Talk:Kearny High School (San Diego, California)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on August 12, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.
WikiProject Schools This article is related to WikiProject Schools, an attempt to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Schools Portal
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within Schools. Please rate the article.
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in San Diego County, California may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

[edit] Removal of privately-owned link

Kearnysoccer.net is not a domain that is owned by the district or the school. It is privately-owned and not a part of the school district's IT program, nor is it officially sanction by the district IT department. It is owned and maintained by a private individual who happens to be the part-time coach and a banned Wikipedia user. One of the reasons for his banning and that of a considerable number of suspected [1] and confirmed [2] sock-puppets is the frequent attempt to include his privately-owned domains in Wikipedia articles. The web site allegedly provides information about the soccer program, but it is also used to advertise banned user's other private fee-based services [3] [4]. The WHOIS information follows:

- - WHOS information follows - -

The data contained in GoDaddy.com, Inc.'s WHOIS database, while believed by the company to be reliable, is provided "as is" with no guarantee or warranties regarding its accuracy. This information is provided for the sole purpose of assisting you in obtaining information about domain name registration records. Any use of this data for any other purpose is expressly forbidden without the prior written permission of GoDaddy.com, Inc. By submitting an inquiry, you agree to these terms of usage and limitations of warranty. In particular, you agree not to use this data to allow, enable, or otherwise make possible, dissemination or collection of this data, in part or in its entirety, for any purpose, such as the transmission of unsolicited advertising and solicitations of any kind, including spam. You further agree not to use this data to enable high volume, automated or robotic electronic processes designed to collect or compile this data for any purpose, including mining this data for your own personal or commercial purposes.

Please note: the registrant of the domain name is specified in the "registrant" field. In most cases, GoDaddy.com, Inc. is not the registrant of domain names listed in this database.

Registrant: Jason Gastrich P.O. Box 70696 Pasadena, California 91117 United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com) Domain Name: KEARNYSOCCER.NET Created on: 25-Jan-07 Expires on: 25-Jan-08 Last Updated on:

Administrative Contact: Gastrich, Jason domains@jcsm.org P.O. Box 70696 Pasadena, California 91117 United States (877) 850-3878 Fax -- (877) 850-3878

Technical Contact: Gastrich, Jason domains@jcsm.org P.O. Box 70696 Pasadena, California 91117 United States (877) 850-3878 Fax -- (877) 850-3878

Domain servers in listed order: NS1.JCSM.ORG NS2.JCSM.ORG

Registry Status: clientRenewProhibited Registry Status: clientTransferProhibited Registry Status: clientUpdateProhibited Registry Status: clientDeleteProhibited

