Talk:West Ridge Academy

External Links

In the External links section, College Bound's "review" of the academy is listed. CollegeBound.com is a paid advertising service for boarding schools and the linked page is far from a review of the facility. How can this be included in the links considering the obvious bias? The POV of mormongulag.com is too questionable to be cited but a paid service is held up as credible? I propose all advertisements for West Ridge Academy be removed from the links. The academy's website can offer their POV, other "review" links are misleading.--Drstrangelove1 (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The mormongolag.com site is in the External Links just as is the college bound networks. The College Bound network promotes schools that it reviews and that are consistent with their tag line "Find the boarding school that fits you and your family’s needs.." and "Since 1987, America's Trusted Resource on Higher Education" Noted here. Mormongulag.com solicits donations to support its POV. College Bound Network sells advertising space because it recognizes that it is viewed as an authority and drives traffic. It does not sell its "reviews", only advertising space. Its value to its clients, like other educational consultants, is its objectivity. DoonRay (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I propose that both mormongulag.com and collegeboundnetwork remain in the external links. DoonRay (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The College Bound website is not used as reference in the article, but is used as externally linked, just as the Mormon Gulag website is. Are you saying that they both should be removed because you think both are biased?

The College Bound website does appear to be focused mostly on college bound students and connecting them to different schools. I was not readily able to find how schools get on the website or how the website is compensated. Do you have any evidence that College Bound is paid solely by institutions that it supports? If so, please provide it. This appears to be an article written by Amanda Fornecker, a senior staff writer for College Bound (google here name, she has over a hundred hits). She writes as if she interviewed Jared Hamner; I did not read that she visited the campus, but may have missed it. I don't see the bias yet, but let's review your references and hear what other editors think. --^StormRider 18:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As Above, I propose that BOTH mormongulag.com and Collegboundnetwork remain in the external links. DoonRay (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support--- DoonRay (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Voting

Please review some of the policies regarding voting. I know that Descartes opened the door, but generally voting is frowned upon and used only occasionally. The objective of Wikipedia is to produce great articles through discussion and consensus. That does not mean that we seek unanimous support, but that through discussion superior logic within the parameters of Wikipedia policies is achieve and implemented.

I would prefer not to use additional voting to achieve decisions on this article, but rather focus on discussion and decision per topic. It may take a little longer, but in the long run I think it will result in a more stable article. Thoughts? --^StormRider 22:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I also would prefer not to use the consensus/voting method - but if you will note the history for the past number of days, the only time we did not go round and round in circles was when voting was introduced. Voting made clear if there was consensus or not and made obvious if a single user was in the minority, despite the number of edits. Things got MUCH quieter with voting implemented. I am concerned that if we do not require consensus, we will just return to edit wars. Just my observation of the past few days - but I believe the discussion and history support that conclusion. DoonRay (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Given Doyle's return from block, I don't see any way forward except by voting on each and every major edit. It will take an inordinate amount of time, but let's move forward one step at a time. Should be fun. --^StormRider 00:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Current Status

At this point I am basically happy with this article - I think there may be a little undue weight on the criticism, and the pissing match over the board members is a little ridiculous, but overall it is a decent article that is straight to the point. I am going to walk away for a while and devote my attention to a topic that is more interesting and critical (in my opinion anyway), but will keep an eye on this article from time to time. Smell you guys later. --Descartes1979 (talk) 04:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I know theres a Lot high Emtoins with this place. Heck i way a boy there ten years ago. AS ive heard thier a fromer staffer on this site. i would like to know when Dierct Defaince was removed as a reason for Physical Restraint. AS I spoke with some Lincesing people and some staff who ackowegelde that was an offical reason but insist that has been removed from policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coalhouse (talk • contribs) 11:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the article overall, there is actually some undue weight on the other side as well that I will try to get to when I have some time. Overall some very interesting references are being produced, and for that I am grateful. The bullying is unnecessary, but hopefully we can get some more editors involved. --DoyleCB (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You should have waited until the 10 major edits from the re-instated Mr. Doyle showed up today. Are we really going to start all over again? DoonRay (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Was Buttars the director for Norwood or not

