Talk:Conseil scolaire Viamonde/Archive 1

Logo no longer in use

 * image             =Csdcso.gif

False and potentially libelous claim
The following is not true in any way shape or form. Removed.


 * "Members of the Ducharme family are still employed today by the CSDCSO to pay homage to the founding leader's initiatives."

False claim, no proof whatsoever.


 * Members of the Ducharme family are still employed today by the CSDCSO.


 * Please note that you are in violation of Wiki Rules against making legal threats against editors. You can be banned for doing this. This is a first warning to you. Please sign you comments in talk pages. This is also against Wiki rules of civil conduct. Thank you.--GST2006 04:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And what you just did is not a threat ? You're the one making unbased statements about nepotism. Fact is, the link you provided in the article only sends us to GOOGLE and a list of documents (pdfs) that still contain ALICE DUCHARME's email.


 * "Members of the Ducharme family are still employed today by the CSDCSO."

A little surprised by this, and would like to give support to whomever removed those paragraphs. In is in fact not true that anyone related to Mme Ducharme still works in the school board. Please do not make such baseless statements, they are wreckless and the school board has very strict policies when it comes to hiring relatives. A little dismayed by what passes for encyclopedic knowledge but is really just hearsay or bad assumptions. webcsdcso

Just spoke to the communications director of the board, the school board has never ever hired anyone related to Mme Ducharme then nor now. I believe this user might not know that havivng the same surname does not always mean one is related !


 * As you can see from this link anyone reading this and also reading the Public Records published by the Information and Privacy Commission of Ontario over the history of violation involving this school board now and also the similar ones from a prior school board also associated with the Ducharme family name as well, things do look suspicious and people are expected to eventually put two and two together and come up with four. Since there are no ppublished connection yet about this the material was removed from Wiki by mutual concent of the editors here. The launching of insults and personal atacks over this issue are all uncalled for. I therefore accept your appologies (even if you don't give me one) and hope to work in harmony and peace with you and to compromise based on fairness and goodwill founded on honest intentions for doing the right thing regardless whose right or wrong in the first instance.--GST2006 19:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV violation with pseudo-controversy.
This really seems to be nothing more than "anti-french rights" activism in the guise of information. French language education is protected under the bill or rights across Canada.

The following section is not acceptable.


 * ==Controversies==


 * Many people believe that the existence of Separate Public Schools in the Province of Ontario for the French Canadians to be a violation of the multi-cultural principles of the province where most people are neither French nor English by cultural descendance, and who believe that Ontario must preserve it's non-bilingual status to be fair to all other cultures and languages represented here. For all cultures to be considered equal only one shared language should be the official state language for the province of Ontario. No other culture obtains full public funding for education in their culture and language though all laguages are entittle to International Language classes in Ontario for students when the numbers warrant.

The above statements are not accurate in the sense they are merely opinion and not factual policy or in accordance with the reality of Fracophone rights in Ontario.

The "Many people believe" statement should be a red flag for anyone worried about NPOV. The government of Ontario does not have a "Multicultural principle" that supercedes or overrides constitutional rights or French language services at the provicial level.

Pseudo Controversy II
This is not the place for this kind of anti-french trolling. I fail to understand why a page about a French language school board should be a sounding board for some anti-french education rights agenda. WebCSDCSO

This is really not the place for it. IF someone wants to use Wikipedia as a soap box, they should start their own article on the subject and not use this school board profile for it. Why CSDCSO and not other French language school board of Ontario pages for this ? WebCSDCSO

Besides all this, where are the sources, the quotes, the information warranted for a basis of "controversial claims" ? These are the baseless claims of one individual with an ax to grind with this school board. It is obvious from previous editing of this article by this one person, that their claims are baseless. WebCSDCSO


 * Considerable controversy remains over the advancement of a separate public education system exclusive for Frenco-Canadians that are a small minority group outside of Quebec. That the systems are not open and accessible for Canadians to participate and ignoring the other constitutional rights of all Candians to provide French language services only "[where the numbers warrant]".

Please provide explanation of "constitutional rights of all Canadians" - The only constitutional issue here is the right to French Language Education. WebCSDCSO


 * CSDCSO has attracted much attention to itself by being a School Board half the size of Belgium providing education services to the families of only 7,000 pupils in a province of Canada with close to 13 Million people of all multi-cultural dispositions that outnumber Frenco-Ontarians by over 95%.

This kind of fallacious argument through numbers could just as well be used to justify the withdrawal of medical services to people with disabilities, to withdraw political and treaty rights of natives etc. etc. WebCSDCSO

PSEUDO CONTROVERSY III

 * ==REFERENCES AND CONTROVERSY==


 * CANADA'S OFFICIAL LANGUAGES - CONSTITUTION OF CANADA


 * Official Languages of Canada
 * "(1) English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada. "


 * (1) Minority Language Educational Rights


 * Citizens of Canada
 * - whose first language learned and still understood is that of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province in which they reside, or
 * - who have received their primary school instruction in Canada in English or French and reside in a province where the language in which they received that instruction is the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province, have the right to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in that language in that province.


 * (2) Citizens of Canada of whom any child has received or is receiving primary or secondary school instruction in English or French in Canada, have the right to have all their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in the same language.


 * 3) The right of citizens of Canada under subsections (1) and (2) to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of a province


 * (a) applies wherever in the province the number of children of citizens who have such a right is sufficient to warrant the provision to them out of public funds of minority language instruction; and
 * (b) includes, where the number of those children so warrants, the right to have them receive that instruction in minority language educational facilities provided out of public funds.


 * The above section extracted from the constitution is the basis relied upon for creating the Conseil Scolaire du Centre Sud Ouest however this is an issue of contention because it ignores the highlighted sections which should alos apply to this school board that spans a territory half the size of Belgium yet serves only 7000 students.

Ok this is getting tiresome. Far from being a scholarly argument about constitutional rights, this is just ONE person's interpretation of legal terms such as "is sufficient to warrant" or "the number of those children so warrants" - It has been established in the Jurisprudence that parents of "ayants droits" (ie: children who have French language education rights) can sue the school board over a very SMALL number of students in a said place. The issue is not based on the size of the board nor the relative concentration of students compared to the rest of the population.

For more information please read : Canadian Charter of Rights Decisions Digest on a case relating to SECTION 23(3) http://www.canlii.org/ca/com/chart/s-23-3.html

Unless this user feels more qualified than the Canadian Supreme Court, I beleive this should be the end of this so-called controversy.

More information here : http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/policy/linguistique/guide/index.html

Calm down, breathe
Hi folks,

I'd kindly ask that you take a deep breath here. No need for CAPS LOCKs. I'll be going through the article when I have time to try and ensure WP:NPOV and such, but just two notes here:


 * 1) Please provide sources for your claims. Per WP:CITE, the onus for this is on the person who adds the information. In particular, statements regarding controversies need to be cited to a specific (named) group of people, or a person, or a website, or a newspaper article, not just "some people" or "critics". See also WP:NOR about original research; we cannot quote a google search as a source.
 * 2) On the other hand, even though the board is guaranteed certain rights through the legislation, we still can and should report any controversies surrounding it, provided they are well-cited. To a certain extent, Wikipedia isn't about the absolute truth, but rather verifibility, and if opponents exist, we should by all means note them per WP:NPOV.

That's all for the moment. Thanks for your attention and co-operation! --Qviri (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Legislation ? I think Constitutional would be the appropriate term here. WebCsdcso
 * Wikipedia is not about the absolute truth? Is it a soap box for someone's agenda. I think not. This one person's anti-french rights comments are clearly biased and violate NPOV


 * Sorry about the legislation / constitution mix-up, I'm not fully up to the topic here. Wikipedia is certainly not a soapbox (and we even have a rule to this effect), but on the hand it would be inappropriate to just state what the constitution says if there are important and significant details and controversies to be mentioned as well. (I am not trying to imply that the current additions are or are not about significant issues, that's another topic.)
 * Thanks for staying in contact, it's much appreciated. --Qviri (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Controversies
The CSDCSO is a Pubic School Board funded by all taxpayers in Ontario that covers a territory twice the size of Belgium yet delivers education to only 7000 pupils.  This condition creates a controversy between the constitutional obligation of all Canadians to pay for separate funding to providing a segregated French Language education for minority groups of French communities outside of Quebec "only when the numbers warrant" and their claims for a segragated education. (Citing reference to the Constitution Act of Canada)

This is what I just posted. Lets talk about revisions and more site as necessary to get a balance of POV's without unecessary censorship of factual information.--GST2006 19:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I rephrased your addition, I think I made it a bit more understandable. If you have any concerns about my wording, do voice them.
 * Since it is clear that the interpretation of "where numbers warrant" is subjective, can you name a group or an individual that we can quote as voicing these concerns?
 * Thank you for your co-operation. --Qviri (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you going to put this pseudo controversy on all 12 French school board profiles on Wikipedia ? And all other French language school boards across Canada excluding Quebec to further your anti-French rights agenda ? This is just anti-French activism under the guise of "fiscal" responsibility. Need I remind GST2006 that the school boards in Ontario were implemented by the TORY government of Mike Harris ? I really wish the article was expunged from this kind of political dribble that is nothing but opinion.


