Talk:Fountainview Academy

Accreditation, Canada, State/Province

This paragraph has been addressed in a talk section which does not show up here. I have added it for discussion sake.

Fountainview Academy is affiliated with the Seventh-day Adventist Church, although it is not directly owned or managed by that organization. Fountainview Academy is not accredited by any accreditation body recognized by its country. According to the US Department of Education, unaccredited degrees and credits might not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and use of degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions.Category:Unaccredited institutions of higher learning

Fountainview is in British Columbia, Canada. United States Department of Education rules do not apply. A friend of mine taught at Fountainview some time back. Because it is independent of the SDA structure, I doubt that it has SDA accreditation. In British Columbia, a private school probably has to be inspected by the provincial education people, I am not sure of that. Education, both in the States and in Canada is a state/provincial matter rather than a federal one. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 10:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The website says it is recognized, which doesn't mean its accredited. I would think if they were accredited, they would be happy to mention it on their website... Hartland College degrees are recognized by the state, but it is NOT accredited. BelloWello (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

DonaldRichardSands is exactly right. Fountainview is accredited by the British Columbia Provincial Government Education Department. In British Columbia there is something called "independent schools" which include pretty much any non-government school. There are 4 groups and Fountainview is a part of Group 4. The only distinction of Group 4 is that more than 1/2 of it's student population comes from outside the province. It is accredited (governmentally) the same way the other SDA academies are except as was noted it is not accredited by the SDA church. It does however have a good working relationship with the local British Columbia conference. I can provide documentation of this as well (i.e. Conf. President praising the school, Inspector of Independent School evaluations, etc.). Per the website, "Fountainview Academy is a Group 4 school and offers a college-prep academic program certified by the British Columbia Ministry of Education. Graduates receive the provincial diploma, the "Dogwood Certificate"." Fountainviewkid 21:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You have a conflict of interest on this article, Fountainviewkid, maybe you should evaluate whether editing it is wise? BelloWello (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope, no conflict of interest. The fact that I attended the school does not preclude from the ability to edit NPOV. Try to sell that story somewhere else, like you already tried twice. This information is reliable and valid. I'm sorry it doesn't suit your WP:AGENDA but the facts are the facts. c

No, you are a graduate of the school, have a username that promotes your affiliation with the school. You shouldn't be editing this article. BelloWello (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

We've already been there. The fact I attended several years ago doesn't mean I can't edit this page. My username is not "promotional" as was pointed out to you by several other editors and administrators. My editing of this article is not based on your permission biases or agendas. Fountainviewkid 21:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No, the reason your name was ruled okay (well, discussion is still ongoing...) was because you had not edited this article. Now you have which changes the picture. BelloWello (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually I had I believe in the past made small changes to it. Until you came here and tried to put your WP:AGENDA in, it was doing fine. Fountainviewkid 22:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

References

Appropriate contents

Perhaps we need to look at most other schools to have a feel of what is encyclopedic, notable and relevant and what is not.

• Student origins: Individual country listing is not appropriate, especially for a school this small. The ratio of local to non-local (by boarding school distance scale of course) students is relevant. If there's a significant ratio from a particular non-local origin, that may be notable.
• The farm is notable. The exact reasoning for having one may not be.
• That the school does mission trips can be mentioned, but individual trips are not notable by themselves.

And all these bits of information should be in separate paragraphs, arranged in their order of importance. HkCaGu (talk) 05:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

