Talk:The Bicester School

message: Can the the anonymous user at the college's IP address 213.105.192.81 please refrain from undoing my changes to the article. If you have a problem with the changes, please discuss them here. - Scribble Monkey (talk) 11:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Undoing revisions

message: Just a reminder that "no one" and "everyone" has editorial review at Wikipedia. Any editor who wants can add information, no individual or group should try to take ownership of a page. If you disagree with an edit, please discuss it on this page rather than simply reverting. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorial review 

message: I see that the dfes link shows that the school did badly in 2006 GCSEs. I can see that the school might wish to remove this info but this comes under WP:COI. Also the school website is now given 3 times in a short article (infobox, refs, ext links). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The dfes and OFSTED links are independent of the school and therefore preferable to the school website links. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no wikipedia requirement that editors contact educational institutions to work on any particular articles. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: User Roundhouse0 and I are not the same person. If we were it would be Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, which is frowned upon. - Scribble Monkey (talk) 11:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Despite repeated requests you still have not stated what content you objected to, so it can only be assumed that is was the content, which you deleted, such as a link to the DCSF web site. In what way is a link to the DCSF web site malicious? - Scribble Monkey (talk) 11:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Alternatively, you could ask if this is a proper use of the school's resources, at 9:45 in the evening. - Scribble Monkey (talk) 11:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Did I mention Wikipedia:Sock puppetry? You seem to have made two new friends. - Scribble Monkey (talk) 11:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: A couple of points - one is it's much easier for everyone to follow the thread of comments if you sign yours, this can be done by using four tildes ~~~~. Second, there are various methods used to help wikipedia grow. Take a look at the file pillars to learn more. The main policies that govern content are verifiability, reliable sources and no original research. Together these help the encyclopedia grow. If you want to discuss the value of those policies, help refine them, etc. there is a place to do that as well at the Village pump (policy). If you have specific questions, there are lots of people willing and able to help you out. On my own personal experiences with wiki, I've found that reading the documents related to the five pillars helped me a lot. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dfes link 

message: Before removing information that is properly sourced, please discuss it on this page. Information that meets guidelines for verifiability and reliable sources should typically be kept. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 06:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All Wikipedia articles are (or should be) based on verifiable impartial sources (such as OFSTED, DFES, the local press), not partial sources (such as BCC in this case). The contributors of the material are OFSTED, DFES, the local press, not AliveFreeHappy. All I have to do is to read the links to see if AliveFreeHappy has given an accurate summary from these. It doesn't matter one jot who AliveFreeHappy might be. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I appreciate the need for providing sourced information but the sourced information has to be provided in context. The current section on "Performance" is currently very odd. It places undue emphasis on the school's performance in one specific year, and makes no attempt to put the results in the context of the school's intake or to compare the results with other years. The first sentence gives a very negative view of the school and I can understand why people from the school might feel upset. Does anyone from the school have access to some better sources with more relevant information about the school so that a more balanced article can be created? Dahliarose (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The specific year is 2006, ie the latest for which info is available on the dfes (now dcsf, apparently) site. There doesn't seem to me to be anything odd about including it. The 'value-added data' (quoted) puts the results exactly in the context of the school's intake (worst in the county). Results for previous years can be found in the dcsf link (the best source) given in ext links - BCC page on dcsf. Anyone wishing to quote them is welcome to do so. The school had a dreadful year in 2006, no getting away from it. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed worst to lowest.  Although the title given for the cited article seems to include "worst", if the word is used it should be attributed in the text, since it's POV.  Similar with "confirmed", which has an added risk that whatever is being confirmed could also be POV in need of attribution. --Hebisddave (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now sorted out the Performance section. The 2007 results are available online and are much improved. The way the article was written previously undue emphasis was given to the unrepresentative 2006 results, giving a misleading impression of the school's performance. Results have to be viewed not just in the context of other school results over the same year but also against the school's results in other years. The 2006 results were clearly a blip, and probably the result of a particularly poor cohort. The article could do with less emphasis on results and more information about the school's activities and ethos. Dahliarose (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, the original comment on the results was added, by a suspected student, at a time when the school's results were attracting a lot of attention in the local media and in the school itself (see newsletters). It was always going to be updated, but later results have not been officially released by DCSF yet. However, it is right that the result should be seen in the whole context, but that should be done by providing additional information rather than suppressing the 2006 results. - Scribble Monkey (talk) 09:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what I've now done. The 2007 results are available but I could only find them online in a local Oxford newspaper. They probably won't be on the DFES website until some time next year. The reference can always be updated later. I've taken out the contextual information for 2006 for the moment. I think this is probably hard for general readers to understand without knowing how the figures are worked out but if we quote contextual figures then I think we need to provide them not just for 2006 but for other years as well. Dahliarose (talk) 09:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This is now much better, and is the sort of thing the school itself might have done rather than spending its energies suppressing the 2006 under-performance. Dahliarose is to be congratulated on this exemplary piece of work. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't agree more. You also make an interesting point about the school editing the article. IMHO, the best school articles are the ones with a high level of ownership by the school itself. ~ Scribble Monkey (talk) 11:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: As an obvious sockpuppet of a blocked user (:User:BicesterCommunityCollege), Plumbline would be well advised to keep quiet. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can make out the school has not taken any action other than causing a lot of disruption and trouble to experienced Wikipedia editors. It would be much more helpful if people from the school could contribute in a positive way, and take some time to understand what Wikipedia is all about so that the same problems do not arise in the future. It is most unfair to blame other editors who are totally unconnected with the school for not doing something which you couldn't be bothered to do yourself. Dahliarose (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think the school has behaved quite appallingly and set a very poor example to its students. ~ Scribble Monkey (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourced information 

