Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Purpose of this page Using this page

Welcome to the Education Program Incidents page.

This page is for reporting and discussing specific incidents related to student editing and/or the Education Program on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of experienced editors and/or administrators.

Topics may include:

  • Content issues created by real or potential student assignments
  • Unresponsive classrooms or those editing with poorly managed or structured courses
  • Classrooms editing without a course page or with an ambiguous page
  • And any other issue that might relate to student assignments

Of course, we should remain civil towards all participants and assume good faith.

  • Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page.
  • You should generally notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{ping}} to do so, or simply link their username when you post your comment. It is not required to contact students when their edits are only being discussed in the context of a class-wide problem.
  • Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting.
  • Please sign all contributions, using four tilde characters "~~~~".
  • Threads are automatically archived after 7 days of inactivity.

Where possible and relevant, please include the following information with any report: Article(s), Course, Instructor, Online volunteers, and Student.

See also
  • Special:Courses (a list of courses using the Education Program extension)

Environmental Justice class project - update from Wiki Ed

Thanks everyone for your patience as we work through the issues with this class's contributions. After a good video conversation with the professor today, we have mutually agreed on the following course of action in the short term:

  1. Wiki Ed staff have now moved problematic articles back into user sandboxes. Students will continue to make edits to their articles to fulfill the assignment only in the sandboxes and will not edit in mainspace. During Wiki Ed's normal course-closure process this summer, we will move any appropriate content from sandboxes into mainspace; inappropriate content will be left in sandboxes.
  2. Articles that are already deleted or at AFD now are mostly problems with forking. Students will work in sandboxes to suggest how to integrate some of what they've done into existing articles rather than creating new articles. Students will ask Wiki Ed staff to review drafts in the sandboxes before moving anything into existing mainspace articles, and will only move these sections to mainspace after getting an okay from Wiki Ed staff. At this point, where AfDs are already underway, we have not moved any additional articles back to sandboxes, deferring to the community's ongoing discussions.
  3. Some students did follow directions and have good content on Wikipedia. These students will be continuing to make minor edits (adding additional citations, fixing formatting issues, etc.) until the due date for their work, which is April 24.
  4. The professor will grade students on the work they did, *not* on what ends up in the article namespace, so students won't need to worry about their grades if their work remains in sandboxes.

Please let Wiki Ed staff and the instructor know if you see major problems that have not yet been addressed, or if students continue to make problematic edits, edit war, etc., and we will handle it.

In the long term, we're looking forward to a productive discussion with User:EJustice on how to ensure better adherence to Wikipedia rules and guidelines for future classes like this.