COI

Questions

1. Is there consensus that Fountain has a COI by virtue of attending the school?
2. Is there a policy which mandates that a COI user must suggest all changes to an article on the Talk page before editing? Lionel (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Users with COIs shouldn't edit the articles/topics in question unless they can exercise extreme caution to use a neutral point of view. In some respects FVK does have a COI, as I personally would find it hard to write neutrally about my school when it is promoted every day towards the students.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I would argue I do not have a COI as I am not affiliated with the organization currently. I would further argue that past affiliation is "questionable" rather than objectionable. As long as the edits appear to be neutral or provide quality content I honestly don't see a problem with someone editing the page of an organization they at one time were connected with. Especially as my attendance at this school was several years ago, I can help provide historical content rather than engage in controversy. Look for example at DonaldRichardSands on the Southern Adventist University article who edits it while admitting that he was a student there at one point. Yet no one including BelloWello have called him out on having a COI, even though his edits are along the same lines as the others (such as myself).Fountainviewkid 04:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, BelloWello thinks that your edits aren't neutral, or, does not understand COI.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe Fountainviewkid's edits are contentious (to me) while DonaldRichardSands has maintained a very neutral and balanced position in articles he is affiliated with. BelloWello (talk) 04:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think you should point out to FVK why his COI is being a problem right now. @FVK, I think BelloWello thinks your edits aren't neutral. See WP:NPOV and WP:TONE closely to learn how to fix it, if it's really a problem, which I think it's not.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Bello has reported this to... are you ready... a noticeboard!!! [1]. Lionel (talk) 04:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh boy, here we go again. Am I going to have another administrator come on here and block me because of these accusations? Yes Jasper, I understand that BelloWello believes I have a COI. I can understand as well that this is a reasonable accusation, however I would argue it is an incorrect one. If you look at my edits on the page Fountainview Academy you will notice they involved a lot of adding references, updating text (synthesis), etc. As I noted the only thing "controversial" I did was remove certain tags. I would argue these were wrongly added without consensus and therefore needed to stay off until an agreement was reached on the Talk page. Perhaps I am wrong, but I'm just trying to do the best I can. Fountainviewkid 04:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

(←) Hello, I'm another administrator coming on here! But I'm not blocking you because of these accusations. Looking at your block history, you also haven't been blocked in the past for COI accusations. You've been blocked once for violating Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people, re-blocked for evading that block, and recently blocked twice for edit-warring.

To answer Lionel, there is no policy regarding COI at all. There is a guideline that serves to warn editors who have conflicts of interest, gives advice on how COI editors can contribute productively, and advice on how to handle COI cases. A person can't be blocked for having a COI, but having a COI when engaging in other forms of disruption can make the situation worse. Also, an editor can be banned per consensus if editors can agree that a person's edits are problematic, which is usually done on a noticeboard of some kind (some highly-visible place, typically WP:ANI or WP:COIN). Such a ban is usually a topic ban, restricting an editor from participating in topics related to their COI (which is defined by the terms of the ban).

Fountainviewkid stated, "As long as the edits appear to be neutral or provide quality content I honestly don't see a problem with someone editing the page of an organization they at one time were connected with." That is generally how conflicts of interest are judged, and is in keeping with our COI guideline. But if others judge your edits to not be neutral, or to be disruptive in any other way, that is when there's a problem. -- Atama頭 20:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Bello was in effect stating that while he could edit the article at will, Fountain was restricted to the Talk page and could only edit with approval from usersBello on the talk page. I think we know how that would've worked out. Based on my observations of the interactions of these two, IMO it isn't so much that Bello finds Fountain's edits contentious, he finds Fountain contentious.[2] :-) Lionel (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

In that case this is more a matter for dispute resolution than anything else, see "How to handle conflicts of interest". -- Atama頭 21:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

COI hypocrisy

The editor currently calling himself BelloWello did 137 edits to the article of the school he is currently attending. Kenatipo ^speak! 16:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm removing the COI tag placed by said editor. Kenatipo ^speak! 16:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you point to where BelloWello identifies themsleves as an attendee? Tiderolls 16:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I can, but I will not do so because it might get me in trouble for OUTING. Kenatipo ^speak! 16:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe, looking at your credentials and experience, that you could figure it out if you wanted to. It's not difficult if I could do it! Kenatipo ^speak! 16:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. I do not want to, their attendance is of no interest to me. If they have self-identified on-wiki then outing is not a concern. Tiderolls 16:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I commented here to show that BelloWello accuses others of what he himself is guilty. He tagged this page after the discussion on this page indicated "no COI". It's a good indication of his disruptive, POV-pushing style. I don't know that he has self-identified on-wiki. My other reason for commenting here of course is to give reasons for removing the COI tag against Fountainviewkid. Kenatipo ^speak! 17:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep...this is a good time to remove this page from my watchlist. Tiderolls 17:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ha, ha! Suggestion: remove it while BW is "in jail" for a week, add it back when he gets out. Kenatipo ^speak! 18:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Protection