- - End WHOIS information - -

See WP:SPAM, the Wikipedia Spam Blacklist [5], User:Jason Gastrich's RfA [6] and subsequent discussion for additional guidance on the matter. - Nascentatheist 00:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I'm going to contact an Admin, just to make sure you're correct about the link [7] being inadmissible, though. Thanks. --Creashin 03:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. That's quite reasonable and, as Wikipedia is a community that thrives on consensus, I will check to see if previous admins with experience in this area shouldn't weigh in. - Nascentatheist 04:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Gastrich's site(s) are neither reliable nor notable enough to serve as sources at Wikipedia. Gastrich's history of self-promotion precludes that. FeloniousMonk 04:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
user:Creashin asked me to comment. I don't see why external links need to be owned by the school district or "sanctioned" by the IT department in order to be included. This article is not the school's home page and it does not exercise any authority over it. Although Gastrich is banned from the site, the RfA does not mean that we must not under any circumstances link to anything he does (although if it is actually him adding the link, then we can and should certainly revert that without comment). So I think that it comes down to a content dispute in this case: does an exteral link to an athletic club associated with the school improve the article? — brighterorange (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
There was no claim, implication, or presumption that the article is "owned by the school district," so that point is irrelevant. My comments about the lack of organizational sanction were in response to the claim that the site URL is about the "soccer program," which could be interpreted to imply organizational approval of the page being used as a reference. An examination of the page makes it clear that this is not really the case. There is no substantive content and it could be argued that it doesn't improve the article. Even so, I would be less inclined to resist its inclusion were it not for the fact that the site has two links that lead to the user's advertising of services for a fee. In other words, there appears to be a rather poorly-hidden attempt at profit and self-promotion.
The tendency for other users and admins in the time since the RfA has been to remove Gastrich-owned links on sight. There is a chance that this particular link is being added and promoted by a user sockpuppet. This has been the pattern of behavior observed before and since the RfA and this was due in large part to the tendency of the banned user to indulge in self-promotion. Such things are and should be rightfully prohibited. However, there is no real evidence of this at this time, so that isn't a claim that I would make. In resisting the inclusion of the link, I have been following what I understand has been the tendency and even the consensus, so far, with respect to such things.
As I've said elsewhere, I fully understand that Wikipedia is a community driven by consensus. If the consensus is to include the link, I won't have any problem with that. Thank you. - Nascentatheist 14:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Which would be well said, if it didn't come from a sockpuppet of WarriorScribe, a well known agent provocateur against Jason Gastrich, who has minimised that account and archived away all his old work on Jason's case, lest anyone should detect a pattern. Uncle Davey (Talk) 22:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Uncle Davey, thank you for your comments. You are wrong, of course, but your association in these affairs is known by anyone who has done any research at all, and your entry into this discussion would indicate that user:Creashin is a Jason Gastrich sock-puppet, since your history also shows that if Mr Gastrich is subject to scrutiny or criticism, you are never far away. Your appearance after such a long absence [8] could be viewed as you and Jason having some discussion and you deciding to weigh in. You have raised my suspicions in this matter, and you may have done so with others, including administrators, and this after "creashin" having tried to keep a Gastrich-owned domain and web page in a Wikipedia article. But regardless of all of that, this is not the place for your paranoias and unproven claims. This is Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a battleground [9]. It is not the place for conflicts that take place or originated elsewhere. It is not the place for personal attacks [10] such as you've used here by your accusations. Please review WP:NOT, WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF. My comments were well-noted and fair. This discussion is about the Kearny High School web page and the inclusion of a specific link to a page and a domain that is owned by banned User: Jason Gastrich. Please remain on-topic. If you cannot find any fault with them except to try to color the discussion and prejudice it in some way that is removed from the facts, you would be better served to remain out of the discussion entirely. Again, thanks for your contributions and your comments. - Nascentatheist 01:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow. I think everyone needs to calm down a little bit. User:Brighterorange brought up a very good question. He said, "does an exteral link to an athletic club associated with the school improve the article?" I think the answer is yes. I'll happily submit to consensus, though. It looks like 3 for and 2 against so far. --Creashin 02:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi, Creashin. Let's not make more of this than there is. I suggest that only one person is getting emotional today and I can guarantee that it's not me. It is, however, a good point that you make about remaining calm. This situation hasn't gotten heated, nor will it. Those who want to turn this into something it is not need to look at the WP pages that are appropriate and I almost forgot WP:COOL. I lectured Uncle Davey as was appropriate and reminded him that he is in the Wikipedia environment. There are standards here and we must all adhere to them in order to contribute.
  • I answered User:Brighterorange and suggested that the link, which was originally claimed to be representative of the soccer program but is now identified as an "athletic club associated with the school," does not improve the article. There's no useful information on the page and it seems to be lacking in real substance. Another part of the issue has to do with the wiki-credibility of the domain owner and page writer, all of which is due to his own activities within the Wikipedia environment. However, I agree with you on consensus and, as I said, I wouldn't even care if it wasn't so obvious that the page is used for self-promotion. If you have contact with Mr Gastrich, you might suggest that he put up those kinds of ads on a page separated from the school and the soccer program, so that there is no doubt that his activities are not sanctioned by the school or the district, and I would then withdraw my objection to the inclusion of the link. He should also include some history about the program. As it is, including self-promotion and ads for services-for-fees on a page that is allegedly a page dedicated to a school soccer program leaves the impression that the school or the district either sanctions or approves of the other activities. I know that this is not the case. School districts are very careful to distance themselves from the external activities of employees of the district and, in fact, they have a code of conduct about such things. Thanks for your comments and your contribution. - Nascentatheist 03:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • User:Creashin, reference your comments here [11], it is interesting that you would speak of consensus on the talk page for Kearny High School and then participate in that sort of innuendo that would result in implications that I am a "stalker" while not addressing the actual issues that are being discussed. Remember WP:COOL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA. Unfortunately, you have given me better cause now to believe that you are indeed a sock-puppet of User:Jason Gastrich than I may have had previously. In researching the case of Mr Gastrich versus the Wikipedia community, it was very common for him to make accusations and participate in innuendo rather than deal with the substance of the issues. Your comments on User:Brighterorange's talk page are similar to that behavior in that you have decided to participate in the innuendo instead of making any case of the inclusion of the link, which is the subject under discussion. Please stick to the topic, and leave the innuendo and the unfounded (as well as actionable) accusations to those lacking the maturity to remain on topic and keep the discussion reasonable and adult. I'm sure we would all appreciate that. Thanks again for your contributions. - Nascentatheist 03:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of the discussion so far