@Tryptofish, Srich32977, Excirial, Bri, Jytdog, Train2104, I am One of Many, and Seraphim System: Pinging some of the editors who have been involved with the various content-specific discussions of this class (my apologies for omitting anyone). --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that, Ryan. I think that you handled it very well, and it's a very good outcome.
While I'm here, I'll mention something related to your question above, about suggestions to make the instructions about not creating shared accounts clearer. (I also think that the reply by another editor above, about making sure the instructions precede account creation, is a good point.) I'll say it here in case other editors have feedback about it, but it also grows out of the conversation you and I had recently on my user talk, about the training materials versus WP:ASSIGN. Something that I think the information page does a little better than the training materials is framing its cautions in terms that "get inside the heads" of the intended audience. You've been pointing out how some students have been following instructions, and others failing to follow. I know from my own experience teaching that students tend to tune out formal-sounding warnings, but pay close attention to warnings framed in terms of possible bad repercussions for them. Instead of saying that shared accounts are prohibited, I suggest saying that shared accounts are prohibited and can get you blocked from editing. I think that addition will help, more than one would expect. And it would be a good idea to look for other places in the training materials where you can do the same thing. For instructors, it's similarly helpful to point out repeatedly how student non-compliance can lead to bad experiences for the students and unwanted attention from other editors. I know that there is a natural tendency to want to make WMF materials sound "professional" and thus a bit restrained, but here is a situation where a bit of IAR will go a long way. Thanks again! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree about issuing warnings framed in terms of possible bad repercussions for them. The effect of doing that is just making it that much easier to block students by citing to the warnings found in the materials. Wikipedia is supposed to be welcoming editors not threatening them for non-compliance. In my opinion, the problem is from our end. If students are to be held accountable for learning the materials, have a quiz on the materials before they edit, and make sure they know the rules, and make sure the results of the quiz are part of their grade. Possibly make it so they can take the quiz over and over until they get it right. Blocking students or the instructor is not the solution. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC) [revised 13:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)]
In my not inconsiderable experience of teaching teenagers and young adults, I've found that rules are far more likely to be followed if the student can be given some understanding of why a rule applies to them. Treating them like rational human beings who can cooperate in their own learning is far more productive in the long run than threatening them with dire consequences if they don't obey. In the case of shared accounts, for example, the important point to stress is that contributions are the intellectual property of the individual editor and we have a default position of ensuring that attribution occurs to the individual (even if pseudonymous) editor. That is the real reason why we insist that accounts are individual, and not shared. Similarly, a review of learning ("quiz") does nothing per se to improve learning. As one of my teaching colleagues pointed out many years ago, "You don't fatten a pig by weighing it". I do know that review can identify weaknesses in teaching materials and methodology, so please don't assume I'm dismissing its value. It's just not the tool for the job you're suggesting it be used for. I would certainly agree that continual reflection on teaching materials is an essential part of an educator's job and I commend the Wiki Ed staff for their efforts. --RexxS (talk) 11:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
One who commits a traffic violation does not deserve to be treated like a murderer.
@RexxS: Yes. I agree with most of what you said, including the importance of explaining why following certain rules is important. I wasn't disagreeing about shared accounts--I agree they should be prohibited. I was disagreeing about having bad repercussions for students. (I have changed my above statement to make that clear.) I have had a number of years of teaching youngsters too, and indeed they respond much better to positive reinforcement, encouragement, appreciation and the ability to gracefully make mistakes as opposed to what they got way too much of here: negativity, harsh pejorative and undeserved criticism and the threat of punishment.
We'll have to agree to disagree about the value of quizzes for learning and/or assessment. I'm not suggesting we give quizzes--although I don't see any harm of making them for those who want to check their own progress in learning the rules. My main point that I have been stressing over and over, is that we have to be more welcoming to new editors (including students and instructors) and be supportive mentors, following the five pillars including "anyone can edit", civility/respect, and allowing new editors to make bold contributions. Instead of biting them or treating them as described at the right (from: WP:BRICKS).
I too commend the Wiki Ed staff for their work and having to put up with us. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
@David: I'm sorry I was unclear: I have no intrinsic criticism of quizes as a form of assessment – in fact I'm currently engaged in trying to help an eminent fellow Wikimedian, Charles Matthews in creating banks of quizzes to use while training new editors. I just don't believe that a student learns anything more about a topic simply by taking a quiz on it. I'm happy to accept that your view may differ from mine on that. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
@RexxS: I just noticed there are quizzes in the instruction materials, such as [1]. That's good. I'm going to spend some more looking over all those materials to better understand how the courses are designed, what the instructors and students learn up front, what they are expected to do and how editors like myself can help make their experience better. Rather than say, "read WP:OR", I might say, "Please review [2] from your course materials and then also review WP:OR which explains it in more detail." I hope other editors will do the same in helping these students. Nice chatting with you. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ryan (Wiki Ed): I do feel the approach used was a good choice, and along the lines of what I was recommending at some of the WP:AfDs. And I apologize to the instructor and to the students for how unwelcoming our editors have been to their hard work. I hope more classes in the political realm take place, not fewer. Our articles will greatly improve if we have academics and experts working on them, with more eyes, not fewer.
I would like to see Wiki Ed do more outreach to get editors, like myself, who want to help students rather than get them blocked and have their work deleted. I would hope most Wikipedia editors would want that rather than the nastiness that these students and the instructor had to endure.
The incivility and failure to follow core policies of welcoming and working with new users comes from our end and we need to take responsibility for our failure to be more welcoming and supportive of these students' hard work. I can certainly understand that WikiEd does not want to advertise our problems with following core policies of "Wikipedia the Encyclopedia anyone can edit", civility and be bold. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Encouraging a group of newbie, passionate editors, led by a passionate newbie editor, to edit on politically charged topics, is a recipe for disaster on a bunch of levels, both for the community and for the education program. The instructions the education program gives explicitly warns against editing this kind of topic, because of that. What you write here could not be less clue-ful. I encourage you to engage with the people who work in the education program and listen to them before you go campaigning about this further. - Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment I want to clarify my comments on editing contentious topics - of course every editor can edit any article they want, that is beyond dispute. But do you want to edit in the discretionary sanctions area is a different question. I whole-heartedly support editors who have that level of commitment to creating balanced articles in this area, but it is much more difficult then editing "calmer" articles (especially with a broken consensus clause that is currently under review.) I don't want to misrepresent this to new editors - it is harder, and very difficult to get new edits in under the current rules (even edits that are policy-compliant). Seraphim System (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • So today, here is what User:EJustice wrote in Wikipedia today:
  • At ANI:
    • note including Their [the students'] constructiveness and meekness in the face of hostile editorial responses that seem at times to be motivated by a dislike of topics related to race or class is admirable.
    • note including We are finding that material related to women, indigenous communities, people of color, and low-income people is being more heavily targeted for criticism than other material both at the full-article level as well as sub-sections and focusing only on sourcing, which is not the main problem with what this class is doing. As has been said many times already.
    • diff denying the edit warring behavior of students and again missing the point of what is going so wrong - namely that the class is writing essays advocating for environmental justice; they are not ~trying ~ to write neutral encyclopedia content. It is one massive abuse of SOAPBOX, multiplied by 180.
    • diff, their last edit today, trying to add wikilinks to WP:Systemic bias, and which points up the real issue here. As the two quotes above illustrate, EJustice blames "systemic bias" for rejection of the POV edits by students. There is nothing new under the sun in WP, and new editors who come to WP with a fundamental misunderstanding of the mission (namely, that WP is an appropriate site for advocacy) are always delighted to discover that essay and use it to as a further excuse to ignore the feedback that they are violating core WP policies and guidelines. The awkward thing here (which is a new thing under the sun!) is that this particular POV pusher is leading a class of 180 people under the aegis of the education program.
  • !keep vote at an AfD, ignoring the deletion rationale and not considering the essay in light of any policies and guidelines.
  • At an admin talk page, complaining about deletion of copyvio content (echoing the same complaint they made today at ANI here), with no regard for the actual problem, namely that we cannot host COPVIO content in WP.
That is what they did today. As others have noted at ANI, we would already be moving toward an indef per WP:NOTHERE, if this person were not here under the education program. Jytdog (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog: And the students are recruiting meat to participate in the AFD's. I'm not sure if the instructor encouraged this, didn't say anything, or discouraged this. – Train2104 (t • c) 01:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm currently checking all the articles in earwig for copyvio. I found another one at Open Space Accessibility in California. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Finished copyvio search. Only that one was an additional copyright violation. Had some copy paste from federal government sources, but those are public domain. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Thanks for doing that and reporting the results. Jytdog (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I have been trying all day to remember this, and just found it. This is the thing that the class is not "getting" about Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers -- Jytdog (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not surprised that some editors have been looking for reasons to re-frame what I said as though it were a recommendation to threaten students and to fail to explain the reasoning to students. Yes, and I smell bad, too. Anyway, what I actually said was nonetheless good advice. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • One of the students posted on my talk page today: Because our project are required to present on a wiki page, it might not work if we move it to the user space. I don't know if the student misunderstands something, or if their grade actually depends on them getting edits to stick. I could see how communications could go wrong in a class of 180 people and i hope that is what happened... Jytdog (talk) 06:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