User:DoyleCB made an interesting interesting edit today. The edit deleted the statement that while Eric Norwood was a student at the Academy, it was "while it was under the direction of Buttars". There are some glaring errors:

• First, he accused me as follow: "Storm Rider, please remove yourself as an editor if you are going to be so unapologetically biased with your edits". Since I did not make the edit, I am surprised he wanted to accuse me of being biased. The edit was actually made by Descartes here. Doyle, do you think that Descartes is "unapologetically biased" or not. Please tell us.
• Second, how is stating that Buttars was the director of the school when Norwood was a student biased? Was Buttars the director or not? Given Mr. Norwood's rather scandalous accusations, it would seem appropriate to state not only who the director was, but also when Norwood was a student.
• Third, to accuse someone of bias is done all the time, but it usually occurs when something has been stated that is biased. Descartes' edit is hardly biased, of course, Doyle, you could just be wrong and extremely biased yourself. Have you considered that you might need to step back from the article for a longer period to allow yourself a time to get your bearings? Just something to think about; if you continue down this path you are only going to end up getting blocked again.

As an aside, when a statement that is marked that citations are needed, we wait as long as two months before deleting it. When you remove such a statement as you did here, it is counter-productive. I re-added it after finding three references. Cheers. --^StormRider 18:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Storm, I will continue to report you for your abuse on this page. The rest of your comments are ridiculous. I can't even address them, they are so bizarre and out of left field. Please, please, please review WP:Bully (BTW, I like the references and the edit. I also maintain that the facility maintains it is nondenominational! Cheers! --DoyleCB (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem, make it fun. When you make editing anything less, it takes away from what Wikipedia is meant to be. Please report away when you see abuse, I know that I will not ever back down from reporting abuse of our policies. The blocks will be longer in the future, rather than just 24 hours, so don't stop now. I will also warn you that issuing warnings, falsely accusing others of wrongs not committed, will also get you blocked. The moral to this and how not be blocked again, treat everyone else like you want to be treated. I am going to have a blast and I am already smiling.

Oh, almost forgot, so is User:Descartes biased or not? I didn't see your answer. Cheers. --^StormRider 20:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You are a very scary person Storm Rider. Please stop harassing me and abusing wikipedia's editing and reporting process. Like I said earlier, I have no idea what that "list" of comments above is supposed to mean or who it is directed to. I asked you to stop editing because the article gets substantially worse and more of a promotional website than anything else. No doubt you think it is a great place, but the overwhelming majority of people on the Internet do not agree with you or the tone of this article. I made the edits regarding Norwood because I feel that if you actually read the reference, it says nothing about a time frame for abuse. That appears to be the goal of Doon Ray - the West Ridge Authorized sock puppet - and Storm Rider, to preface any accusation of abuse with a statement beneficial to the "Academy." I hope you enjoyed it. --DoyleCB (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Starting all over again? This is outrageous

Are we really going to start over again? We seemed to get to an agreed point until DoyleCB returned and performed massive edits once again, reversing numerous consensus items and edits. Review the history from today when edit rights were reinstated. This is absolutely crazy. What do we have to do to stop the circular editing. The edits had ceased and the war had ceased without DoyleCB involved. Now, we have to start all over since most of the material argument points have been messed with, edited and hammered on. Storm/Descartes etc., - is there a way to simply shut this topic down as too controversial for posting? This has got to grind on Wiki as a waste of meaningful edit time to continue to edit the SAME issues over and over due to POV problems. DoonRay (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Outrage!

Doon Ray, you are [User:WestRidgeAuthorized] and, as you have a very unambiguous conflict of interest, I don't find your suggested edits very helpful or productive. If you have a specific grievance regarding an edit, please bring it here for discussion. That would be a much more of a productive step than feigning outrage and relying on the Mormon editors to impose censorship. --DoyleCB (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Doon Ray was forced to give up his name of "WestRidgeAuthorized", I don't think you are doing anything by demonstrating you simply were not aware of it and attempting to make it look as if Doon was using a sock. Please just read his talk page. Please assume good faith of other editors.

