Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Harro5

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 14:43 UTC November 13, 2005), the page will be deleted.
 * This has now been done as requested. 220.253.48.90 00:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid not, see below. There aren't even two signatures any more. And those weren't real certifications anyway, you added them yourself. Also no evidence of efforts is offered. Bishonen | talk 14:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd go as so far as to say the term 'shyster' is applicable about now. Comradeash 14:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I have no accusations of bad faith to make. But it's been more than 48 hours, I'm delisting this RFC now. Bishonen|talk 21:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

-
 * (Harro5 | talk | contributions)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
Methods of editing the Portal:Schools and associated content have resulted in the removal of content provided by many other contributors. Content written about schools which have not been specifically written by this user have undergone editing and often even removal with no discussion.

Description
Conflict began over St Michael's Grammar School when students of the school began creating legitimate sourced content. When this was not a replica of the positive marketing material available on their web site it was abruptly condemned. This has been an ongoing dispute since this point.

Evidence of disputed behavior

 * First evidence of bias in editing school material dates back to June. See Featured_article_candidates/Caulfield_Grammar_School where user is condemned for making the content appear as if it has come out of a "school brochure".


 * There is much discussion surrounding the St Michael's Grammar School page including removal of fully sourced content.


 * The page Simon Gipson was fully written and the user deleted all page content and made a redirect without any discussion. In anger for the same editorial group editing St Michael's Grammar School (which he did not approve of), he then pushed for its immediate deletion.


 * When this ocurred an abuse message was sent to User_talk:Macbandit.


 * A number of changes were made to improve the Portal:Schools page including updating of some sections. When this was not personally done by this user, it was immediately reverted back to previous content.


 * After the previous event there was another User_talk:220.253.48.90 made by him too inappropriately.

This entire complaint centers around Harro5 and his choices in seeking editorial control. When any modifications are made that he has not personally instigated that involve anything to do with the schools portal or schools in his local state (Victoria, Australia), he immediately pushes for its change or removal. Even when it clearly abides to Wiki policy.

We have made this complaint out of our complete frustration with his attitutudes that are simply seeking editorial control. We have tried to remain close lipped as often as possible but this issue seems to be going nowhere after almost a month.



Applicable policies

 * Wikiquette
 * Deletion_Policy
 * Ownership_of_articles
 * No_personal_attacks
 * Neutral_point_of_view
 * Three revert rule
 * Harassment

The discussion and editing practices of User:Harro5 are wide reaching and breach a number of Wikipedia policies.



Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

 * All discussion pages listed above show our attempts to resolve this problem.

The single issue here is editorial control and content over schools area of Wikipedia. Major page issues include: St Michael's Grammar School, Simon Gipson, and portal:Schools. We have attempted as a group and one on one to resolve this issue.

Evidence as follows:

Attempts to resolve the dispute with 220.253.48.90: User_talk:220.253.48.90. Instead Harro5 choose to attack me.

Attempts to resolve this dispute with beyondcapricorn: User_talk:Harro5, Talk:St_Michael%27s_Grammar_School, Talk:Simon_Gipson, and Articles_for_deletion/Simon_Gipson.

Attempts to resolve this dispute with Macbandit User_talk:Macbandit.

Evidence for attempts to resolve dispute above also includes ComradeAsh (You do NOT speak for me Comradeash 13:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)) and EgoCentre1 (who has had enough) as well. There has been direct attempts to resolve made by at least four users. However, the most obvious are listed above.

(sign with ~ )


 * 1) 220.253.48.90 13:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)



Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

220.253.48.90 13:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC) (sign with ~ )

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )

Comradeash 15:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

egocentre 02:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.'' ''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

'Harro5: Well, this was unexpected. Anyway, I've made a bit of a statement to Bishonen's talk page, before I actually knew about this thing, and would just like to say that my record for improving school articles speaks for itself. I came to the St Michael's article quite a while ago (I first reverted this group here ) and have basically reverted their vandalism since. The Simon Gipson article was listed for deletion in this state, and really hasn't gotten all that better since. I haven't pushed POV, or held a strong Caulfield line at any time, have had my views backed up by those who know Wikipedia's policies (as shown below and on the St Michael's talk page), and have also vowed to no longer go near that St Michaels article. All I ask is that the Schools Portal be left to promote stable and quality high school articles, as it is intended to do and as has helped improve numerous others, and that I be free to remove junk like this:. Thanks. Harro5 20:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Please also view my statement under SCHOOLS PORTAL on this RFC talk page, and feelfree to comment. Harro5 09:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 21:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Response to Harro5
Let's not turn this into a shit storm. Although I have to agree with the contention of this complaint, let's be realistic here. You have a bunch of keen wikipedia editors who have time and time again had their work removed by Harro5 without consultation, and mercy.

In some cases (eg. bad editiing, vandalism etc..) one can of course see this as appropriate. But I would like to cite a few cases where it has not been. For instance, Harro5 cites the Simon Gipson article has cause for his actions, saying it hasn't much improved since it's earliest revisions. I have to disagree. [Comparison of Original] As you will see, this page has become alot more factual, informative, & valid, much to Harro5's dislike. If you'd like to see an improvement to the quality of this article, why don't you post something on the discussion page? This page has in fact improved; so greatly that it now has more votes for it to be kept, than for it to be deleted. (Unlike originally where it seemed doomed).

Secondly, I'd like to show you examples that Harro5 himself actually links to. . Although not done by myself, I have to ask Harro5 where such vandalism is? WHole school photos are a valid featured picture, potentially more valid than a photo of the pocket of his blazer (which was a featured photo earlier on). We now begin to see a bias in the editing process. Secndly, I added Geelong Grammar School to the list of showcase articles. As you will also see, this page is in fact a great school page. As is the St Michael's Grammar School page. In fact, some of his showcase articles, are just merely a paragraph and a long list of alumni, unlike Geelongs, and unlike St Michael's. However Harro5 deleted this edit shortly after.