 * This is Wikipedia, not CFRB 1010


 * I think that this school board specifically has drawn attention to itself and stands out as most controversial. It boasts covering a territory twice the size of Belgion in written submissions to the Information and Privacy Commission (as published) attempting to evade its public obligations to disclose its public records about its public spending of provicial funds received from all Taxpayer French and Non-French in a province that is 96% non-French and in their specific territory which is 99.9999% non-French. Of all the Segragated French Language School Boards in all of Canada this one stands out as the one most unwarranted based on the number of students and the size of territory. Furthermore the measure of "when numbers warrant" is a subjective measurement and should also be measured against the Board's other questionable activities such as fiscal management responsibilities, compliance with Freedom of Information Act, holding public elections, and its general comportment as public institution when managinig obligations and dealing with the people of Ontario who are paying for their services from our collective Public Education funds.--GST2006 03:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "It boasts covering a territory twice the size of Belgion"
 * False, it aknowledges this size as it is a major hindrance to board operations. The size and scope of the board was decided by the Tory Government of Mike Harris. Not the board !


 * The number play is simply a smokescreen to evade constitutional rights and language rights. The policies of C-FAR (Citizens for Foreign Aid Reform), CAFE (Canadian Association for Free Expression) or APEC - Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada should not be using Wikipedia for their political agenda.


 * "==Funding controversy=="
 * The CSDCSO is a public school board funded by all of Ontario's taxpayers. Le Conseil submits that it covers 68,180 km² – a territory twice the size of Belgium – yet delivers education to just over 7000 pupils . Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms only asserts funding "where the number of those children [being educated] so warrants", and some people feel that the number of pupils is insufficient to guarantee the funding."


 * This has no place here. If you have a personal grudge against this school board, then go public, but please don't use this place as a sounding board for your perceived controversy. So far you seem to be the only person involved in this controversy.


 * Just like I suspected, just a lot of opinionating, un based allegations.
 * Do you have any proof whatsoever of "attempts to evade public obligations to disclose public records"
 * Do you have any proof whatsoever of issues with "fiscal management responsibilities"
 * Do you have any proof whatsoever of issues with "compliance with FOIA"
 * Do you have any proof whatsoever of issues with "public elections"
 * Need I remind all readers these allegations are coming frome someone who made baseless claims about relatives of Mme Ducharme being hired at the board (FALSE)
 * You request proof that is cited in the Article with a link to the IPC order forcing compliance on CSDCSO--GST2006 12:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This seems to be nothing more than a case over access to information and nothing to do with the so-called controversy you are clamoring about. What does this have to do with the school board profile ? Nothing.

FOIA
This stuff has no place on Wikipedia. It is obvious this person has an axe to grind, and has used the Privacy Commissioner to obtain information from the board, which is perfectly defendable. However, using a Wikipedia profile to further one's agenda against ONE instutition under the guise of a "controversy" over the number of students, territory etc really smacks of BAD FAITH.

I submit the following has no place here.


 * The school board has been the target of numerous Freedom of Information Act requests for access to its public records generally dealing with management of provincial funding, it's hiring practices, its record keeping of the hundreds of millions of dollars received from the Ministry of Education. In each case the board has been found in violation of the Freedom of Information Act by the Information and Privacy Commission of Ontario and Ordered to Comply with the law by the tribunal having to issue orders forcing them to comply under the Act:

   

One person's agenda
This has no place on a school board profile. This is one person's crusade under the guise of controversy. Time to DECLARE NPOV issues. -- Miquelon


 * ==Controversies with this school board==


 * The CSDCSO is a public school board funded by all of Ontario's taxpayers. Le Conseil submits that it covers 68,180 km² – a territory twice the size of Belgium – yet delivers education to just over 7000 pupils . Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms only asserts funding "where the number of those children [being educated] so warrants", and some people feel that the number of pupils is insufficient to guarantee the funding.


 * The school board has been the target of numerous Freedom of Information Act requests for access to its public records generally dealing with management of provincial funding, it's hiring practices, its record keeping of the hundreds of millions of dollars received from the Ministry of Education. In each case the board has been found in violation of the Freedom of Information Act by the Information and Privacy Commission of Ontario and Ordered to Comply with the law as evidenced by the numerous tribunal orders forcing them to comply under the Act:

   

Sorry but hard to have discussions here
Wiki requires that comments be signed by their authors. This is also necessary when communicating over time. I am simply ignoring comments that are not identified by name and the date since its immposible to follow such discussions. Please play by the rules or don't play at all.--GST2006 02:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Irony? --Qviri (talk) 03:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL--GST2006 17:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There are no discussions here. Those opposed to seeing Wikipedia being a soap box for your FOIA agenda and pseudo-constitutional issues have been more than forthcoming in explaining their position. However, GST2006 is simply posting back the same information over and over with no justification whatsoever in a bid to advance his political views. -- Miquelon

We are all getting a sense here that you are probably and likely one of the active parties in a series of FOIA requests from the board, we also get the sense you probably lost some sort of contract or bid and are now using bullying tactics to get back at this instutition. Please advise to the veracity of these suppositions.-- Miquelon

IP 65.94.157.153, WebCSDCSO and Miquelon
You keep posting and reposting comments without signing them although everyone can see you are the same person from the history of this talk page. What you don't understand is that people need to know when you posted a comment to know if they read it or not. You keep posting giberish and accusing editors of all kinds of things. You are obvioulsy an employee of CSDCSO trying to use Wiki as an advertising vehicle for getting more students so you can get more tax money from the province so you can pay yourselves more money and spend it on your friends. Wiki is a encyclopedia which is a source of interesting and usefull information. It is not a soapbox to advance the Franco-Ontarian agenda. The information is expected to be balanced with good and bad things. You obvisouly have lots of good things about your employer here so there is a balance with the publication of facts and issues that are not so pretty. Ying and Yang. That's Chinese to good and bad in balance. I hope you understand. If you care so much, why not expand wiki by adding more good things about the CSDCSO, to weigh it more to the possitive rather trying to censor good and interesting factual information about problems with this public organziation.--GST2006 21:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Balance means that pages about evolution should host information about creatonism, that pages about the holocaust should host information from neo-nazi revisionists. You see how your position is not accurate and not wikipedia policy. -- Miquelon
 * Your accusations about nepotism and money issues are not only grave, they are slander. -- Miquelon


 * You keep getting warning after warning about signing your comments. You even post replies to warnings about your bad practice. Everyone can see that it's you WebCSDCSO by looking at the history of the page. So try to comply with the rules of Wiki proceedure. It's very easy type 2- and 3~ without any spaces and your name, date and time get put on you comments. As to your uncivil behaviour of falsly accusing editors that must stop. There is no reason for hostility. Publish something good about it and stop whining about the facts that you don't like people publishing or letting other people know about.--GST2006 03:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is coming under attack by one individual hell bent on his agenda, that is clear to me. Your link to "languagefairness.org" bears no relevance whatsoever to this article, not even a single mention of school boards or CSDCSO in that link. Unless you post something similar to this "controversy" on all canadian french language school boards on wikipedia, then it is obvious you are only using this for your other agenda (the freedom information act). --Miquelon (PS: I am not Webcsdcso)

Please don't change other people's comments on discussions pages.--GST2006 07:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Issues in a nutshell
- User GST2006 has made claims of nepotism (Ducharme founder, and employees), they have since been debunked.

- User GST2006 has made claims of constitutional issues, those have been laid to rest. There are only political issues at hand, and citations provided were to an anti-bilingual federal civil servant website. Not relevant to school boards.

- User GST2006 has made allegations of improper use of funds, yet he only provides links to FOIA issues and decisions in favor of the plaintiff. Yet beyond the FOIA issues, there are no other "controversies".

The seriously biased nature of these so-called controversies demonstrates this is nothing more than what could be considered (albeit falsely I accept), as a personal vendetta. Yet questions asked to user GST2006 about the nature of those issues remained unanswered.

