Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 1,187:

:I understand that the students' work raised many concerns about POV. WikiEdu staff and other WP editors and I will be doing a full debrief (likely on a public talk page) once we've all caught our breath after grading and the like. I clearly won't be giving another such assignment without ensuring that I understand how to conform more fully to POV and SOAPBOX guidelines on WP. Please dig into the (quite lengthy) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=777540531#EJustice EJustice AE case]. {{U|EdChem}} proposed a great set of next steps there. Thanks! [[User:EJustice|EJustice]] ([[User talk:EJustice|talk]]) 22:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

:: {{re|EJustice}} I am getting very sick of you getting on about how the assignment was to write a "neutral Wikipedia article". Just because your syllabus includes the word neutral doesn't make what you're trying to do either neutral or compliant with our policies. Here's a longer quote from that section of your syllabus: {{tq|create Wikipedia articles in order to create a neutral, well-documented record of the assaults on the environment and environmental justice expected to unfold early in the Trump Presidency.}} It frankly beggars belief that you can't see the problem here, but let me spell it out for you: the assignment you have set is based on the assumption that the will be an assault on the environment and environmental justice under the Trump presidency and your students' success depends (or at least could be reasonably seen to depend, whether it's your intention or not) on them finding and documenting that assault, no matter what actual history develops. Whatever else it is, that ain't neutral. [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 22:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

::{{ec}} {{re|EJustice}} In your statement here and at AE you have omitted

:: a) the stuff about Trump in your class description, and the diffs that I and others brought showing how important it was to you that the content added by your students advocate for the EJ movement and against Trump;

:: b) your consistent resistance to acknowledging the problems with student content while the class was ongoing and instead attributing criticism to systemic bias, racism, classism, sexism, etc;

:: c) your urging students to ignore community feedback on that same basis.

:: These omissions only dig your hole deeper. Your class damaged Wikipedia so much, on content that the world very much needs to be NPOV and trustworthy at this crucial time. Your class wasted tons of volunteer time, which is the lifeblood of this place. Your only road out of this hole is acknowledging what happened and how bad it was, which would provide some assurance that you would not repeat it. What you wrote here will lead more people to support an indefinite block. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

*After some thought and reading all of the comments above I am switching from my earlier support at AE for a TBAN and now '''Support a community based indefinite block''' with the understanding that this extends to all classes/courses which EJustice may be running. This is a fairly naked case of [[WP:RGW]] agenda oriented editing made more egregious by the use of students, over whom he presumably has some degree of power, as meat-puppets in the promotion of their POV political agenda. I view this as a serious attack on the integrity of the project and one that requires a very firm response. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 22:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)