NewmanComm
If your username does not represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice.
You may simply create a new account, but you may prefer to change your username to one that complies with our username policy, so that your past contributions are associated with your new username. If you would prefer to change your username, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice. Thank you.
Daniel Case (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
NewmanComm (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This account is part of a course assignment. I am the professor of course on Group Communication, as it stated on my user page. I use this account to oversee the work of my students in the course. I was trying to correct one of their mistakes on the Newman University page. We are trying to revise the page from a stub to start class.
Decline reason:
As per the post below and the template at top. Your user name appears to represent an organisation - or an unnamed functionary in that organisation. A name like Gertrude Twinkle would be acceptable, but if you prefer to sound more professional, something like Berg at Newman would be acceptable as it is obviously a person not a position. But I have a query. I can see little sign of anyone other than this account making edits at Newman, apart from some people who seem to have been around for some time. How are the students editing? Are they sharing this account, or telling you what edits to make? Peridon (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Comment on user's request for unblock
editJust asking, but what marks would you give a student who answered the wrong question? Your reasons for using Wikipedia have not been questioned - the concern is only that your choice of username violates the relevant Wikipedia policy. Please take a moment to do as suggested, and create yourself a new account with a username that accords with policy. Best wishes, Philip Trueman (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
NewmanComm (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Requested username:
Request reason:
Decline reason:
- I've copied the new name into the right place. I think we're at cross purposes - what I was asking was if the students are using this account. The reason I ask is because multiple use of an account is not allowed. Any edits they make should be on separate individual accounts, and your corrections made by your account. I know this must sound nit-picking, but these are the rules here. Peridon (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry for the mistake there and thank you for the fix. Going back to my https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NewmanComm, I had all my students listed there for easy search. I was the only person using this account. --NewmanComm (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- I see a large number of potential issues here. Firstly, it seems that you already have a personal Wikipedia account - User:Svlberg - which I would expect you to be using to communicate with your students. There is no need to operate a second account purely for this project. Secondly, you're clearly aware of the Education programme (User:Rjensen contacted you around a month ago to help you set up a course), yet you don't appear to have created a course page (leastways there isn't one listed) or be operating within its parameters. Thirdly, and most worryingly, there is a clear conflict of interest issue if you are planning to have students edit the article on Newman University; it also seems that you have not given them sufficient instruction in Wikiepdia's sourcing policy or copyright policy, since the current version of the article is sourced almost entirely to the University's own website and contains large tranches copied verbatim from that site (which is, I might point out, illegal in the real world as well as on Wikipedia). Frankly, your students have made a bit of a mess of the page, and it will require substantial work now to get it to an acceptable state. I'm going to take a look at it after posting here; it may be that the most expedient solution is to simply revert it to the state it was in before you all started work on it, although I hope to find some salvageable content.
- If you want to edit Wikipedia as part of an education project, that's excellent news. However, if you don't yourself understand how this site operates, trying to get your students to edit here can be a disaster. We have experienced editors - Education Ambassadors - who are here to help students and their professors teach courses on editing Wikipedia, and a specialised programme through which such students can work. Had you operated through the auspices of the Education Program then these issues would never have arisen; as it is, I and other editors are now going to have to expend time and energy in cleaning up your students work. Yunshui 雲水 09:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- I wanted to maintain a second account to keep the same edit pace as my students and to keep my personal and pedagogy work separate. That was following my teaching ethics before following the policies of Wikipedia. By the time I got my approval from Wikipedia on the Ambassador's program I had already created a smaller course page under my user name, a partial intention of the second account. My course only has four people in it and I was trying to work efficiently. I am well aware how this site operates, but one of the difficultly you forget is how hard Wikipedia is on and for new editors. Please see it from my point of view: I wanted a location where students could build knowledge as a group on information they shared. 90% of the time students enter a classroom with no relationship to each other other than the fact they attend the same school. Building the Newman page was a natural outgrowth of that collaboration. Further, I had two students drop my class, in part because of the fear of editing Wikipedia. Imagine if I told them to revise a topic they were not connected too. I have been revising the page to be more inclusive of outside sources because I know the sourcing policy. However, part of the problem is we are small school that barely gets credit in our local newspaper, so finding secondary sources was difficult on my students. Did I like their use of personal interviews, no. But they were place holders until certain documents were available. All of these edits were made in good faith. I take a great deal of issues with your claims of copyright violation on two parts. First, your primary criticism of the history section did not come from students or me. That edit came from this version of the page. The rest is a synthesis of secondary sources that my student do attribute. 75% of your revisions I agree with, but your removal of the pictures must be reverted. One of my students took those herself, met the edit requirements, and filed it with a Creative Commons License.
- I am concerned about the tone you have taken with me here. I was in the process of fixing the page and you have no clue what changes I was going to make to the page when I got (rightly) flagged. One of my first lessons to about Wikipedia is a discussion of how abusive editors can be to new editors. Despite polices about being kind to new editors, your diatribe here calls into question my ethics, teaching, and editorial skills. Wikipedia has a lot of rules that even experienced editors like yourself miss. In this ban, I have interacted with four editors. I agreed with the parts of my ban and I have clearly respected the reasons as why it happened. With a singular exception, each Wikipedian has been respectful and asked a number of questions about my view and logic behind my choices. The reason I use Wikipedia as a classroom tool, especially in this classroom context is to show how groups work together to improve on content. No matter what my class revised on Wikipedia it would need work. Thank is kind of the point of Wikipedia, it is eternally incomplete. But many of your changes were disrespectful and eliminated the collaborative aspects of Wikipedia. For example, based on the edits that my students made Corkythehornetfan revised the page to make an independent Athletic page that is attached to the page. I would not have directed my class to make that change and I don't think I would have thought about it at all. I will not get into a edit war here, because I know I will lose. I would ask you to reverse some of your changes and allow us some space to fix what we have started. --NewmanComm (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- I only moved the Athletics section to an independent page because I felt like it was getting too long. So I moved it to a page and that way you can expand it there, and not make the section too big. My opinion is that the athletics section shouldn't be long, so that is one reason I moved it. Sorry if you didn't like it, but obviously others did, or they would have reverted the move. ~~Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 23:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- You misread what I wrote! I am so thankful for your edit. I would have never thought of it! That is the wonderful collaboration of Wikipedia! In case you miss this I am going to thank you in the formal Wiki ways. --NewmanComm (talk) 00:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry I misread it! Wasn't sure, so I said that, but glad you liked that idea! Best of Luck!! ~~Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 00:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- I apologise if I came across as overly harsh in my last message; reading it back I can see that I was being unfair to you, and I'm sorry. I've spent a not-inconsiderable amount of time here cleaning up after badly-planned education projects, and it was unreasonable to take out my frustration on you. If you felt that I was attacking you personally then I fear you have misconstrued my meaning, however, I'll grant that I could perhaps have phrased my concerns in less direct tones. That said, I still stand by parts of what I wrote, if not how it was written: for the sake of your students, it really would be a good idea to run such projects through the Education Program. The whole point of the program is to make Wikipedia easier to use and more accessible to students; it's specifically intended to help them avoid the problems new editors have with the site.
- I also apologise for accusing your students of copyright violations; for some reason I'd got it into my head that Corkythehornetfan (who actually added the offending text) was part of your class. I've re-added the pictures that were inadvertently deleted too. Yunshui 雲水 08:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I'm still worrying about the editing by the students seemingly being done via this account. I did ask above, but I haven't seen anything looking like an answer to it yet. Peridon (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)