It is therefore necessary to maintain a POV issue here and refer this page to the next level -- Miquelon


 * Please add name and dates on comments at the time you make them. Also you have added your name to comments made by IP address 65.94.157.153 days after the fact. There appears to be some sockpuppetry going with different names comming from the same IP address. All have things in common claiming to have inside knowledge about FOI requests and about people's employement etc.,. Please acknowledge that you are all the same person and you are an employee of the CSDCSO that is making these contributions--GST2006 07:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * GST2006, are you WikiWoo? --Qviri (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No. I am GST2006. The only comments on this page appear to be from Miquelon/webcsdcso and their IP's and yours. This is the problem you get when people post comments without adding their name and time, which makes it look like different people and the discussions difficult to know.--GST2006 14:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I see. Could you take it a bit easier on the new users here? Clearly they don't have as much experience with Wikipedia policies and regulations as you do. WP:BITE and such. --Qviri (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Miquelon, in reply to your concerns:
 * Indeed the claims have been debunked, that's why they are no longer on the page.
 * The fact is that the constitution does not cite exact numbers, and "where numbers warrant" leaves ample room for interpretation. I personally think that 7000 pupils is an ample number; others don't have to agree, and you can't force them to. As long as the claims are referenced to a particular group that meets some basic criteria, there is no real reason why we shouldn't mention them. If you feel the group does not meet the criteria, please state why not.


 * Need we remind readers here that Canada has two official languages, and barring an overturn of the Constitution of Canada, there is no "controversy" and this really has no place on a school board profile page ! If one wants to raise these issues, do it on a page about Canada & bilingualism -- Miquelon,


 * After my edits, the current version does not contain allegations of improper use of funds as far as I can see; do you see something that I don't?


 * Thank you - will keep checking. -- Miquelon,


 * All controversies depend on the POV by default, otherwise they wouldn't be controversies. Once again, there is no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't present an alternate view, backed up by facts and citations, and let the reader decide for himself. --Qviri (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * the "alternate" model is not the one applied on most Wiki pages. Isn't that right ? Does the holocaust page feature controversies and revisionist anti-semitic ideas ? Does the page about Evolution feature creatonism ideas in a bit to provide "alternate views" ? If so, then lets open the doors to the flat earth society, I'm sure GST2006 could provide them with some content ... -- Miquelon,

consensus and resolution of issues

 * I agree with Qviri's views. The controversies read much better now and look well balanced.--GST2006 15:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

suggested additions and expansion
The following expansion to this article is contemplated.

_________ The CSDCSO is a member of the Association des conseillers(ères) des écoles publique de l'Ontario (ACÉPO) which are French language school boards that not only teach in the French language but function administratively in French. They are not officially bilingual school boards. Ontario's regular public schools also maintain French immersion programs where the whole coriculum is provided in French only. They also teach French language as part of the normal language curriculum with the balance of eductional serviced provided in English. + The CSDCSO is a member of the Association des conseillers(ères) des écoles publique de l'Ontario (ACÉPO) which are French language school boards that not only teach in the French language but function administratively in French. They are not officially bilingual school boards. Ontario's regular public schools also maintain French immersion programs. It should be noted that the regular public school systems also provide International Language instructors for all other world languages only where numbers of student warrant classes. The International Language Departments have instructors, not officially called teachers and not part of the teaching staff (as are the French and English teacher), but belong to the same class of school employee as the office clerks and janitorial staff with much less pay, benefits and pension. _________

The main purpose for the above expansion is to contrast between the services provided by this public board of eduction vs the services provided by regular public boards which overlap. The part about the International Language Instructors is to include areas which are not touched upon much but are nevertheless important distinctions to the multi-cultural make-up of Ontario where most bilingual people are not bilingual with english and french and most language/cultural groups in Ontario are much more numerous than the French but are not getting any special priviledges like the Franco-Ontarians get with Public Education.

Perhaps some of this touches areas that are better in other Wiki pages and looking for the Wiki community to help find a suitable for home for this important and interesting information.--GST2006 18:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Quebec separatists claim multicuralism was put forth as a policy to dilute the French history and heritage of this country. You might be proving them right and helping them, which is a damn shame. You are trying to put an OFFICIAL language of Canada on the same level as all other languages spoken by minorities in Canada, with total disrepect for the constitution, the BNA act, and the history of this country - yet you as simply using multiculturalism as a trojan horse when you have no interest whasoever in their rights. the fact you are bringing this up on a school board page is ludicrous -- Miquelon


 * You seem to be wanting to exagerate the issue of the French minority groups out side of Quebec. Most people in Canada believe they should be treated the same as any other minority group outside of Quebec especialy since Canada is a Multi-cultural country with many cultures. It is obvious and clear that the French Public school system is not about education. It is about creating public jobs and managing public spending applying discrimination, favoratism and nepotism. --GST2006 12:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * THEN YOU SHOULD SHUT DOWN ANGLO SCHOOLS IN QUEBEC BY THAT SAME LOGIC -- Miquelon


 * You added a section about the Auditor General of Ontario, however the Auditor Genneral of Ontario does not perform "Value Audits" on School Boards and other municipal organizations as such the Value received has not been reviewed and whatever measures used are biased from the large number of bilingual Canadians that occupy higher public service generally including the office of Auditor General in Ontario who are mostly first language Francaphones who are partial to their own minority group.--GST2006 12:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

General discussion about French Language outside of Quebec
The following was posted by a concerned citizen_______ "The costs involved in this illogical flogging of French outside of Quebec (when Mandarin would make more sense as a second language on the West coast etc) are a state secret but we are talking billions here. Our taxes could dip significantly if this emotional hobbyhorse were jettisoned.  Even French Quebeckers would probably rather have the money for other things that is presently being wasted on French outside Quebec.


 * THEN YOU SHOULD SHUT DOWN ANGLO SCHOOLS IN QUEBEC BY THAT SAME LOGIC -- Miquelon

As for the military and civil service, requiring bilingualism in English and French has had the predictable effect of bias towards native French speakers. They have both more opportunity to function in English and it is a very useful language globally. This is NOT true for and English speaker learning French which is only the tenth most important language in world use and dwindling. The English speaker would be learning French only to get a government job, with no other spin-off benefits.

Out of bilingual government jobs, 80% are filled by people whose first language is French i.e. they are only 20% of the population (and dwindling) but get 80% of the highest paying government jobs. Not only that, but Canadians are not getting the best and the brightest by drawing on only 20% of their population.

The 80% should start speaking up and demand fairness. What are the 20% going to do? Threaten to leave? Fat chance._______ --GST2006 12:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So tell me, what do you propose, to dissolve the constitution of Canada, take all francophone language rights away from francophones outside Quebec, and close all english-language schools in Quebec ? This is a symmetrical problem, you only see a narrow Ontario issue, but the language issue is interlocked and symmetrical. Remove Francophone rights in Ontario, say goodbye to Anglophone rights in Quebec. -- Miquelon


 * I think the majority of Canadians would accept this as a fair trade that is in everyones best interest. It would save BILLIONS of dollars a year and make Canada a more honest and legitimate country with equality for all people.--GST2006 03:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Have fun parading with your bowler hat next July 12th. -- Miquelon


 * Miquelong, I don't know what purpose the above line has but to attempt to initiate conflict with other editors. You said you have some experience, yet you post many uncivil statements that do not contribute to the discussions. Also please date you comments and do not delete or move comments on discussion pages. The idea of discussions is for people to defend their assertations. It is not for personal attacks and inuendo to raise the ire of editors who are adverse in possition to yours.--GST2006 11:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I apologize for the above statement, it was a personal attack and I retract the jibe. -- Miquelon 21 September 2006

CSDCSO attack on the Language Fairness Org
I do not think that it is appropriate nor ethical for employees of the CSDCSO to render political opinions or advance political agendas. The Public Servants Act has topics that prevent public employees from being political activists and therefore should refrain from advancing their personal political agendas, untill they surender their public employment and join the ranks of regular citizens. Public Servaants should always strive to reflect a demeanor of servitude towards the public that hires them and pays them, and must stay out of the political arena.--GST2006 15:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This is getting very personal - and I don't think i need to justify myself. Your assertion is false and a veiled threat. The fact is we you are all about tainting this profile page with your political bias, but you can't take any truth when it comes to revealing the connections behind the groups you quote. -- Miquelon


 * I believe that public servants should know their place in society and be submissive and beholden to the public that works for a living to pay enormous taxes for public salaries (legitimately or illegitimatly spent). The public is the master not the public servants. You should have more integrity and honour than comming here trying to make political statements and advance propaganda when you work for this school board. You are not a member of the public and you don't have a legitimate public opinion one way or the other. Keep your opinions to yourself.--GST2006 02:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This is getting very personal - and I don't think i need to justify myself. I was alerted by Webcsdcso, and I have a little more experience than him Wikipedia, and volunteered my services. Your assertion is false and a veiled threat. The fact is we you are all about tainting this profile page with your political bias, but you can't take any truth when it comes to revealing the connections behind the groups you quote. -- Miquelon
 * Yes you do need to justify yourself. This is the purpose of the discussion page and the purpose of discussions generally in real life. You can't say things and demand other people bend over to your point of view just because you said it. Wiki is all about Civility and Compromise, just like ideally the real world should work. If you are not competent to maintain Civility and work to compromise, maybe you should find another hobby.--GST2006 11:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

volunteered my activist services
This is getting very personal - and I don't think i need to justify myself. I was alerted by Webcsdcso, and I have a little more experience than him Wikipedia, and volunteered my activist services. Your assertion is false and a veiled threat. The fact is we you are all about tainting this profile page with your political bias, but you can't take any truth when it comes to revealing the connections behind the groups you quote. -- Miquelon

