced' information, it is not , as some fellow editors agree, encylopedic information. You wouldn't see this sort of information usually. Other editors have suspicion that you yourself ( I am not saying it ) have placed this in the article, as a grudge against the teacher, as you seem very keen. I mean it's not Something you can really just stumble upon. User:RochfordGB has similar views. The purpose of the article is to give good information about the school, NOT laden with non-encyclopedic writing. Please do not reply on my talk-page with WP: etc. etc. Wikipedia Policies etc. etc. User:Olz06 3/01/08 - 19:21 GMT

I am not replying to these insulting comments until they are properly signed and posted from the editor's account. TerriersFan (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)