Talk:Office of the Independent Adjudicator

criticism and referencing

There should be a section and references to 'Problems with the O.I.A' or 'criticism of OIA' to improve on the articles neutrality and there is proven facts that could be referenced. Independent research has been done at Kings College London: http://www.oiahe.org.uk/downloads/Final-Report-of-the-OIA-Student-Survey-with-Appendices_4.pdf

This was added but then reverted and revisions deleted by Sphilbrick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicontribute503 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a need for alternative websites that give various opinions and help to students who come to this article.

31.205.19.252 (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now cleaned up the article comment here to help make this article better, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.19.252 (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The recent 'R (on the application of Cardao-Pito) v Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education' is next to be added when I have time. Shows the begining of double standards in compensation, forced re-assessment of already closed cases (against their own remit!) just because someone takes his case to court, and it seems that he took it to court after the 3 months deadline! Very important information in my opinion.--31.205.19.252 (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent contribution 78.149.138.24, we need to make this article better as it was rather misleading and advertisment article before. A trap for 1000s of students who do not understand the new system. As a lecturer I think a fair system should be in place to help universities and students alike. How else can I improve myself without critisim or make examinations better for my students? Instead of protecting we should be learning! Also if the OIA is fair and independent why I ask do I have to sit in a room for an hour listening to procedures to handle complaints every year and students don't? Looking at the statistics the students need more help! The whole thing is a load of rubbish and i hope the courts or MPs change this system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.19.252 (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed sections of this which were unsupported by any referencing or the referencing did not support the statement and were the authors opinion. happy to discuss any changes on the talk page.

Charlotte138 all information on this wiki should be discussed before you remove it, you have a vested interest in the OIA, which is obvious by your profile. Your opinionated statements and censorship is unacceptable to those who do not know what the OIA is. Explain what is wrong with this wiki and we can discuss it. Removing and editing statements to suit you and make more students end up in this honeypot trap is unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.46.234 (talk) 13:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this wiki has again been hijacked by users who only contribute positively to the OIA and therefore work for the OIA and their interests to mislead more students. A biased wiki. If only you can change your google reviews? Shame on the OIA! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:F521:A000:54EC:7DE5:826F:95A5 (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.oiahe.org.uk/media/2276/oia-rules-april-2018.pdf and others. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]