There are a lot of important issues/questions coming up here. Wiki Ed is committed to learning from this experience and we appreciate the feedback the community has provided about the class, our processes, and our training materials. Our priority is on supporting classes so that they make positive contributions to Wikipedia. Since April and May are among the busiest months for student editing, our priority needs to be on content.

This specific class's assignment is finished in a few days. If content issues remain, please continue to flag them and we will continue working to help. But as there are thousands of other students actively contributing, I would like to request that we put on hold the bigger picture/meta issues until the summer (i.e. what went wrong, how problems could be avoided, and the best way to address such problems). In the summer there are fewer active classes, so we have the time to both engage in discussion and, based on that discussion, to make changes to our processes and training materials so that they can be in place for the next cohort of classes in the fall. We've pledged to come back to this in the summer, and will ping involved editors here (less anyone who expresses that they do not want to be pinged). The instructor has likewise agreed to revisit this when things quiet down. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Just a note that problems are continuing with the students edit warring, meatpuppetry, etc. in discretionary sanction topics with 1RR such as at Pesticide drift and leaching in the Central Valley of California. This is extremely difficult for individual editors to deal with, especially considering the course page says the class was supposed to have wrapped up last week. I'm all being patient with students who are put in difficult situations by their professors, but this is getting to be more of a mess. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Wiki Ed regarding AE

Hi all,

A few words about this AE situation on behalf of the Wiki Education Foundation, the non-profit that provides support to instructors and students in the Education Program at institutions in the United States and Canada. We agreed to support this class at Berkeley, and as such feel like we should leave a comment regarding the ongoing AE.