Why? One of the only reasons I can think of for the persistent editing out of other users work, would be a pathetic attempt to claim that he had done everything on that portal, and that no-one else would help him. Not true. I am afraid that as the days roll on, this issue is beginning to seem more like a factional war between schools, held via wikipedia. I sincerly hope it isnt. Beyondcapricorn 00:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it must be made very clear that the Caulfield Grammar School pocket was added by Harro5 as a featured photo. This picture (most probably Harro5's own blazer) contains absolutely no merit as anything but a promotion for his school. The removal of the whole school photo as a featured picture, three times, which is actually of interest well beyond a list of Harro5's personal awards for debating and music, warrants not being removed on many occasions. He is using it as a place to personally advertise his affiliation with Caulfield Grammar, far and beyond any care and consideration for the Wiki and other school articles. 220.253.48.90 00:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Bishonen
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

The "Evidence of trying and failing to solve this dispute" section above is pretty... unusual. The "trying" on User talk:Macbandit, for instance, goes like this: "Look at the bright side, now you've got more time to study for your exams and orally pleasure your teachers! You lose, fag." Oh, no, do you mean to say that failed? There are other similar examples. Altogether, the pages you cite have a way of turning into evidence for Harro, for instance the FAC discussion you mention:

By chance I was one of the main objectors on the Caulfield Grammar School FAC discussion, and considering how ready Harro was on that occasion to benefit from the detailed objections of myself and others, I have to say it makes a bad impression on me that you use it as an example of what a POV warrior he is. The Caulfield article did have a too positive tone to begin with; as I pointed out in my detailed criticism, Harro had not received any input about that aspect when the article was on Peer Review, which is a procedure aimed at improving articles before they go to FAC. This was hardly his fault: he had done what he could by listing it on Peer Review. Nobody at all had criticized the promotional tone of the article before I did, not on PR and not on FAC, because it was actually a rather subtle thing. People only started voting "me too", after I pointed it out. When I did, Harro asked me to help edit the article to make it NPOV, and was appreciative of my efforts. This is an example of a good FAC process, and a good attitude in a nominator.

I can't say much about the factual discussion on Talk:St Michael's Grammar School, because I find it impossible to follow, with all the unsigned entries and with the History tab a welter of anonymous IP's. Please, if there are four of you, as you state on User talk:Harro5 (if I understaqnd you correctly), consider a) creating user accounts (one each), b) editing consistently from these accounts, and c) signing posts on talk pages. An advantage to yourselves would be that you'd be less likely to be accused of using sock puppets. I do note a few things on the talk page, though: Godwin's Law rears its ugly head, and there's an inappropriate insistence that the article should be "left" to students at the school: "Harro, go back to Caulfield and let the Michaeleans have their encyclopedia entry spill forth its truthful bounty, as you've admitted, you weren't there, you don't know, while some of us were and some of us do", "If you would like we can give you a picture of a few of us wearing uniform, bareing our arses to the camera brandishing a note with your name on it". (Are you sure that talkpage is your evidence in this RFC...?) I also note that nobody replies to or seems interested in the explanations of the verifiability policy given by User:Tony Sidaway and User:Theresa Knott. And I note St. Michaeleans, as I presume, calling people "silly cunts" and other delightful names.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) --Bishonen | talk 16:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Christopher Parham (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) jfg284 17:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Interesting. I think Bishonen once again has it right. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 18:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Fatarity! Frawress victoly! Luigi30 (&Tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa;) 18:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) --Telsa 18:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Harro5 20:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC). The voice of reason; maybe those who brought this RFC will read what Bish says and understand the fault goes both ways.
 * 8) --Sean|Bla ck 23:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) An excellent summary. Harro5 has handled this superbly, and it saddens me that he appears to blame himself for even some of this. Ambi 11:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Tony Sidaway Talk 11:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC) I was peripherally involved in this, unprotecting the article after three days, and making a brief comment about verifiability on the talk page.  Edits being made on the St Michael's school article have sometimes been of poor quality and questionable encyclopedic value, and have often breached our content policies, most notably the key policy of verifiability.  The complainants should take note that several respected and knowledgeable editors have commented on this.  Having said that, I'm aware that the complainants are relatively inexperienced and have made some honest mistakes, and are here making a good faith attempt to deal with their dispute in the appropriate manner. I welcome this and hope that they will continue to edit Wikipedia and to learn how to do this in the most effective way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):


 * 1) 220.253.48.90 00:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Khaosworks
Having done a reading, albeit cursory, of the various edit warring and the incredible numbers of rapid edits to St Michael's Grammar School in particular, I have to say that it's quite obvious that this is school rivalry using Wikipedia as a platform. The personal attacks from the anons bringing this RfC are particularly egregious.

Which is lame.

I have nothing against school articles - my first Wikipedia efforts were the improving of my own alma mater, but that particular article has spiralled beyond my efforts to keep it NPOV, but I applaud the efforts of those who are still trying to keep school articles neutral; a daunting task since some kind of hive mind mentality takes over when you're dealing with grammar schools for some reason. School spirit is always good, but to create hagiography, or to use it to denigrate a school rival... come on, guys. Grow up.

I recommend that everyone involved in this RfC be given a wedgie and be sent to spend more time on studying rather than edit warring.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Well put.--Sean|Bla ck 01:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

23:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not directly related to a vote or endorsement go on the talk page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.