Talk:Upper Canada College/Archive 2

Table

The format of the table is consistent with a number of other articles on Ontario private/independent schools, namely: Appleby College, Community Hebrew Academy of Toronto, Lakefield College School, St. Clement's School, and Trinity College School. Only one has the format you propose: St. Andrew's College (Aurora, Ontario). Whether you find your proposal more aesthetically pleasing is pretty much a matter of POV, so I think it's best to stick to the most common format to maintain some kind of continuity amongst the articles. Is there a standard for this type of thing anyway?

And, as an aside, UCC has never been a denominational school. --gbambino 17:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It is originally Anglican. Also, the fact that most other private schools in Ontario isn't really consequential - most of those articles are barely anything at all anyway. There is no standard table, no. User Synflame 19:30, 6 February 2006.

UCC was founded as a non-denominational school. It may have had a predominantly Anglican staff in its early years, but Colborne was specific about not associating the College with any one religion. This is one of the reasons why Bishop Strachan (the man, not the school) was so perturbed by the founding of the school.

As for the table, that it follows the form of those on other pages is of matter - Wikipedia is about consistency and standards. In the absence of a standard, we should at least be consistent. Perhaps the table here could set a standard for the other independent school articles, I have no problem with that, but personally I think the present table's format, or something closely resembling it, is superior to the one you proposed (no offence, of course!). As well, tables throughout Wikipedia in general tend to have closed boxes rather than more loose rows separated by floating lines. --gbambino 19:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse the late response, as I have been away. I understand your reasoning, and while I do beleive the one in question is aesthetically superior I will concede to the newest version (as of writing this comment), which I was going to recommened regardless (Ala [[Princeton University[[). User: Synflame 11 February 2006 6:25 (UTC)

Mascot

Is it really the cookie monster? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I've seen pictures of a few football games where there's someone dressed as the Cookie Monster, but as mascots seem to come and go at UCC I'm not sure if it still is. It certainly wasn't when I went there. --gbambino 16:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Guys, it is NOT the Cookie Monster. Let me introduce you to Intellectual Property Law 101. Intellectual Property Law 101? Meet Gbambino and CambridgeBayWeather. CambridgeBayWeather and Gbambino? Meet Intellectual Property Law 101. IPL101 has whispered something in your ears, it is this: "The mascot for UCC is not the Cookie Monster because UCC has not licensed the rights to use the Cookie Monster from Sesame Workshop, a non-profit with world-wide exclusive ownership of the Cookie Monster brand". Next you two will be saying the mascot for UCC is Mickey Mouse....

If you concentrated more on reading and less on building up your sarcasm and condescension skills, you might have noted that I only remember seeing some pictures of a guy dressed in a Cookie Monster costume at some A-Day and other football games. I noted that the mascot may well have changed since then. Also, despite you apparently vast knowledge of copyright law, what else would you call a blue-furred, wide-mouthed, googly-eyed character, other than Cookie Monster? He sure as hell ain't "O RLY OWL," whatever the f*ck that is. I'm removing reference to a mascot until it can be confirmed the school actually has one, and what it is. --gbambino 21:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to know what the O RLY owl is, then, LOL, read the damn Wikipedia article on the topic! Until you do so, I am putting it back as the O RLY owl because you admit youself that you have no idea what the O RLY owl is. If you're not sure what it is, how can you be sure it's not the UCC mascot? Logic FTW. I am glad to hear that finally acknowledged my complete and utter correctness in pointing out the ridiculousness of your assertion that the UCC mascot was the Cookie Monster. At least, we can put that to rest.

I would have read the article if you had provided the right link. Before doing so it appeared you were making up utter nonsense. But, you still haven't provided evidence that it is actually the mascot. I'm not specifically asserting that it isn't (and it seems to contiune to slip over your comprehension that I never did attest to knowing for sure what the mascot is), but frankly, without proof that "O RLY owl" is, I'm removing it from the table until it can be confirmed by other sources. Nothing personal, just trying to be factually accurate. --gbambino 22:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

To the anonymous editor: please review Wikipedia's guidelines on Civility. Sarcasm and condescension ae not a good way of getting your point across. It is more effective to try to work with other editors than to piss them off. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 04:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity section

Re. Barton: I went to UCC from '83 to '94 and don't remember any such comment. Provide a more viable source. As well, provide proof he was heterosexual.

Re. Motek: Remember the guy, but don't remember the essay. You say it's in the '91 Times, but strangely in the article you put '88. I'll check both my copies at home.

Re. photos in yearbook: The presence of predominantly "white" faces in the yearbook photos is not proof of systematic racism at UCC. It may well be the concequence of the fact that upper middle class and upper class Toronto society through those decades was predominantly "white." As well you can't necessarily tell someone's ethnicity just by how they look - do all Jews look different to Anglo-Europeans, or Eastern Europeans? --gbambino 22:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right, ROFL, I have no source to prove Barton's heterosexuality. I think most people would at least say that he "passed" as heterosexual, what with his wife and kids and all. I applaud the high editorial standards you have set by insisting on sourcing EVERYTHING. As a result, I have taken the liberty of editing the entire UCC article by deleting anything that is not footnoted. Together, we can build a better, more reliable, more sourced article on UCC. I look forward to our collaboration.

Have anything substantial to contribute? Or do you just have a personal grudge against the school? Regardless, learn to work with more than just base generalizations. Self-improvement is a good thing. --gbambino 22:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Gambino, a lot more makes sense to me. I checked out your bio page. Turns out you're a fan of the Monarchist League of Canada. Which is about a hair breath's away from the KKK as a legally sanctioned whites only hate group. No wonder you don't like hearing about racism at UCC....

Please review the Wikipedia policy on No personal attacks. These comments are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Ground Zero | t 04:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Zero, please refer to Gambino's quote "Unlike many other Canadian independent schools, UCC has a long history of ethnic students since its founding. The first black student enrolled in 1831, the first Jewish student in 1836 and the first aboriginal student in 1840, some graduates from the Ojibway peoples of Upper Canada going on to study at Dartmouth College and Harvard University. [9] Still, despite the inclusion of students from these ethnic groups, UCC maintained a reputation as a "bastion of WASP privilege." [10]:Do you see his use of the the "Still" and "despite"? These are weasel words and threaten the wikigoodness of NPOV, please, you must help us here and correct the bias that Gambino is introducing here by trying to "tone down" or delegitimize the "reputation" of UCC as a "bastion of WASP privilege". His phrasing instructs the reader to take any charge of racism at UCC with a grain of salt. Do you not agree? Can you delete these weasel words plz? Thx !!! :) 05:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing

Yo, Gambino, you're selecting deleting anything unsourced that you do not like. I can play that game to. Watch.

Try reading the sources provided and you'll note that everything in the article already is cited. Keep up your childish antics though, they're highly entertaining. --gbambino 23:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you a white heterosexual male from a middle to upper income family upbringing? Just curious. Please, please, please explain how EVERYTHING is cited in the article. I only saw 19 footnotes and I'm pretty sure that they were NOT backing up everythign written in the article. Are there 30 other footnotes in the article that were invisible to me? If so, how do I "turn them on"? You're not lying and being hypocritical in order to "win the argument" are you? I'd be very disappointed if you were....

Can I ask what exactly it is you want to achieve here? --gbambino 23:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I want to expose that UCC was not a racist-free playground nor even a paragon of diversity nurturing as the current article so hilariously insinuates. You only bother to expound on the positive elements of the school (the long history, its assets, its famous alumni) all the while swarmily ignoring its ugly underbelly. You can try to sabotage the exposure of truth, but you will ultimately fail. I promise you that.

I love how you so transparently ignored the question. So I'll ask it again. Please, please, please explain how EVERYTHING is cited in the article. I only saw 19 footnotes and I'm pretty sure that they were NOT backing up everythign written in the article. Were they? Please answer the question directly. Kthxbye.

Yo, Gambino, Your High Hypocriticalness, please provide the source for the following illustrative tidbits below. Please enjoy by point by point commentary, asking for the source. If you fail to provide sources within 24 hours, I will, JUST LIKE YOU DID TO ME AND OTHERS, start deleting all unsourced sentences. kthxbye.

Pleas review Wikipedia's policy on No presonal attacks. Name-calling, as above, is not appropriate. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 04:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Upper Canada College (UCC) is an all-male elementary and secondary school in Toronto, Canada. (SOURCE PLZ)
  • Not my edit, but www.ucc.on.ca
• It is the oldest independent school in the province of Ontario (SOURCE PLZ)
  • Not my edit, but a simple survey of the dates of schools' founding will give you your answer.
  • Canadian Encyclopedia
• It is the third oldest school in Canada. (SOURCE PLZ)
  • Not my edit, but a simple survey of the dates of schools' founding will give you your answer.
• It is widely considered the leading school in Canada. (SOURCE PLZ) O RLY? YA RLY. NO WAI. SOUNDS LIKE A POV TO ME!
  • Not my edit - and a comment that's constantly being debated here.
• UCC is a non-denominational school administered by a Board of Governors as a public trust. (SOURCE PLZ)
  • Not my edit, but: www.ucc.on.ca
• All of UCC's 1,000 day students and 110 boarders study the International Baccalaureate diploma programme during Grades 11 and 12. (SOURCE PLZ) WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN?
  • Not my edit, but www.ucc.on.ca (and, BTW, can you seriously say you know anything about UCC and not know it operates as an IB school now?)
• The College maintains a traditional link to the Royal Family through HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, who is the College's Official Visitor, and a member of the Board of Governors. (SOURCE PLZ)
  • Not my edit, but www.ucc.on.ca
• The school's current Principal is Dr. James Power. (SOURCE PLZ)
  • Not my edit, but www.ucc.on.ca
• Interim Head of UCC's Preparatory School is Donald Kawasoe. (SOURCE PLZ)
  • Not my edit, but www.ucc.on.ca
• The students are represented by Head Steward Devin Hart, and the Board of Stewards. (SOURCE PLZ)
  • Not my edit, but www.ucc.on.ca
• The College was founded in 1829 by then-Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada, Major-General Sir John Colborne (later , Lord Seaton). (SOURCE PLZ)
• The school was founded in the hopes it would serve as a feeder school to the newly established King's College (later the University of Toronto), and was modelled on the great public schools of Britain, most notably Eton College. (SOURCE PLZ) O RLY? YA RLY. NO WAI. SOUNDS LIKE A POV TO ME!
• An announcement of the College's January opening appeared in the December 17, 1829, edition of the Canada Gazette, and teaching at the College began on January 4, 1830, with 57 students, the first boy enrolled being Henry Scadding. (SOURCE PLZ)
• By the end of the school's first semester, the enrolment had increased to 89. (SOURCE PLZ)
• Prior to 1829, the College was called the Royal Grammar School. (SOURCE PLZ)
• Its first permanent buildings stood on Russell Square, on land that is now bounded by King, Simcoe, Adelaide and John Streets in downtown Toronto. (SOURCE PLZ)
• Almost immediately after the College opened, plans were implemented for newer and more permanent buildings, and the 1831 school year began in new structures at the north-west corner of King and Simcoe Streets. (SOURCE PLZ)
• In Lost Toronto, William Dendy wrote: "All the UCC buildings were of red brick. Only the main block had much architectural pretension, with its large porch supported on stone piers and the windows ornamented with flat, ledge-like architraves supported on scrolled consoles.... The centre block measured 80 feet wide and 82 feet deep and contained offices and classrooms opening off a central hall on both floors; in the northwest corner of the second floor there was a "prayer room", with a dais for the master and box pews for each of the seven forms...." (SOURCE PLZ)
• In 1837, UCC's student militia offered help to Sir Francis Bond Head's Family Compact government in suppressing the pro-democracy Mackenzie's Upper Canada Rebellion. (SOURCE PLZ)
• In 1852, Mackenzie's sons, William and George, were enrolled at UCC. (SOURCE PLZ)
• On March 4, 1837, the King's College charter was amended to take UCC in under the control of the university, with the principal to be appointed by the King, the vice-principal and masters nominated by the Chancellor of King's College (the Lieutenant Governor) at the approval of the King's College Council. (SOURCE PLZ)
• By the 1870s, with an enrolment of 300, the school was outgrowing the 1831 buildings. (SOURCE PLZ)
• A $40,000 expenditure for expansion of the original structures was approved by the province for twelve classrooms, a public hall, a room for the principal, and beds for 60 more borders. (SOURCE PLZ)
• The improvements were complete by April 1877, with the centre block expanded and its main facade altered to more of a Queen Anne style blended with a modified Elizabethan. (SOURCE PLZ)
• Two story brick piers enhanced the corners and framed tall narrow windows, with the main entrance protruding forward, flanked by banded columns, more typical of Jacobean style. (SOURCE PLZ)
• An octagonal cupola surmounted the main entrance volume, surrounded by narrow pinnacles topping the corner piers, which all concealed chimneys and ventilation openings. (SOURCE PLZ)
• The eclectic mix of different styles was typical of the overall concept of Victorian architecture. (SOURCE PLZ) O RLY? YA RLY. NO WAI. SOUNDS LIKE A POV TO ME!
• By 1880, the College already again needed expansion of the boarding houses, and a gymnasium was necessary. (SOURCE PLZ)
• UCC came close to closing its doors in 1887, when a Liberal provincial government which supported university federation, and saw the College's endowment and downtown campus as sources of funds for such an expensive venture, came to power. (SOURCE PLZ) O RLY? YA RLY. NO WAI. SOUNDS LIKE A POV TO ME!
• In reaction to this a group of Old Boys met, along with letters of support from various alumni, including Lieutenant Governor John Beverley Robinson, in an effort to stop the closing of the College's doors. (SOURCE PLZ) O RLY? YA RLY. NO WAI. SOUNDS LIKE A POV TO ME!
• The meeting ended with a unanimous motion that the group's views be laid before the government. (SOURCE PLZ)
• The story was covered widely in the papers of the time, with the Evening Telegram being most supportive, the Globe taking a more moderate stance, and the News criticizing the existence of the school. (SOURCE PLZ) O RLY? YA RLY. NO WAI. SOUNDS LIKE A POV TO ME!
• In the end, after much negotiation, a decision was reached to detach the school from King's College after fifty years of affiliation, and to operate it under the guidance of five trustees appointed by the Minister of Education. (SOURCE PLZ) O RLY? YA RLY. NO WAI. SOUNDS LIKE A POV TO ME!
• The College was also to be relocated to an area outside of the city, though this provision was not included in the statute.
• From 1887 to 1891, much effort was directed towards the moving of the College. (SOURCE PLZ)
• The principal, then George Dickson, and the architect G.F. Durand, toured the private schools in the United States, and in February 1888, plans for the new buildings were presented to the government. (SOURCE PLZ)
• A site at Avenue Road and St. Clair Avenue was suggested by the government, but was objected to as the 14 acres was deemed too small. (SOURCE PLZ)
• A new site, slightly farther north, was chosen and purchased from a Mr. Lawrence Baldwin. (SOURCE PLZ)
• The ground-breaking for the new buildings at the new campus took place on April 2, 1889. (SOURCE PLZ)
• On July 3, 1891, the bell at the Russell Square campus rang for the last time, and on August 29, a farewell cricket game was played, and, in an attempt to ensure the survival of the College, the Upper Canada College Old Boys' Association was created on the same day. (SOURCE PLZ)
• UCC then moved to its current site, the Deer Park campus, 200 Lonsdale Road at Avenue Road in Forest Hill, with the doors being officially opened on October 14, 1891. (SOURCE PLZ)
• William Dendy described the buildings in his book Lost Toronto: "Inevitably, given the date, the style of the new buildings was Romanesque Revival. It was built on a foundation of roughly finished Credit Valley sandstone, with upper walls of red brick ornamented with terra cotta panels and string courses. The basic arrangement of the design - a projecting triple-arched entrance, a central tower, and flanking wings forming a quadrangle behind - was very common at the time, and had become firmly established in Toronto with Lennox's City Hall (1996-92).... In fact, the new tower, rising 165 feet above the ground, like a church steeple above the surrounding trees, became a symbol of the college - an ever present reminder to students, and to the city below the hill, of the importance of the college and the influence of the alumni that had been shaped by it." (SOURCE PLZ)
• The new buildings purportedly held a room for a commercial course, which contained a counter and series of wickets built to simulate a real bank; these facilities were to help teach boys the routines of banking. (SOURCE PLZ) O RLY? YA RLY. NO WAI. SOUNDS LIKE A POV TO ME!
• In 1902, a separate Preparatory School was built at the south edge of the Deer Park campus, creating two physically separate schools. (SOURCE PLZ)
• More than 400 graduates perished during both the First World War and the Second World War. (SOURCE PLZ)
• Historian Jack Granatstein asserted that UCC graduates accounted for more than 30% of Canadian generals during the Second World War, including General Harry Crerar, Commander in Chief of the Canadian Army, and Major-General Bruce Matthews, Commander of the 2nd Canadian Division and later Chairman of the College's Board of Governors. (SOURCE PLZ)
• The College faced another crisis at the end of the 1950s when it was discovered that the 1891 main building was decaying rapidly due to poor construction; cracks and pipes were appearing throughout, doors frames warped to the point where doors could no longer be opened or closed. (SOURCE PLZ) O RLY? YA RLY. NO WAI. SOUNDS LIKE A POV TO ME!
• Eventually there was a fear that the tower would collapse. (SOURCE PLZ) O RLY? YA RLY. NO WAI. SOUNDS LIKE A POV TO ME!
• Because of these problems, the building was condemned and evacuated by March 12, 1958. (SOURCE PLZ)
• Faculty offices were moved to the Prep building, the infirmary, and any other spare spaces, including the principal's residence, Grant House. Classes were conducted in portables. (SOURCE PLZ)
• That same year, a major fundraising campaign was launched as construction of a new building on the exact site of the old was started. (SOURCE PLZ)
• HRH Prince Philip visited in 1959 to assist with the fundraising. (SOURCE PLZ)
• Money to reconstruct the iconic tower over the main entrance was donated by the media magnate, Ted Rogers. (SOURCE PLZ)
• Even though construction began in 1958, during the modernist era, the symmetry of the original structure, as well as a clock tower, were repeated, yet instead of a Romanesque Revival style a simplified Georgian was used. (SOURCE PLZ)
• In the summer of 1959, Governor General Vincent Massey laid the cornerstone, and tragedy struck that same year when an Italian construction worker fell from the tower to his death. (SOURCE PLZ) O RLY? YA RLY. NO WAI. SOUNDS LIKE A POV TO ME!
• None-the-less, Field Marshal Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein dedicated the new front doors on April 28, 1960, and the new building was officially opened by Vincent Massey and Ewdard Peacock on September 28. (SOURCE PLZ)
• The $3,200,000 cost of the bulding was fully subscribed. (SOURCE PLZ)
• UCC welcomed the first woman to its Board of Governors in 1971 with the appointment of Pauline Mills McGibbon, although she resigned in 1974 upon her appointment to the post of Lieutenant Governor of Ontario. (SOURCE PLZ)
• In 1979, UCC celebrated its 150th anniversary in the presence of the College's Official Visitor, HRH Prince Philip, at the College's first Association Day. (SOURCE PLZ)
  • All of the above from: Charles Dickens, American Notes. Cited in The College Times, Summer 1910, pg. 30; John D. Robarts Research Library, University of Toronto, Newspaper Hansard, March 12, 1887; 'Upper Canada College, 1829-1979: Colborne's Legacy; Howard, Richard; Macmillan Company of Canada, 1979.
• By 1989 the Peacock Building, the original structure of the Prep School, built in 1902, was growing outdated for the needs of the College. (SOURCE PLZ)
• It still contained boarding dorms, bathrooms, and masters' quarters which were being used as storage and makeshift offices. Renovation of the building was considered, but eventually it was decided that a new structure should be built as part of a larger, overall building campaign for the campus. (SOURCE PLZ)
  • UCC Rennaissance XXI literature. I'll add the footnote.
• The new Eaton Building, named for the Eaton family, which sent many sons to UCC, was completed in 1992, with a modern design that still included references to its historical predecessor. (SOURCE PLZ)
  • What's being disputed?
• The gothic pointed arch of the original Peacock Building main door was reconstructed as a free-standing monument in the Eaton Building's forecourt. (SOURCE PLZ)
  • Um, it's sitting right there.
• In 1991, UCC was visited by the Hungarian President Árpád Göncz, who would soon after enrol his grandson at the school, and in 1993, Prince Philip again visited to officially open the Foster Hewitt Athletic Centre, the Eaton Building, as well as the rebuilt College gates, the Mara Gates, at the foot of the main avenue. (SOURCE PLZ)
  • www.ucc.on.ca
• Two years later the College decided to greatly alter it's academic course and adopted the International Baccalaureate programme. (SOURCE PLZ)
  • Not my edit, but www.ucc.on.ca
• The Eaton Building was extended in 1999 to accommodate the school's curricular expansion to include grades 1 and 2. Senior kindergarten was introduced in 2003. (SOURCE PLZ)
  • www.ucc.on.ca
• By the early 20th century, the city was growing quickly around the Deer Park campus. (SOURCE PLZ)
  • Not my edit, but can cite Wikipedia article on Toronto, if you like.
• The College trustees began to explore the possibility of once again moving the school. (SOURCE PLZ)
• A property of 450 acres on the Credit River, north of the Toronto, was purchased in 1913. (SOURCE PLZ)
• Plans for a new college building were even drawn up by a Toronto architectural firm. (SOURCE PLZ)
• However, due to the First World War and the depression, plans to move the school were abandoned in the 1930s. (SOURCE PLZ)
• Still, the property remained in the hands of the school, and it has become a popular outdoor education centre for UCC students. (SOURCE PLZ)
• In 1964, a modern bunk-house, designed by Old Boy Blake Millar, was built, and an arboretum was planted. (SOURCE PLZ)
• In 1967, the bunk-house, known as Stephen House, won a Massey Medal for excellence in architecture. (SOURCE PLZ)
  • The above from: Upper Canada College, 1829-1979: Colborne's Legacy; Howard, Richard; Macmillan Company of Canada, 1979
• Today, Norval is Canada's oldest "outdoor" school. (SOURCE PLZ)
  • Not my edit, but www.ucc.on.ca
• There is no fixed date for the formation of the UCC Cadets, though beginnings can be traced to a willingness of students to participate in the defence against the 1837 rebellion. (SOURCE PLZ)
• Later in the 1800s, in schools throughout England, Canada and the United States, involvement in a military body was thought of to inspire patriotism in young men, as well as being a good method of teaching discipline and obedience. (SOURCE PLZ)
• By 1863, UCC students were paraded weekly, in an amateur fashion, under someone known as Major Goodwin, but with the beginning of Fenian troubles in Upper Canada by 1865, UCC students requested that the Cadets form into a company of the Queen's Own Rifles. (SOURCE PLZ) O RLY? YA RLY. NO WAI. SOUNDS LIKE A POV TO ME!
• By 1866, the request was fulfilled, making UCC possibly the second school in Canada to have a proper Cadet Corps (the first being Bishop's College School in Lennonville, Quebec). (SOURCE PLZ)
• When the Fenians did attack Fort Erie, Ontario, on June 1, 1866 (see Fenian Raids), the UCC Cadets were called to duty, but were instructed to guard the armouries and official stores. (SOURCE PLZ)
• None-the-less, this was the only time in Canadian military history where student Cadet Corps (Bishop's College Cadets were present as well) was called to duty. (SOURCE PLZ)
• By the 1890s, there was a lack of enthusiasm for the Cadets. (SOURCE PLZ) O RLY? YA RLY. NO WAI. SOUNDS LIKE A POV TO ME!
• It was an extra expense for a student's family to cover the costs of uniform, weapons, and even their drill instructor, and drill and practice time was beyond the commitment to scholastics and sport. (SOURCE PLZ)
• Enrolment fluctuated over the next few decades, at one point the school's administration turning its eyes to the school the College had been modelled on, Eton, as well as Harrow, where Cadet participation was compulsory. (SOURCE PLZ) O RLY? YA RLY. NO WAI. SOUNDS LIKE A POV TO ME!
• No real action was taken by UCC in regards to the Cadets, however, by 1910 the population of the company had increased to 63, and in 1912 a Sergeant Carpenter was approached to act as instructor. (SOURCE PLZ)
• He was not to last long, as by 1914 he was in Europe as Sergeant-Major in the 9th Battalion of the 1st Canadian Overseas Contingent. (SOURCE PLZ)
• Numbers in the UCC Cadets still stayed high during the First World War. (SOURCE PLZ)
• By around 1919, the UCC Cadets finally became compulsory, and principal Grant asked the army district headquarters if the Corps could be presented with Colours, both the King's Colour and College Colour. (SOURCE PLZ)
• The College Colour was given by Elanor Gooderham in 1921. (SOURCE PLZ)
• During the war, the Cadets' association with the Queen's Own Rifles had lapsed, and by 1923 two regiments, the Toronto Regiment and Queen's Own Rifles were requesting that the Corps affiliate itself with them. (SOURCE PLZ)
• After some dispute between the three parties, the College settled on the Queen's Own again by 1927. (SOURCE PLZ)
• For thirty following years, the Cadets remained an integral part of College life, and by the middle of the Second World War boys were practising not only drills, but also spent time on lectures, map reading, military law, and signalling. (SOURCE PLZ) O RLY? YA RLY. NO WAI. SOUNDS LIKE A POV TO ME!
• However, by the 1960s, due to broader shifts in social paradigms, belief in the Cadets was faltering; religion and patriotism were not held in such high regard by youth, and rebellion was the more accepted behaviour for teenagers. (SOURCE PLZ) O RLY? YA RLY. NO WAI. SOUNDS LIKE A POV TO ME!
• Minutes of the Board of Governors meeting in 1965 recorded, for the first time in sixty years, poor discipline at the battalion parade. (SOURCE PLZ)
• Principal Richard Sadlier finally disbanded the Cadet Battalion as a compulsory body in 1976. (SOURCE PLZ)
• He noted: "The Battalion has been left with little beyond its ceremonial drill which is a pretty irrelevant exercise to many people today and difficult to defend when it becomes the be-all and end-all of a program." (SOURCE PLZ)
  • Above from: Upper Canada College, 1829-1979: Colborne's Legacy; Howard, Richard; Macmillan Company of Canada, 1979