Your edits are not contructive. They are POV and deceitful. I have reverted them with the objective of bringing desire to seek consensus here on the dicussion page. --^StormRider 00:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been nothing but on top of the table, honest about intent, POV and COI. I have not made destructive or mass edits as were witnessed today. I have brought all of my concerns to the table here in discussion. I have voted where appropriate. I would prefer you to continue to attack me personally than to continue outrageous POV/COI edits. It is less work to defend me than to fight the silly edit war that only one of us is creating. Go ahead and be outraged. It only goes to further evidence of your COI. I am personally tired of re-doing the same arguments, same edit concerns, same issues. Many have been solved, then reversed or changed after resolution. This feels like a blog, not a public neutral encyclopedia. DoonRay (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This is laughable and is a perfect example of ignorance in action. Doyle added a fact request today, where references were already added and he was aware and he admits knowing it on the talk page prior to making the request. Not productive, not interested in improving the article, and only interested in edit wars.

To top it off he accuses you of being a sock puppet; as if your new name was a clandestine action. When in reality you were requested to change your name and all he had to do was read your talk page. I am having so much fun with this. I can't wait to see how this unfolds. I am glad Doyle said he was not educated at the Academy and had no relationship or it would force to a very negative conclusion about its educational quality indeed. And just think, he has been editing Wikipedia since 2002. Yup, truth is popping up all over the place here. I have some ocean front property to sale; any takers? --^StormRider 03:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

What a class act you are, Storm. Wow. Keep up the harassment, it is all being documented and reported. Like I said, I chose not to interact with you or any other editors that are behaving abusively. --DoyleCB (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You have no idea. Yes, they are being documented and watched. Please continue because this is only going to get better. Cheers and happy editing. --^StormRider 04:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Move to Voting Structure Proposal

Given the emotional volatility that appears to be consistent and the amount of mass editing that takes place while ignorning historical discusion and edits - I move that changes to the article only are alowed after consensus/voting. I hate this method, but you must each agree that after days of discussion, bulk revisions of today only prove that some editors are not capable of editing within guidelines making the rest of us rework the article over and over for items already discussed and resolved. Though I am amazed that even though we had voting consensus above, even those edits are not currently in place. Thoughts/Votes? DoonRay (talk) 01:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've not been following things for the past few days. Doon, am I correct that you have already voluntarily recused yourself from editing the article directly due to your COI, and that Doyle is the main source of problematic editing? If that is the case, I would suggest that the solution is not such a restrictive system, but to get Doyle under control. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Tall, I know your time is valuable and there are certainly more enjoyable things to do, but your continued editing of this article would really be appreciated. What is needed is a broad range of positions that work together to produce a great article. This is not a complicated topic and working together should not be so difficult. I also agree that Doon should not feel restricted from editing the article. For goodness sake, it is evident that no one else does that has a strong POV. Tall, you have been able to work with Doyle in the past and have been able to echo some of his positions; any chance of you attempting to coach him on how Wikipedia works and the concept of consensus? I don't have a working relationship with him (obviously) and I am not hopeful that there ever will be, but I am open to it. What I will not allow is one editor to run roughshod on everyone else and a neutral article.

Curious, how do you feel about the voting discussion above? I don't like it, wish that it could be different, but I think I have concluded that it might be the only way to move forward. Of course, we could seek mediation. The problem is no strategy works unless all parties are interested in working together and each understands the definition of neutral. Thoughts? --^StormRider 04:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