  • Now that that rather unpleasant business has been addressed, User:Creashin, I am intrigued by your tally. You claim that there are three supporting the inclusion of the link (presumably you, User:Brighterorange, and Uncle Davey). But neither of the other two parties has made any comment that would indicate that they actually support the inclusion of the link. User:Brighterorange asked if the inclusion makes the article better, which is actually an integral part of the discussion. Uncle Davey gave no opinion on the matter, simply using the opportunity to attempt a personal attack, in violation of WP:NPA. Nobody has made a case for inclusion, while I have made a case for exclusion, and User:FeloniousMonk has indicated that the link is part of a group of web pages that lack notability and credibility within the Wikipedia community. When we consider the facts, then, the tally is two to one against.
  • If you are a sock-puppet of User:Jason Gastrich, which I now suspect more strongly, this would be in keeping with the pattern of behavior that has been observed. Mr Gastrich would often attempt to bring in meatpuppets, in this case, Uncle Davey, to presumably influence consensus, and rather than provide intelligent, rational justification for the inclusion or exclusion of material, would participate in attacks on those in opposition to his viewpoint. He would often also misunderstand or misrepresent comments made by others and the consensus that is being developed, just as you have done here.
  • To summarize, User:Brighterorange asked a relevant question, but has not indicated, either way, whether or not the link should be included. It would seem that he wanted to prompt discussion and wanted to see justification as to why it should not be included, and I have provided that. User:Usenetpostsdotcom didn't register an opinion, either. He's merely here to stir up trouble, and it's interesting that he happened to show up in this discussion at this time, given his history and that of User:Jason Gastrich and their known association. The only direct "vote" for the link (remember, Wikipedia is not a democracy, either) comes from you. Any reasonable view of the tally, if there is one, so far, is two to one against. However, we need to all remember that consensus is not about vote tallies [12]. Consensus comes from discussion of the issues.
  • Please provide your justification for the inclusion of the link, so that we can reach the consensus that we've both indicated we'd like to reach. Thank you. - Nascentatheist 03:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I really don't have the time or desire to get into this any further. I just think it's a pertinent link for the article for obvious reasons. --Creashin 05:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, User:Creashin, but that's not good enough, and the retreat that we're seeing is also characteristic of User:Jason Gastrich. If the reasons are "obvious" to you, they may not be to someone else. Please provide your reasons. This is about discussion and the consensus that we both claimed to desire. Where has that desire gone? - Nascentatheist 05:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No consensus so far