I hope that clarifies everything for you. --gbambino 17:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait. You're saying that EVERYTHING I QUOTED ABOVE as unsourced came from one (1) book? If so, you have now exposed Wikipedia to a lawsuit. Please get acquainted with Fair Use: http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectID/C3E49F67-1AA3-4293-9312FE5C119B5806/310/276/240/ART/. You will see that you have failed FIVE out of FIVE tests for proper Fair Use of copywritten book published material. This now exposes Wikipedia to legal liability. John Wiley & Sons now owns all IP from the former Macmillan Company of Canada. Please clarify immediately what you have done. Otherwise, I will call Wiley's Permissions Deparment at (416)236-4448 (http://ca.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-8583.html) to report this violation of law. 66.208.54.226 17:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:No legal threats, which is an official Wikipedia policy. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 17:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Annon., I would suggest you 1) note that not everything in the article comes from Howard's book, and 2) look at the book to see that nothing in the article is a verbatim copy. The book is used as a source of information, just like the other books, newspaper articles, and internet sites cited. However, do as you please with your time. --gbambino 17:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Jay Hodgson Group

Every graduate of note can't be included in the article - hence the separate page at List of Upper Canada College alumni. Besides, I've done a few searches on the Jay Hodgson Group, and came up with nothing substantial - no newpaper or magazine articles, just that Hodgson is currently completing his PhD. I've no real issue with him being included on the Alum page, but I think, in comparison to the other graduates noted in that list, more proof of his noteriety is needed. There are tons of semi-successful UCC graduates who aren't listed because they're just not all that great in comparison to the Order of Canada winners, knighs, CEOs, Chairmans, Cabinet Minsters, Lieutenant Governors, etc. --gbambino 23:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Didn't he conform with notability standards for music at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28music%29? He specifically complies with:

• "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such."

I don't get it, don't you read your own rules????

once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable - I'll ask again: How is the band notable? I'm not saying you're wrong, but where's the evidence? As I said, I did a search on both Google and Yahoo, and got next to nothing - one mention of Hodgosn completing his PhD in music. If the Jay Hodgson Group was really that notable, don't you think there'd be more info on them out there - like Jim Cuddy and Blue Rodeo for example? Anyway, the two are on the List of Upper Canada College alumni page now - why can't you just leave it at that? --gbambino 16:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Jay Hodgson was part of the McDermott band. The McDermott band was notable because it was a 4 time Juno winnner. Since Jay Hodgson was "once part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable", ie McDermott, that makes Jay Hodgson notable. 18:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, okay, but your edit said he "performed sporadically with EMI recording artist and four time JUNO nominee John McDermott." That he sometimes performed with McDermott didn't seem to make him a part of the band, but kind of a sit-in, or replacement player. And, like I said, my searches brought up nothing - again, making him seem not that well known, or notable. But I'll concede to your assertions, and Wikipedia policy - thanks for clarifying the issue. I take it you're now okay with him being on the Alum page? I am. --gbambino 18:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me 66.208.54.226 19:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I have semi-protected this page, which means that it cannot be edited by anonymous and newly-registered users. I have taken this action because an anonymous editor has been deleting large portions of text to illustrate a point, which is contrary to Wikipedia:Etiquette. In so he doing, he/she also appears to have violated the Three-revert rule, which is an official policy of Wikipedia. I encourage the editor to take some time off from this article to review Wikipedia policies and guidelines in order to learn how to work with other editors to improve articles, and how to avoid edit wars, which are a waste of everybody's time. Ground Zero | t 23:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me -- new here. But what qualifies *you* to hold this position of privilege? If this user was a registered user, what then? Or is this fairly typical when it comes to wikipedia (i.e., anonymous users screwing around)?

I am an Administrator, so I have special powers to protect articles, see through walls, fly, and, well, actually not so much the last two, but I can protect articles, block users, and do a few other things. If, for example, the actions that led to the semi-protection had been done by a registered user, I could have blocked the user from editing for a period of time. Semi-protection and protection are done with some frequency to protect Wikipedia from vandalism and to help resolve edit wars. Ground Zero | t 23:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

(1) Can you address the hypocracy of Gambino breaking the Three-revert rule himself with no consequences? (2) How does one deal with the hypocracy that he can delete additions "because they have no source" but if the same standard is applied to his writing, this is considered vandalism? Honestly, not being cheeky here, I really want to know. -- Unsigned comment by User:68.149.195.86

The word is "hypocrisy". The three-revert rule does not apply inthe case of vandalism. Your large-scale deletions were vandalism because you were disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. For example, you removed references in the first paragraph to UCC being a private school, and all other description but "UCC is a school" not to improve the article, but to make a point. If someone challenges you to provide a source, the way to respond -- and this really is how things work on Wikipedia -- is to provide a source. Responding by blanking out large portions of text becuase you don't want to defend your actions is vandalism. I have been around Wikipedia long enough to be made an administrator, so I do know how things work here. And, often, I have learned by making mistakes. We all do. So please don't consider this an attack on you. I just want to encourage you to learn more bout this great project by reviewing its policies and guidelines. I've linked a few above to get you started. By learning about the policies and guidelines, you can be more effective in contributing to Wikipedia, and avoid messy confrontations like this. Ground Zero | t 04:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I hope that the Admin will note that Gamibino seems very quick to immediately whine to mommy admin with the "POV" argument as noted in the mediation he required with AndyL on the Monarchist League of Canada page. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Archive_18#Monarchist_League_of_Canada_and_Monarchy_in_Canada. How many times will you let Gambino abuse the system to tug at mommy's pant legs when he sees things that he doesn't like until you Admins start rightfully ignoring Gambino's hypocritical propagandist rants? This isn't good for Wikipedia when advocates of an insane position can exploit you Admin folk to enforce an incumbent POV. -- Unsigned comment by User:66.208.54.226

Here is another policy that you can review to start learning about how Wikipedia works: No personal attacks. We do our best to be civil here. Your comemnts are not appropriate. Again, we all make mistakes when we first start off, so you're not alone in these transgressions. Making mistakes is how we learn. Ground Zero | t 04:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to stir up the pot here, and please correct me if I am WAY off base (again, I'm new), but all this seems contrary to the *interactive* nature of wikipedia. I've been following these posts (am an old boy, so interested) and it would seem that there is one particular user who is working to ensure that any edits made by anonymous users, which do not meet *his/her* rather than Wikipedia's standards, are erased. I don't mean to point fingers, but one of the users (I keep seeing the handle "Gbambino") seems to me to be abusing his position somewhat, as he is constantly reverting any changes of, what seemed to me, at least, to be viable additions to this article (particularly on UCC and ethnicity). I appreciate that you are the site administrator, and I was wondering if you could tell me why this is allowed to occur, before I give up on contributing to this page before even starting? I'm actually worried that if I add *anything*, my work will be deleted. -- Unsigned comment by User:WormwoodJagger

I am not intervening here in defence of Gbambino. I have locked horns with him on other occasions, and I do not see eye to eye with him on a lot of things. I intervened to stop a senseless edit war between a regular editor and one or two new users. One of the new users made it clear above that he is trying to promote his own particular point of view ("I want to expose that UCC was not a racist-free playground"), rather than trying to achieve a Neutral point of view, which is what we aim for. I am not arguing that Gbambino's edits are neutral either. I'll start picking my way through the arguments on both sides over the next couple of days to try to figure out what -- if any -- of the anon contributions should be incorporated into the article. The most effective way to improve articles on Wikipedia is to work toward compromise, which was not happening. Revert wars are just a waste of time and bandwidth.

I am not "the" site administrator -- I am "an" administrator. There are many of us.

I am going to try to mediate between the different points of view here. You should be aware that not all of your edits will remain here unaltered. As it says at the bottom of every edit page: Please note: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.

Finally, please sign your edits by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This makes it easier for everyone to be able to follow who wrote what. Thanks, and welcome to Wikipedia. Ground Zero | t 04:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've reviewed some of the edit warring that was going on. There have been several points of contention:

1. Ethnicity: An anon user introduced a section relating three stories about racism at UUC that began with: "Anecdotal examples of deep-seated insidious racism at the school in the 1980s included:" This sentence is so very clearly not consistent with the WP:NPOV policy that it had to go. Of the three anecdotes, the anon user provided evidence for one, and at that point, Gbambino began incorporating that story into his subsequent edits, i.e., he was working toward consensus in keeping with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. That is how things are supposed to work here.
2. Inclusion of certain musicians as notable alumni. Gbambino appears to have moved this text (and I'll check this) to a branch article on notable alumni. This is consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Wikipedia has, for the benefit of the reader and for technical reasons, a guideline on how long articles are supposed to be. This article already exceeds the recommended length. The recommended way of addressing that problem is to move text to branch articles, which is what Gbambino did. It is not going to be possible to fit all of the information about a school with 177 years of history into one article. Some of it has to be moved into branch articles. The information is not deleted from Wikipedia, just moved.
3. The mascot issue: I haven't seen any evidence the ORL Y owl is the school's mascot, so that appears to be nonsense. I think that Gbambino has made it clear that he is not wedded to the idea of listing Cookie Monster as the school's mascot. Since it is clearly not an "official" mascot, for the copyright reasons listed above, it should be deleted.

If there are other issues that I have missed, please list them below and I'll try to sort them out. Ground Zero | t 04:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Zero, I reviewed the article on Neutral Point of View NPOV.

• But these racist events at UCC are not OPINION, they are FACT. Though in that light, I should retract statements like "insidious institutional racism" and let the FACTUAL occurences speak for themselves.
• I also object to the hypocracy that Gambino accuses me of violating Verifiability WP:VAND while at the same time, he is even more guilty than I. Why not delete HIS *UNVERIFIED* statements about UCC? He is violating one of the "3 pillars" of wikigoodness and you turn a blind eye to his contravention of Law while punishing just me. Is this fair I ask you?
• If I were you, I would agree with my reasoning that is solidly based on your OWN rules on wikigoodness and delete every single sentence in the article that LACKS VERIFIABILITY, which I will remind you again, is canonical law in wiki land. Allow me to quote for you what it says at NPOV: NPOV is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. The three policies are complementary, non-negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editor's consensus. They should therefore not be interpreted in isolation from one other, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three.
• Please Admin man, I beg you, enforce your own rules of Verifiability on the Gambino. BTW, what's a tilde? 68.50.242.120 04:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Zero, my work in the Sourcing section above, in which I demonstrate that Gambino has 96, YES!!! 96 unverified statement and that's not even the whole article, just part of it. Please enforce Wiki Verifiability and force Gambino to source each statement or delete it (which was all I was trying to do before and was in full compliance with wikinesss as a result). I tried the four squigglies but they don't show up, what's up with that? 68.50.242.120 04:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The four tildes work -- your IP number shows up. As far as I can tell, of the threee "facts", Gbambino has accepted one -- the Mostek story. Whether or not the Barton story is evidence of racism is debatable. It sounds like a pretty silly story for the principal to tell, but not evidence of serious racism. As far as looking at the yearbooks and seeing white faces, that is not evidence of institutionalized racism either. Were non-whites screened out because the school had a quota on non-whites? Or were they screened out by society's failure to grant them the financial and educational opportunities that are generally a pre-requisite for admission to UCC, and society's racism is what contributes to a mostly white student body, not UCC's racism. Finally, I've made myself clear on on the question of verifiability. You are clearly not questioning Gbambino's edits because you think they are incorrect, but simply to make a point because you are angry that he has asked you to provide sources for your edits. You can appeal to another Administrator if you think I am being unreasonable about this. Ground Zero | t 05:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Zero, I must be confused. You acknowledge that Gambino has FAILED to conform with one of the 3 canonical pillars of wikiness by NOT providing verifiability. Who cares what you think my POV is on the matter? I thought you as Admin guy value NPOV, you don't want to hear my POV, so why would my POV factor into your decision at all. It is fact that Gambino is contravening one of the 3 holiest Law of Wikiness. You do not dispute this. In fact, I believe you admit it. And yet you will not take corrective action on Gambino? Why? I do not understand. Please help me understand. Otherwise could you do me a favor and just state for record in writing the following: "I Zero hereby acknowledge that Gambino has violated the rule of Wiki Verifiability in at least 96 of his statements, but I have decided to explicitly refuse to do my duty as an Admin and take any action to any of those 96 violations of Wiki Verifiability." Then after you do that, can you instruct me how I can appeal to other Admin people and show them your statement of rejecting Wikiness? Or do I wiki that? or google that? (not sure) 68.50.242.120 05:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• I have posted a request for assitance from other administrators at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. It is up to other admins to decide whether or not to participate in this discussion. Let's wait for a few days to see if anyone takes up the challenge. If not, then I can ask one or two that I know if they could tak a look at this. As I have stated, I do not think that your challenge of the verfiability of the 96 statements to which you refer has been made in the spirit of building Wikipedia, but rather to make a point. Please keep in mind that everyone here is a volunteer, including administrators. We don't get paid for doing this. Let's try to work together. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 12:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please! Cut Him Some Slack

I've come here because User:68.50.242.120 requested my input as an advocate. Please offer 68 some help in expressing his efforts to introduce discussion about the POV he feels is underrepresented in the article. In the name of welcoming newcomers, I'd like all to consider backing off a little on the patronising and stirring. It's much easier to maintain your cool when you've been here for a while and you have experience of how things unfold. It's much easier to tolerate insults when you've been around.

If anyone would like an outsiders opinion on some of the editorial issues, I can also make a couple of comments on that. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 06:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. Metta, if there is anything that you think that I could have done better, please let me know. Ground Zero | t 12:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Metta. I would like to first apologize for any personal attacks I have made. If you feel that I make further personal attacks, let me know and I will retract them. I am newb to Wiki and have been happy to learn the rules that make Wiki such a great source of reference information.