In your post you claim to be a volunteer activist with experience on Wikipedia sent here by employees of the CSDCSO. This is very disturbing for two reasons. CSDCSO is in the first instance a Public Government Organization and not a french private school business. Secondly you are an employee of CSDCSO based on your prior admissions in posts, so you come here lying about your purpose. This is not a suitable activity for a person on public payroll. If this is any indication of the integrity of staff of CSDCSO this school board is more of a pubic problem than I thought. A public school run by liars and cheaters is not something my tax money should be supporting regardless of the reasons advanced for creating it. --GST2006 11:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Wrong on all points, please stop the witch hunt, the issue here is your POV, not who I am in civil life. -- Miquelon
 * All the readers here are waiting for your admission of wrongdoing after accusing the board of nepotism -- Miquelon
 * no-one sent me here - keyword: volunteered - I believe in quality on Wikipedia, which is why I am strongly opposed to your activist and baised editing. -- Miquelon


 * i believe i had removed the word 'activist' from my sentence as it was a little strong, i probably had my mind on you at that precise moment. The fact you are digging through histories of the discussion page proves you are now so determined to make your point you are looking for garbage on any user here. Wiki editors should be weary of these witchhunting tactics and you are threading rather closely to privacy issues -- Miquelon


 * You are still not dating your comments on the discussion page. Please correct this deficiency and comply with the rules of wiki proceedures. --GST2006 15:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You are an employee of the CSDCSO based on the posts you have made, unless you wish to state that webcsdcso is the employee and has provided you with information about FOI requests, which then is a actionable offence under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act which the school board already has a long history of violations. You lying about your role and possition discredits your Public Institution even further. If anyone adds all these together CSDCSO is looking quite Nafarious as a Viable Public Institution just on this note regardless of its constitutionality or legitimacy in function or purpose.--GST2006 15:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I was told about the controversial statements on the page, nothing more. That was the end of our exchange, I am not an employee, so once again you seem to be barking up the wrong tree (as your comments about nepotism, about financial irregularities). The only person who spoke about FOI requests is YOU and all the links you provided, you are now creating your own fantasy of cloak and dagger. Please, please, please, lets put all this bickering aside and focus on the content of the page. - 21 sept 2006 Miquelon

Mediation.
Hello! I am Dev920 and have taken the mediation filed by Miquelon. I hope everyone is willing to settle this dispute amicably. I have Miquelon's side of this, and I have the talkpage above to go through, but what is everyone else's take on this dispute? Dev920 15:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Dev920 - I am more than ready to work with you and getting this mess cleaned up. I think the first step is setting up some ground rules about personal attacks, name-calling, witch hunting, or individual and private information. Can I get a consensus on this? - Miquelon 21 Sept 2006
 * First proposal : wipe the slate clean on this page, it has become too heavy to even read or make sense of - Miquelon 21 Sept 2006
 * Talk pages should be retained so that the activities can be kept track of. We have miquelon claiming people are being uncivil when she/he is the only one acting uncivil, calling people names and claiming fictitious agendas by refusing to assume good faith. When challenged about being an employee of the CSDCSO which is the subject of this article he/she refuses to admit it, when refusing to admit it makes the CSDCSO guilty of violating the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for disclosing information about request under the Act which is protected information. I don't see what there is to mediate. The article looks fine and additions are being made to expand the content and provide more information. There are two people here and one seem to to be ent on censoring good and interesting content. Each revision is being considered with objections and conpromise. It looks like Miquelon is not prepared to work on articles together and whats only the CSDCSO version which amounts to advertising and soapboxing the public institution that this article is about.--GST2006 17:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The following allegations is false: I am not an employee. Our community is quite wide, and I could be anything from a concerned parent to a member of the linguistic community. This is not the issue at hand. - Miquelon  21 Sept 2006
 * The following allegations is false: "guilty of violating the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act" - You raised the issue of FOIA, you published the information about FOIA, you provided the links and you tainted the discussion with this issue.  - Miquelon  21 Sept 2006

Hi Dev, I'll try and provide some background for this issue later today when I have more free time. Thanks for helping out. --Qviri (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thankyou. Dev920 20:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, ok, people are throwing around accusations here. Calm. Remember, I am a newcomer on the scene, and what looks obvious to you seems like mud flinging to me. GSt2006, you say that miquelon is refusing to assume good faith, but you refuse to believe s/he is not an employee despite their denials. What reason do you have for believing otherwise? Dev920 20:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The IP 65.94.157.153, WebCSDCSO and Miquelon are from the same IP. This is known because several comments are made from this IP address according to the history records and later signed by either webCSDCSO or Miquelon at different times by typing the names under the log-in of the other. CSDCSO is the common name of the school board this article relates to. based on the small size of this board (probably 100 employees or less) I doubt someone would pick a name like WebCSDCSO unless they are related directly with the institution (either elected or hired). A search of the IP says its from Toronto area where the school board's head office is. Miquelon said that WebCSDCSO brought her in because she was more experienced with Wiki and started posting from the same IP address, so they are most likely coworkers on the same IP of a network if they are not in fact the same person. Finally they both make specific reference to internal employment policies and whether or not people with a particular last name are still employed. Refering to Ms. Ducharne as mme Ducharme with some personal connection to her. Also making referece to FOI Act requests stating knowledge of the requests that are beyond what is published by the IPC due to Protection of Privacy Act law which prohibits certain types of information from being published or shared with others. So it is clear that WebCSDCSO and Miquelon are either the same person, or Misquelon in acting on behalf of the other or under instructions from CSDCSO which is the School Board itself and here to interfer with proper publications of interesting and notable information concerning this Article. Either way that they are employees or just other interested people with personal information of the workings of the Institution is enough to make a connection that they are not a couple of simple interested members of the public and in fact have some vested interest in the CSDCSO which they are working to protect.--GST2006 21:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for replying. What, in your view, is Miquelon doing that is pushing an agenda? (The above sections don't seem to make much sense).