List of problems

Certain editors (who I believe have an agenda) are making wild accusations about me being problematic, etc. I believe this is strictly due to a different perspective being presented, one that is not held by two or three other editors participating. If I am wrong, please advise here what information presented is disruptive, problematic, out of control, etc. The information being provided here is helpful, and with the exception of a few things I am happy with the article. Thanks--DoyleCB (talk) 03:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Different perspectives are fine, but they are worked out on the talk page. A number of editors had worked to make the article stable and NPOV. Then, you came back and changed a number of things without discussion and consensus on the talk page first. If you want to make a change to the established version, discuss it here first and work towards a consensus. Alanraywiki (talk) 04:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Alanray, the established version was established while I was banned and had no say in the matter. Furthermore, the banning (along with other abuses) was contested and has been reported to the admins. Can you provide a list for me, per the question above? I'd really like to know what edits I have made or proposed that fit the allegations or criteria of disruptive, etc... --DoyleCB (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You were the only editor that does not agree with the edits. As far as disruptive edits, here are some examples:

Here, the entity is licensed and therefore, per the Utah agency, is reviewed annually and inspected periodically.

Here, adding a fact tag when the nondenominational approach was already addressed in the last sentence with a reference from the Utah State Office of Education

Here, was it published on the Internet or in a publication? Unclear reason for removing.

Here, is this incorrect? It gives a clearer background on person and their experience.

Here, removing content with a fact tag after only a day or two.

Here, a big change from established wording.

There may be others, but these frequent controversial changes from an stable article should be discussed before posting to article. Alanraywiki (talk) 05:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't find any of those edits to be disruptive. At least any more disruptive than any other edits made here. But I haven't had the time to waste on this article yet. One can only dream of having the free time Storm Rider has to spend on this article .... I did remove the college bound link after finding out that it was a pay to advertise site. I hope no one here goes into cardiac arrest over it. --DoyleCB (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the email I received from College Bound:

The CollegeBound Network specializes in CPL lead generation/student recruitment (circa 1987). If you're not familiar, CPL – Cost Per Lead Advertising is a targeted, cost-effective advertising model that connects you with the students you're seeking. We have been identifying and supplying qualified applicants via our numerous education related web sites and portal for schools just like yours around the world. The applicants we generate and provide to you have expressed a specific interest in your school and have even taken the next step by completing your customized admission information form indicating that they meet all of your requirements for enrollment. This is the most cost effective, targeted form of advertising because it's 100% measurable and you only pay for results. To begin, please take a look at a few links to some of our flagship portals: http://www.collegebound.net/boarding-schools/

http://www.boardingschoolhelp.com/ In addition, please view our corporate B-2-B site ( http://www.collegebound.net/corporate/ ) to learn more about CollegeBound Network and how we can cost effectively help Southern Academy enroll more students. I've also included testimonials to share with you to show you why we are the best (because we deliver results)! Benefits of being a school partner: It's a Cost Per Lead Program, so you're only paying for "Qualified Results" There's no set up/design fees associated with our program Contracts/Agreements are open ended (you can cancel at anytime) Qualified leads are sent in real-time (with a variety of delivery options), so you can follow up with prospects and begin the conversion process immediately. Leads are confidential/exclusive (we will not share them with any other schools and they will never be re-sold) to yield optimal results. Leads received can be geo-targeted (i.e. Zip Code, Mile Radius, Regionally, Nationally) to target your best student prospects. You'll have access to our lead management tool (R3). This enables you to view your leads 24/7, set up auto response e-mails, create customized reports/graphs etc... …to further aid you in the conversion process. Monthly Statistics & Highlights: 3,000,000+ student visitors to CollegeBound lead generation portals every month means great additional exposure for your school. Typical Traffic to a School's Profile is 3,000 Visits We have over 5,000,000 words under bid management with all of the major search engines (i.e. Google, Yahoo, MSN) so you have the greatest chance to get your educational institution seen by the right audience. Our 1000+ school partners (over 4,000 campuses) average 5%+ lead to enrollment ratio (results vary based on market/geo-target/etc). Last year, our services lead to producing over 50,000 school enrollments and over $1 billion in tuition for our educational partners. Danny, please review the links above @ your earliest convenience. If you have any questions or need additional information prior to hearing from me, please don’t hesitate to contact me anytime. I look forward to speaking with you soon. Best Regards, Judd Bergenfeld

JUDD BERGENFELD 1200 SOUTH AVENUE - SUITE 202 STATEN ISLAND, NY 10314 P: 718-761-4800X113 F: 718-761-3300 WWW.COLLEGEBOUND.NET

BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT MANAGER JBERGENFELD@COLLE

What is missing?