I do feel that my POV is underrepresented in the article and that administrative/protocol tactics are being used to Other any substantive contributions that threaten pre-conceieved POVs. The fact is that Gambino is a Vice Chairman of the Monarchist League of Canada, which is well known for NOT being a bastion of cultural diversity in Canada. (BTW, a Vice Chairman writing an article about his own organization hardly brings one comfort that a NPOV has been instituted). After all, how many Jews or Blacks or Chinese or Aboriginals or Bulgarians in Canada spend their time worrying about how to queen it up more in Canada? LOL, not many. So I have very strong suspicions about his motives in what I see as an attempt to quash the exposure of racism at UCC.

So here's what's objectively on the table for resolution.

1. I have proven that Gambino has made at least 96 non-verified statements. This fact is not disputed. It is accepted by all parties including myself, Zero and Gambino. This is a violation of one of the 3 pillars of Wikiness. According to Wiki Law, these statements must be excised, deleted and expunged.
2. It is irrelevent as to my "motive". That's like saying "Well, I am not going to arrest the arsonist who burned down 6 churches because the snitch who provided the evidence rubs me the wrong way and I think he's just trying to get revenge at the arsonist for stealing his girlfriend." Uhhhh.... no. The world doesn't work that way. Either Gambino is, or is not, violating Wiki Law. My motive as I point out this fact is immaterial as to whether or not Wiki Law has been violated. Justice is blind. Now enforce it.
3. I have pointed out above in the Ethnicity section that Gambino is using weasel words. Zero, the Admin, has conveniently ignored this. And thus no action has been taken to excise, expunge and delete the nefarious use of weasel words to downplay the possibility that racism might exist at UCC.
4. I am most disturbed that a seemingly "neutral" Admin would just come right out and say "I refuse to enforce the rules of Wiki to which I am bound cause I don't like you." I am not sure how Wiki, as a community collaborative effort, is going to get anywhere when that type of attitude is tolerated by its Admin. 66.208.54.226 15:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

“The fact is that Gambino is a Vice Chairman of the Monarchist League of Canada, “

The fact that he has political views does not mean that his edits are, by definition, biased. We all have biases, and we should do our best to exclude them from our edits. Let’s discuss the bias of Gbambino’s edits, and not assume that all of his edits are inherently biased.

We’re not in a Court of Law here, we are applying policies. No-one is getting away with a crime here. If all of Gbambino’s edits for which he has not provided evidence were removed as you wish, the article would be a shell of its current self. The Wikipedia article on UCC would be diminshed so that you can make a point about how you don’t feel you should be challenged on your edits. That is not how the policies on verifiability are intended to be used. If verfiability were as strictly applied thoroughout as you have requested for this article, we would have to remove 90-95% of the content of Wikipedia. Again, it is fair for Gbambino or anyone else to request a reference for anything being added to an article to in order to ensure that it is an improvement. But deleting large blocks of text to prove your point does not improve the article.

I’ll take a look at the weasel words issue that you raise. Please accept that there have been a lot of edits and I haven’t followed all of them. If I have missed something, it is because I am human and have only limited volunteer time available for this project, not because I am choosing to overlook things. What are the particular weasel words that you are concerned about?

“I am most disturbed that a seemingly "neutral" Admin would just come right out and say "I refuse to enforce the rules of Wiki to which I am bound cause I don't like you."”

I didn’t say that. I have solicited the attention of other administrators to help resolve this because I accept that you do not see me as being impartial on this. We will have to wait for the input of others to resolve this. Ground Zero | t 15:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• I have asked User:CambridgeBayWeather to take a look at this. He is an administrator who has edited this article in the past. My request to him is here. Ground Zero | t 16:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"The fact that he has political views does not mean that his edits are, by definition, biased. We all have biases, and we should do our best to exclude them from our edits." Agreed. But it does mean that you need to keep an especially close eye on what he writes because you now know he does have a very strong POV by his affiliation with such an organization as the Monarchist League of Canada. Then when he starts (a) using weasel words to mitigate accusations of racism and (b) deleting text from others that prove racism, what do you expect me to think?

"We’re not in a Court of Law here, we are applying policies." Fine, we're in a Court of Policies. Apply the Policies. Wiki is a very large collaborative effort. These policies need to be adhered to in a consistent manner else chaos will erupt and editorial integrity will suffer and accusations of bias will spin out of control. Oops, they already did. And all because you won't apply Wiki policies. They're not your policies, Zero, they are the policies of Wiki, you must respect them, doubly so because you are Admin.

"That is not how the policies on verifiability are intended to be used." O Rly? Please provide source on the "intent" of these policies.

"If all of Gbambino’s edits for which he has not provided evidence were removed as you wish, the article would be a shell of its current self. The Wikipedia article on UCC would be diminshed..." The article IS ALREADY DIMINISHED according to Wiki policy because it is NOT VERIFIED. This is not MY policy. This is YOUR policy. I'm sorry that you do not agree with your policy, but your job as Admin is to enforce WIKI policy whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not. And this is great because you said the UCC was getting too lengthy according to word limit guidelines, this is a perfect opportunity to trim it down.

"Again, it is fair for Gbambino or anyone else to request a reference for anything being added to an article to in order to ensure that it is an improvement." You conveniently forget that nothing HAS to be deleted AS LONG AS Gambino steps up to the plate and provides a source for all these statements. All I ask is that Gambino follow the law of Verifiability. Yes, it may take Gambino some time and effort to do so, but that's not my problem, nor is it yours. The irony here is that when Gambino deletes my writing as "not verified", you do nothing Zero. Nothing. Nada. NOTHING. In fact, you assist Gambino by reverting and locking! But when I ask that the verifiability standard being EQUALLY applied to his writing, and not just mine, now you're like "oh noes!!!! joo noob, that's not d3v int3nt!!!!1o111oneoneeleven". Is it any wonder that I personally feel that you are not handling this role as Admin in an impartial manner in the face of such behavior?

Zero, since you keep saying that you cannot find the weasel words complaint in the Ethnicity section above, I will requote for you the issue of weasel words in the Ethnicity section above: Dear Zero, please refer to Gambino's quote "Unlike many other Canadian independent schools, UCC has a long history of ethnic students since its founding. The first black student enrolled in 1831, the first Jewish student in 1836 and the first aboriginal student in 1840, some graduates from the Ojibway peoples of Upper Canada going on to study at Dartmouth College and Harvard University. [9] Still, despite the inclusion of students from these ethnic groups, UCC maintained a reputation as a "bastion of WASP privilege." [10]:Do you see his use of the the "Still" and "despite"? These are weasel words and threaten the wikigoodness of NPOV, please, you must help us here and correct the bias that Gambino is introducing here by trying to "tone down" or delegitimize the "reputation" of UCC as a "bastion of WASP privilege". His phrasing instructs the reader to take any charge of racism at UCC with a grain of salt. Do you not agree? Can you delete these weasel words plz? Thx !!! :) 05:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC) 66.208.54.226 16:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"I have asked User:CambridgeBayWeather to take a look at this. He is an administrator who has edited this article in the past." I totally and completely reject the idea of CambridgeBayWeather as an impartial Admin in this issue for 2 reasons. First, I castigated him for being so naive as to think the Cookie Monster was the official mascot of UCC. I mean, c'mon, Intellectual Property Law 101? Hello? Does anyone REALLY think that Sesame Workshop LICENSED to UCC the Canadian rights to use Cookie Monster as their mascot? You think UCC would PAY for that license? Anyways, I can't trust User:CambridgeBayWeather because of my prior chastisement of his behavior. He might want revenge on me because I was so rightly pointed out an error on his part. Second, I don't trust the opinion of anyone who thinks Cookie Monster was the mascot of UCC. Period. Third, he has been complicit and guilty with Gambino in the crime of silent approving of unverified statements in the UCC article by previous reverts he did to the article that left Gambino's unverified statements untouched. Please get an Admin involved who has no prior involvement with this article else I will not trust their impartiality. This is just Fairness 101. 66.208.54.226 16:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You and I are not going to be able to resolve this on our own. We're just going around in circles. Let's wait to see what others think. I have responded to your valid concerns about weasal words below.

I was unaware of your problems with CBW. I will ask User:HOTR, instead, if you agree to having him comment. Ground Zero | t 16:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right Zero, you and I will not not resolve this.

And just one more thing, allow me to present the Cookie Monster argument for Verifiabiliy. Gambino had written that the mascot for UCC was the Cookie Monster because he saw a guy in a blue suit at a sports event at UCC. He agrees now that he was probably wrong. I assert that he was utterly wrong to think this. Why did this happen? BECAUSE HE WAS ALLOWED TO WRITE STUFF ABOUT UCC WITH BEING REQUIRED TO VERIFY ANY OF IT BY THE ADMINS. Who know WHAT ELSE he has written about UCC is wrong because he couldn't be bothered to verify or source his statements. Learn from the Cookie Monster incident and make Gambino source everything he writes otherwise other mistakes he has made will go unchallenged and unnoticed.

His article on UCC should be retitled "History of UCC from an Architectural and Monarchist Perspective" since so much of it has to do with really boring building and royalty issues. But wait! Guess what? According to his bio page, he's an architect and I know for a fact that he is a Vice Chairman of the Monarchist League of Canada. No wonder he spends all the textual real estate talking about architecture and royalty at UCC. I can't be bothered, other than the Cookie Monster issue, to call him out on other mistakes because my brain would explode from the boredom of verifying architecture and monarchy factoids. Ironically, when people try to add more interesting stuff, like racism and famous alumni to the article, he poos poos the efforts. Doesn't sound very NPOV to me.... 17:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Two things I know about: Architecture and monarchy. Big surprise that I should contribute information that is in one way or another related to those two things. Strange, though, that you don't note a bias within my edits about the history of the school in relation to the government of Ontario and UofT, nor my edits about the UCC Cadets, nor my edits about the arts, nor... well I'm sure you get the point. Instead of trying to undermine my character, put more effort into adding what you know about into the article(s), and make some attempt to make it credible. I'd much rather that than these silly, childish cat-fights. --gbambino 17:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

To user 66.208.54.226. The idea that I would want "revenge" is not worthy of consideration. The only reason that I made edits to this article was to revert vandalism and I may have put links in. This was not to condone the article as such nor to agree that the edits made by any editor were correct. As to the mascot, it sat in there for several days being passed over by multiple editors so there was a small chance that it was correct. Some suggestions that would help your case. First stop with the attempts at sarcasam. Some editors may see it as not following Wikipedia:No personal attacks. All it needs is an admin to agree with them and you could find yourself banned. However, this is not a threat that I would/will do it. Next take a look at Wikipedia:Assume good faith while any of the editors may be making errors I don't believe that they are acting with malicious intent. As to admins allowing any editor to make unverifed claims. Who knows how many admins have actually made substantive edits to the article. Finally a quick review of random articles will show that most have less references than this, which is indeed a problem that Wikipedia needs to address. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, will you accept User:HOTR as an unbiased administrator. I do not know if he will agree to take on this task, but if you agree, I can ask him, or you can ask him yourself. Ground Zero | t 17:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with User:HOTR 66.208.54.226 18:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity again

I have taken a look at the wording in this section based on User:68's comments and found it to be both POV and containing weasel words as User:68 identifies. I have tried to improve it, but it needs further work. In particular, the reference to non-white students representing a substantial portion of the class should be substantiated, otherwise it is just conjecture, and should be removed. What does "substantial" mean? Could someone with a recent yearbook do a head-count of the leaving class so that we can have a firm number, rather than something open to interpretation? I have also removed "multi-millionaire" and "jet-setting" as being non-neutral. I think that the replacement wording gets the same point across without the prejudicial words. Ground Zero | t 16:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I've just finished reading the discourse that's gone on over the course of the night and morning. In regards to the Ethnicity section, verifiable edits, and weasel words, I'd just like to make it clear: 1) It wasn't I who created the Ethnicity section, and 2) I tried to edit it as POV-free. If that resulted in weasel words, it wasn't intentional. Regardless, I checked the yearbooks last night, and found that 68.50.242.120 was wrong on both his claims that Motek Sherman's editorial appeared in the '88 and '91 College Times, and in his assertion that Sherman's editorial was about racism. In fact, Sherman did indeed write that he experienced "anti-Semitism, ugliness, stupidity and bureaucracy," but that comment is the only mention of any form of racism. In fact, his article appeared in the 1990 edition, and more complains about the aloofness of the administration and its disregard for students in general as a cause for lack of leadership, commitment and school spirit within the student body. Hardly an exposé on insidious racism. None-the-less, I'll add his comments to the article. --gbambino 17:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

In the context of a higschool yearbook editorial, at a school which is now being theorized for its "codes of silence" by student poststructural commentators in academe, it is *miraculous* that Sherman should have been able to publish even this "aside," which nonetheless verifies that, in his opinion (which the school esteemed enough to grant him the position to write the ediotieal), he experineced "anti-Semitism, ugliness, stupidity and bereaucracy" at the school. More care and thought should go into your response, I feel, than such a dismissive line as this:"Hardly an exposé on insidious racism" -- not conducive to open dialogue. This is baiting, obviously. Are you two playing some kind of troll game?129.128.238.84 17:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not here to get into a dialogue about racism at UCC, I'm here to insert factual information about the school into an online encyclopaedia article. Our personal feelings on the relevancy and importance of the editorial are of no worth here. All that can be done is note his comments in the article, and that's what I'm going to do now. --gbambino 17:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Gambino:

1. I said Motek wrote it in 1988. Someone else (ie not me) said it was 91.
2. Glad to see you at least bothered to do the work to verify something. Seems like you're more than happy to do the work of verification when it squelching as much as possible any charge of racism at UCC. Too bad you explicitly refuse to use that same work ethic to your endless streaming of architectural and monarchy factoids on UCC. But fear not, I'll see what I can do about that if you won't.
3. Fact remains that Motek complained of anti-semitism at the school despite the fact that they let in a token Black and a token Jew in the 1800s. Racism is insidious not because of 1 incident, but because of a series of incidents that are systemically kept hidden. I will do my best to scrounge up every single verifiable charge of racism at UCC until a picture of historical insidious and blatant racism emerges to any impartial reader.
4. While you have the College Times in hand, do me a favor, k? Let us know how many blacks are shown in the Leaving Class pictures? According to http://www.toronto.ca/toronto_facts/diversity.htm, Blacks make up 8% of the Toronto population. How many UCC leaving class students were Black? How many teachers? How many of the top school administrators? Thanks in advance for your cooperation. 66.208.54.226 17:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That the "Jew" and "Black", as you so sensitively put it, were "token" is your opinion. That school photographs are proof of systematic racism is your opinion. I've wasted a lot of my time providing the evidence you so desperately seek above. Now give up yours to back your claims. If you've got proof of systematic racism at the school, as opposed to merely your interpretation, driven by some obvious, and serious, beef with UCC, then let's see it. I'm sure we'd all be glad to, and insert it into the article. --gbambino 17:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

As I've stated before, the absence of blacks or other races is not proof of racism at UCC, but of racism in our society that results in these groups not having the educational and/or financial opportunites that are need to get into UCC. Drawing the conclusion that there isinstitutionalized racism at UCC based on this observatio alone would be POV in my opinion. Ground Zero | t 17:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I simply ask that the # of Black students be published. That is a fact, not an opinion. Draw your own conclusion. Some may find it relevant, some, like you, may find it irrelevent. I believe you're imposing a radical fringe POV to say that the # of Black participants at an institution is irrelevent to the question of whether racism exists at that institution or not. But just know, in a racial or sexual discrimination case, it's required that an audit be performed of the number of minorities or women at different positions of power in the company be reported as well as their salary levels. Even defense attorneys for these defendents of racial or sexual discrimination have given up on arguing that this is irrelevent because it only proves "racism in our society". The fact is that if 8% of Torontoanians are Black, and over a 20 year span, you see that Blacks make up 0.2% of students and 0.4% of teachers and 0% of high level administrators in school the size of UCC, you're telling me that this in NO WAY suggests racism? Like Black parents, compared to white parents, are systematically discouraging their sons from applying to one of the most elite schools in all of Canada? A school that offers financial aid so that even low income Black parents would not see finances as a barrier to access? 66.208.54.226 18:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to weigh in here.

Are you seriously trying to argue, Ground Zero, that although a country or society may be racist, one of its leading educational institutions which, in your own words (or at least Wikipedia article), has "educated many of the country's elite, powerful and wealthy" is not racist because the school did not create a lack of "educational and/or financial opportunities"? Fine. Then what about a more "neutral" statement such as, "In its history, Upper Canada College has never graduated a class which is even remotely representative of Toronto's population, demographically speaking." Then readers can say, "Oh well, maybe that's not because of racial profiling on the part of the school - maybe it's just reflective of a lack of 'educational and/or financial opportunities' in a broader social context".

The reason you won't allow user 66.208.54.226 to put in his observations about the yearbooks is because you know that's pure tripe. Res ipsa loquitur: in law that means, "the fact speaks for itself". And the fact that you will not find more than a token representation of blacks or other minorities in any UCC yearbook "speaks for itself". If you somehow maintain that the fact is ambiguous and open to interpretation, then leave it in and let the reader be the judge. The fact that you are so hell bent on excluding it suggests the contrary, however.

I have no objection to the # of black students, and have not said that. Nor have I disallowed User:68 from including it. There is a general protection on the page to stop the edit war. As you say, the numebr of black students is factual, so there is nothing wrong with including it. What I would object to is drawing strong conclusions from the number. I believe that the low % of black students would be evidence of racism in our society, but not at the school. The large numbers of students of East Asian, South Asian and Jewish backgrounds tell me that there is no systematic discrimination at the school. The fact is that African-Canadians usuallty don't have the money or the educational background to get into the school. that is because they have been discriminated against in Canadian society for, well, ever. And please stop trying to say what I believe. You really don't do a very good job at all of interpreting my comments. Ground Zero | t 18:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Neither do I have an issue if someone wants to insert actual ethnic demographic numbers into the article - I'm sure it would serve to show that the shcool's admission criteria is based mostly on academic ability and financial ability to pay the fees. They most certainly wouldn't prove the existence of racism within the school's administration.

The only thing I'd have to wonder is, would the racial demographics of all Canadian schools have to be inserted into their Wikipedia article, should they have one? Or is all this really driven by a personal bias towards UCC in particular? --gbambino 18:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Need moderator assistance here please. I don't know how to argue with someone who is going to argue black is white and white is black. I just want the #s published without sabotage, squelching or a cover-up. Let people draw their own conclusions. 19:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If the article is to mention anything about UCC racism it is necessary that it is entirely someone's notable and verifiable opinion other than a wikipedia user. The same goes for implying the school is a beacon of multiculturalism.

Re the paragraphy that begins: "Unlike many other Canadian independent schools, UCC has a long history of ethnic students since its founding."

1. Isn't this taking an an unecessary jab at other schools?
2. Is there a precedent for using this particular statistic (having one non-white student in 1831) as a measure of ethnicity?

It seems to me that the most notable information in the section is the quotations regarding the reputation of the school. Is there a notable opinion somewhere stating why it is important that 3 ethnic students were at the school before 1840? I'm not Canadian, so I'm unaware of any culturual obviousness of the statements.