Over the years, we've learned a lot about what does and doesn't work in a Wikipedia-based assignment, and we've developed a number of technical tools and processes to guide instructors and to set students up for success. We continually update our best practices based on our own experiences as well as community and instructor feedback. As I've mentioned elsewhere, we will most certainly be engaging in discussion with the community to figure out how we can update our training, onboarding, best practices, or other forms of support so that we're doing everything we can on this end to avoid situations like this in the future. I've requested that we postpone these forward-thinking discussions until the summer, since we're in the busiest time of the year for student editing right now, and we'll have more time in the summer not just to discuss, but to make changes and implement best practices prior to onboarding the fall term's classes. Already, however, we've learned a couple concrete lessons from this experience. For example, in the past we treated the ‘general description’ of the course as a space for the instructor to frame their course as they saw fit, and instead relied on the specific Wikipedia-related assignment details and conversations with the instructor to guide our topic-based advice. Here we realized it's something we need to pay more attention to. I look forward to other ways we could improve our processes when we revisit this in the summer.

When we began discussing this class with EJustice, he had already been planning a Wikipedia assignment and was referred to us by a colleague. Since it dealt with controversial subjects, we discussed some of the finer points of NPOV and on-wiki advocacy and made recommendations regarding use of sandboxes, article scope, existing vs. new articles, etc., to which he was receptive. Over the last few weeks, a number of editors have raised concerns about the class, as outlined by Jytdog. As community concerns mounted, we went into "triage mode", working to evaluate student contributions and try to prevent additional problems, moving a content back to sandboxes, and having additional conversations with EJustice to further explain and emphasize community concerns, NPOV, etc. We also made specific requests/recommendations regarding student activity moving forward. We thought we had reached an understanding and he planned to take our advice, but the problems continued. In one of our conversations, once problems had become particularly pronounced, we agreed on the steps I posted here. Students were only to make minor main space edits for the duration of the class, and any contribution marked as problematic was to continue exclusively in sandboxes. Unfortunately, that has not been the case.

If we suspect early on that a class won't follow our best practices, we strongly discourage them from undertaking the assignment at all or recommend alternative projects, and make it clear that if they move forward as-is, we cannot commit staff time to supporting a poorly conceived project (this is quite rare, and when it happens, they nearly always decide not to start the project or quickly realize why it was a bad idea). In this case, it seemed they would follow best practices, and so we agreed to provide support. What we've not encountered before over the course of several years and hundreds of classes, is an instructor who repeatedly reassures us that he is going to follow our advice and then fail to do so.

At this point, the assignment is technically over (as of yesterday), so there shouldn't be any additional issues. If this is all due to misunderstanding, I hope we can learn how to avoid it in the future. If it's a matter of EJustice disagreeing with particular ways in which Wikipedia policy/guidelines are typically applied/interpreted, our options in a support capacity are clearly limited. Ultimately, while we can try to head off problematic classes, take great pains to try to explain Wikipedia's policies, and to steer classes in the right direction, we cannot force anybody to do anything. This sort of situation puts us (and everyone involved) in a difficult position.

I'm posting not to opine or influence this AE, but rather to assure the community that we are absolutely committed to doing everything we can to help educators and students understand and embrace Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this. We do look forward to discussing this further when you are all less busy. I will post at link at AE so folks are aware. Jytdog (talk) 03:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. And just for reference, I think everyone involved here knows that Wiki Ed isn't at fault for the situation, and indeed did everything in their power to try to fix it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
As someone involved in this from the beginning, I'll echo that WikiEd is not responsible for this issue and has made serious efforts in attempting to resolve it, within your own limitations. I'll also note that the fact that this has not happened before is a credit to WikiEd. When the time comes, I'd be glad to help review the process to see if there are improvements that could be made to prevent future occurrences. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Just a note - Ryan acknowledged that in the past they didn't pay much attention to course descriptions, and that they will change that going forward. The course description here was a gynormous red flag that whatever else was going on training-wise, the instructor had clearly stated plans to use WP for advocacy. It will be good to talk more in the summer about what other "signs" to pay mind to and how to address them. That is a discussion for later. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Exactly so. It reverses the "find sources and summarize them" standard of article writing described in beginners guides. Instead they started with a position, then looked for sources to back it up. The students' grades were contingent on their ability to do so. Just incompatible with our process. - Bri (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Kazakhstan buildings - possibly a class project