 * The agenda I saw was an attempt to censor interesting and notable information about this school board, its history and practices. I have no issue with working together on the pros and cons to get to a balanced article but deleting things simply because it may show unplesant elements is not what Wiki is all about. Things seem to have calmed down for now. If level heads are maintained I am sure that with fair and equitable compromise and honest effort everyone's views can satisfied by expanding the Article to cover all interesting notable points.--GST2006 17:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with you that random deletions are pointless. As both of you seem to be perfectly happy to work together on this issue, what has Miquelon deleted that you feel shouldn't have been? Dev920 17:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think everything is fine now. Nothing is not there that should be there. She made some Additions and I accepted most of what was added, and have been tweeking the article by moving are revising the wording of things just fine. I have not deleted anything she puts on of any substance and I am content with more additions and rewording as necessary of information. The initial random deletions stoped and it looks like things are resolved or at least we are working together to get things to a balance everyone is happy with. Hence my initial reaction was that the mediation was silly, for my part I have been very cooperative in rewording things and puting things in different sections of the article so we don't lose interesting content. Personally I don't see what you are being asked to mediate on. Mediation involves a clear dispute on something with two sides and then a compromise. It appears to me that the mediation the other side of this wants is for nothing to be added to the article to treat Wiki as a personal/corporate profile page or advertisement.--GST2006 19:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree there seems little to be mediated on(except for the occasional incivility you both display!). Unless Miquelon has any issues to raise or comment on, I will close this case tomorrow. Dev920 20:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have lots of issues as per raised above, but the veiled threats and false accusations are just getting too much to deal with. It is quite sad to see Wikipedia being used by an Anti-French language rights vehicle on a school board page of all things. -- Miquelon 22 September 2006
 * I beg your pardon, Mme but where have I ever made any threats or accusations against you that causes you any duress? You seem to be taking this specific School Boards information extremly personal. If this had something to do with Language Rights would I not be posting similar information on the all the other 12 French Schools in Ontario? Obviously the issue this school board has are strictly of its own creation (and with the FOI example part of its patern of administrative conduct, apparently received through Mme Ducharme since she had similar problems with the other French School System she was heading before this one, and even may have resigned over them). The Constitutional problems relates only with it because it is a school board twice the size of Belgium that only serves 5000 students spread accross Ontario. If anywhere in Canada that the "numbers warrant limitation should apply is with this school board before any other who are bigger in number of pupils per Sq.Km". The bussing costs alone must be a nightmare for us taxpayers to carry on our sholders just to get enough pupils to fill any one school.--GST2006 00:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Miquelon, please, refrain from such rude incivility. Instead of bemoaning Wikipedia, what issues do you have? Dev920 16:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I plan on cleaning up the article with the things I've noted below, including starting a new article to discuss the problems with French-language education in Ontario as this whole topic is not specific to this school board but affects all French-language school boards in Ontario. Is this OK, or will this start up the whole edit war problem again?  --Stéphane Charette 04:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As long as you respect the contributions of others (such as mine) and work to incorporate the information added to this article to keep it in this article, I don't have a problem with expanding and making things larger and better worded. I don't see any reason for not having more than one article dealing with any tangental issues. I think this is one of beauties of Wiki that it can keep expanding about topics indefinetly, with topics touched upon in one article being expanded upon in others, adding ever more depth and bredth than what is here now. I am against any censoring of information of any kind. People should have all the information of interest available and possible about this specific school board on its Article page. The objective of an Encyclopdia is to give information and not creating a maze where things can be burried. Its good that information is repeated in other related articles as necessary to keep readers interested in knowing and finding out more. Wiki is above all an educational tool with the purpose to inform. Wiki is a project that should keep growing and expanding to gather ever more and more information over time. Anything added is always aappreciated.--GST2006 05:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It is becoming clearer to me that you intend to disrupt edits that attempt to bring this article back to the topic at hand -- that is, CSDCSO. Your anti-French-language POV should be a seperate article as it applies to all French-language school boards and isn't specific to CSDCSO.  (I'm staying away from the topic of whether such an obviously slanted POV should be included in Wikipedia...)  What I would like is to bring the CSDCSO article back to a state where it deals specifically with CSDCSO.  I understand now why others have asked for assistance in dealing with you.  --Stéphane Charette 12:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am getting concerned with your intentions of wanting to "take articles back" to anywhere in particular. Wiki is a going forward project that accumulates information about subjects. Do you believe that Wiki is complete with all available information in the world? Wiki draws on a world of editors who are expected to each add their contributions on a subject so that it can cover subjects with more debth and bredth. If an editor takes interest in contributing, then what they feel is relevant and interesting has its place in the article too. It's information about or related to the subject and makes for interesting reading. You comming here with an agenda to censor information would not be acceptable. If you feel something applicable to CSDCSO also makes for good reading elsewhere then you are free to copy and use the information in other articles. I don't like the way you and the others appear to be characterizing me and focusing on me or some conspiracy theory about groups of people out to get Frencaphones in Ontaio like some Klu Klucks Klan of Eglish Supremicists going around burning the Fluer-de-lis trying to erradicate the French language and culture in Canada. Work with the information and material in the article and stay within the realms of reality. I don't think the Francophone Anglophobia whinings of oppressions and racism will be taken seriously since everyone knows they are the most priviledged of groups in all of Canada.--GST2006 14:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * GST2006, please tone down your language. I understand you are frustrated, but it only reflects badly on you.


 * Is anyone actually interested in mediation? I ask because you all seem to be convinced the other side is at fault and won't engage with me. Dev920 11:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What does mediation mean in this case? We have a single editor -- GST2006 -- which has recently shown up and twisted the article about CSDCSO to be his POV sounding board on French-language education in Ontario.  I and other editors have tried to explain on this talk page that there are many French-language school boards in Ontario, and if he has a problem with them then an article can be started instead of mutilating just 1 specific school board article to try and squeeze in why he believes French-language education is a bad thing.  I quote:  "I don't think the Francophone Anglophobia whinings of oppressions and racism will be taken seriously since everyone knows they are the most priviledged of groups in all of Canada.  This is an obviously slanted POV.  In the case of this article, his/her edits are not helping.  My interest would be to have the CSDSCO article simply state the facts of who/what/where/when is the CSDCSO, just like we do with many other articles about public or private corporations.  And the same way we have other school board articles such as TDSB, Peel District School Board, School District 6 Rocky Mountain, or Grand Erie District School Board, as described at WP:EiC.  As the author of Canadian School District and an extremely active member of WikiProject Education in Canada, I'm in the process of writing and re-writing many school board articles across Canada.  The current situation with CSDCSO and GST2006 is not a hot-button issue with me, nor have I lived in Ontario in the past 16 years so I cannot be accused of being an employee as GST2006 was accusing other contributors.  I'm simply interested in getting the article up to par with others Canadian school boards.  In my opinion, if GST2006 wants to start a new article on the problems/advantages/disadvantages associated with French-language education in Ontario, then please do so and then all of the French-language school board articles such as CSDCSO and others can be made to point there using standard Wikipedia templates such as main, See also or Further.  --Stéphane Charette 16:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * None of my contributions deal with French Education in Ontario in any general way. You are confusing my contributions that deal only with this specific school board and it's peculiarities and what was added by webcsdcso and miquelon who have trying to make me out to be a racist attacking the French language. I am not a English-first-language-Canadian and I too have a European language as my own bilingualism. My contributions are very clearly focused on this school board and not on the others. I don't know anything abou the other French school boards so I have nothing to contribute on their articles. Again I see a desire to scrap all contributions other than some kind of generic profile. If so what is the use of having the Wiki concept of drawing on many people from diverse backgrounds to edit and provide interesting constributions.--GST2006 17:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This call to arms on your part is most uncalled for. - I am not using the CSDCSO to launch an attack on French Language in Ontario or any where else. This specific school board is notoriously corrupt. It has a long history of ethical corruption and abuses of public trust. In all likelyhood it does not give a crap about educting anyone in French or otherwise. It's all about public money and taking it and using it for self-serving purposes of administrators working there. I am not publishing anything more that what is relevant and interesting with information that is properly verifiable. I am not adding my own POV that this school board is corrupt and the people that manage the school board should be in jail and not on any public payroll. These are POVs but they are not being added by me to the article. Only varifyable interesting information is added and people should be free investigate further and make up their own minds about the legitimacy or character of this school board. I am not in any way pushing my POV in the Article. Varifiable information about their practices as a public institution should not be censored.--GST2006 18:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The MedCab reccomends you apply for Arbitration, as all parties concerned seem too polarised for mediation to continue. You may apply at WP:RfAR, or I can do it for you. Dev920 10:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If there is nothing specific to mediate then I don't see what there can be to arbitrate. I think things needs to be identified as being in dispute and then we can mediate or arbitrate the item(s). My take is that a group of people don't want another to edit because they believe they are from some no-nazi anti-french fringe group and this is without taking an issue with any one thing in particular. Apparently they don't like the Wiki concept of allowing people with information from adding it to their personal version of a pristeen article pefect and complete in everyway. First the making of a request for Mediation without any specific issue in mind and now arbitrating without any specific issue in dispute. Looking all very sily. The concept of Wiki is freedom of editing by numerous knowlegeable sources. If things are notable, interesting and verifyable then they should be allowed in if someone took the time and trouble to publish it.--GST2006 18:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Before accusing people of things like: "they don't like the Wiki concept of allowing people with information from adding it", you may want to check who you are talking about.  You have less than 200 edits to your name, almost 99% of them just to this single article.  I have several thousand edits to my name, across 3 different language wikis.  You are pushing your POV on this one article, and yet you refuse to listen to several editors -- including but not limited to myself -- who are telling you what we need to do to improve this article.  Only once in my extensive Wiki experience have I run into an editor who worked so hard to push a specific slanted POV onto a specific article.  (He was eventually banned for his disruptive editing style.)  Note that wiki does not guarantee that your POV will be published, as you state here:  "...then they should be allowed in if someone took the time and trouble to publish it".  I've stated above and below what needs to be done to this article to bring it up to standard, including moving the generic French-language-education-in-Ontario information into a separate article.  If I make this change, will you work with things, or will you begin another edit war reverting changes that several of us agree with and you happen to be the only one who disagrees with?  --Stéphane Charette 19:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Why don't you give it a shot and lets see what the changes look like. If they are respectfull of the good and interesting contributions other editors have made I don't see why your improvements can't be considered. Make the change and lets see what you have in mind. My main contribution involves the problems this specific school board has. I don't want those facts deleted and I don't mind fixes to the wording of the ISSUES section to make it easier to read and understand.--GST2006 20:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Mediation closed.Dev920 11:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What in the world has happened here?
I leave on vacation for 2 weeks and come back to...? I started editing the article to clean things up but have now seen the controversy over here on the talk page. Here are some of the problems I see that I think need to be cleaned up:
 * In the intro, the following sentence:  Functiong administratively in French has more to do with providing Franco-Ontarians with exclusive public jobs and the ability to direct educational tax spending toward Franco-Ontarian related busineses rather than with delivery of Education in the French language.  What is this?  Someone is obviously trolling here!  From this sentence on, the first paragraph needs to be cropped.  At the very least, if someone feels this is somehow true, then by all means provide a very good reference to back this up, otherwise I will be removing it.  Wikipedia is not a place to come to to post random personal slants.
 * I think that the "functions administratively in French only" needs to be explained. Ontario is an English speaking province therefore business and other employment activity that public money is spent on should be open to all language groups. The fact that this school board functions administrively in French indicates that it is not only interested in providing French Education, but also to manage and direct public funds and public jobs to French speaking Canadians exclusively.--GST2006 23:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Language rights are constitutional. Ontario has never been declared an "English only province", in fact all provincial websites are bilingual and there is a francophone affairs ministry and french language rights when it comes to provincial services. Therefore, this claim is baseless and just political posturing. Therefore all this stuff should go. -- Miquelon - 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * What you are missing in this part is that the discussion is about French Education Rights, not the Right to Receive Public Money to Administer a School Board. What does the administration of the board in any particular language have to do with the education. You can have an English (or non-language specific School Board Administration) say with Elected Francophone Trustees (since who would vote for non-francaphones to a French Language Board) and the School's can then be completely in French. This point involves the fact that extending French Education to also getting their hand on Million of Dollars for administration, non-educational jobs, and doing public business business activities that don't need to be exclusively spend on Francaphone people in Ontario. Education is different than public business spending.--GST2006 01:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * CSDCSO is not officially a bilingual school board. What does this mean? CSDCSO is a French school board.  I think this is established.