Having said that, 66/68, please cool it and don't make demands of other users or admins. I myself have huge biases here at wikipedia, but I don't appreciate having them thrown in my face and I imagine Gbambino doesn't either. As a part of this community we all are equally responsible for ensuring it is a civil and non-divisive environment. This discussion will take time to resolve and it will happen a lot quicker if we focus on one issue at a time. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 21:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You raise some good points, and I've edited the section to hopefully rid it of some of the bias you mention. In regards to the inclusion of the early examples of minorities attending the school, I think that if we are to include the school's reputation as a WASP institution (which I believe is true), then we should also mention that the school has always admitted minorities into its enrolment (which I believe is also true). Perhaps "Ethnicity" isn't the best heading for the section. --gbambino 22:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. The opening sentence is still a little weaselly. I think the following might be an improvement to the opening sentence:

• For many years UCC has maintained a reputation as a "bastion of WASP privilege. ^[1] even though ethnic students first attended the school as early as 1831. (with appropriate ammendments to other paragraphs)

As I raised before, I believe the reputation of UCC is the most relevant assertion about ethnicity. It doesn't matter whether 1 or 100 ethnic students attended. The reputation (i.e. the notability) is what we are reporting on wikipedia. It's very useful supplementary information that 3 ethnic students had attended by 1840, but certainly supplementary. All of this information should be supported by citations, as Homey suggests. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 00:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If the article discusses racism and/or anti-semitism at UCC it should reflect existing citations rather than try to conduct original research into demographics. Wasn't there a book published recently consisting of essays by UCC grads, at least one of whom reflected on his experiences of anti-Semitism? That sort of information can be referenced as can published statistics (if there are any) on the racial composition of UCC. However, we should be careful to put in notable examples of what would now be called anti-racism by UCC such as allowing in Jewish refugees (most notably Peter C. Newman) as students at a time when many private schools were "restricted". I don't know if UCC has racist admission practices or not - we shouldn't speculate. If there is evidence that they might, whether it be, say, complaints to the Human Rights Commission, lawsuits, complaints by anti-racist groups or published recollections by individuals then we can include this. If it's just a perception by editors that pictures of UCC classes look awfully white, that's POV. Homey 22:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Strangely, I've just come across the comments you speak about: Graham Fraser, Globe and Mail Washington Bureau Chief, in James Fitzgerald's book Old Boys (which is used as a source in many parts of this article). There's another quote by James George, a diplomat. I'll try and insert them. --gbambino 22:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

A good start. I'm going to take a back seat now that an agreed mediator has arrived. Best wishes to all writing this article. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 00:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you clarify how you know that an agreed mediator has arrived? (Sorry, I'm newb). Thanks.66.208.54.226 01:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. User Homey has arrived to this talk page (above) as an unbiased administrator. It seems to me you are feeling a little apprehensive about this and would perhaps like me to stick around for a little longer. So I will. This page is on my watch list. I would appreciate any feedback you can give on my advocacy on my talk page. I have requested your list of WP:V issues being partially addressed after the ethnicity section has been discussed. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 01:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Metta Bubble for your assistance. I will submit feedback on your talk page and restate a summary of my outstanding objections on this article sometime tomorrow. 66.208.54.226 03:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, good. Feel free to use my talk page if you want to workshop the objections before bringing them here. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 04:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I'm a mediator per se (I'm not a member of the mediation committee in any case). I'm happy to give my opinion, FWIW. I'm really not clear on what specifically this dispute is about. Can someone point me to some edit diffs that show what phrases/points are in contention?Homey 04:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not able to supply that but would also appreciate it. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 04:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Dispute summary

I might venture to say that the dispute revolves around 66.208.54.226's insertion of the following points on March 13:

Still, despite the "success stories" of Upper Canada College admitting token Black, Asian, Amerindian and Jewish students up until the 1990s, UCC maintained a reputation as a "bastion of WASP privilege."

Anecdotal examples of deep-seated insidious racism at the school in the 1980s included:

• Headmaster Barton, a wealthy heterosexaul white male, lectured during a morning Prayers service in 1987 that he understood the pain of being on the receiving end of racism because one time, while in the Caribbean, he was called "Whitey".
• Motek Sherman, the Editor of the school's yearbook The College Times in 1988, wrote an introductory essay decrying the institutional racism he had endured at the school as a Jew.
• Taking a cursory look at the photographss of students in The College Times from the 1950s to the 1970s will demonstrate, even to the casual observer, that there was a disproportionaly low number of Blacks, Jews, Asians and Amerindians. In the 1980s, the number of "wealthy model minorities" such as the Jews and Asians increased. 1

66.208.54.226's actions include:

• Violation of WP:NPOV by inserting original research which lacks credible sources.
• Violation of WP:NPA as demonstrated on these talk pages.
• Violation of Wikipedia:No legal threats as demonstrated on these talk pages.
• Violation of Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point by repeatedly vandalising the article through removing large sections of text.
• Violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith by admitting his mission is to "expose that UCC was not a racist-free playground nor even a paragon of diversity" 2, as well as providing contradictory, and incorrect, sources for information: 3

I have made the effort to find the actual source of his insertion about Motek Sherman, and this has been included in the article. Other words on UCC's demographics and anti-Semitism have been inserted as well. --gbambino 05:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

ROFL, this is not a "Dispute Summary", this is a personal attack on a poor noob. You should retitle this section "Every Possible Argument I Can Think Of To Convince Admins To Ban 66 - a Wiki Noob - While Ignoring Every Edit I Have Subsequently Been Forced To Make to this Article about UCC at the Command of Admins Because of 66's Ultimately Constructive Criticism". As I said yesterday, I will submit a summary of my outstanding objections to this article later today. 68.50.242.120 10:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Gbambino, I wish you would have a go at providing us outsiders with what you consider to be a more neutral summary. I think some of your comments are hard to sift through for information because they focus so much on the person and so little on the article. Is it at all possible you can have a go at phrasing your understanding of 68's objections to the article in your own words? If you have time I would appreciate it. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 12:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you're confusing 66.208.54.226's personal insults and mud-slinging as being mine? But, alright, let me try and be more clear: as I understand it, "68's" objection is that this article doesn't focus enough on what he perceives to be institutional racism inherent amongst the administration and students of Upper Canada College. After being challenged on his POV edits, and asked to provide sources to back up his hearsay and conjecture, he proceeded to valdalise the page and launch into personal attacks against myself, and User:CambridgeBayWeather. My objection is that his edits violate WP:NPOV through inserting original research which lacks credible sources, as well as his edits being in bad faith by his admission that he wants to "expose" the "ugly underbelly" of systematic racism at UCC. That's as neutral as I can be in this case. --gbambino 16:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The list of violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines should only be viewed as a list of areas where the new user should reconsider his/her approach to editing and as a list of Wikipedia articles he/she should review in order to learn more about how to work in Wikipedia.

New users almost always make mistakes of this sort. It takes a while to learn how to use Wikipedia, and we have to give new users a fair degree of slack, while nudging them firmly in the direction of the conformance with Wikipedia norms.

This is why it would be very useful for the new user(s) to register with Wikipedia and make their contributions while logged in. This makes it easier for other users to communicate directly with the new users and help them learn how things are done here. The Wikipedia policies and guidelines are designed to help users work together collaboratively to improve Wikipedia, and avoid the confrontation and acrimony that I am confident has been vexing to participants on all sides here.

I want to point out to the new user(s) that several changes have been made to the article by other other parties to reflect valid points that you have raised. And I think that Gbmbino has demonstrated good faith by providing references for a large number of the 96 points that you have raised.

I want to assure the new user(s) that Wikipedia editing is only rarely this contentious -- Wikipedia is usually and fun and educatoinal experience for users. Please join us by registering. Ground Zero | t 12:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

A Neutrally Written Dispute Summary

I have 2 outstanding objections to the article:

1. UNVERIFIED STATEMENTS: Unverified statements remain in the article which is a violation of the Wiki Editorial Policy of Verifiability
2. ADMIN REJECTION OF WIKI POLICY: Admin Ground Zero has acknowledged that these unverified statements exist in the article and has refused to apply the Wiki Editorial Policy of Verifiability

Allow me to go into more detail on each point.

1. UNVERIFIED STATEMENTS:

• VERIFIABILITY IS IMPORTANT: The Wiki Editorial Policy of Verifiability is one of the 3 canonical content rules of Wiki.
• VERIFIABILITY NEEDED FOR ERROR REDUCTION: Gbambino had indicated that the school mascot was the Cookie Monster because he had once seen some guy in a blue suit at a UCC sports event. I pointed out to him that it was unlikely that Sesame Workshop would license the Canadian rights to Cookie Monster to a school to use as a mascot. He later excised the mascot issue out of the article. This error on Gbambino's part would never have happened had he bothered to verify this statement as he is supposed to do under the Wiki Editorial Policy of Verifiability. Who knows what other errors remain in the article because nobody has verified them or sourced them?
• VERIFIABILITY NEEDED FOR COPYRIGHT COMPLIANCE: He indicated that many of these statements came from 1 book. If this is the case, then this would be a violation of Fair Use of copywritten material according to the 5 tests of Fair Use indicated at http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectID/C3E49F67-1AA3-4293-9312FE5C119B5806/310/276/240/ART. If many of his statements are coming from multiple sources, then there is no Fair Use problem. The problem is that we cannot tell if many of these statements came from 1 source or many sources because he refuses to source.
• EDITOR WAS GIVEN FAIR NOTICE OF LACK OF COMPLIANCE: I have identified in the section above called "Sourcing" 96 statements he made that were unsourced. And this not cover the entire article. He refuses to source each of the 96 statements.
• REMEDY RECOMMENDED: Gbambino should source every single statement. If he cannot or will not source a statement, then it should be deleted otherwise it will be a violation of the Wiki Editorial Policy of Verifiability. This policy makes for NO exceptions. It does NOT leave room open for any statements to remain in the Wiki without it being verified.

2. ADMIN REJECTION OF WIKI POLICY:

• IMPORTANCE OF VERIFIABILITY: The Wiki Editorial Policy of Verifiability is one of the 3 canonical content rules of Wiki.
• NO EXCEPTIONS FOR VERIFIABILITY: The Wiki Editorial Policy of Verifiability does not allow for exceptions to allow certain statements to remain in Wiki on an unverified basis.
• EVEN HANDED & CONSISTENT APPLICATION BY ADMINS: The Admin must enforce all 3 canonical Wiki Editorial Policies Verifiability, NPOV and No Original Research even if they do not agree with them.
• ADMIN REJECTS VERIFIABILITY POLICY: Admin Ground Zero has acknowledged that many of the statements in the article are unverified. He refuses to force the editor Gbambino to source his statements. He refuses to delete unverified statements that Gbambino fails to source. Instead Ground Zero chose to lock the article to stop me from deleting any unverified statements in the article. My actions conformed with the Wiki Editorial Policy of Verifiability and he sabotaged my attempt to conform with Wiki policy.
• REMEDY RECOMMENDED: Demotion of Ground Zero from Admin to regular user with no privileges for at least 1 year. 66.208.54.226 15:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Ground Zero's response

1. UNVERIFIED STATEMENTS:

VERIFIABILITY NEEDED FOR COPYRIGHT COMPLIANCE: Gbambino has included other sources, not just the one book. I have reviewed the link provided by the anon user, and in my opinion, Gbambino’s work does not violate the rules set out there.

• EDITOR WAS GIVEN FAIR NOTICE OF LACK OF COMPLIANCE: He has now sourced many of the 96 references, including several that were not his own edits.
• REMEDY RECOMMENDED: Gbambino has spent a lot of time providing sources for many of the items in question, and should be thanked for this work. Further, he should be given adequate time to look for sources for other items.

2. ADMIN REJECTION OF WIKI POLICY:

ADMIN REJECTS VERIFIABILITY POLICY: I do not reject the verifiability policy. I reject the rigorous and absolute application of it that the anon user is demanding because the anon user is not demanding it to improve the article or to remove parts hat he questions. He is doing so in order to make a point. This is disruptive to Wikipedia, and would not improve the article. Gbambino has demonstrated good faith by sourcing many of the 96 items. Gbambino and I have both made changes to the article to reflect the anon user’s problems with the article where we have concluded that he was raising good points.

I semi-protected the article in order to stop the revert war that was going on. I have invited other administrators to try to help resolve the dispute. One of these administrators I invited only after getting the agreement of the anon editor. Neither of these administrators has seen fit to lift the semi-protection. I also posted a general request for assistance in resolving this dispute on the administrators’ notice board. It does not appear that any other administrator has chosen to participate, however. In addition, I asked a member’s advocate, MetaBubble, who was intervening on behalf o the anon editor, to provide advice on my response to the situation. S/he did not find fault with my actions in this dispute. If other administrators or advocates have advice for me on how I could have handled this better, I would be pleased to hear it.

REMEDY RECOMMENDED: There is a process for demoting administrators. I do not know if unregistered users can nominate admins for demotion or not. The anon user, or a registered user working on his or her behalf, may choose to pursue this if s/he chooses. If I understand the process correctly, and I don’t guarantee that I do, admin demotions can only be done through Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Before we get to arbitration, however, we would have to take this to a formal Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. If that fails, it could then go to arbitration and demotion could be considered by the Arbitration Committee. Ground Zero | t 16:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

66 RESPONSE TO GROUND ZERO

"He has now sourced many of the 96 references, including several that were not his own edits." I disagree entirely. For example, just take a look at the very first paragraph and first footnote: Upper Canada College (UCC) is an all-male elementary and secondary school in Toronto, Canada, the oldest independent school in the province of Ontario, and the third oldest school in Canada. It is widely considered the leading school in Canada. It has educated many of the country's elite, powerful and wealthy and declares its goals to be "trust and honesty, respect for others, respect for property, self-respect, and caring." [1] The footnote references https://www.ucc.on.ca/podium/default.aspx?t=7170. Here's the problem. The footnote does not support the contention that:

• UCC is all-male
• UCC has an elementary school
• UCC has a secondary school
• UCC is in Toronto, Canada
• UCC is the oldest independent school in the province of Ontario
• UCC is the third oldest school in Canada
• UCC is widely considered the leading school in Canada
• UCC has educated many of the country's elite, powerful and wealthy and declares

That footnote ONLY verifies the contention that it declares its goals to be "trust and honesty, respect for others, respect for property, self-respect, and caring." And that is just the first paragraph. For example. Nevermind the rest of the article. So how can you say that he has sourced many of his 96 references? He has not.

"I do not reject the verifiability policy. I reject the rigorous and absolute application of it that the anon user is demanding" Allow me to quote from you the Wiki policy on Verifiability:

• The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth
• This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.
• Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus.
• If the article has many unsourced statements that have been there a long time, you may request sources on the talk page before removing them, unless the article or information is about a living person, in which case remove the unsourced information.

I don't know how many times I have to say this and in how many ways I have to say this. Verifiability is a non-negotiable rule. There are no exceptions. My motives for seeking its application are entirely irrelevent. The consequences of its application as you see it are entirely irrelevent. If you refuse to remove unverified material, you are violating Verifiability. It's very simple. There is no room for negotiation on this. 66.208.54.226 18:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you really questioning the veracity of "UCC is all-male, UCC has an elementary school, UCC has a secondary school, UCC is in Toronto, Canada, UCC is the oldest independent school in the province of Ontario"? If so, you have demonstrated that you are really just trying to disrupt Wikipedia in order to prove a point. I really think you should take a break from Wikipedia to calm down. This is not reasonable behaviour.

Furthermore, this information is easily found on the UCC site (see here). Gbambino provided a link to one only page on the site, but it is not unreasonable to ask you to look around a bit once you're there. You are being disingenuous in saying "That footnote ONLY verifies the contention that it declares its goals to be "trust and honesty, respect for others, respect for property, self-respect, and caring."" The information is clearly on the UCC website, and I suspect a lot more of the information you have challenged. This reinforces the perception that I have that you are just harrassing us and causing trouble because you are unhappy. I will leave it to others to determine whether your determination to distrupt Wikipedia to get revenge for being asked to source your assertions should be accomodated or not. Ground Zero | t 18:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

66'S REPLY

Are you really questioning the veracity of "UCC is all-male, UCC has an elementary school, UCC has a secondary school, UCC is in Toronto, Canada, UCC is the oldest independent school in the province of Ontario"? Verifiability... no exceptions. None. Nada. (Remember how Gbambino wanted me to verify that Principal Barton, with his wife and kids, was heterosexual?) Plus I want verification that UCC is the 3rd oldest in Canada or the oldest independent school in Ontario or considered a leading school. Don't you want to question the veracity of that too?

If so, you have demonstrated that you are really just trying to disrupt Wikipedia in order to prove a point. I really think you should take a break from Wikipedia to calm down. This is not reasonable behaviour. You're violating the policy on Assume good faith. And you're an Admin. I'm disappointed.

Furthermore, this information is easily found on the UCC site Really? Please tell me on the site where it says that UCC is 3rd oldest in Canada or the oldest independent school in Ontario or considered a leading school. If it is on the site, then why not just footnote the exact URL? (Other than just laziness or sloppiness)66.208.54.226 18:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Requesting verification that Barton is heterosexual is just as bad as requesting verification that UUC is in Toronto. So what have you proved? That such requests are counter-productive and contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, so please stop making them, and if Gbambino or anyone else makes a similar request in the future, I will tell him the same thing.

You have now demonstrated repeatedly that you are not working in good faith, and that you are assuming that otehrs are working bad faith, so I am not violating the policy. I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt several times, but you continue to violate most of the policies that I have advised you about.

Since you have made request for verification of things that are verified on a website that has been provided to you, and since you are making requests for verification only to prove a point and not because you question the facts, you are being disruptive. You are taking up other Wikipedians' time and energy for no good end. I am going to do my best to leave things at that. There is no requirement that Admins or editors pander to people who are just trying to be disruptive because they are being allowed to write whatever they want. Ground Zero | t 19:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The Barton heterosexual thing was a bit of tongue-in-cheek on my part. I just thought it an unnecessary element of an unnecessary, and completely unfounded edit. In retrospect, had I known it would be taken so seriously (indeed, had I known this whole thing would degenerate so quickly), I'd never have said it. I apologise. --gbambino 19:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Moderator, need your help please. This Admin:

• Continues to insist that he can unilaterally determine and approve exceptions to the Verifiability policy despite (1) my extensive quotations above directly from the policy which prove there are no exceptions and (2) my case study showing that lack of Verifiability in this article on UCC has lead to factual errors and (3) my argument that quoting so much material from one source has opened up a potential violation of Fair Use in copyright law.
• Continues to conveniently ignore contentions made by Gbambino that are unsourced, such as UCC being the 3rd oldest school in Canada.
• Continues to accuse me for the 2nd time in a row, despite warnings, of ill intentions in violation of Assume good faith

Perhaps the Admin Ground Zero should step back from the discussion until he can calm his nerves? 66.208.54.226 19:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Continues to insist that he can unilaterally determine and approve exceptions to the Verifiability policy

Ground Zero has addressed this more than once here. Stop ignoring his logic, which is quite clear and understandable.

Contentions made by Gbambino that are unsourced, such as UCC being the 3rd oldest school in Canada

Stop assuming I wrote the entire article. That UCC is the 3rd oldest school in Canada is not my contention. As well, what I did insert is indeed sourced, and those sources have been presented to you more than once. Instead of whining on and on 'till everyone does your work for you, how about you make the effort to look through the UCC website, as well as the other sources, to find where that information comes from. Just because it isn't laid before you on a silver platter doesn't mean it isn't there.

Quoting so much material from one source has opened up a potential violation of Fair Use in copyright law

There are three or four quotes from the source in question. Hardly "so much material." If you mean that because some of the article's information on the history of the school is sourced from Howard's book the article is therefore in violation of copyright law, then you clearly, as I've mentioned below, haven't even bothered to pick up the book, see the volume of it, and compare what's in the article to Howard's work.

It's obvious you're only here to waste our time, due to nothing more than a grudge over the fact that you weren't allowed to use Wikipedia as a platform, in violation of Wikipedia is not a soapbox policy, from which you could express your fanciful, personal view that UCC is an inherently racist institution. --gbambino 19:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I have now provided a source for the "oldest school in Ontario" point. Now maybe you can demonstrate good faith by doing one yourself. Ground Zero | t 19:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"It's obvious you're only here to waste our time... you weren't allowed to use Wikipedia... in violation of Wikipedia is not a soapbox policy... you could express your fanciful, personal view...." gbambino, you are in violation of the assume good faith policy and the personal attacks policy. I refuse to respond in kind since such a response would itself be a violation of Wiki policy. Even a relative new noob like me knows that. 66.208.54.226 19:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Gbambino's response

1. UNVERIFIED STATEMENTS:

• VERIFIABILITY NEEDED FOR ERROR REDUCTION: Firstly, it should be noted that I did not originally insert the Cookie Monster as the school mascot. Secondly, I did not indicate the school mascot was the Cookie Monster because I had seen someone dressed in a Cookie Monster costume at some football games. Rather, what was stated was that I had seen someone in a Cookie Monster costume at some football games, and therefore the school mascot might be the Cookie Monster. Further, the fact that the edit had remained there for some weeks, and was never questioned by numerous editors, aided in the possibility that it might be true that the Cookie Monster was the school mascot. However, after 68.50.242.120 raised issue with the edit, it was removed by me due to a lack of evidence of what the school mascot actually was.

