Notice of discretionary sanctions
edit
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.The key thing
editI don't know if you saw this, but I posted it over at ENI and at one of the AfDs. The key thing your class is getting wrong about what we do in WP. It is not long, would you please read it? Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers Jytdog (talk) 06:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Jytdog Read it when you first mentioned it...I'm being careful about what I respond to because editors are threatening WikiEdu's legitimacy over this class, and they are great and needed. Who better to summarize well-sourced information than college students? They're trained in a discipline, have access to limitless research material, and have interest and time. All they need is some support to meet WP's editorial standards and WikiEdu is providing that in spades...I'm sorry that all the assets students bring to the table appear to upset so many editors.
- My thoughts on "tigers" 1) The topic of environmental racism for example elicits strong views as does President Trump's environmental policy for example. The facts are the facts, peer reviewed or journalistically reported. We may not be able to agree on this, but I think the key thing that editors are getting wrong is their inability to separate topics that are particularly triggering in today's political environment from good neutral content about things like environmental racism. We have worked hard to have the students eschew strong views and present neutral facts. They're learning from some of the feedback. But the inability of critics to separate their feelings about the topic from the facts makes some of the feedback less than useful. 2) In my view, the "strong views" being expressed here are those of editors' reactions to the topic of environmental justice as well, I'm sure, of some students. On the student front, they are trying to focus on their knitting and to get neutral material up that conforms to WP standards. But they are dealing with a lot of incoming tiger-related material from editors. 3) from our perspective, writing on Wikipedia is about a dead and stuffed tiger. We're just describing the stripes, color, physiognomy so that people out in the world can recognize one when it's stalking them. Make sense? And thanks again for your engagement...EJustice (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- PS: here's a partial quote of my response to a request that we warn people to stay away from controversial topics on Ryan's page: Discussing race and class is always controversial so we might as well say new editors shouldn't write about that at all, even if there's a fairly non-controversial 30+ year history of peer-reviewed research about environmental justice that sees virtually no coverage on Wikipedia. It's a big deal and has a lot to do with understanding and solving environmental problems. So it's educational content the world needs, provided by people trained to create it. In the spirit of being direct, do you think it would be acceptable for WikiEdu or Wikipedia guidance more generally to say up front, "don't write about race or class at all, newbies"? Thankfully the community's own guidelines are kind of the opposite of this (WP:BOLD). My frustration with the editors who have engaged negatively is their blindness to their own blindness on this front...their unwillingness to see how hard it is to get this stuff discussed neutrally and to engage positively in the effort to do so. Every time I read WP's guidelines, I am fortified that the intent is to be positive and engaged, so I'm sticking with that. EJustice (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Your class is writing content that advocates for environmental justice. It is everywhere in what they have contributed. The class members are adding "live tiger" content throughout Wikipedia. This is alarming. We are trying very hard to communicate this to you. I hope for everybody's sake that you start listening, and soon. Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- JytdogHesitated to respond to you because you don't seem to be able to engage in non-threatening dialogue. (Prove me wrong by making a constructive edit, or positive comment about the work the students are doing -- show me how to write about environmental justice on Wikipedia.)
- Your class is writing content that advocates for environmental justice. It is everywhere in what they have contributed. The class members are adding "live tiger" content throughout Wikipedia. This is alarming. We are trying very hard to communicate this to you. I hope for everybody's sake that you start listening, and soon. Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- PS: here's a partial quote of my response to a request that we warn people to stay away from controversial topics on Ryan's page: Discussing race and class is always controversial so we might as well say new editors shouldn't write about that at all, even if there's a fairly non-controversial 30+ year history of peer-reviewed research about environmental justice that sees virtually no coverage on Wikipedia. It's a big deal and has a lot to do with understanding and solving environmental problems. So it's educational content the world needs, provided by people trained to create it. In the spirit of being direct, do you think it would be acceptable for WikiEdu or Wikipedia guidance more generally to say up front, "don't write about race or class at all, newbies"? Thankfully the community's own guidelines are kind of the opposite of this (WP:BOLD). My frustration with the editors who have engaged negatively is their blindness to their own blindness on this front...their unwillingness to see how hard it is to get this stuff discussed neutrally and to engage positively in the effort to do so. Every time I read WP's guidelines, I am fortified that the intent is to be positive and engaged, so I'm sticking with that. EJustice (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- You strike me as a live tiger. I don't want to provoke you any more.EJustice (talk) 06:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Folks have been very nice to you, as have I. Folks have spent a ton of time - the most precious resource here, trying to talk with you and to deal with the content your class has created. If you continue as you have been you are probably going to end up indefinitely blocked, and if that happens, it will be because of your own behavior. No one can make you listen or make you see, and if you won't or can't, then you are going to self-destruct. I still hope you will be able to see WP for what it actually is before that happens. Done here. Jytdog (talk) 06:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- You strike me as a live tiger. I don't want to provoke you any more.EJustice (talk) 06:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Final warning
editThe next time you write something like this, I will raise a case at AE to have you topic banned from writing about contemporary US politics. You have written enough nasty things that I will be able to bring sufficient diffs to show that you cannot restrain yourself from acting unprofessionally when you deal with this topic in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)