Talk:St Edmund Campion Catholic School

Protected

Due to the recent edit warring this page has been protected for 1 week. Please use the time to discuss the matter here and come to a consensus on what should and shouldn't be included on the page. If an urgent edit needs to be made during the protection, please place the template {{editprotected}} here with details of the edit that needs to be made and justification for the edit, and an administrator will come by to make the edit. If you have agreed and resolved the dispute before the expiry of the protection, please make a listing at requests for unprotection. While it is also possible to make such requests on my talk page, it would be quicker for you to use those previous methods. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

status

I have removed dubious material and protected it again for similar reasons for 48 hours. This has included the removal of material which would represent an undoubted BLP violation. The relevant rule is WP:DO NO HARM; although marked as an essay, much of it represents firm policy. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I have extended the protection another week now.--Pharos (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

McGregor1969

My apologies DCG, whilst it may be that some of the phrases could be changed, the fact is that having gone through the history all of the material you have removed was verifiable and in the public domain. What has occurred amounts to censorship. For parents like me the site was a revelation of problems that affect our children at the school. Please revert the version to include the verifiable detail. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by McGregor1969 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

reviewing it, it seems that some of the content can be restored, but in a more neutrally worded and much briefer fashion. Please do not attempt to add any of the material under any title, and do not evade matters by using another user name-- this is not permitted. It is obvious that you have a conflict of interest, and I very strongly advise you to stay away from this article.

with respect to any editors from the school, I urge them too that it is better to let me deal with this, as they as well have conflict of interest. DGG ( talk ) 16:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

DGG, just FYI, there's something going on at St_Edmund_Campion_Catholic_School/Temp, too, that I noted while doing NPP. I can't tell if it's related to the BLP issues or not, but thought you'd want to know. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

yes, a good rewrite by Bongomatic. I've used it to replace the original article, which has the good effect of deleting the BLP violations from the visible history., I shall probably add back a little of the negative material, but I am considering how to rewrite it to avoid overemphasis. DGG ( talk ) 16:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

And a duplicate article was created at St Edmund Campion School, which I've now turned into a redirect to this page. The school website verifies that this is "St E.. C.. Catholic S.." is the correct name. PamD (talk) 07:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Headteacher and Former Chairs of Governors

It seems rather strange that a parent such as McGregor1969 would want to list former Chairs of Governors and not include details of the current headteacher! As of yet McGregor1969 has not provided any justification for this preference.

Mccormack69 (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Headteacher / Former Chair of Governors

If you are a parent Mccormack69, then I don't think it is strange to want to have an accurate, up to date and authoritative encyclopaedic reference. By all means suggest new material but try and avoid vandalising / censoring the article.

McGregor1969 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC).

Protection

I have been forced by recent edits to protect the page again. Suggestions for additional material should go on the article talk p. To deal with one of the editing questions, as a general rule, a list of former headmasters is considered encyclopedic material; a list of former chairs of the governing board is not. Any material dealing with accusations against people accused of crime but not convicted will not be accepted, and the attempt to add them will result in a block of the account in question. DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

DCG / Mccormack69

What happened to all the other material that was encyclopaedic and whitewashed / censored. Are the reported examination results contentious? You have removed / hidden the edit history. Please re-instate the non-contentious material or pass the project to an impartial administrator. What is it that Mccormack69 is wishing to conceal?

Thanks

McGregor1969 22:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)McGregor1969McGregor1969 22:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by McGregor1969 (talk • contribs)

I am working on this. I have now read all the Ofstead reports that are online (2005+, including information from 1999 through 2011), and am preparing a short summary, with links. I am aware of both the somewhat excessive desire of editors from the school to show the best face possible, and the considerably excessive desire of others to show the worst; the actual record appears a succession of ups and downs for the last 12 years. though, by selective quotation from the various reports, WP does not make judgments.

I'll just point out that nothing can look worse than starting forked articles to show a negative picture, attempts to introduce BLP violating material, and repeated attempts to introduce negative material. Given the choice between blandness and abuse, Wikipedia chooses blandness. Fairness is of course the preferred goal, but if it is impossible to achieve, we resort to blandness. I think I can write a fair summary--for details, the links to the reports will give them. I'll certainly then be glad for comments. But if there is no agreement on what is a fair summary, the inevitable result will be blandness.

Summary forthcoming in a day or two--I try to think things over before I react. Were I to just react, almost every previous editor would have been blocked by now for POV editing. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

McGregor1969 / DCG

Sounds like a good place to start, Lots of contentious opinion which is not helpful. However the facts as they unfold are the facts. We hope the place will improve, but it is important that parents can rely on solid evidence and not propaganda. The irregularities during previous ofsted inspections as reported in the media and failure by the Local Authority to investigate properly has simply fuelled uncertainty and mistrust. Many of us wish to see solid, transparent gains in attainment and community cohesion. Hopefully over the next few years this will come through in data and reports. Thanks for your efforts:-)

McGregor1969 14:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)McGregor1969McGregor1969 14:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by McGregor1969 (talk • contribs)

"Ofstead"

Would an admin please correct the spelling of Ofsted? Thanks. PamD (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)