I might also note that 68.50.242.120 reinserted a number of times that the school mascot was the O RLY owl, which is highly doubtful, and still remains without verification.

• VERIFIABILITY NEEDED FOR COPYRIGHT COMPLIANCE: A good chunk of information within the article was gathered from one book: Upper Canada College, 1829-1979: Colborne's Legacy; Howard, Richard; Macmillan Company of Canada, 1979. However, there is no breach of copyright as there has been no plagerism. As well, there are many other sources for the information in this article aside from the Howard book. Those sources are provided within the footnotes section.

• EDITOR WAS GIVEN FAIR NOTICE OF LACK OF COMPLIANCE: Those sources were provided both on this talk page, where I even sourced edits that weren't mine, as well as in the footnotes section of the article.

2. ADMIN REJECTION OF WIKI POLICY:

• EVEN HANDED & CONSISTENT APPLICATION BY ADMINS: The Admin should most certainly enforce Verifiability, NPOV and No Original Research. However, 68.50.242.120 should be aware that the same rules apply to her/him. His/her original edits did not conform to any of the three above mentioned Wikipedia policies.

• ADMIN REJECTS VERIFIABILITY POLICY: The Admin has acted within policy guidelines, and in not only in a fair, but also amicable manner. His move to lock the article was to stop vandalism and disruption of Wikipedia in an effort to make a point.

• REMEDY RECOMMENDED: Annon. user 68.50.242.120 should register with a proper user name and associated talk page. He/she should also provide sources for his/her edits, keep them NPOV, and learn to edit in good faith. --gbambino 17:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

66'S RESPONSE TO GBAMBINO

"A good chunk of information within the article was gathered from one book: Upper Canada College, 1829-1979: Colborne's Legacy; Howard, Richard; Macmillan Company of Canada, 1979." Per the website I referenced, http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectID/C3E49F67-1AA3-4293-9312FE5C119B5806/310/276/240/ART, here is why I believe your actions constitute a violation of Fair Use:

There are five basic rules to keep in mind when deciding whether or not a particular use of an author's work is a fair use:

Rule 1: Are You Creating Something New or Just Copying? The question to ask here is whether you are merely copying someone else's work verbatim or instead using it to help create something new. The Supreme Court calls such a new work "transformative." The more transformative your work, the more likely your use is a fair use.

Your use of the Howard's book is not transformative in any way.

Rule 2: Are Your Competing With the Source You're Copying From? Without consent, you ordinarily cannot use another person's protected expression in a way that impairs (or even potentially impairs) the market for his or her work. Thus, if you want to use an author's protected expression in a work of your own that is similar to the prior work and aimed at the same market, your intended use isn't likely a fair use.

Realistically, I believe your use of the copywritten material renders the book unnecessary for purchase except for the most fanatical of academics.

Rule 3: Giving the Author Credit Doesn't Let You Off the Hook. Some people mistakenly believe that they can use any material as long as they properly give the author credit. Not true. Giving credit and fair use are completely separate concepts. Either you have the right to use another author's material under the fair use rule or you don't. The fact that you attribute the material to the other author doesn't change that.

Sorry, use of footnotes won't save you from violations of Fair Use.

Rule 4: The More You Take, the Less Fair Your Use Is Likely to Be. The more material you take, the less likely it is that your use will be a fair use. As a general rule, never quote more than a few successive paragraphs from a book or article, or take more than one chart or diagram. Many publishers require their authors to obtain permission from an author to quote more then a specified number of words, ranging from about 100 to 1000 words. Contrary to what many people believe, there is no absolute word limit on fair use. For example, it is not always okay to take one paragraph of less than 200 words.

You're not using a snippet of the book for the UCC article. A great chunk of this very long article on UCC comes from this one book.

Rule 5: The Quality of the Material Used Is as Important as the Quantity. The more important the material is to the original work, the less likely your use of it will be considered a fair use. In one famous case, The Nation magazine obtained a copy of Gerald Ford's memoirs before their publication. In the magazine's article about the memoirs, only 300 words from Ford's 200,000-word manuscript were quoted verbatim. The Supreme Court ruled that this was not a fair use because the material quoted (dealing with the Nixon pardon) was the "heart of the book ... the most interesting and moving parts of the entire manuscript," and that pre-publication disclosure of this material would cut into value or sales of the book.

You take the juiciest, most salient parts of the book and dump them into this article.

I recommend that you source everything in the UCC article and then seek permission from Wiley (the publishing company). Or just delete it all if you can't be bothered to properly source and seek permissions. 66.208.54.226 18:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you even bothered to look at a copy of the book? Have you compared the contents of Howard's 300+ page history of UCC to what's in this article? I think I know the answer based on your ridiculous assertion that this free Wikipedia article renders purchasing the book obsolete. Stop wasting our time. --gbambino 18:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia. I have followed this dispute and the resulting posts on the UCC page with some interest. I am an old boy of the school. Yesterday I intervened in this dialogue to support what I perceived to be a valid point by user 68. I don't personally know any of the parties to this dispute and am unfamiliar with the hierarchy at Wikipedia (Admins, User advocates, etc.). What I do know is that in response to my comments, user Ground Zero had the following to say: "please stop trying to say what I believe. You really don't do a very good job at all of interpreting my comments."

I would point out that this was the first and only time that I had posted any comments. What I find disturbing about Ground Zero's commentary is that it illustrates precisely the problem with this ongoing dialogue: it is no longer about attempting to create an objective entry about an important subject in the style of an on-line encyclopedia. It is now about personal biases and POVs.

I have read the current posting of the UCC article on "Ethnicity". I assume this reflects the latest changes by gBambino. While, to his credit, it does now include reference to racism and prejudices exprienced by old boys, an objective observer cannot help but be left with the impression that these problems are now fixed and of no consequence. You are all educated people - to suggest otherwise is really nothing more than an exercise in semantics.

It is a shame - and I direct these comments to Meta Bubble because it is the only party that seems to have a balanced and objective voice in this discussion - but it is evident that this process has been hijacked by gBambino and Ground Zero. If you want to create an article that expresses their personal views about UCC, then you can congratulate yourselves. Mission accomplished. But this is not an article that would appear in any respected printed publication.38.112.100.158 18:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused as to how you will defend one anonymous users highly biased, and completely unsourced edits, while admonishing those whose edits are cited and completely NPOV. All that's now been placed in the Ethnicity section is cited statements by various people in regard to their experiences at, or opinions of, the school in relation to ethnic demographics of the student body or bigotry. Any interpretation of these comments is yours to make, but we can't say there's an ongoing practice of systematic racism at UCC until there is verifyable proof of some sort. So far there is none. If you feel that Ground Zero's and my disallowance of 68.50.242.120's POV, original research, bad faith edits is somehow a sign of hijacking the article then you're clearly not familiar with Wikipedia policy. This isn't to say I blame you, it took time for me to learn them as well, but please don't cast stones until you're familiar with the debate here, and the larger context of Wikipedia in which it is taking place. --gbambino 19:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"I would point out that this was the first and only time that I had posted any comments. " My mistake. I apologise for assuming that you were the same person as the other anon editor. I do believe that you misrepresented what I was saying, but I accept that you were doing so for the first time, and that it is another anon editor who was doing it on previous occasions. I should have checked the IP numbers more carefully, and given you the benefit of the doubt.

Having said that, I think that you will find that my edits to this article have been primarily of a copyediting nature, and removing opinion and bias where I can find it. I do not have an agenda here. The other anon editor, however, has identified what his mission is here, and has been trying to impose his view on the article. I have been trying to let in only those statements of his that can be verified. I have also removed statements incorporated by other editors that the anon editor correctly identified as being non-neutral. Ground Zero | t 19:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

WormwoodJagger

I hate to do this GroundZero and Gbambino, since it seems like you are getting it from all sides here by people who are outraged about something outside of your work on this page, but there are two points I'd raise in response to this. First, it would seem that there is a POV creeping into the Ethnicity section. You do, indeed, cite, but you contextualize your citations within an obvious point of view. In the following passage, the term "however" should probably be exised to maintain objectivity:

Motek Sherman, the editor of the school's yearbook The College Times in 1990, wrote an editorial stating that while UCC was no longer "a white-bread, right-wing fortress: it has become much more multi-cultural and (dare I say it?) liberal... In my years at UCC I have faced anti-Semitism, ugliness, stupidity and bureaucracy." [13] However, diplomat James George, a student between 1926 and 1936, said upon reflection about his time with other UCC graduates in the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs: "If UCC really was a womb matrix for a bunch of WASP patriots, why did it produce so many internationalists?" [14]

Furthermore, I'm not sure that citing someone's POV on their experience at a school which predates what precedes the citation by almost a full half century is really all that relevant. The implication is that the final citation refutes or even balances what precedes the citation. Is the citation relevant? I'm not sure how it fits.

Secondly: As for the question of "hijacking" the page. I would simply note that -- I'm sure in good faith -- since the semi-protection, only GroundZero and Gbambino have consistently edited the page. This does seem a tad one-sided.

I suppose my abiding interest here is not simply in Wikipedia's standards -- since reading an article, I've been interested in this experiment -- but, more to the point, how those standards are applied. As an old boy, I happened upon this article, and am now following this debate with only this in mind (I am yet to be convinced that UCC is racist, or that Sherman's comments were anything more than the overstated position of a young man).

This all said, I think everyone's work here is commendable, as the tone has certainly resided from virulence to reasoned debate now. WormwoodJagger 20:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with you about the "however" and the positioning of the two comments. Perhaps we should include both, without trying to relate the two. As far as semi-protection is concerned, I think it is clear from one anon user's tone here, the article would very quickly return to the revert war the existed prior to the semi-protection in which s/he was deleted large blocks of text to make a point. Any registered user who has been around for a while is free to edit. Furthermore, when anon editors have made valid points on the talk page, Gbambino and I have been incorporating them. Ground Zero | t 20:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I have re-ordered the comments (see this change) into a purely chronological order. I don't think the section flows as well, but we avoid the appearance that the comments have been juxtaposed in order to lead the reader to draw certain conclusions. I made some other changes that I hope will make the section more factual, and more objective. Ground Zero | t 20:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll be the first to say that the section is far from perfect. Personally, between arguing here and trying to pay attention to the work I get paid for, I haven't had a lot of time to finesse the wording of the segment in question. My main goal, of course, was to reflect the balance which comes out of the various contrasting facts and comments. In the absence of incontrovertible data that UCC is skewed one way or the other, I think that's all we can do. Assistance is of course welcome, and as a registered user you have the capability to edit the article - it was only blocked from edits by anonymous users. --gbambino 20:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The grammar and style will certainly have to be fixed. But I think this is a much more objective approach.38.112.100.158 20:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

What a bunch of hogwash. Just old boys slapping themselves on the back. Hope you feel better about disregarding user 66/68s legitimate comments about failing to adhere to your own policies. Funny. What I despised about UCC is exactly what I despise about this forum: pretending to be objective when you are anything but!38.112.100.158 20:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you please indicate in what way you think the ethnicity section of the article as it now stands is not objective so that we can discuss that? Thanks. Ground Zero | t 21:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, Ground Zero. As may be evident by the sudden shift in tone, that was not me but a colleague of mine. I stand by my earlier comments.38.112.100.158 21:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• No need to apologise. I figured that that is what happened. One of the many benefits of user registration is vaoiding this type of misunderstanding. Ground Zero | t 21:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

What's going on here? Anonymous users with multiple personalities, anonymous users who claim to be Old Boys who left the school in '91 (and therefore should be at least 25 years old) but have a distinct lack of ability to engage in mature dialogue and use childish terms like "O RLY" and "kthxbye", anonymous users who argue endlessly about systematic racism at UCC but who still fail to support their assertions with verifiable sources...? I'm starting to get images in my head of pimply-faced kids sitting around the UCC (or maybe Appleby?) computer lab getting a real kick out of sucking up all this time and energy for nothing but their own infantile entertainment. Am I the only one who's starting to find this all really suspicious? --gbambino 21:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

WormwoodJagger: This all said, I think everyone's work here is commendable, as the tone has certainly resided from virulence to reasoned debate now. ROFL. Do you call the personal attacks and violations of assume good faith used against me by Ground Zero and gbambino as "reasoned debate"? Personally, I want to make personal attacks and not assume good faith against you, but that would be a violation of Wiki policy. Too bad it applies to me but not Ground Zero or gbambino.... 66.208.54.226 21:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

66.208.54.226: Given your record on this page, you don't have a leg to stand on! GroundZero and Gbambino have done their best, repeatedly, to accomodate your position with regards to UCC and ethnicity IN THE CONTEXT OF WIKIPEDIA! If, as you write, Wiki policy applies to you but not to GroundZero or Gbambino, why not register? unsigned comment by User:WormwoodJagger

Worm: please don't forget to sign your comments with four tildes. Thanks.

User:66: from Wikipedia:Assume good faith: "Yelling "Assume Good Faith" at people does not excuse you from explaining your actions, and making a habit of it will convince people that you're acting in bad faith." I am referring to your insistence on removing large parts of text not to improve the article but to make a point. Ground Zero | t 21:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Good! It would seem, then, that we can now unblock the page!WormwoodJagger 15:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Wormwood, I don't follow your logic, and I do not think it would be appropriate to unprotect the page. The anon user has not shown that s/he understands all of the problems that s/he has caused or the inapprpriateness of his/her behaviour on many of the points that have been raised. I think that unprotecting now would return us to a counter-productive revert war. I recognize, however, that I am too close to this matter to be completely objective, and would respect the decision of another admin to unprotect. Ground Zero | t 15:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

GroundZero: so that's where this commetn went. Sorry, see below.WormwoodJagger 16:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Disruptiveness

Some relevant points from Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point:

If someone deletes information about a person you consider to be important from an article, calling it unimportant...

• do argue on the article's talk page for the person's inclusion, pointing out that other information about people is included in the article.
• don't delete all the information about every person from the article, calling it unimportant.

There is a direct parallel between this example and what User:66/68 has been doing. After Gbambino removed texzt that the anon user had added and requested a source for the additions, the anon user removed large portions of text and insisted that they be sourced, including really obvious bits like UCC being located in Toronto.

Egregious disruption of any kind is blockable by any administrator — for up to one month in the case of repeat offenses that are highly disruptive.

This is the basis for semi-protection of the article. because the anon user is not registered and edits from different IP numbers, it is not possible to block him/her. Semi-protection, unfortunately, prevents other unregistered users from editing, but protects Wikipedia from 66/68's disruptive behaviour. Ground Zero | t 22:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Some comments

Re the following passages (comments interspersed):

Still, despite the "success stories" of Upper Canada College admitting token Black, Asian, Amerindian and Jewish students up until the 1990s, UCC maintained a reputation as a "bastion of WASP privilege."

Comment: the use of "scare quotes" is unencyclopedic. One should only use quotation marks when one is referencing a real quotation, not for emphasis, sarcasm or to make a rhetorical point. Second, the reference to "token Black, Asian, Amerind and Jewish students" is a POV. If you can find a source that uses the term "token" to describe these students then reference it. Otherwise, its the editor's opinion an shouldn't be in the article. I would not be surprised to learn that the phrase "bastion of WASP privilege" has been used to describe UCC (indeed, it's a phrase I could easily have used myself) but a) if it's an actual quotation then there should be a reference b) if it's the editor's opinion it shoudn't be included unless there is a reference to back it up. Addendum I see that "bastion of WASP privilege" is now footnoted as an honest to goodness quotation. Good.

Anecdotal examples of deep-seated insidious racism at the school in the 1980s included:

Comment:The phrase "deep-seated insidious racism" is POV. Cite an actual use of this phrase to describe UCC or drop it.

• Headmaster Barton, a wealthy heterosexaul white male, lectured during a morning Prayers service in 1987 that he understood the pain of being on the receiving end of racism because one time, while in the Caribbean, he was called "Whitey".

Comment:1) a source is needed. 2) wikipedia articles are not argumentative essays so they should not be written as such. 3) "wealthy heterosexual white male" belabours the point. In any case, I think readers can deduce on their own that Barton is white from the rest of the paragaraph. 4)calling him heterosexual makes an assumption beyond the reach of wikipedia.

If there is a citation for Barton having made the statement, I think the above bullet should be rewritten to read something along the lines of:

• During his lecture at a morning paryer service in 1987, Headmaster Barton claimed that he understood the pain of being on the receiving end of racism because he was called "Whitey" when he was in the Caribbean.

• Motek Sherman, the Editor of the school's yearbook The College Times in 1988, wrote an introductory essay decrying the institutional racism he had endured at the school as a Jew.

Comment': I haven't read the essay so I can't say if the term "institutional racism" is Sherman's analysis or that of the editor. If the latter, it shouldn't be used.

• Taking a cursory look at the photographss of students in The College Times from the 1950s to the 1970s will demonstrate, even to the casual observer, that there was a disproportionaly low number of Blacks, Jews, Asians and Amerindians. In the 1980s, the number of "wealthy model minorities" such as the Jews and Asians increased.

Comment: This looks like original research to me. Also, I seriously doubt the methodology of counting the number of Jews by looking at a photograph just as I'd doubt anyone who says they can count the number of Catholics by this method. Unless UCC had a policy of forcing Jews to wear yellow stars on their clothing I don't see how this can be done. Or is the editor asserting that some students "look Jewish"? If so, I would challenge his credibility when it comes to calling others on their racism. (Note: Various anti-Semitic regimes have forced Jews to adorn special clothing precisely because there is no reliable way of identifying who is and who is not a Jew by sight - at least not without violating public nudity laws and that method only works for men in some cultures where circumcision is uncommon.)Homey 23:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"I have read the current posting of the UCC article on "Ethnicity". I assume this reflects the latest changes by gBambino. While, to his credit, it does now include reference to racism and prejudices exprienced by old boys, an objective observer cannot help but be left with the impression that these problems are now fixed and of no consequence. You are all educated people - to suggest otherwise is really nothing more than an exercise in semantics."

I agree, the section should not be written with the assumption that racism has been eradicated at UCC or even that it's no worse at UCC then it is elsewhere - unless an objective and verifiable study backs that up, such a claim is POV. Similarly, to imply that because x, y and z have been done racism no longer exists would be original research. I don't think we can proceed on the assumption that there is no racism at UCC until and unless evidence comes up to the contrary. Nor should we assume that racism is worse at UCC than elsewhere. We simply should not have a POV on the matter. Reading the section it's not clear to me that there is an assumption contained within that racism has been eradicated. There's simply a statement about a diversity council being established without any claim that this solves the problem. If there are more recent examples of racism or anti-Semitism at UCC then they should be excluded but I don't think we can not mention the diversity council simply because of the lack of countervaling evidence for racism. Was there a reaction to the council's formation? Criticism by UCC or members of the student body? Letters to the school paper decrying this as "political correctness"? If so, this should be included. Homey 23:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Now that I am not such a newb to Wiki, I for the most part agree with what you have written here Homey. I am however still looking for mediation/arbitration/appeals on "A Neutrally Written Dispute Summary" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Upper_Canada_College#A_Neutrally_Written_Dispute_Summary. If you're not the person, let me know. Thx. 66.208.54.226 01:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes

Just a note to those who are insisting that the anon IP must register. Such a position is not wikipedia policy. Edits should be taken on their own merits and there is no rule stating that editors must register (though there are rules concerning registered editors who use anon IPs as Sock puppets). However, anon IPs should be aware that their edits are generally seen as being less credible by editors than registered users and their edits are more likely to be scrutinized by other editors and admins. Also, due to recent problems with vandalism, wikipedia has instituted a semi-protection policy where some anon IPs can be excluded from certain articles for a time while registered users remain free to edit them thus, in a number of ways, anon IPs are "second class" users in practice even if this is not the case in policy. Homey 02:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking the time -- and it was clearly a lot of time -- to help try to resolve this. I am trying to avoid being involved in the content debate at this point, so I won't comment on your analysis of the content issues, other than to thank you again. The only comment that I want to make is that I think -- and correct me if I am wrong -- that I and other editors have been encouraging anon editors to register, as opposed to insisting. I think that if the anon editors were registered, this process would have been easier. But as you note, there is no requirement that anyone register. Regards, Ground Zero | t 03:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments from an advocate

Hi Anon,

Wow, there's been a lot of talking here. I sincerely hope you are reading the links to policy and advice pages I am including for you. I read your list of desires. It was 1) Verifiability 2) Admin reprimanding. Did you also want to address 3) Racism at UCC? Can you please clarify this? I have some observations of your strategies for getting your desires:

1) Verifiability

1. You requested other editors verify your whole list
2. Some of the list was subsequently verified
3. You insisted the whole list get verified, including "UCC is in Toronto, Canada" and "UCC is all-male"

• I believe this strategy will result in you getting blocked for being a dick.