@Oshwah: I request that the controversy section be protected, this section has been blanked up to thirteen times between the years 2020 and 2022. The last two attacks were done by User:Wwpn, this is a vandalism account and should be blocked. Catfurball (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Catfurball - Protection cannot be applied to only a specific section of an article or page. When applied, the level and type of protection applies to the entire article or page. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Controversy Section and COI

Hey all, I don't have much experience with Wikipedia. Calling @Catfurball or @Oshwah who can make some decisions here.

The controversy section was written by one of the students interviewed in the cited interviews. @AstronautElvis's edits on 10 February 2022 is probably a breach of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies. The editor wrote a section about events that occurred to themselves and his friends, cited himself (see main article citation 15), made no attempt to disclose it in the edit (their bio does disclose they are alumni), and claimed on 9 August 2020 to have no personal bias. The editor later posts about their edit on social media, claiming they edited Wikipedia to “scare” the school (among other things). Given the number of times the vandalism on this section has been reversed because of COI, it's hypocritical (or just amusing) the origin of this edit was COI itself.

The section also makes speculative statements (such as "This raises questions...”) which sound more like a news article than an encyclopedia, but I don't know the guidelines enough to speak on it.

I would like to see some section content preserved. I attended an Adventist university with a number of fountainview alumni, and can attest this kind of spiritual abuse was consistent and “tip of the iceberg” for what they did to kids. The use of conversion therapy and more was very real (the editor's experiences are valid, their editing is not) and very hurtful to many people. It is noteworthy and something the community knows about. I have strong COI because of knowing other fountainview alumni. I don't feel qualified to make any corrective edits (nor do I know what to do anyway). It was concerning to see the author bring up an important topic, but with blatant Wikipedia ethics violations. Leaving to the experts on where to proceed, if it even is a problem.

The controversy section causes controversy appropriately enough! ;) Postcodenvy (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand the concerns but also as you very well know how niche a school this is. I’m not sure who else could write on the subject of the harm their conversion therapy has caused beyond the survivors themselves. If you know someone who cares enough to do so, I’d love their help. Above that, this section exists as a signpost to hopefully deter future queer students from ever setting foot in that place that caused myself and many others irreparable harm. COI or not, this is about keeping queer kids safe. AstronautElvis (talk) 05:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I respect and admire the effort you've put towards trying to warn people off the damaging experiences you were put through. For the most part, I thought the section was excellent, and wish more SDA academies had their controversies covered.

The lack of transparency is what I took issue with. There are options listed in the COL article to self-declare and among Wikipedia editor groups to handle the creation of these types of sections.

I do understand how niche this is and why you felt you had to bend the rules for such a narrow topic. It's these cases where I hope some more experienced editors might be able to weigh in on what to do (hopefully without the famous Wikipedia editor cold shoulder), and where I would have asked for help if I were in your shoes. Postcodenvy (talk) 05:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I consulted with the admins and have made some changes based on their suggestions. A simple citation tag and wording update were all that were needed. This is how the case should have been handled from the beginning. As the admins called me on, the linking of social media and the tone that questioned @AstronautElvis's good faith efforts on this article were far more serious than any COI. My indignation was ignorant and unnecessary. I must apologize for making a mountain out of a molehill. I will leave future editing to our capable Astronaut and Cat friends, while I practice reading and learning before speaking. ;) Postcodenvy (talk) 05:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)