How very odd that someone would decide to revert the deletion of the alleged "soccer team" link and claim that there is "no evidence of anything other than soccer team information." User:Alansohn, please read the discussion as it has occurred here and note this [13] and this [14], which are linked from the side menu on the "soccer team" site. As explained, these are service-for-fee advertisings, they have nothing, really, to do with the team, the athletic program at Kearny High School or the San Diego Unified School District, and the inclusion of the site appears to be a surreptitious attempt by banned User:Jason Gastrich to use Wikipedia as an advertising platform. This has happened in the past. I have said that if these things did not appear on the page, I would have no objection to the use of the link. However, administrator User:FeloniousMonk has also weighed in, writing, "Gastrich's site(s) are neither reliable nor notable enough to serve as sources at Wikipedia. Gastrich's history of self-promotion precludes that." His feeling is less liberal than mine on the matter but, regardless, the consensus thus far is for exclusion as no attempt has been made to justify including the link. It seems to me that failing to contribute to the discussion and the attempt at consensus, making a statement that is obviously wrong (i.e., that there is "no evidence of anything other than soccer team information") and unilaterally reverting the deletion while discussion is still underway is not in the spirit of community and consensus as advocated by Wikipedia. The arguments for exclusion have been presented. No rebuttal argument has been offered. Please do not attempt to revert the exclusion unless there is a compelling argument that you can offer for inclusion and we can then reach consensus. Thank you. - Nascentatheist 17:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I went through the website, searching for anything offensive, advertising-related or self-promoting, and all I found was information about soccer at Kearny High School. I have seen the discussion here, and I see nothing that convinces me that there is anything wrong with this link, nor have I seen any reference to a Wikipedia policy that forbids a link to a web site registered by any user. I understand your obsession and hope that you can start to focus on content, as I and other users have. As there is neither justification nor consensus for its removal, the link will be reinserted until (and if) proof can be provided that this link is disruptive AND that its connection to a banned user requires its deletion AND that there is consensus to remove it. Alansohn 17:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • User:Alansohn, please do not presume motive that you cannot know. There is no "obsession" on my part, and I believe that the need for consensus is is established by policies that are and have been discussed. I have given the reasons for exclusion, and I have the agreement of at least one administrator. I also believe that you are incorrect when you add comments here and claim that there was no justification provided by me. That is incorrect. I certainly did provide justification. You may not agree with it, and that's fine, but to claim that there was none provided is simply false.
  • I have focused on content and found some of the content to be contrary to the spirit of the Wikipedia philosophy. I have been specific about that, and no rebuttal commentary has been offered. I will now remove the link again. Please provide more justificaiton than "I see nothing that convinces me..." This is about consensus. It's not about me nor is it about you. There was justification for the removal and it was explained. There is support from at least one administrator for it's exclusion. Thank you. - Nascentatheist 18:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Other than your own personal witch hunt, a second review of both the web site and of all of your "justifications" for removal, shows no content in conflict with Wikipedia policy, nor any Wikipedia policy that would require its removal. As there is no consensus for removal, the status quo ante will be reinstated and the link restored. You need to come up with something far better than WP:IDONTLIKEIT; you need to refer to an actual Wikipedia policy that would require removal of the link AND show that this link violates it. So far, you have failed on both counts. Alansohn 20:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • User:Alansohn, you obviously have no interest in discussion. I have provided justification. You haven't rebutted it. You have claimed that I did not provide justification, you have implied that it is invalid (by your editorial use of quotation marks around the word, as we see above), and you have also claimed to understand my motives better than I, in violation of WP:AGF. I have already refuted the claim that this is any sort of witch hunt; and if I have used WP:IDONTLIKEIT as the rationale, you don't seem to be able to show me where or how that happened.
  • I don't believe that I have failed at all. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised that the witch hunt you have ascribed to me is, in fact, a bit of projection. I have come up with something better, and I'd give you additional insight, but I see that there is no point. I won't argue about these things ad infinitum. I have better things to do and certainly more important issues to address. So feel free to reinstate the link when you won't violate WP:3RR, and I'll leave it alone. I've provided a rational explanation, and all you seem to be about is not getting your way. Okay, have it your way. Feel free to add to the reasons quite a few of us in academia give no weight to Wikipedia (and several of us even prohibit its use as a reference). Forgive me for trying to help fix that, and have a nice day. - Nascentatheist 20:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • If academia works by deleting any trace of content with a perceived taint of those associated with it, I am far, far more worried about academia than I am about Wikipedia. Your primary justification that "Kearnysoccer.net is not a domain that is owned by the district or the school. It is privately-owned and not a part of the school district's IT program, nor is it officially sanction by the district IT department." is completely and utterly irrelevant. If there is a Wikipedia policy that requires removal of the link you have yet to state what it is. There is nothing you have stated in this entire discussion page that constitutes a relevant Wikipedia policy justification. In the interest of discussion, will you share with us what this mystery policy is and demonstrate how this link violates it? Alansohn 02:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • To refine the question, in one of your efforts to remove the link in question, you justified the removal by stating that "Domained[sic] owned by banned user are likewise banned, per policy." Can you point us to the specific Wikipedia policy that supports your claim? Alansohn 04:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)