• My suggestion is for a totally new strategy. Try doing some of the legwork yourself. We are all sourcing information for the same article. If there's information you want verified, make an effort to verify the information. Let us know where you tried to verify it and if it fails to be verifiable, we'll reach a consensus on that.

2) Admin reprimanding

1. You insisted someone demote Ground Zero
2. Ground Zero told you how and where to complain about him
3. You repeated your insistence that someone must demote him

• I believe this strategy will result in you getting blocked for being a dick.

• My suggestion is for a totally new strategy. Try doing some of the legwork yourself. We are all responsible for creating a non-divisive environment. Given the state of things currently, I strongly advise you to drop this issue in favour of focusing on your other objectives. Above all else we are meant to be here to write an encyclopedia. I will gladly pursue any the undoing of admin actions that may be necessary on your behalf (see below).

3) UCC Racism

1. You say UCC is racist
2. You say an editor racist
3. You became involved in an edit-war over whether has a racism issue
4. The article got semi-protected for vandalism
5. Some of your information got inserted into the article
6. The article remains semi-protected because editors don't seem to trust you

• I think there is a lot of potential here for your views. It's a stretch for others to call the views you inserted vandalism as there does appear to be at least some sources corroborating your viewpoint, and you do appear to be sincere regarding the racism issue. It would help if your sincerity for the article was also conveyed by sincerity for collaborative effort. You will probably need to show you have good faith towards working with other editors before you start to get results on the issue of racism. It would be nice if what you believe as truth would simply automatically win out, but it's simply going to requre some effort on your part. My advice for you is:

1. Make a statement indicating your willingness to discuss contentious issues.
2. Think of some other statements you might make to smooth things over here.
3. Don't react to any mudslinging, stirring, or patronising.
4. Offer comprimises on wording in various sections by suggesting example sentences here on the talk page
5. Consider getting a registered account, so you will might get more support from other editors.

I hope you follow my advice as I advocate towards your stated objectives. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 02:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello to the admins here,

I request the article is unprotected as a gesture of faith to encourage the anon to be included in the workshopping process here. His less salient edits mostly came after he was goaded on this talk page. I note that the anon has already apologised for making personal attacks and I request that all editors (including anons) now drop this issue. It is unhelpful to dredge up water under the bridge.

If anyone wants to comment on my advocating please do so on my talk page. I intend to refactor any "he told you so" or "so there" style comments, so please simply avoid them. Best wishes for all. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 02:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

To start off with, let me say that you Metta, are perhaps the worst advocate I could possibly imagine. You're calling me a dick COMPLETELY OUT OF THE BLUE AND WITH NO PRIOR WARNING is nothing less than a dagger in the back as an advocate. You have only FURTHER INFLAMED ME because of this personal attack and because you clearly do not assume good faith. I mean, this is ridiculous, you're honestly calling me a dick? Wow, thanks for helping keep the discussion CIVIL.... not.

Let me, quite frankly, tear apart these fallacious and quite insulting assertions you have made about me.

First, I have asked the question: ARE THERE, OR ARE THERE NOT PUBLIC WRITTEN EXCEPTIONS TO THE POLICY ON Verifiability? Do not pass Go. Stop ignoring this question. Stop dancing around the point. Stop side-stepping the question. Allow me to quote AGAIN from you the Wiki policy on Verifiability:

• The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth
• This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.
• Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus.
• If the article has many unsourced statements that have been there a long time, you may request sources on the talk page before removing them, unless the article or information is about a living person, in which case remove the unsourced information.

As you can see, I am quoting YOUR OWN POLICY and it seems to say pretty clearly that there are no exceptions. And I think the reason why is it because it forces the community to abide by a very rigorous standard that reduces disputes, reduces error and reduces copyright infringement liability. In fact, it's BECAUSE the standard is so high, some have created Wikinfo, where a "sympathetic point of view" is condoned and does not limit "content to an unattainable encyclopedic goal." But guess what, this is NOT Wikinfo, this is Wikipedia where you DO limit "content to an unattainable encyclopedic goal."

Please show me any written statements that in the Wiki Content Policy on Verifiability that says:

• You do not need to conform with Verifiability because "it's self evident" to the editors involved
• You do not need to conform with Verifiability if a dick asks for it
• You do not need to conform with Verifiability if you're too lazy to bother

Second, on Admin reprimanding, you are correct despite your completely offensive and inflammatory tone. I will follow up on the formal mediation and arbitration links he provided so as to formally seek his demotion. And Metta Bubble, I will be escalating to your AMA Coordinator Ambi to make it known how completely offensive you are as an advocate in ignoring the valid, RESEARCHED AND QUOTED points I was making and then just calling me a dick. Wow, so frickin constructive, thanks. I will be sure to leave a message on your talk page to warn others about what a horribly offensive and backstabbing advocate you have turned out to be in my case.

Third, stop wasting textual real estate on racism. That issue is so last week. I haven't objected in a while about that because I am pleased with how the Ethnicity section was re-written to be far more neutral and balanced and rigorously sourced (aka Verifiability) and provided substantive heft.

Lastly, do me a favor Metta, please, I beg you, don't advocate on my behalf any further. Actually, why don't you go "advocate" for Ground Zero and Gbambino instead. I've had quite enough of your advocacy, civility, dispute resolution and mediation skills and calming effect to last me quite a while. 66.208.54.226 03:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, that went well... --gbambino 04:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes very. Shame really.

Anon, my advocacy does not extend to advocating your right to stir up trouble. If your only interest at wikipedia is in testing the limits of our regulatory systems you will be blocked for disruption / trolling. Please consider this formal warning. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 05:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, beyond my quip above, after giving this some thought, I seriously think 66.208.54.226/68.50.242.120's sole purpose here is simply to cause agitation. Contrary to Meta's statement that 66.208.54.226/68.50.242.120's less than outstanding edits began after being goaded here, his vandalism (and it certainly was vandalism - look at the aricle edit history) and aggression began because of a simple request for sources to verify his original research edits. In fact, his defensive tactics may have started even before that, as seen at: Talk:UCC - Mascot. All that about O RLY owl - that's 66.208.54.226/68.50.242.120. Taking a gander through the rest of his comments from beginning to end, he's self-contradictory, antagonistic, insulting almost to the point of making himself liable, there isn't a shred of good faith anywhere to be found, and he starts it all over again every time someone new weighs in on this ridiculous debate. Personally, I think it's time to put this to a swift end. --gbambino 04:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Metta Bubble. /wave. How about instead of accusing me of trolling, perhaps you can spend your time responding to my well researched, impeccably sourced and pristinely logical reasoning below. It's weird how you keep ignoring it, huh? Here, let me make it easier for you and quote it again. Maybe you can reply to my substantive issue rather than spending your time accusing me of being a dick or a troll? Here it is again....

First, I have asked the question: ARE THERE, OR ARE THERE NOT PUBLIC WRITTEN EXCEPTIONS TO THE POLICY ON Verifiability? Do not pass Go. Stop ignoring this question. Stop dancing around the point. Stop side-stepping the question. Allow me to quote AGAIN from you the Wiki policy on Verifiability:

• The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth
• This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.
• Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. (even if the consensus is among the editors GBambino, Metta Bubble and Ground Zero!)
• If the article has many unsourced statements that have been there a long time, you may request sources on the talk page before removing them, unless the article or information is about a living person, in which case remove the unsourced information.

As you can see, I am quoting YOUR OWN POLICY and it seems to say pretty clearly that there are no exceptions. And I think the reason why is it because it forces the community to abide by a very rigorous standard that reduces disputes, reduces error and reduces copyright infringement liability. In fact, it's BECAUSE the standard is so high, some have created Wikinfo, where a "sympathetic point of view" is condoned and does not limit "content to an unattainable encyclopedic goal." But guess what, this is NOT Wikinfo, this is Wikipedia where you DO limit "content to an unattainable encyclopedic goal."

Please show me any written statements that in the Wiki Content Policy on Verifiability that says:

• You do not need to conform with Verifiability because "it's self evident" to the editors involved
• You do not need to conform with Verifiability if a dick asks for it
• You do not need to conform with Verifiability if you're too lazy to bother

Hi Gbambino. /wave. How about instead of accusing me of trolling and building the business case to ban me, perhaps you can spend your time responding to my well researched, impecably sourced and pristinely logical reasoning below. It's weird how you keep ignoring it, huh? Here, let me make it easier for you and quote it again. Maybe you can reply to my substantive issue rather than spending your time laughing at my being called a dick or a troll? Here it is again....

First, I have asked the question: ARE THERE, OR ARE THERE NOT PUBLIC WRITTEN EXCEPTIONS TO THE POLICY ON Verifiability? Do not pass Go. Stop ignoring this question. Stop dancing around the point. Stop side-stepping the question. Allow me to quote AGAIN from you the Wiki policy on Verifiability:

• The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth
• This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.
• Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. (even if the consensus is among the editors GBambino, Metta Bubble and Ground Zero!)
• If the article has many unsourced statements that have been there a long time, you may request sources on the talk page before removing them, unless the article or information is about a living person, in which case remove the unsourced information.

As you can see, I am quoting YOUR OWN POLICY and it seems to say pretty clearly that there are no exceptions. And I think the reason why is it because it forces the community to abide by a very rigorous standard that reduces disputes, reduces error and reduces copyright infringement liability. In fact, it's BECAUSE the standard is so high, some have created Wikinfo, where a "sympathetic point of view" is condoned and does not limit "content to an unattainable encyclopedic goal." But guess what, this is NOT Wikinfo, this is Wikipedia where you DO limit "content to an unattainable encyclopedic goal."

Please show me any written statements that in the Wiki Content Policy on Verifiability that says:

• You do not need to conform with Verifiability because "it's self evident" to the editors involved
• You do not need to conform with Verifiability if a dick asks for it
• You do not need to conform with Verifiability if you're too lazy to bother

68.50.242.120 05:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You know:

• I was the one who caught the weasel words used by Gbambino in the Ethnicity section and got them excised thanks to Ground Zero
• I was the one who identified the Motek Sherman incident which was ultimately used and verified in the Ethnicity section
• I was the one who pointed out that Cookie Monster was not the school mascot and succeeded in convincing Gbambino to take it out
• I was the one who came up with the idea of even having a separate section on Ethnicity
• I was the one who forced this Gbambino to source EACH and EVERY statement in the Ethnicity section... now it has real substantive heft
• I was the one who forced Ground Zero and others to take a careful look at the syntax of the Ethnicity section to ensure a Neutral Point of View

Before I came along, this is what UCC had to say about Ethnicity:

(under the "Today" section}

Unlike many other Canadian independent schools, UCC has a long history of ethnic students since its founding. The first black student appeared in 1831, the first Jewish student in 1836 and the first aboriginal student in 1840. Today, students from about 18 countries attend UCC, and comprise a substantial quantity of students in each of the offered years.

--> OMG, the bias in this previous version is sickening to me personally. It totally lacks any sourcing. The data is cherry picked to present one fringe radical view on ethnicity at UCC. Ugh.

This is what the new Ethnicity section says now: Ethnicity

UCC began admitting ethnic minority students early in its history. The first black student enrolled in 1831, the first Jewish student in 1836 and the first aboriginal student in 1840; some graduates from the Ojibway peoples of Upper Canada going on to study at Dartmouth College and Harvard University. [10]

Diplomat James George, a student between 1926 and 1936, said upon reflection about his time with other UCC graduates in the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs: "If UCC really was a womb matrix for a bunch of WASP patriots, why did it produce so many internationalists?" [11]

UCC has maintained a reputation as a "bastion of WASP privilege." [12] Some students recall experiencing anti-Semitism; Graham Fraser, the Globe and Mail Washington Bureau Chief, who attended UCC between 1960 and 1964, recalled: "Anti-Semitism was generally an unspoken undercurrent at UCC, but a couple of times I witnessed overt anti-Semitism.... Before 1960, Toronto was a pretty narrow, close-minded, little Victorian town and Upper Canada College reflected that reality." [13]

Foermer Prep School Headmaster Richard Howard said in his book Upper Canada College, 1929-1979: Colborne's Legacy, published in 1979: "The growth of the enrolment has increased the number of boys from a wide variety of backgrounds and decreased the ratio of those from old Toronto families. The address list now reflects Toronto's ethnic variety and resembles a small United Nations." [14]

Motek Sherman, the editor of the school's yearbook The College Times in 1990, wrote an editorial stating that while UCC was no longer "a white-bread, right-wing fortress: it has become much more multi-cultural and (dare I say it?) liberal.... In my years at UCC I have faced anti-Semitism, ugliness, stupidity and bureaucracy." [15]

In 2002, student Adam Sheikh created the Diversity Council to celebrate the cultural diversity of the school's student population. This council, a body of students independent from the school administration, organizes celebrations of Chinese, Jewish, Christian and Ukranian cultures. [16]

Today, students from about 18 countries attend UCC. The international students typically come from among the wealthiest families in the countries of their origin.

--> Wow, what a change! It's balanced. It's neutral. It's verified. Sweet!

In addition, as a noob, I have learned about and USED to argue my point in a researched and logical fashion:NPOV, Notability (even correcting GBambino about the notability standards for music), personal attacks, assume good faith, verifiability, Wikinfo and no original research.

You guys should be thanking me for making this article so much better than it was before. Not harrassing me, calling me a dick, making flip remarks, giving me formal warnings, insulting me as a troll and trying to ban me. What's wrong with you people? Honestly, seriously, no joke. 66.208.54.226 12:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I have been observing this dispute for some time and I must admit, until now only because it amused me.

Metta Bubble, I believe the problem here is that you started by advocating that user 66 be given a break and then repeatedly told him that as a result of his efforts, "I believe this strategy will result in you getting blocked for being a dick." I know you were probably trying to avoid making a personal judgment yourself, but by not making your views clear on this (i.e., 'I personally don't believe you are a dick'; or, 'I believe this would be the right thing to do') you made your views clear by omission. It's really hard to blame user 66 for suddenly being upset with you. Did not the Buddha say, "When they meet a sorrowful man, they should lament the bitterness of this ever-changing world"? User 66 is clearly confused and sorrowful about Wiki and was hoping for more of a constant in his advocate. You have to admit, whatever you think of his approach, the Ethnicity section does read a lot better because of his efforts. Peace.**** (unsigned comment)

There were two ways that User:66/68 could have improved the ethnicity section:

1. he could have re-written it in a strongly POV, unreferenced manner, then entered into a revert war to protect his agenda-promoting version, bullied, threatened and insulted other editors, deleted large sections of text to make a point, engaged in long diatribes on the talk page, demanded that other editors engage in hours of work to verify facts that he did not question (some of which are so obvious that they require no verification), refused to accept some of the verification because it was not on the exact web page cited, but on another web page from the same website, demanded sanctions against other users, abused everyone who tried to assist him, and hoped that his point about it being POV would be picked up by the editors he was threatening and insulting, and that they would make NPOV edits; or
2. he could have written an NPOV version himself.

It seems pretty clear to me that the current, more NPOV version is not User:66/68's work, but the work of me and others who have suffered through his abuse. It is very sad that he is trying to take credit for something that looks nothing at all like what he was trying to impose on this article. I wish, I so very much wish, that he would choose to work with us rather than against us. We are reasonable people, and it does not take threats, insult and abuse to get us to make something NPOV. Ground Zero | t 13:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with almost everything that GroundZero has written. Of course, it should be noted, however, that Meta Bubble did repeatedly call user 66/68 a "dick." This term may have some special meaning in the Wiki world which escapes me, but, I think immediately his/her use of this term negates any claim s/he might make to occupying some neutral vantage on the whole unfortunate episode which this discussion page would seem to represent. I realize how very difficult it can be to keep one's cool dealing with 66/68's style of argumentation (i.e., polemic), and I myself would be the first to admit that I lost my temper with him/her yesterday. That said, name calling will not help. Nor will it placate 66/68, I don't think, to have a supposed "neutral" perspective which begins almost immediately by calling him/her a "dick" (special meaning in Wiki notwithstanding, as user 66/68 is not registered and so, we can assume, would not understand any wiki jargon). I have to say I'm somewhat dissapointed.

I would also note that it, in my opinion, it takes two to tangle, and it seems somewhat disingenuous for one of the two engaged in a revert war to claim innocence: to be engaged in this sort of thing belies, to my mind at least, a *personal* interest in work, which may not be fully conducive to the aims and values of Wikipedia. I wonder if 66/68 might state once more, for the record, in a new section which will not be edited, exactly what his/her wants and needs in this whole unfortunate episode are. Then, responses can be concerned only with those wants and needs (on a point by point basis). I would also suggest a moratorium on commentary on 66/68's previous actions, prior to his/her concession that s/he was unfamiliar with the "rules" of Wiki, and especially since his/her *apology* for previous indiscretions on this page -- many of the responses here are obviously baiting. S/he has yet to apologise to me for his outburst yesterday, but I returned in kind, and want to be first to apologise. Take this or leave this -- but I would consider myself to have as neutral a position on this, again, whole unfortunate episode as anyone else I've seen here, besides, perhaps, 38 (though definitely not 38's colleague at work! :).WormwoodJagger 14:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Wormwood's comments, especially in two regards: (1) calling user 66 a dick (either directly or indirectly) was not necessary and did not add to the discussion; (2) this process has been a two-way street. Gbambino has repeatedly launched personal attacks against user 66 and, at the very minimum, Ground Zero has been prone to losing his or her temper with user 66.

What has been the unstated premise that has been driving this discussion is that there are clearly two perspectives that are clashing here. User 66 obviously feels that there are important facts about UCC's treatment of minorities which should be included in the article; on the opposite side of the fence, Gbambino is one of those Old Boys who appears sensitive to any suggestion that UCC is an exclusive community. You have locked anon users out of the article and therefore imposed the latter view on Wikipedia. You can rationalize and justify this all you want and throw around terms like "dick" and "vandalism" if it makes you feel better, but I do have one question for Ground Zero and the likes: if you lock anon users out of the article and consign them to the discussion page, do you really not expect some heightened level of frustration to be displayed? Peace.Blunders of the third kind 15:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The term dick does have special meaning in Wikipedia and other wikis. It is short-hand for a lot of things. Please follow the link to see what it is about. Having said that, some elaboration on that concept should have been provided the first time it was used so that the anon editor, who is unfamiliar with Wikipedia, would not automatically see that as a personal attack. I semi-protected the article only after a revert war had broken out and the anon user had begun abusing other editors. I have been working to make the ethnicity section less POV based on suggestions by other editors and even some of User:66/68's more temperate comments. Gbambino has never objected to these edits to make it less POV, so I don't think that your criticism that we are trying to protect the "sanitized view" of UCC is fair or valid. Even 66/68 believes it is now neutral. See above where s/he says: "Wow, what a change! It's balanced. It's neutral. It's verified. Sweet!" Ground Zero | t 15:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Lifting semi-protection

It would seem, then, that the semi-protection can be lifted. This will allow 66/68 and GroundZero and Gbambino to demonstrate their good faith by (i) assuaging the often repetead concern here that GroundZero and Gbambino have taken a proprietary interest in this page and (equally as oft repeted ) (ii) that 66/68 is incapable of reasoned dialogue. I look forward to seeing this page grow now.WormwoodJagger 15:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with Wormwood. I think the semi-protection should be lifted as a concrete gesture of good faith.

