Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Harro5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'd just like to know what attempts were made by the parties starting this RFC to resolve the dispute. In fact, it was your comments on talk pages which really fuelled the fire. I refer to these edits: [1] [2] [3]; and that's just the stuff I deleted. Bishonen has referred to similar comments in the outsider view. I refer to my attempts to improve St Michaels articles before the attacks got worse and came from multiple IPs here and here. Harro5 21:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I personally made that comment on Principals. The section makes complete sense based on the description of the schools history and the titles provided (Sister). If you needed even further clarification, a visit to the school web site would have made it obvious. You were disguising your dislike for the article under an apparent editorial banner which doesn't exist.

Having spoken to others about Dispute #2 the anger expressed by others (in this case not me) was a direct result of you choosing to ensure there was no critical thinking. Everything was fully sourced and accurate on the page, however when it was not verifiable from an official school web site you immediately choose to have a go at it. I'd hate to think what would happen if we sourced all our business profiles from company web sites. Your ongoing push to turn the page into a marketing mouthpiece directly led to those discussions. 220.253.48.90 23:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

No one has come to me with any moves to resolve this dispute. I have been personally attacked, branded as having problems with any school but my own, and as basically retyping school advertising onto Wikipedia. If that was meant to be seen as dispute resolution, I must have misread that. I am not going to edit St Michaels again, but because of the surrounding edit wars will not allow it to be featured on the Schools Portal. It has a mention in the Portal's Did You Know section, which would seem to suggest I have no problem with the school, just these editors.

So I'll finish with this. What is it you all want to see as a result of the RFC? Me not editing St Michaels or the Simon Gipson article? I'll agree to that. Anything more, and we'll have to talk. Harro5 06:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Please note the instructions on the page 2 Important notice about the 48-hour rule 3 Schools Portal 4 Delisting

[edit] Please note the instructions on the page

Please note the instructions about where to post, since RFC pages soon degenerate into chaos if people don't: "Users editing other sections should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view." "All signed comments and talk not directly related to a vote or endorsement go on the talk page ... Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

I have moved the comment below here from my "Outside view" section.

The Issue here

I am not a student of St Michael's and this page was, as I said, to let out my frustrations. I believe that those comments came out as a result of others modifying the page and then having their hours of hard work reverted by Harro5 without discussion.

It all comes down to old school rivalries. And St Michael's and Caulfield have had them for years. The issue we must contend with is allowing a person who clearly dislikes his rival schools have a say (and promote biast with it) on other pages content.

Speaking of which, even while this complaint is ongoing, Harro5 has reverted back changes made to the schools portal (an updated feature picture). At one stage he also removed Maintainers/contributors who wanted a more active role.

This behaviour is obviously inappropriate and the language used by others towards him shows the general anger experiened by both students and non-students.

I used the Caulfield page as an example to show how when unwatched his POV ideas can go under the radar without being seeen. As you said, you need to watch very closely. However, we saw from the beginning how his modifications of fully sourced St Michael's content were clearly biast. And we believe this was intentional (the discussion pages make that fairly obvious).

I think you need to be very careful in making Harro5 any sort of official in relation to schools. What I am trying to make clear is how he does not show signs of critical thinking in his modifications, and holds his love for his school very close to his heart.

Please consider this when making your decisions about the ways in which Harro5 has gone about modifying content.

220.253.48.90 23:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

P. S. Feel free to move the post above back to the project page if you like, but if you do, please put it in your own section, date it, and indicate that it's in response to my Outside view. Bishonen | talk 00:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Apologes. 220.253.48.90 00:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Important notice about the 48-hour rule

Apparently those who brought the RFC missed the top of the template. I have now inserted it, I hope I got the time right (I may be off by an hour, UTC is a mystery to me). Please note the need to supply, within 48 hours, evidence for having tried and failed to solve the dispute! Two separate people, the same dispute. As I note in my statement, it's merely ridiculous to claim that childish taunts constitute attempts to "solve the dispute". If, as I suspect, no real attempt has been made, you have until November 15 to get it done. I recommend you to ask for mediation at WP:TINMC, and tell them it's urgent and why. Bishonen | talk 00:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Mediation was attempted on numerous talk pages. Harro5 refused to speak to us, instead choosing to remove our content. This has been ongoing for three weeks. We have provided evidence of attempted discussions, however, Harro5 does not choose to speak to us nor relinquish editorial control.

We have two countersigned and have provided evidence as requred.

The taunts made were not written by either myself nor by BeyondCapricorn who were both responsibie for lodging this.

220.253.48.90 00:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[Shrug]. If you want this RFC to be deleted after 48 hours, suit yourself. I have tried twice now to explain to you what's wrong with your "dispute resolution". I'll explain, once, exactly what counts as "evidence as required", but that'll have to be it, I'm too busy for this.

1. Please don't expect the reader to put in research to find the evidence in amongst all the pages you mention, or to squeeze it out of you drop by drop: either supply it or not. I've read straight through the whole of Talk:St Michael's Grammar School without seeing what you refer to. The next page I clicked on, User talk:Macbandit, contained two nasty taunts and that was it. Now you say those taunts are not by either of you. Fine. Then how is the page evidence at all? What's it doing there? How many more of the pages you mention as "evidence" have nothing relevant on them?

2. In fact, don't give pages at all, give diffs. I was willing to try to use the pages as a preliminary step, but with the attitude you're taking, I think we're going to need diffs. The point of them is that they point in a precise way to one post (I've already told you I can't make out who says what on Talk:St Michael's Grammar School), and most importantly, that they point permanently, where other inter-wiki links always deteriorate over time. If you right-click on a "last" button in the History tab and select "Copy this link location", you get a diff = a unique and durable link to a post. Check my Outside view in edit mode, and you'll see how to use diffs.

3. Please throw out the much too vague stuff you've written about trying and failing to solve the dispute and write a specific account of two attempts you've made, with the diffs for where you made them. I repeat: if, as I suspect, you don't have any respectable resolution attempts to describe, I suggest you apply to WP:TINMC.

Finally: I do understand that you're new on the block, and that this is a bureaucratic and frustrating process. I don't blame you for dropping off bits of the template or for posting in the wrong place. I assume good faith. Please try to return the favour. Bishonen | talk 01:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Schools Portal

This group is now actively muscling in on the Schools Wikiportal, in an attempt to kick me off the page and run St Michaels content everywhere. On this issue I will stand firm. See discussion at Portal talk:Schools/Showcase articles, User talk:Beyondcapricorn and Portal talk:Schools. I am most worried by this comment - "You should be thanking us for including you, not biting back by claiming you somehow have more right to this portal." - by Beyondcapricprn made here. This group is looking to infiltrate the portal to spite me and also to cement their position as a leading clique advocating vandalism, no-discussion-required-if-others-disagree, and using votes to band together to get their way. Worrying stuff, and something which should be headed off by administrators. I'm resilient, and don't plan to give up and leave Wikipedia, but can see myself requesting arbitration against this whole group soon if they continue on their current path. Feel free to comment. Harro5 09:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Delisting

This RFC seems to have been formally abandoned by several users who have removed their signatures as certifyers, and informally also by 220.253.48.90, who has stopped answering questions and, apparently, trying to do anything about the vexed certification issue. It's been more than 48 hours, I'm delisting it now. If Harro5 asks me to, I will also delete it; otherwise, for now, it's being kept. Bishonen|talk 21:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)