 * This is an notable point that shown that unless pupils are from french speaking families they are excluded in practice since they can't communicate with the board otherwise. So even though the Public Education funding is obtained on the basis that they cannot exclude non-francaphones, they never the less exclude them by making it diffucult or imposible for parents to send they children unless they understand enought French to begin with. This then makes the school board a exclusive school for French speaking families that is not open to all members of the public. It more resembles a Racial Segregation in practice than a public school board system. French are not excluded from the regular public school system and everything is available in French and english and even other minority languages. These are interesting and important point for the article to cover.--GST2006 23:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Education rights are defined constitutionally, the board in french language. End of story. -- Miquelon - 22 September 2006
 * Wiki is not a place that will establish constitutional rights one way or the other. These are just interestiing facts and people should be able to know and be free to draw their own conclusions. An Encyclopiedia gives people information. What people make of that information it their business. Who are you to tell people what they should belive or accept. Wiki is not a propaganda machine for anyone side. That is why people are encouraged to add content. If there are bad things to know about that should go in. If the good outweighs the bad then the good will outweigh the bad in the Article. No need to any censor information because it might give people ideas that are not agreable to your POV.--GST2006 00:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ontario's regular public schools also maintain French immersion programs that strictly deliver education in French but administrative activities such as office staff, caretaking, and business service functions are in both official languages without discrimination. Fine. Put that in the other school board articles that provide the French immersion programme.  Please note that French and French immersion are not the same thing!  But stating in this article what other school board offer is beyond the scope of this article.
 * This is notable to contrast this school board with the others in Ontario--GST2006 23:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly, this is not the place for an agenda about French Education vs. Immersion -- Miquelon - 22 September 2006
 * There is no agenda. It's just information and it flows well with the article to make the whole topic more understandable, interesting and complete. We are writting an article that the whole world will see. Even people who have never heard of the term "Immersion"... this all may sound foreign to someone in South America for instance. We are writting for a world audience and not just for the people of Ontario that may know some of these terms and when something can be explained in the context of an article it should be.--GST2006 00:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * History This whole section should go.  The fact that Franco-Ontarians date back to 17th century is again beyond the scope of this article.  Let us focus on CSDCSO.  Have a "Main Article" link to a section that deals with the general history of French-language education in Ontario.  But there are plenty of French-language school boards, and I wouldn't want this same text inserted into every one.


 * I did not add this. This was added by employees of the CSDSCO. Je ne give a pah, one way of the other on this point.--GST2006 23:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * More baseless accusations that are irrelevant to the issue at hand. But the history section can indeed go, just like all the "language fairness" stuff that is not only irrelevant but fringe -- Miquelon - 22 September 2006
 * The School Board apparently felt this was important information to add to this article, maybe to balance the languaage fairness org piece. I am against censorship. So the fairness.org stuff is important and interesting to me, so the other can stay as the means of balancing the Article and putting the current problems into historical context.--GST2006 00:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * History Prior to 1998, the Francophone schools in the central south-western region of Ontario were served by 6 divisions under the regular public school board systems that also provide education in English and maintain a French-Language immersion programs that the regular public school boards still maintain today.  I think this is incorrect.  I haven't lived in Ontario since 1993, but I distinctly recall the creation of CEFCUT, the French-language school board in the 1980's.  This obviously predates the sentence quoted here about prior to 1998...
 * I did not add this. This was added by employees of the CSDSCO. Je ne give a pah one way of the other on this point.--GST2006 23:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * More baseless accusations that are irrelevant to the issue at hand. -- Miquelon - 22 September 2006
 * The only accusation appear to be in your mind. There is no accusation and no oppinion is given on whose right or whose wrong. You are appearently adding to this your own personal opinion about whats going on since I don't see any accusations. Its very mater of fact delivery of information. People can draw their own conclusions.--GST2006 00:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I cannot comment on the rest of the History section as I'm no longer in Ontario and haven't kept up with the politics. However, I still think it should be placed in a different article as it isn't specific to this school board.
 * I did not add this. This was added by employees of the CSDSCO. Je ne give a pah one way of the other on this point.--GST2006 23:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * More baseless accusations that are irrelevant to the issue at hand. -- Miquelon - 22 September 2006


 * The only accusation appear to be in your mind. There is no accusation and no oppinion is given on whose right or whose wrong. You are appearently adding to this your own personal opinion about whats going on since I don't see any accusations. Its very mater of fact delivery of information. People can draw their own conclusions.--GST2006 00:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Controversies Over French Language Rights in Ontario Take it to another article on the history of French-language education in Ontario.  This is not directly about the CSDCSO, but affects all the French-language school boards.
 * This is a notable point because the school board claims to serve an area twice the size of Belgium in order to provide educational services to around 5000 pupils. This is by far the most diluted of the French School Boards and if any of them deserve to be eliminated under the Constitutional right to limit French to where numbers warrant, that this one is first that should go and is at the heart of the whole controversy.--GST2006 23:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Argumentative, if an issue, take to courts, not Wikipedia -- Miquelon - 22 September 2006
 * The is no argument being made just like there are no accusation or oppinions given on whose right or whose wrong. You are appearently adding to this your own personal opinion or fears about whats going on. Its very mater of fact delivery of information. People can draw their own conclusions.--GST2006 00:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Elementary schools and High schools I would like to remove these as we have a naviation bar at the bottom to traverse the CSDCSO schools.  However, I would like to retain a small section on the upcoming high schools described in the references given.
 * The small number of schools is also a notable point that should not be censored. It is interesting information that goes with the controversy.--GST2006 23:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Argumentative, if an issue, take to courts, not Wikipedia -- Miquelon - 22 September 2006
 * The is no argument being made just like there are no accusation or oppinions given on whose right or whose wrong. You are appearently adding to this your own personal opinion or fears about whats going on. Its very mater of fact delivery of information. People can draw their own conclusions.--GST2006 00:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Some of the other French-language school boards in Ontario Someone has recently added Conseil scolaires de district 56 and Ottawa-Carleton French-language School Board as redlinks to this section, but I don't believe these exist anymore.  If this is indeed the case, I would like to remove them.  (Research needed.)


 * The list should be wikified better with any corrections. Anyone with the time to research please do so. Before it looked like there were on only 4 the way it was written which was missinformation. without the other additions and corrections to refere to "some" rather than "there are" which was corrected by that expansion--GST2006 23:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The bullet-point list headed by Ontario School Board Estimates for 1999-2000 = Number of boards / Number of students is unusable and unsourced. It needs to be removed, or it needs to be redone in a way that is easily understood and it needs to be sourced as it seems to deal with many numbers.
 * The reference Cite was recently added. Please fix the format as you prefer that containes the contrasting information so things are not censored.--GST2006 23:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * References need to be fixed up. I would like to convert the article to the WP:FN reference style as I did with other Canadian school boards (see TDSB and Peel District School Board) which is also the recommended style at WP:EiC.