And I don't want to prolong things when a civil tone seems to have returned to the discussion, but I did check out the link to *dick* as you suggested, and what I found is as follows: "Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is something of a dick-move in itself, so don't bandy the criticism about lightly." In any event, we seem to have moved passed it. I look forward to finding the semi-protection lifted.Blunders of the third kind 16:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed -- let's all get back to work!129.128.238.85 17:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not surprised that, once again, Ground Zero has chosen to comment recently and yet ignore my request for proof on his part for exceptions to Verifiability per below:

First, I have asked the question: ARE THERE, OR ARE THERE NOT PUBLIC WRITTEN EXCEPTIONS TO THE POLICY ON Verifiability? Do not pass Go. Stop ignoring this question. Stop dancing around the point. Stop side-stepping the question. Allow me to quote AGAIN from you the Wiki policy on Verifiability:

• The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth
• This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.
• Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. (even if the consensus is among the editors GBambino, Metta Bubble and Ground Zero!)
• If the article has many unsourced statements that have been there a long time, you may request sources on the talk page before removing them, unless the article or information is about a living person, in which case remove the unsourced information.

As you can see, I am quoting YOUR OWN POLICY and it seems to say pretty clearly that there are no exceptions. And I think the reason why is it because it forces the community to abide by a very rigorous standard that reduces disputes, reduces error and reduces copyright infringement liability. In fact, it's BECAUSE the standard is so high, some have created Wikinfo, where a "sympathetic point of view" is condoned and does not limit "content to an unattainable encyclopedic goal." But guess what, this is NOT Wikinfo, this is Wikipedia where you DO limit "content to an unattainable encyclopedic goal."

Please show me any written statements that in the Wiki Content Policy on Verifiability that says:

• You do not need to conform with Verifiability because "it's self evident" to the editors involved
• You do not need to conform with Verifiability if a dick asks for it
• You do not need to conform with Verifiability if you're too lazy to bother

In the meanwhile, I will continue to:

• Ask Gbambino and Ground Zero to prove on what grounds they base their tyrannically implemented and arbitrarily chosen exceptions to Verifiability.
• Escalate for the demotion of Ground Zero and Metta Bubble
• Escalate for the removal of every single unsourced statement within the UCC article as per the policy on Verifiability

If either Ground Zero or Gbambino or Metta Bubble want to stop personally attacking me and start having a civil discussion to prove where in Wiki policy they can unilaterally decide to ignore Verifiability, I welcome that discussion. Unfortunately, it seems they're far more interested in ignoring this issue and just calling me a troll and threatening to ban me. I think the reason is because they know that substantively, and logically, and technically, they are in the wrong on this and I am in the right. So it's easier to provoke and bait and insult in the meanwhile. Very, very sad.

66.208.54.226 17:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Anon., at least we can agree on one thing: I certainly am ignoring this "issue." Good luck with your future ventures here at Wikipedia! --gbambino 17:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I have been considering WormwoodJagger's suggestion seriously. I have been around Wikipedia for a few years now, and have seen problems caused by people who have an axe to grind, a point to make, or a general unhappiness with the world. They can take up a lot of time for serious editors who are here to make worthwhile contributions. 66/68 has demonstrated, with her/his latest outburts, that lifting the semi-protection would simply give him another opportunity to be disruptive. He still seems to be asserting her/his right to remove large portions of text that he feels have not be referenced in order to make a point. I do not think that it is in the interests of Wikipedia to allow her/him to renew her/his disruptions. The anonymous editors and the newly-registered "Blunders" who have stopped y to support lifting the semi-protection are welcome to express their views. I will wait for people who have been around Wikipedia for a while, and have made contributions, to voice their opinions because I think that the decision should also reflect the thoughts of people who have a bit of experience with how Wikipedia works. As I've said above, if another administrator decides to lift the semi-protection, I will respect that decision. So far, none has.

User 66/68: I have advised you on how to seek my demotion. You must seek Arbitration to do so. You cannot get it here, so repeating your demands here is pointless. And I don't think that advocates can be demoted as I believe it is a completely voluntary and non-elected position. Ground Zero | t 17:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC) Ground Zero | t 17:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• I have posted a note at the Adminstrators noticeboard indicating that there is discussion about lifting semi-protection so that other admins can lift semi-protection if they see fit. Ground Zero | t 18:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

GroundZero: Thanks for the consideration. Just to be clear: I didn't mean to advocate that the semi-protection be lifted, just that it be considered as a way to get beyond this issue. I think, clearly, you have every reason to be concerned about 66/68, especially after the last posting. I look forward to seeing how this progresses and, of course, defer to your seniority here. WormwoodJagger 20:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to express some frustration here. The fact that User 66 has at times engaged in terse or provocative language is undeniable. But even a cursory review of this discussion page bears out that throughout this dialogue both Ground Zero and Gbambino have often been dismissive and condescending towards User 66. Both users repeatedly assert that User 66 has shown a lack of good faith. But there is a complete lack of insight into their own lack of good faith. Once we examine the facts it becomes apparent that there is absolutely NOTHING User 66 could do to satisfy them to make any changes to the article as it exists. In essence, the article has become ossified by the prejudice of one user and one administrator.

Let’s examine the facts.

Repeatedly, both Gbambino and Ground Zero stated that a way to show good faith would be to register as a user. So that is exactly what I did. And what happens? (1) I am told that my point of view as a “new” user is largely irrelevant. In response to my suggestions, which obviously do not conflict with User 66 to a sufficient degree, Ground Zero writes:

The anonymous editors and the newly-registered "Blunders" who have stopped y to support lifting the semi-protection are welcome to express their views. I will wait for people who have been around Wikipedia for a while, and have made contributions, to voice their opinions[.]

(2) More disturbingly, on the Administrator’s Notice board, Ground Zero suggest by innuendo that I am a “sock puppet” for User 66. Why? Because it is inconceivable that anyone would support or even sympathize with User 66’s views. Can you really ask for any more cogent or compelling evidence that Ground Zero, as an administrator, does not take User 66’s views seriously at all? For the record, I am nobody’s “sock puppet”.

Whether or not I agree with all of User 66’s points or tactics is irrelevant. I believe that locking a site to anon users should only be an option of last resort. I fail to see how User 66’s insistence that Wikipedia abide by one of its own cardinal rules (i.e., verifiability) can be described as an act of “vandalism” or dismissed as an attempt to “prove a point”. When User 66 wanted to demonstrate that UCC’s student population did not reflect Toronto’s demographics he volunteered evidence which is routinely admissible in a court of law under cases dealing with the equality provisions (s. 15) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. For your information, Ground Zero, I find it somewhat ironic that when the Ontario Court of Appeal took judicial notice of racial profiling existing in the Toronto Police Force they were happy to do so under a far less exacting standard than you have insisted that User 66 provide for a single entry on Wikipedia: see http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/april/brownC37818.htm.

Note what Justice Morden says for a UNANIMOUS court: (para. 44) “A racial profiling claim could rarely be proven by direct evidence. This would involve an admission by a police officer that he or she was influenced by racial stereotypes in the exercise of his or her discretion to stop a motorist. Accordingly, if racial profiling is to be proven it must be done by inference drawn from circumstantial evidence.”

The same logic applies to UCC. Evidence of racial profiling in the student admissions body will rarely be capable of proof by direct evidence. After all, it is unlikely that the admissions committee will admit that they discriminate against minorities. So the only way the fact can be proven is through indirect or circumstantial evidence – such as, student body pictures in yearbooks.

With the greatest of respect, Ground Zero, your language in this dialogue admits to a level of intellectual dishonesty which I find inappropriate and ill-suited to a Wiki administrator. But what do I know, right? I’m only newly registered after all…Blunders of the third kind 21:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

When User 66 wanted to demonstrate that UCC’s student population did not reflect Toronto’s demographics he volunteered evidence

No, he did not. Please review the edit history of the article, as well as 66/68's contributions to this talk page, to note that not one shred of evidence was ever presented by 66/68.

Also, this is not a court of law where UCC's admissions practices are to be judged. This is an encyclopaedia where facts are presented. Without a proper source which states that UCC's admissions process is governed in some form by racial profiling, then to assert that it is is POV and original research - two things unacceptable at Wikipedia.

And lastly, one has to ask, even if it could be proven that a look at the UCC graduating class photos showed that the school's ethnic diversity did not match that of greater Toronto, for what purpose would it be inserted into the article? There are schools in Scarborough where a walk through the halls will tell you that the school's demographic is not reflective of the larger metropolitan Toronto area, but is that a sign of racist admissions processes, or simply a reflection of a fact that the school exists in an ethnic enclave, or of more complex socio-economic patterns across the city and/or country? --gbambino 22:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ground Zero's response to Blunders

Firstly, let me welcome you to Wikipedia. I hope that you enjoy your time here, and not be put off by this dispute. This is not typical of life here on Wikipedia. I do want to address some of the comments that you have made.

"Once we examine the facts it becomes apparent that there is absolutely NOTHING User 66 could do to satisfy them to make any changes to the article as it exists. In essence, the article has become ossified by the prejudice of one user and one administrator."

This is not supported by the facts. The fact is that the ethnicity section has now been changed significantly to make it more NPOV. You can review the article history to see the changes that have been made by clicking on the “History” tab at the top of the page. These changes result from valid comments made by unregistered and new users that Gbambino and I have incorporated into the article. The fact is that user 66/68 now agrees that it is NPOV. If you can indicate what parts of the section show the “prejudice of one user and one administrator”, then we can discuss what further changes would be appropriate.

"I am told that my point of view as a “new” user is largely irrelevant."

No, you were not told that.

"In response to my suggestions, which obviously do not conflict with User 66 to a sufficient degree, Ground Zero writes: “The anonymous editors and the newly-registered "Blunders" who have stopped y to support lifting the semi-protection are welcome to express their views. I will wait for people who have been around Wikipedia for a while, and have made contributions, to voice their opinions[.]”"

I ask that you to read to the end of the paragraph that you truncated: “I will wait for people who have been around Wikipedia for a while, and have made contributions, to voice their opinions because I think that the decision should also reflect the thoughts of people who have a bit of experience with how Wikipedia works.”

The emphasis on “also” is in the original . Further, please see my comments above about changes to the article resulting from comments made by unregistered and new users.

"More disturbingly, on the Administrator’s Notice board, Ground Zero suggest by innuendo that I am a “sock puppet” for User 66."

What I wrote was “may or may not be a sock-puppet”. I take your word for it that you are not a sock-puppet. User 66 has also been writing as User:68, so it is conceivable that s/he would be using other IP numbers and may have registered. I have now removed the statement to which you object. The context of my posting was to ask other admins to consider whether or not to lift the semi-protection that I imposed and continue to believe is appropriate. There is no requirement that I post such a request. As I have said above, I would respect the decision of another editor in this regard.

"I fail to see how User 66’s insistence that Wikipedia abide by one of its own cardinal rules (i.e., verifiability) can be described as an act of “vandalism” or dismissed as an attempt to “prove a point”. "

He demanded verification of UCC being in Toronto, being an elementary school, being a secondary school, and so on. These facts cannot be reasonably disputed especially since Gbambino provided a link to the school’s website, which identifies these facts.

"When User 66 wanted to demonstrate that UCC’s student population did not reflect Toronto’s demographics he volunteered evidence which is routinely admissible in a court of law under cases dealing with the equality provisions (s. 15) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

Circumstantial evidence may well be relevant in the question that you cited. I have made the argument, and no-one has challenged it, that the racism that you and 66/68 claim is evidence is societal racism, not the racism of the school. I hope that I have been able to adress some of your concerns. Ground Zero | t 22:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"And lastly, one has to ask, even if it could be proven that a look at the UCC graduating class photos showed that the school's ethnic diversity did not match that of greater Toronto, for what purpose would it be inserted into the article?" Really a question?

Thank you for your response (and your welcome), Ground Zero. The response I have to your last posting is below and is made in good faith. I am heartened by your assurances that what has happened to the UCC page is not typical of Wikipedia.

I am, as I have identified, a new user. I have done some a little research into Wikipedia over the last day or so. One of the things that I have found is that there is a rebuttable presumtpion that to the greatest extent possible all pages will be unprotected. This reflects the clear Wikipedia philosophy that the process of building an on-line dictionary works best when it is collaborative and dynamic. For this reason, Wikipedia official policy on page protection is as follows: “We strive to protect pages only when absolutely necessary and to unprotect them as soon as possible”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:This_page_is_protected

In your response to me you stated, “If you can indicate what parts of the section show the “prejudice of one user and one administrator”, then we can discuss what further changes would be appropriate.”

I accept your invitation but I also want to register my objection. It is not at all clear to me that User 66/68’s activities constitute trolling or vandalism and that the integrity of the UCC page would be threatened if unprotected. I believe I ought to have the right to make the proposed edits directly to the UCC page rather than have to provide detailed explanations on the talk page. I believe that I am being deprived of my right to do so under clear violation of the Wikipedia policy cited above and once again I renew my request to have the page protection lifted.

In the interim, my proposed changes to the Ethnicity section are listed below:

1. James George Quote is Irrelevant

In the ethnicity section, Gbambino has cited an excerpt from a quote from James George lifted from the book, Old Boys. James George’s quote in full is as follows:

“Among my contemporaries at UCC, Arnold Smith, George Grant and myself all became Rhodes Scholars. Arnold Smith, who was four years older than me, got his Rhodes along with George Ignatieff. They both wound up in External Affairs. We had an extraordinary group of people in the External Affairs Department after the war who had a great deal of idealism that was internationalist in scope...if UCC really was a womb matrix for a bunch of WASP patriots, why did it produce so many internationalists.”

As you can see, this quote has absolutely nothing to do with ethnicity or the demographics of the student body. Rather, what James George is questioning is the assumption that a high school in a backwater colony would be incapable of producing original and international thinkers. If James George had asked, “if UCC really was a womb matrix for a bunch of WASPS, why did it produce so many distinguished alumni of different ethnicities?”, it would have relevance to the ethnicity section. The quote used, however, has none and therefore is really asserting a POV. I would eliminate it.

2. Richard Howard Quote is erroneously verified

The fourth paragraph of the Ethnicity section cites a quote from Richard Howard which states that UCC is akin to a mini United Nations. Even though it is stated that this quote is from Howard’s book, Colbourne’s Legacy, the quote is footnoted (#15) to a different book – James Fitzgerald’s Old Boys. When you click on the hyperlink provided, there is no reference to Richard Howard’s quote (or book, for that matter). I suspect that the footnotes might have got mixed up due to recent edits (as Howard’s book is now footnote #16) and this should be corrected.

3. Michael Ignatieff Quote Right on Point

What you do find in James Fitgerald’s book, however, is a quote that is extremely relevant to the Ethnicity section from Michael Ignatieff, former Harvard professor, current member of Parliament and Director of the Munk Centre for International Relations at the University of Toronto. Michael Ignatieff says:

"The UCC culture in my time was basically Tory, Anglican and fantastically patrician. I think anybody who was at UCC has to wrestle with the anomaly and irony of a patrician education in an egalitarian society like Canada. The contradiction is particularly flagrant...

The Canadian elite must be an open, permeable elite which is colour blind, religion blind and gender blind. There has to be an elite based not even on intelligence but character. They will mostly come from schools that bear no resemblance to Upper Canada College.”

This quote is completely relevant to the Ethnicity section and it is made by a prominent and respected intellectual and politician. I would definitely add this quote to the section.

4. Motek Sherman misquoted

In the section as drafted, Gbambino states the following:

“Motek Sherman, the editor of the school's yearbook The College Times in 1990, wrote an editorial stating that while UCC was no longer "a white-bread, right-wing fortress: it has become much more multi-cultural and (dare I say it?) liberal.... In my years at UCC I have faced anti-Semitism, ugliness, stupidity and bureaucracy”.”

Again, the footnote is to James Fitzgerald’s Old Boys. But when you link to it, you find that nowhere does Motek say that UCC is “no longer a white-bread, right-wing fortress: it has become much more multi-cultural and (dare I say it?) liberal.” This part of the quote does not exist anywhere in the cite provided. Instead, Motek comments, “to any outsider who was trying to attain membership in it, UCC had represented the holy grail of the WASP elite”.

I would eliminate the first (and unsupported) segment of the quote. I pause here to point out that if User 66/68 had committed such a serious error in sourcing, he or she doubtless would have been accused of bad faith and/or vandalism. I think the fact that Gbambino has escaped such criticism is indicative of an unfortunate and defining bias in this discussion.

1. 5 Diversity Council

The article then states that in 2002 a student (Adam Sheikh) created the “Diversity Council” at UCC to “celebrate the cultural diversity of the school's student population”. I don’t know where the author gets that the purpose of the Council is or was to celebrate cultural diversity, but what I do know is that a footnote link to verify the fact goes to the “Harmony Scholarship” website. That website says that the purpose of the Harmony Scholarship awards (of which Adam Sheikh was a recipient) is to recognize student efforts at “promoting harmony and challenging different forms of discrimination and prejudice in their schools and communities.”

So I would rewrite the section to read (in a more neutral and verifiable tone), “In 2002, student Adam Sheikh created the Diversity Council to celebrate the cultural diversity of the school's student population. For his efforts Adam received the Harmony Scholarship, an award that recognizes student efforts to promote harmony and challenge different forms of discrimination and prejudice in their schools and communities.”

1. 6 Number of Nationalities Represented by UCC

Finally, the ethnicity section ends by stating that students of 18 different nationalities attend UCC. Surely this is a fact that requires verification. You have now issued an omnibus dismissal of User 66’s requests for verification because he has asked for verification of - to your mind - self-evident or obvious facts. Of course, these are not the only type of facts that User 66 has asked for verficiation for. Even assuming such requests fall outside the rubric of verifiability, the claim that students from 18 nationalities attend UCC does, in my opinion, require verification.

I think the Ethnicity section as currently drafted is riddled with errors and misstatements but can easily be corrected. I do not question the good faith of Gbambino and other contributing editors. I would ask that the same courtesy be extended to other users, including myself. I hope that it does not prove necessary to repeat this time-consuming exercise. If any future edits are to be made, I hope they can be made directly to the article. I hope my feedback has been constructive. Peace.Blunders of the third kind 18:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

1. James George Quote is Irrelevant

His reference to UCC's reputation as a "womb matrix for WASP patriots" clearly illustrates that a) the school has/had a reputation as a predominantly WASP school, as mentioned in the article for good reason, and b) he feels such a label to be untrue.

2. Richard Howard Quote is erroneously verified

This is indeed wrong; it seems the order of all the footnotes for this section is incorrect. I will fix this.

3. Michael Ignatieff Quote Right on Point

That seems like a fine insert to me.

4. Motek Sherman misquoted

Part of the footnote order issue that I mentioned above. What Sherman states in Old Boys and what he said in the 1990 College Times are not a complete match. The only real sourcing error is yours, so be careful with the bias accusations.

5. Diversity Council

Please read through the linked website - in particular, read the section dedicated to Mr. Adam Sheikh

6. Number of Nationalities Represented by UCC

Just to make it clear, that was originally not my edit. However, I do recall reading this elsewhere, and am currently searching for the source. If anyone feels it necessary, it can be removed until said source is found. --gbambino 19:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

As a result of Blunders' critique above, I just have to say:

1. ROFLCOPTER
2. i lub joo
3. u r #1 pwnzer

See what happens when you don't adhere to verifiability? Or only apply verifiability scrutiny to one editor's prose (ie me) but not the other (ie gbambino)?

66.208.54.226 19:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

With regard to your comments about page rotection, I agree that it is not sopmething that should be done lightly. Preference should be given for keeping Wikipedia as open as possible. Wikipedia, however, has given itself procedures for preventing vandalism and other disruption, including page protection and blocking and banning users. These powers are provided only to those Wikipedians who have been chosen by their peers as administrators. In the seven months that I have been and administrator, I have used semi-pretection on only one occasion that I recall, and then it was only for two days. I have never used full page protection (which prevents even registered users other than administrators from editing), and I have not blocked any user.

