User talk:Martinwas

Removal of content
Hi there, Martinwas, I hope you're doing well.

I've seen you've removed a huge amount of sourced, critical, content on Academies Enterprise Trust. Could you please clarify why you have removed this content?

Could you also confirm whether you have any external relationship with the Trust, and/or whether you are being paid by them?

Thank you, Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 16:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, as I've not received any response from you in over a day on this, I've restored the page to how it previously was. Please clarify why it was you were removing the content, and whether you have any external relationship with the Trust, before changing the page again. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 16:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that the edits may be heavy handed, but I have compared to similar articles and it is clear to me that someone has essentially been compiling lists of negative articles about AET and weaselling them into the page. You will see I have added some content as well, but an example is where a table has been created to show financial losses from almost 7 years ago.  If something like that is relevant (highly doubtful) then we should be seeing financial records for all years, not just ones that suit agendas
 * There are also extracts from articles where the wiki editior has pulled negative remarks about progress, whilst ignoring data in the same article that shows positive progress in other key stages.
 * Again if you look at (for example) ARK academies page, you dont see this sort of thing.
 * To answer your question about relationships, I can answer that to my knowledge I have no relationship with AET
 * Martinwas (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Martinwas


 * Hi Martinwas, thank you for your response.The existence of other articles doesn't have any bearing on the existence or utility of this one, and you'll also note that ARK Academies has a number of maintenance warning tags on the top of the page, pointing out that the article has several deficiencies. Having conducted a brief Google News search about AET, I immediately turn up a number of stories which were previously covered in the article, which seem to be largely coverage you removed. AET's responses to each of these items were included where they were available, so the article didn't read as being biased to me - I'm not sure what made you read it that way still? Besides which, if there was a concern about "ignoring data in the same article", why would you not just add that data rather than removing nearly three quarters of the article's references, the vast majority of which are critical of the organisation?I'm also slightly concerned by the wording that "to your knowledge" you have no relationship with AET - either you do or you don't. Any external relationship would be relevant here - that means if you work for them, if you work for one of their schools, if you work for a school that used to be one of theirs or is considering becoming one of theirs, potentially even if you attend or have a child that attends one of their schools, or a whole lot of other potential situations. Just to be clear on that point - and this is an incredibly important point, not least because there are considerations in the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use about it - are you in any way connected to the Trust? As you've made very few significant edits outside this one topic area, in which you've removed a significant amount of bad press coverage, I hope you understand why this seems suspect.Finally, I'll also add that original research is not allowed on Wikipedia, and several of the claims that you and the IP user also on that article (who I think is also you) have added are not sourced. All information on Wikipedia must be attributed to a reliable source, which is very important because of Wikipedia's status as an encyclopedia rather than a generator of content.Looking forward to hearing back from you, Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 21:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * When I do a news search for AET I can see at least 15 articles that were created this month. It is clear when you look at the articles selected for the AET page that only the most negative ones had been quoted.  Take for example the ones concerning progress 8 scores. These are released every year, why are all years not included?  Why do we only have stories for the years when AET was struggline financially, and none of the articles discussing the turnaround?  Why do we have articles from Socialistparty.org.uk that contain quotes such as

"To their shame the local authority has already issued TUPE notifications (to say terms and conditions will be protected after a change of employer) to all staff, despite not having a date for conversion!"

You raise the point that I could counter each news article, but again I question the value of this. We are not trying to recreate the TES magazine here

I am more than happy to work on a better, balances page for AET with you or anyone but am uncomfortable leaving what appears to be a very unbalanced article the way it is.

As for my relationship with AET, let me be clear for you

I do not, have never and do not know of anyone that works for them. I have no family that works or worked for them It is possible I have extended family that have or do attend their academies (there are 50+ and I have a large family - but if that is the case it is unknown to me and certainly does not affect my opinion of themMartinwas (talk) 22:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)