 * Style is not a problem as long as we can maintain interesting and notable information including the current listed issues and controversies and any others that may come up. There are also some notable political distinctions about this school board that makes it an interesting subject for further expansion. I would like to see a political section dealing with election peculiarities and uniqueness that this board has that all the other don't--GST2006 23:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

--Stéphane Charette 22:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

the great and long-awaited statement from user:qviri
I have intended to make a great speech here, but quite frankly I am tired, want to go to bed, and don't want these pointless discussions to appear on my watchlist forever. So here we go:


 * 1) I hereby publically raise the suspicion that  is a reincarnation of the banned . Reasons for suspicion: date of creation of account  is the day after WikiWoo's block . Immediately after registering, user just happens to create a new article on John Haggert (Brampton was in the middle of WikiWoo controversy). The user's contributions are starting to resemble WikiWoo's to a significant degree: the user is adding "controversy" section to articles, the controversy is pushed by a barely-identified-if-that group of people, the user writes relatively lengthy talk page posts that start to deteriorate into what we've seen recently ("a group of people don't want another to edit because they believe they are from some no-nazi anti-french fringe group"). The user's logic and grip on reality start deteriorating, "In all likelyhood [CSDCSO] does not give a crap about educting anyone in French or otherwise. It's all about public money and taking it and using it for self-serving purposes of administrators working there," cf. WikiWoo's claims about Peel Region being one of world's most corrupt governments.
 * 2)  seems to have a misunderstanding that since a variety of French rights are guaranteed by the constitution, there is no need to include information about any notable groups that happen to disagree with the most common interpretation of a clause under which CSDCSO exists. This is false. However, see below on where this information should be included.
 * 3) As for the current version -- "Controversies Over French Language Rights" shouldn't be in this article unless the Canadians for Language Fairness and Canadian Oppressed Public Servants specifically cite the CSDCSO as an example of example of unconstitutionality. From a cursory glimpse, this doesn't seem to be the case. This should probably be a single paragraph under Bilingualism in Canada or something. "Freedom of Information Act Problems" is -- under a strict interpretation of No original research -- a no-no as well, until we get a reliable source pointing out those terrible violations of the act. This is however the most reasonable section of the controversies. "The Politics of CSDCSO" is entirely original research and needs to be axed.
 * 4) I'd like to point out that "interesting" is NOT a criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Thank you for your attention. Good night. Let the daggers fly. Qviri (talk) 02:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you post at the admin noticeboard, about this? Dev920 11:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow...now that was very interesting fiction. You should start writing novels. The Qviri Code?... You have excelent english writting skills after five years in Canada for a 19 year old teenager. If anyone here does not appear to be who they say... you may be a better candidate than me. You don't seem to have much to contribute to this article or this subject, but want to play witch hunt over who it is that is publishing what information on Wiki. I would think that the issue is the information in the article, but you don't have much of substance to add on this. You do seem to get a kick out of disrupting Wiki contributions and editing by trying to start or fuel fires. Maybe you should contribute something controversial yourself and spend time playing with defending it that stoking issues that come up between other editors. --GST2006 13:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "You have excelent english writting skills after five years in Canada for a 19 year old teenager." Why thank you. Before you uncover any more of my shady past, I do confess that I am an employee of the Conseil scolaire de district du Centre-Sud-Ouest, the Niagara Catholic District School Board, and a member of the Masonic lodge.
 * "If anyone here does not appear to be who they say... you may be a better candidate than me." Do explain, please.
 * "You do seem to get a kick out of disrupting Wiki contributions and editing by trying to start or fuel fires." Oh, totally. I have nothing constructive to contribute to Wikipedia, so I just go around deleting stuff, accusing innocent editors, and evilly eating kittens. Gives my life a meaning.
 * Oh, and for the reference. This site that you love so is called Wikipedia. I have two wikis of my own, and yes I do delete stuff from them regularly as well. Qviri (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can enlighten us by posting links to the Wikis you create and maintain. Do you also post things there so you can "watch the daggers fly" on your own Wiki sites? Sounds like fun. When I was 19 there were no computers yet so at most people would spray paint grafitti on a buildings for kicks.--GST2006 14:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, one is the site that you got bulk of your information from (say, for instance, this); the second one is here. Wikis are awesome. I love watching daggers fly a lot more than I love people hijacking a page, pushing POVs and sockpuppeteering. Vandalising wikipedia is a lot more fun than vandalising buildings, is it not? At least you get to argue with the police. Qviri (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Should you be in school at this hour or are they giving out english credits for Wiki police editing in highschool?--GST2006 16:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have graduated from high school, thanks for your concern. Shouldn't you be franctically trying to, you know, stop acting like Wikiwoo? Qviri (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know... tell me what does a Wikidoo do? It it something like a Kangaroo. I did not know there are Kangaroos in Canada? Jumping up and down to get attention is that it maybe? It sounds like one of those ORLY like internet cult terms.--GST2006 17:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Trying to understand the problem here
Lets all try to work together and identify which sections need revisions. I still don't get which specific points and items on the articles are in dispute. There is all this talk about mediation and arbitration and attacking me as a person, yet I have not seen any specific challenge to any one of the contributions people are taking issue with. So without further ado. Please take each part of the article, preferably a sentence or two at a time, copy it here and say what you have to say about the piece and leave me and speculations about my motives out of it.--GST2006 23:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There are only two editors on this Article going back a many weeks. This is myself and one other side that comes from (IP 65.94.157.153, WebCSDCSO and Miquelon) which is the same person or two people with one being called upon by the other to work in the interests of the School Board about whom this Article is about. We also recently see user: S charette who was called on by Miquelon to come to their aid, over exactly what is still not very clear. We now see someone named Qviri who has no interest in the Article at all but is hell bent on catching some ghost from his past named Wikiwoo. This Article is bizzar on the discussion page. What about the bloody article? Is it fine now or not? And if not what are the issues that need to be resolved through discussions? Its been days without any substantive discussions over any issues with the Article.--GST2006 16:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Greetings GST,

this is a summary of my concerns with the article as it stands currently:

in the section "Controversies Over French Language Rights in Ontario", we say that groups claim that 7000 students is not enough; yet I searched the sites of both Canadian Oppressed Public Servants and Canadians for Language Fairness, and I have found nothing that specifically states they are dissatisfied with l'Conseil scolaire de district du Centre-Sud-Ouest. If I missed it, or there is information off the internet about their issues with CSDCSO, we need a quote added to the article. If they oppose the French education in Ontario in general, without naming CSDCSO, then the section does not belong in this article, despite being verifiable and NPOV. The following:


 * The primary interpreter of the Constitution of Canada is the Supreme Court however it must be noted that all members of the Supreme Court of Canada must be Francophones by virtue of official bilingualism advanced at the Federal Government level among other things.

Also needs a cite from a reliable source. Also, this sentence seems POV to me as it suggests that the judges are French, while in reality they can be Allophones. The last sentence,
 * I took care of this one by making the changes to comprimise to your POV. You have made a fair observation on the potential missintepretation. You see I am able to compromise and review things fairly when someone makes a proper and reasoned objection. I must commend you as a 19 year old Polish immigrant with only five years residency in Canada on your depht of knowlege and astute understanding of the Canadian socio-political spectrum.--GST2006 19:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Following the Meech Lake Accord debates and the French Language Services Act in Ontario (Bill 8), several municipalities in Ontario were persuaded by groups like Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada to declare themselves English-only.

Is completely unrelated to CSDCSO.
 * This you will have to run by webCSDCSO and/or Moquilon who posted it. They seem to feel it was good and interesting information to apply. It does not bother me to see it there or not. Again I like Wiki to have lots of information and the more the better. I hate Censorship because it makes me feel we are part of some communistic-fascistic dictatorship rather than in a Free and Democratic country where government openess and transparancy rules.--GST2006 19:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The next section, "Freedom of Information Act Problems", is original research under the policy:


 * [Original research] introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source; (WP:NOR)

The analysis of the IPC logs needs to be cited to a reliable source.

The final section, "The Politics of CSDCSO" is completely originally researched and absolutely needs a quote.


 * The FOI publications about this school board speak for themselves and have been published by our government to provide information to the public. The preamble in the Article simply repeats in a summary what is stated in the series of articles published by the IPC about the school boards activities. It is stated very matter of fact and without pushing anything over way or another. I don't see any problem with the way that section is. I would strongly object to censoring that type of very specific factual information. Just because it is about negative activities is no reason to censor it. Wiki is not a soapbox for pushing propaganda and strives to provide a balance.--GST2006 19:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

A lot of stuff in history seems unrelated, but the content there is a lot less controversial, so dealing with that is not the first priority. I'd love to see a quote saying that Mme. Ducharme left the CSDCSO because of the IPC requests, because as it is, we're just saying they happened at the same time (see Correlation implies causation).

Thanks, Qviri (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

thanks for the reply. Five years is a lot of time. I went ahead and removed the Meech Lake paragraph; the information is not relevant here and since it can be seen elsewhere (Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada and Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario), I don't think censorship is an issue.