I am disappointed that I have had to leave semi-protection on this article for so long. It is only because I believe that User 66/68 will continue to disrupt the article that I have left semi-protection on. I judge my actions by the responses of my peers:

• User:CambridgeBayWeather is an admin who has participated in the discussion and has not lifted semi-protection.
• User:HOTR is an admin whom User:66/68 agreed to use as a mediator. Homey has not lifted the semi-protection.
• User:Mindmatrix is an admin who responded to my posting on the Adminstrators' noticeboard. I had alerted other admins to the problem at the UCC article and asked for other views. Mindmatrix reviewed the volumnious discussions on the talk page and concluded that semi-protection should not be lifted at this time because of the likelihood of 66/68 returning to his/her disruptive behaviour.
• Finally, User:MettaBubble, a member’s advocate invited by 66/68 to represent him, concluded that it was 66/68's behaviour that was the problem here.

So I do not think that I have overstepped my bounds as an administrator, and I do not think that it would be prudent to lift semi-protection yet.

Unfortunately, your right to edit is being limited by another anon user’s behaviour. Your reuqest to lift semi-protection is noted, but I believe, and apparently other admins believe, that continued semi-protection of this article is not a violation of Wikipedia policies. If another admin decides to lift semi-protection, I will respect that decision.

As far as the content goes, you have clearly done a lot of research, and raised a number of valid points. I see that Gbambino is addressing them, and making some of the changes. When he is done, we should revisit your comments to make sure that everything that should be reflected in the article is reflected. Regards, Ground Zero | t 21:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

"He demanded verification of UCC being in Toronto, being an elementary school, being a secondary school, and so on. These facts cannot be reasonably disputed especially since Gbambino provided a link to the school' website, which identifies these facts." Can it be assumed that these unverified POV assertions (according to Wiki standards) would be self-evident to readers in, say, Siberia?129.128.67.23 22:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is fallacious. It is assumed that this information is acknowledged and accepted by those who are familiar with the subject. If among that group, there are dissenters, then the burden of proof is on the minority dissenters to provide information that clearly demonstrates the facts, as they are accepted, are wrong. Anyone that knows about UCC knows that it's in Toronto: this is a basic, undisputable fact. If you disagree with this, state your reasons, and state where you think it's located, with supporting citations. Commmonly accepted, trivial facts do not need citations to support them.

Further, assuming that UCC [is] in Toronto is a POV assertion is patently ridiculous. There is no point of view in such a statement; it is a statement of pure, logical fact, or simply a plain observation. Base level knowledge has to be assumed at some point. If not, one could demand that the definition of every word employed in the development of this article, with full citation, which is rather absurd.

It appears to me that those who demand proof of UCC's location are behaving as trolls now. The point is invalid, and has been discussed and dismissed as a triviality. If you object to that, then take it up in a Wikipedia policy review discussion, since such "problems" would clearly have a scope greater than just this article. Mindmatrix 22:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Mindmatrix, I applaud your patience and restraint in dealing with newbs like 129. Good for you. /sarcasmOff 68.50.242.120 22:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Why, do statements like these unverified POV assertions (per 129) show any more restraint and patience? Or do you believe a different standard applies to me? (BTW: the third paragraph I wrote above was primarily directed at other users.) Mindmatrix 23:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Y'know, I was planning to lift semi-protection at the beginning of next week as an experiment, but when I see the troll(s) still circling, I realise it would be pointless. Ground Zero | t 22:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

ROFL, 129 has now been deemed a troll by GroundZero. Well, I guess you deserve it 129 for asking critical questions. Bad noob, bad! 68.50.242.120 22:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

129 is hardly a "noob" - his edit history shows clearly that he's been editing since July of 2004. --gbambino 23:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Reason #4345 Why Verifiability Matters

GroundZero edited the scandal section at 14:55 March 17 to state that Brown was a history and geography teacher at the prep. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Upper_Canada_College&diff=44217693&oldid=44214849

Uhhh.... what? If I recollect correctly, Brown was most of all an English teacher. Oh wait, here's a source for you: http://injusticebusters.com/04/Brown_Doug.shtml mentions several times that he's an English teacher. Never mentions history or geo (though I think he taught some such classes).

But please continue, GroundZero, putting in more UNVERIFIED stuff into the article. Fiction, hazy recollections, half truths, outright errors, they're all good. 68.50.242.120 22:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

As you're taking your own recollection as a source, then so will I: Brown taught geography into the late 1980s. At that point he did not teach english. Prior to those years he may well have taught english.

English has been added to the list of courses taught by Brown. --gbambino 23:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel so bad for you. Did you not read what I just wrote? Are you blind? I am NOT taking my recollection of Brown as an English teacher as a source. Reread what I wrote above, I gave a link, specifically :http://injusticebusters.com/04/Brown_Doug.shtml. Didn't you see the link? I await an apology from you for your sarcasm founded on incorrect facts. BTW, I would suggest you delete references to Brown teaching geography and history unless you can provide a verifiable source. I have a hazy recollection that he taught these 2 subjects, but I would rather be a good Wiki citizen and use a source. Wouldn't you? Oh wait, I forgot who I'm talking to. You don't believe in using sources. Sorry, I forgot. 68.50.242.120 23:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly verifiability is important; nobody here said it wasn't. However, verifying trivial facts (eg - UCC is in Toronto) is not required. This is why some people here are labelling you, and others, as trolls - you simply don't seem to grasp the difference between the two cases. Mindmatrix 23:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW - you clearly misunderstand what a verifiable source is: a blog ain't it. A better source would be UCC yearbooks, or staffing records. In this particular case, the blog references a CBC article, so why not link to that directly? Mindmatrix 23:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Mindmatrix, answer my question below in a civil and substantive manner. Cause as far as I am concerned, your little quip lacks verifiability.

First, I have asked the question: ARE THERE, OR ARE THERE NOT PUBLIC WRITTEN EXCEPTIONS TO THE POLICY ON Verifiability? Do not pass Go. Stop ignoring this question. Stop dancing around the point. Stop side-stepping the question. Allow me to quote AGAIN from you the Wiki policy on Verifiability:

• The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth
• This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.
• Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. (even if the consensus is among the editors GBambino, Metta Bubble and Ground Zero!)
• If the article has many unsourced statements that have been there a long time, you may request sources on the talk page before removing them, unless the article or information is about a living person, in which case remove the unsourced information.

As you can see, I am quoting YOUR OWN POLICY and it seems to say pretty clearly that there are no exceptions. And I think the reason why is it because it forces the community to abide by a very rigorous standard that reduces disputes, reduces error and reduces copyright infringement liability. In fact, it's BECAUSE the standard is so high, some have created Wikinfo, where a "sympathetic point of view" is condoned and does not limit "content to an unattainable encyclopedic goal." But guess what, this is NOT Wikinfo, this is Wikipedia where you DO limit "content to an unattainable encyclopedic goal."

Please show me any written statements that in the Wiki Content Policy on Verifiability that says:

• You do not need to conform with Verifiability because "it's self evident" to the editors involved
• You do not need to conform with Verifiability if a dick asks for it
• You do not need to conform with Verifiability if you're too lazy to bother

68.50.242.120 23:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not my policy. It is Wikipedia policy. And just as it is the case in every peer-reviewed journal, encyclopedia, and book outside Wikipedia, so too it is within Wikipedia: Commmonly accepted, trivial facts do not need citations to support them. Specifically, If you add any information to an article, particularly if it's contentious or likely to be challenged, you should supply a source. (from Citing sources) Note how it says particularly if it's contentious or likely to be challenged.

Nowhere did I say that You do not need to conform with Verifiability because "it's self evident" to the editors involved. What I said was there is no need for citation if the facts are obvious to those who know the subject (not the editors as you state). Also, don't place in quotes words I never spoke or wrote, if you try to pass those words off as mine.

Further, cutting and pasting the same text repeatedly into the conversation is trolling. You spend a few seconds trying to elicit as much work from other editors as possible. I have absolutely no patience for that. Mindmatrix 23:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's try this: how about you verify that UCC is not in Toronto, is not an all-boy's school, is not an elementary school, and so on. A source affirming those facts has been provided, so it would really be of great benefit to your credibility if, instead of ranting, you could actually adhere to the Wikipedia policies you throw at others. Please, be an example to all of us, and help us improve our editing skills. --gbambino 23:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Three things

1. Why are you so afraid to answer my substantive case for verifiability as a strict policy above? Is it because you know you're wrong? I guess that must be it.
2. There's no need for me to verify that UCC is in Toronto. There is a need for YOU to verify that UCC is in Toronto. And here's the kicker. It's real frickin easy. Source it the home page of the school http://www.ucc.on.ca. It says that UCC is in Toronto, Canada RIGHT IN THE DAMN HEADER... ON THE HOME PAGE. boy, that was SOOOOOOO difficult, wasn't it? yeah, so difficult. too difficult actually. i think it best that you leave it unsourced, cause it would be impractical to source it in this case.
3. Your scandal section is scandalously incomplete because you're missing any statements on Hearn and Cook (Cook who loved to make the little boys swim naked, the world's #1 teacher pedophile ever) 68.50.242.120 23:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You know, none of us are at your beck and call. Sometimes we have to attend to other matters in our life, so we can't provide instantaneous reponses to you. My apologies if this offends. By the way, the answers are above. I should also point out that you won't get anywhere in Wikipedia if you continue to issue commands as you have in this talk page. Mindmatrix 23:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Using the link provided in the article as you say shows that the school, is in Toronto, it is a school, is an all boys school and thus has been verifed so why are you still asking for that to be verified? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

1) UCC's website is cited in footnote #1, which is at the end of the opening paragraph. The information which verifies that UCC is in Toronto, an all-boys school, and an elementary school is contained within. 2) Be careful with that libel thing again... 3) Go see your therapist. --gbambino 23:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh... no it doesnt. The link https://www.ucc.on.ca/podium/default.aspx?t=7170 does NOT show this. If you want to prove the school is all boys and goes from elementary to secondary, you would need to reference instead https://www.ucc.on.ca/podium/default.aspx?t=6616. As for "the oldest independent school in the province of Ontario, and the third oldest school in Canada" that is still a mystery to me where this comes from. A. Complete. Mystery. But of course, for whatever reason, you're not bothered by this. At. All. Weird, huh? I guess it's because it's SOOOOOOO SELF EVIDENT TO EVERYONE (BUT ME) that UCC if OF COURSE the oldest independent school in Ontario and the 3rd oldest school in Canaada. SILLY ME. I should have remembered how SELF EVIDENT that little factoid was. 23:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Gbambino: I attended UCC during the same time (we probably know each other) and, to be fair, I took English with Doug Brown in Form 3, which would have been 1987. I remember reading Watership Down and The Wizard of Earthsea and spending an awful lot of time dissecting the mindless drivel of a stoned Roger Waters as though it were high art! :) I *also* took Geography with him the next year: he failed myself and every other hockey player in his class during the 2nd semester, and then, due to parent pressure, gave us all +90s as final grades. A real *star* academic, obviously.

Why is everyone so virulent again?!?!?! How about all of you taking a *deep* breath, maybe drinking a coke, and watching a bit of the Simpsons, before answering each other's edits? This is really frustrating, as I have a number of edits I would like to add, to begin my work on Wikipedia. I came here to learn and to participate.... It's a shame this is being ruined by what can, at times, seem like shouting matches between gatekeepers and visigoths!WormwoodJagger 23:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I had Brown for geography in '88. At that time I don't recall him teaching english any more.

I suppose everyone's virulent because.. well, Anon. has never stopped being so, and everyone else is getting tired of his antics, especially those who've come here with a genuine intent to help, only to be slapped in the face because they didn't crack a whip and get everyone doing exactly what Anon. wants. It is a shame that others can't help edit the article because of one disruptive user. Perhaps it would simply be best if we, myself especially, adhere to that old nettiquette rule: don't feed the trolls. In time I'm sure he'll either learn to play nicely, or simply wither up and go away. --gbambino 23:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, WormwoodJagger, as a registered user you should be able to edit the article, no? --gbambino 23:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps he got confused about which account he was posting from. I suggest you make checkuser request to find out. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 00:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I am registered but can't edit. Metta: I assume you've got me confused with someone else. Aren't you the moderator?WormwoodJagger 01:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should ban all UCC alumni from editing the article? That way we wouldn't have students who adored their experience battling it out with those who loathed their experience. (I say this with tongue only partly in cheeck) Homey (Who studied Watership Down, Beowulf and Roger Waters despite attending a plebian public school - and is resisting the temptation to correct the grammar of those who had the benefit of a private school education:) ) 23:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Homey: UCC is an independent, not a *private* school (tongue so far into cheek, it looks like I'm eating a Toblerone :)WormwoodJagger 23:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Is anybody actually looking at the article?

See this edit where the protection tag got removed. Too much argument not enough thought. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Mmm.. that's my fault. Highlighted and copied top-most section of a previous version of the article (with proper table), sans semi-protection tag, and pasted into my edit. You're quite right, that was a careless error on my part. --gbambino 08:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Let's Step Back and Clearly Identify the Issues Wow. I can’t believe the sheer mayhem that can ensue when you leave this site unattended for a few hours. I second Wormwood’s advice: we should all step back from the brink for a moment to collect our thoughts.

There has been so much emphasis placed on the fact that User 66 asked for verification or proof that UCC is located in Toronto. If you actually read the full exchange that has occurred on this page, you will see that User 66 asked for a lot more than that. I do not mean to speak for User 66, but clearly when he or she asked for proof that UCC was located in Toronto, he or she was frustrated by a perceived inconsistency in the application of Wikipedia rules to different users (such as verifiability, NPOV, etc.). To focus on one request for verification (i.e., whether UCC is located in Toronto) is, in my opinion, simply a straw man.

Even ignoring this one issue, there are serious and genuine claims in the UCC article that are currently are not verified. And everyone has lost sight of that fact. Everyone is so busy trying to decide if free access should be granted to the UCC sight that no one has questioned whether it is, after all, an accurate article. I note that earlier today when I pointed out numerous deficiencies in the “Ethnicity” section, corrections had to be made. And to Gbambino and Ground Zero’s credit, they were made.

At the risk of repeating what has already been stated (because I know Mindmatrix hates “cutting and pasting the same text”), please remember that User 66 also asked for verification of, inter alia, the following facts (which I would certainly label as beyond the pale of “commonly accepted”):

· The school was founded in the hopes it would serve as a feeder school to the newly established King's College

· The eclectic mix of different styles was typical of the overall concept of Victorian architecture.

· More than 400 graduates perished during both the First World War and the Second World War.

· By the early 20th century, the city was growing quickly around the Deer Park campus.

· By the 1960s, due to broader shifts in social paradigms, belief in the Cadets was faltering; religion and patriotism were not held in such high regard by youth, and rebellion was the more accepted behaviour for teenagers

I think it is completely genuine to insist that these facts be verified.

That said, let’s visit the controversial (if not ridiculed) issue of User 66’s request that proof or verification be provided of the fact that UCC is located in Toronto.

'Why Consistency of Approach is not a mere formality'

I do have to add my voice to the other users that have raised this point repeatedly: where is that stated in Wikipedia policy that commonly accepted or trivial facts do not need to be proved? What is so glaringly obvious about this endless back-and-forth is that if that were a such caveat to Wikipedia policy, surely it would have been cited by now. The fact that it has not can only lead one to the inevitable conclusion that such a policy does not exist.

Although I do not feel that I should have to defend myself for asking a question in good faith, I feel I must make it clear that I am not asking for substantiation of this point to bait or troll – I actually ask the question in good faith and here’s why: the common problem that occurs within any system of governance that dispenses with the need to prove or justify “commonly accepted” or “de minimus” facts is that they are prone to abuse.

Surely everyone is familiar with the concept of due process. There are criminal trials where an accused is clearly and undeniably guilty on the merits of the case but if they plead not guilty the Crown is still required to prove its’ case beyond a reasonable doubt each and every time. The Crown is not allowed to say, “Come on, your Honour – it is commonly accepted that this accused is guilty. Surely, you are not going to require me to actually PROVE it?” Why is proof still required, even in such cases? I would suggest it is because the ONLY way to preserve order in any system of knowledge (whether it be the common law or the gathering of encyclopedic information) is to adhere to unmistakably defined rules that do not admit to exceptions of convenience.

It is easy to dismiss the idea of having to prove that UCC is located in Toronto, right? In the same way that it is equally easy to prove that Saddam Hussein or Slobodon Milosevic are war criminals, right? Or that six million really died in the Holocaust, right?

It is no answer to say, “Well, the fact that UCC is located in Toronto is different than whether or not Milosevic was a war criminal because the former is well known to anyone familiar with the subject and free from controversy while the latter is by nature contentious”. That misses the point. The moment you separate and divide facts into different categories (such as “accepted” or “trivial” or “contentious” or “important”) you are once again faced with the same overriding dilemma: just WHO exactly decides what facts are accepted and what facts are contentious? And I am not being facetious. To an ultra-nationalist Serbian, Slobodon Milosevic is a patriotic and political hero without compromise. To an ultra-conservative Christian, abortion is murder without compromise. To them, there is nothing contentious in such facts at all.

In order to avoid dealing with such quagmires, Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability. If you adhere to a strict and textual interpretation of Wikipedia policy (and I have seen nothing to suggest that a deviation from such a method of exegesis is justified), the moment a fact is challenged by one, it becomes contentious. The alternative is absolute chaos. You win the battle on this subject of UCC, but tell me, Mindmatrix, do you really want pro-lifers to cite your precedent that:

(1) If they are in the majority their view of the ‘facts’ govern unless and until the minority can prove them wrong;

(2) If they are familiar with a subject (such as abortion) they are entitled to state what they, as the majority, view as “basic, undisputable facts” because “base level knowlegde has to be assumed at some point”?

(3) They are entitled to determine, of course, what is “contentious” and what is “accepted”, provided they adhere (in their judgment as the majority, of course) to your litmus test of whether or not a fact is “likely to be challenged” (and I assume that challenges by anyone deemed to be a troll or vandal can be summarily dismissed)?

Would you be willing to post the exact same views that you have expressed here on the UCC discussion page on the abortion or Holocaust articles or discussion pages for Wikipedia? If you are, I would invite you to do so (or I can do it for you) and I believe you would have provided a full answer to my objection; if not, what you are saying cannot be valid and is only an argument of convenience.

While I accept, as you have pointed out Mindmatrix, that commonly accepted facts do not need to be verified for peer-reviewed publications, surely you realize that Wikipedia is the antithesis of peer-reviewed publications. I think it would be safe to go so far as to say that Wikipedia is a genuine anathema to peer-reviewed publications, since it can be edited by anonymous parties. And the less control you have over WHO is editing, the more strict the adherence to the rules about WHAT is edited and HOW it is edited (i.e., verifiability, no POV, etc.).

Again, I feel I must say that I make these points in good faith. I hope the fact that I express disagreement with the “majority” is not construed as “trolling” or “vandalism” or even mada fides. I would like to engage in a genuine discussion. If anyone else shares this interest, feedback would be appreciated. I would like to resolve this issue once and for all before it spreads to other pages. Let’s face it: Wikipedia does not need any more bad press. Peace.Blunders of the third kind 04:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the even-tempered critical analysis that makes full use of logic and evidence. Because of the quality and thoughtfulness of your comments, the editors and admins can't call you a troll or sock puppet like they do anyone else they disagree with. So instead, they do the next best thing: ignore you. Welcome to Wikipedia, please come again ! :) 66.208.54.226 15:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Anon. - please do us the favour of finding sources for whatever it is you think needs them. Then they can be inserted into the article. If a source cannot be found for some content, that content can be disputed and/or removed, but don't start picking at minutia. That would be much more productive, and better proof good faith on your part, than constantly whining and demanding that others do all the work at your command.

Blunders - the 5 points you raised as being unscourced are indeed sourced already. As well, the fact that UCC is in Toronto is verified on the UCC website, a number of links to which are provided. If Anon. feels there should be a direct footnote link to a page on the UCC website that states UCC is in Toronto, then he should simply say so, and provide the appropriate URL.

But we cannot have a footnote after every sentence - as Anon. seems to be demanding we have. That's not the correct style when writing essays or books, therefore nor is it for Wikipedia. --gbambino 16:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Blunders, thank you for taking the time to post such well-considered comemtns. I will respond on your talk page. Ground Zero | t 17:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

Could somebody please tell me where I can find information on how to insert footnotes? ThanksWormwoodJagger 14:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to describe... Basicly, I'd say just follow the examples within the article - it's actually quite an easy process. --gbambino 22:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)