When I want to improve an article I look to see if the article adequately answers the five W's: Who, what, when, where, and why. Some of the questions that may need to be addressed in more depth are:

Who attends this school? Does this school only draw students from the Utah, is it regional, or nation wide.

Youth served are found Here DoonRay (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the average time a student is there?

10-12 months (No reference available) DoonRay (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Is the program focused primarily on behavior modification?

No - "West Ridge Academy has a passion for helping young men and young women achieve change of heart through Principle-Centered Change." Citation for Clinical Model Here DoonRay (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

How stringent are the academic requirements?

Requirements for? DoonRay (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

After graduation, what is the normal course for students? How many go to college, etc?

Outcomes vary based on the critical success factors and each individual's work and family - see here DoonRay (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the annual tuition?

Depends on a number of variables, insurances, etc. DoonRay (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Other thoughts are as follows:

The article continues to use the old name, It seems like what would be appropriate is that we introduce the current name of the Academy and the old name, but then from then on the proper name is used only.

The status of the lawsuit mentioned above needs to be clarified and corrected.

Some history about these types of schools are programs would be helpful. How many similar schools exist in the nation? Are all of them boarding schools? I assume that by their very nature, none of them are open campuses. I suspect that few of us have a grasp of this type of school and how it compares with the typical private school.

Thoughts? --^StormRider 16:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

A few places that might serve as a primer are NATSAP - West Ridge and most upstanding schools are a member of this national association of Therapeutic Schools and Programs. The other is the already cited [1]. DoonRay (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

How do other editors feel about adding these topics to the article? Should we move forward or wait? --^StormRider 02:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think adding those topics will add helpful information about West Ridge Academy. I also think that History and Controversy should be separate sections. Alanraywiki (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree as long as we can keep the rest of things reasonably stable! - good call DoonRay (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Two Stated Purposes

The article currently says:

The academy states that it provides "quality clinical services, education, and experiences which promote spiritual awareness, personal accountability and change of heart."[3]

Currently the stated purpose of the West Ridge Academy is "to offer hope and healing to families" by establishing "new coping skills and moral and spiritual values that will propel them into a more functional and peaceful way of life."[5]

I propose removing the first stated purpose and leaving the second. There is no need for the redundancy. --DoyleCB (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking even though you did make the edit. Until you gain the confidence of others, you might want to go much slower. I see these two statements not as repetition, but as both standing as independent statements and both helping readers to understand more about the Academy. Instead of deleting statements, I think we need to be expanding them as we discussed above. Just a few of my thoughts.--^StormRider 22:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Wording change request

I don't like the wording of this sentence "West Ridge is governed by the Utah Department of Human Services." It is not governed by DHS, but licensed. DHS doesn't control the curriculum, treatment philosophy, etc other than ensuring that basic health and safety requirements are met. DHS does not control the finances, how much they charge, who they hire if they can pass a background check, etc. I'd go ahead and change it on most articles, but this one is so contested I decided to discuss it first. Suggested substitutions would be: licensed, inspected, has oversight, etc. ElphabaKathryn (talk) 05:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. These programs are licensed by DHS and DHS provides oversight to ensure compliance. DoonRay (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Please go ahead and make the change. These types of simple changes should be made without requesting input. It is when we think an edit will be controversial that an discussion is warranted. However, be BOLD, make the edit and if no one reverts than you know there is not a problem. On the other hand, should someone revert, don't take it personal, it means there is simply difference of opinion.

The article has been quiet of late and there are needed improvements as discussed above. We should all move forward and see if we can turn this into a good article. --^StormRider 22:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to discuss the edits I've made here

--66.74.10.34 (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)