I can see your point about the FOI paragraph. I am now inclined to agree, perhaps with slight wording changes. Do we know how exactly how many requests have been placed? I think "numerous" is not the best word to use, and in general, the more precise information we can get and the less "similar"s there are, the better. What I'd like to see is something like:


 * The school board has been subjected to Freedom of Information Act requests for access to its public records. These were generally dealing with management of provincial funding, its hiring practices, and its record keeping of the public funding it receives from the taxpayers. In each case the board has been found in violation of the Freedom of Information Act by the Information and Privacy Commission of Ontario and ordered to comply with the law. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Its predecessor, Conseil des écoles françaises de la communauté urbaine de Toronto, was also subjected to requests for information and records under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy legislation. [10]

Thoughts? Qviri (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that the word numerous is the correct one. We show six Tribunal Orders (like Court Orders) in the Article by links. Not every request for information can result in an appeal and a Tribunal Trial since Institutions are required to release public records within 30 days of requestsand its not supposed to be an adversarial process like a court. The Act is clear that ALL public records must be released once requested with very few exceptions. Most likely there where several dozen or more requests for there to have been Six Tribunal Orders or more issued by the Information and Privacy Commission. If every request for information ended up in an Order to Comply, individuals administering the institution would have been charged under the criminal code at some point for breach of public trust. There is only so many times you can push the envelope and have Orders to Comply issues before it becomes Contempt and then it gets treated as a Criminal Matter. Maybe this is why Ducharme and the others named in some of these requests resigned from their public jobs after becomming afraid of ending up in jail and avoid personal accountability.--GST2006 01:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, then it should say six? If it doesn't go to trial, is there no issue, or is the sole fact that the request has been placed somehow bad? What about the rest of the quotes? --Qviri (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem to be obsessed with having the Article be Judgemental one way or another. Wiki is ment to deliver information and not POV. No one is saying in the article that what the board does is good or bad. Its simply giving facts in a mater of fact way. You appear to want the article to read so it gives people an impression of your own making. I don't think this is the correct way for Wiki to go. There are opinions and then there are facts. You want to keep advancing opinions rather than state facts and let other make up their own minds. Numerous referes to the number of requests and not the number of Orders. Six orders does not equal six requests. In you subsequent edits you quote the Board that there were numberous requests so this is cited and factual. Replacing it with a fictitious number is not correct. Further you have made a whole set of changes to the FOI issues attempting to make that the focus of the Article. The issue is that this school board VIOLATED the Freedom of Information Act six times. That's all there is to the issue there is no need to create an Article through supositions and quoting submission by the Board that (if fact where rejected by the IPC Tribunal) This is not about groups or individuals and there is not need for you to try and suggest some fictitious justification that the Adjudicators rejected, since they issued order AND SIX TIMES OR MORE.--GST2006 04:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Made several changes based on your edits and suggestions
The whole part you put in expanding the issue of FOI trying to create two side of a story, when there is not storey to beging with was taken out. The issue is the Boards compliance with Freedom of Information Laws. There is not need to try and justify why the occured. If you want to put in a Side of a Story then we would have to put in the whole story and find out why the requests were made in the first place. This will then be a whole different article about some other issue that probably has nothing to do with anything encyclopedic. The boards long history of Freedom of Information violations is the issue that is notable and relevant to the Article about the school board.--GST2006 04:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello GST,


 * I am disappointed to note that your edits last night basically amounted to undoing my edits yesterday . This is not the way to improve the article. You yourself said, "Please take each part of the article, preferably a sentence or two at a time, copy it here and say what you have to say about the piece and leave me and speculations about my motives out of it."


 * An explanation about my most recent edit :


 * I have restored the bulk of my edit last night. I disagree with your claim that it consistitued "irrelevant references and speculations." Which parts of it was speculative? I must have missed it, because all I did was quote IPC pages to provide a balanced view – which you yourself claimed didn't violate NOR. If my explanation of the process involved in an IPC proceeding is wrong, please correct it, but don't remove it altogether.


 * You say, "The issue is the Boards compliance with Freedom of Information Laws." I totally agree! However, it is important to present all sides of the issue. The board's stated reason for denying the requests is that they believe the requests are "frivolous or vexatious". This is their POV, which they are entitled to. The requester's – and the IPC's – POV is important as well. I have changed my wording to make the requester's POV clearer, however the board's POV belongs there just as much as Marc Lépine's motivation for his crime belongs in the articles about the crime.


 * Once again, you say, "The issue is the Boards compliance with Freedom of Information Laws." Indeed. And in at least two cases the board has been found complaint; how is this "irrelevant"? Please explain.


 * About the citation needed tags:


 * The constitutionality one was re-inserted because we need a citation in that sentence. As I stated above, I tried looking for a quote that read approximately like "the Canadian Oppressed Public Servants feel that the number of CSDCSO's pupils is insufficient to guarantee funding", and couldn't find one. As I noted above, I do not have access to any off-line resources the organisation may have produced. Bottom line: according to Wikipedia policies (see below), we need a proof of an organisation saying that. I don't care if it's in a news article, if it's in their press release, whatever – we need an attribution. Otherwise, for all Wikipedia knows it may be putting words in their mouth.


 * The politics ones were re-inserted (my original tag applied to the entire paragraph, but I didn't want to flag each and every sentence) because we need a proof of that. This is based on fundamental Wikipedia policies, Verifiability and Reliable sources. What is stated in that paragraph may well be true, and personally I don't question it, but we need a citation. Without these two policies, there would be nothing to stop people from editing Saturn to say "Saturn is inhabited by purple aliens and Dalton McGuinty's family", or editing The Guarantee Company of North America to say "The GCNA is a money-laundering operation run by the French-Canadian mafia." It's absolutely crucial.


 * Thanks for staying in contact; hopefully we can resolve this.


 * Etiennebrule — I just saw your edits. I overwrote them since they consisted mostly of blanking statements. This article is in the middle of a dispute, and removing entire sections outright is not okay without prior discussion on talk page. --Qviri (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Freedom of Information Act problems
The school board has been the target of numerous Freedom of Information Act requests for access to its public records generally dealing with management of provincial funding, its hiring practices, and its record keeping of the public funding it receives from the taxpayers. In each case the board has been found in violation of the Freedom of Information Act by the Information and Privacy Commission of Ontario and ordered to comply with the law.      Its predecessor, Conseil des écoles françaises de la communauté urbaine de Toronto, had very similar problems complying with its obligations on similar Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Legislation requests for information and records. 

The above is the section as it currently reads. It is a noteworthy piece which simply records a fact of the existance of Violations of the Freedom on Information Act and the general nature of the requests for records they have problems giving access to the public and need Tribunal Orders. This is not saying anything judgemental. It is a statement of fact without any opinion being renders. Reader are free to read and do research to draw their on conclusion about what its all about. Your edits want to lay blame, cast doubt or render judgements about anyone or group being right or wrong in executing their public right to see public records. I don't care if the Board was aske for ten thousand requests and was found only in Violation once. Likewise it is irrelevant it there where dozens of time that requesters made frivolous request. The character of the requesters have nothing to do with the subject or the issue of Violations of laws. The board was found in violation of its obligations by a Tribunal. Those are notable events hence they are published by the Information and Privacy Commission. If you want to write an article on Freedom of Information Requests per se, then maybe you can add things there. But these is nothing relevant to this Article about what you are proposing to add. You are trying to create controversies that don't exist. It looks like you are trying too start a fire or dispute when there is nothing to dispute about his sub-section.--GST2006 20:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm done here, WikiWoo. I'll see you on the other end of your banstick. Qviri (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You act like a hooligan going around trying to pick fights with people who are trying to contribute to Wiki. Hope you will find something more useful to do on Wiki. Maybe areas where you have some expertise. There must be all kinds of things on Poland you know more about than Centre South West Ontario.--GST2006 21:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Just saw the incredible vandalism and grafitti on my user page and talk page. Because you have no legitimate case against my contributions you are reverting to Stalking, Ganstering and Bullying.--GST2006 00:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Part of the History section
The history section was added by members of CSDCSO up to the part starting....Prior to 1998... which existed before. There is no cite to this first part and I could not find anything by searching goolgle about the existance of any ban on French education from 1912 till the late 1960's. I am of the opinion this may a false statment used to make French Ontarians look like some kind of victims to Ontario Language practice (like the actual persecution of English speaker as occurs in Quebec even today). Making Ontario French look like victims of anything cannot be further from truth. I personally do not remember a time in the 1960's that French was not taught in Ontario schools. In fact I remember doing French in elementary school in the early 1960's. I believe that this material which is not sourced and no cite is given may in fact be fabricated falsehoods. If I do not hear anything on this point defending the leaving the statement in and as being factual and verifiable, I intend to delete it some time tomorrow when I get the chance.--GST2006 20:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I have not received any comments or discussions on this part. I therefore take it that there are no objections to the removal of this section. I am doing this now because the statement is false and misleading. Ontario has always have a Multi-Cultural make up with many cultures reqresented and treated equally until some cultures started being treated more equal than others. Without further ado I will remove the unsourced, unverifiable POV posted by members of the CSDCSO--GST2006 15:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for arbitration has been filed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#CSDCSO_vs_GST2006

--Miquelon, 05:58, October 4th 2006.


 * No need. See User:GST2006 and User talk:GST2006 for additional information.  --Stéphane Charette 05:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Stéphane, is there a procedure to clean up the talk page now? --Miquelon, 03:26 UTC October 5th, 2006