message: Is 'sockpuppet' a technical term or just a piece of abusive language by somebody who knows no better - it about goes with the standard of the article produced (or rather put back persistently) by those two editors.  The only person who took any constructive action was Dahliarose, but they seem not to understand what has been going on.  As a parent and payer of local authority charges I would not want to see school staff wasting time on this when their first concern is the education of their students.  What they did was a simple undo of material that was creating an unbalanced view and that makes Dahliarose's comment a little sad.  Experienced editors who want to write articles about anything should make sure they research properly first. As Dahliarose has shown, they had not done that so (in Roundhouse's own words) they would have been 'well advised to keep quiet'.  If Wikipedia is to retain (or in this area regain) any kind of credibility then it needs to take such rogue articles in hand. Plumbline (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be revising the facts about the chain of events in the same way that you tried to revise the facts in the article about the school. The first revert of my edits from the school IP address, on 9th December, removed a link to the article on specialist school, a link to the article on Technology College and reinserted the redundant heading "External links" - Diff. What is malicious about that? And in reply to your comment about "not want[ing] to see school staff wasting time on this when their first concern is the education of their students", and your actions here demonstrated that how exactly? If you really are a parent, you should grow up! - Scribble Monkey (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You have consistently refused to specify what content I added that you objected to. I added nothing about the school's performance. I merely added a neutrally named link to the DCSF website which showed the school's results for the last four years. Have you asked DCSF to remove the results from their site too?  = Scribble Monkey (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an official Wikipedia policy on sock puppets which will explain what the term means: Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. There is currently a note on your Plumbline talk page which states that you are a suspected sockpuppet of User:BicesterCommunityCollege. The community college account has been used to edit this page, and I think the assumption has been made that both accounts are operated by one and the same person. If that is not the case then you need to take action with an administrator to get the situation sorted out. The edit history of this article speaks for itself. The negative comments about the school's performance were there when the article was created back in April. The other editors have only tried to help by adding sources. Wikipedia is huge. There are vast numbers of very poor school articles, many of which have been started by pupils. There are not enough people editing school articles and those of us who do help out can only do so much. I am a parent and I have written articles on a number of schools with which my children and I have an association. As you are a parent too perhaps you might like to do the same with your own schools rather than expect other parents at other schools to do all the work for you.  Dahliarose (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Why was the school "provoked into action"? Most schools don't seem to find it necessary to behave in such a controlling and protective manner. Why do you feel a need to remove any negative coverage of the school from the internet? Do you also patrol MySpace, Bebo, Facebook, YouTube, RateMyTeachers, etc? By the way, you've never actually established that you do represent the school; would you like to tell us exactly what your role at the school is? - Scribble Monkey (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plumbline, I'm still very puzzled by your response. If you are indeed a parent why are you using a school IP address to post your comments on this talk page? How was the school "provoked into reaction"? If I knew how to get parents involved in editing then every school article would be a featured article by now. If you have an interest in the school and the article then it is up to you to find people to help to edit the article if you are not prepared to do so yourself. If you don't want to get involved in the process then you have no business criticising what other editors have done in good faith. You have to remember that everyone on Wikipedia is a volunteer. Dahliarose (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is 'sockpuppet'

message: There is an interview with the current head on the BBC website. I was hoping to include it as an external link but I can't seem to get the video to play. I reported the problem to the BBC several weeks but nothing seems to have changed. I'm putting the link here so that it doesn't get lost just in case it becomes available in the future. Here is the link. Dahliarose (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Interview