I've noticed three new articles on buildings in Petropavl, Kazakhstan, all created on 16 April by new editors, which look as if it might be a class being told to write on a local building: Administrative building of the North-Kazakhstan regional executive committee, Petropavl water tower and Railway Station Building, Petropavlovsk. Not particularly problematic (though the Admin building lacks any geog context or lead), but thought I'd mention it. PamD 09:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

According to outreach:Education/Countries/Kazakhstan there's some Education Program activity there, though the page hasn't been updated in a while. Maybe if we can identify the instructor's account, TFlanagan-WMF could try to connect them with people in the Education Program there. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Class project on Jindal Global University?

There has been an influx of new users adding content to O. P. Jindal Global University and Jindal School of International Affairs. One edit summary suggests a coordinated effort. I've since removed all the content added to those two articles due to bald promotionalism and copyright violations. I'm not sure if this is a class project but I thought it might be wise to check. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 14:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Advocacy classes and issues

Someone at the teahouse suggested bringing this issue up here. I don't know the solution, but I do see a significant problem. With this class and this one, there have been significant problems of articles that were not neutral, contained copyright violations, and were often blatant advocacy pieces that had to be deleted under G11. It may well be that classes on advocacy are fundamentally incompatible with the purpose of Wikipedia, since we do not allow advocacy for anyone or anything. It's led to a very bad experience for the instructors, the students, and the community who has to clean up the mess. It's not fair to anyone. How do we fix this? Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this is worth discussing. Ryan noted above that the Education Program is interested in discussing this sort of stuff in the summer; right now the staff is hammered dealing with boatloads of students who are asking for help in the last stages of their projects. Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree, there needs to be a summer discussion on the various issues that Education Program courses have run into this semester. This is one problem, I've also been fixing botched pagemoves/reuserfying essays, seemingly by the dozen. – Train2104 (t • c) 19:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I am worried about deleting and prejudicing future creation of notable articles because the published articles need significant improvement and cleanup. I think it is too much for editors to improve this many articles at once, but it is also a problem to delete legitimate articles because they need improvement. Maybe, in the future, there should be a stricter process for how these articles are published into the main space. Seraphim System (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
When I evaluate a request for a G11 deletion, the only consideration is "Is the article promotional, and is there no non-promotional version to revert to?" If the answer is "yes", the article must be deleted. The community has decided that articles like that must be deleted at once. I happen to agree (if we allowed promotional content to stick around, we'd highly incentivize creating it), but the criteria is a well established one and I have to follow it. It's never my call to override the community's judgment or requirements. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: I'm not sure why you think the EJ articles are promotional? I was skeptical at first, but I researched it and found out itisarealthing- it is advanced for undergraduate work but quality should be improved by editing, not deletion. Seraphim System (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Being real and being promotional are totally orthoganal. If I say "IBM is the best company in the world!", IBM is real, but that is still promotional material. Promotional articles and material are always deleted if there is no non-promotional version to revert back to regardless of any other consideration. They are not "improved through editing", that encourages spammers. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I can't comment on the Environmental Justice articles. The Black Lives Matter articles, in my opinion, are not promotional as defined by G11, but cannot be improved by editing and cannot be made encyclopedic. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
You're right on the remaining ones. If they were G11s, well, I'd have already deleted them, wouldn't I? But I did have to delete several of them under G11, and I believe those deletions to have been fully justifiable, or I wouldn't have hit the delete button. But they're still inappropriate, and your AfD for them is the right course of action. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Class Project Involving Black Lives Matter

There is apparently a class project involving the Black Lives Matter movement and User:AngelicBeaver. The editor created four articles on guiding principles of the movement. I saw them on New Page Patrol. One of them was then blanked for G7 deletion. AngelicBeaver says that they expressed concerns to the instructor. If so, the concerns were valid, because I see no way to make the articles neutral or to be other than statements of opinion. There has been discussion at the Teahouse and at User talk:AngelicBeaver. I have nominated three of the articles for deletion in a single AFD. I don't see a basis for speedy deletion, because they aren't advertising of the movement, and the movement is notable, even if its guiding principles are not notable in themselves. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Once again, it seems that we have an instructor who gives assignments involving Wikipedia without having a clue as to what Wikipedia is and how it works. At least, that is how it looks to me. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I have changed the level of heading because this is related to the above post. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I blanked the page because I noticed a misspelling in the title, and subsequently made a new article with the same content, but corrected title. Both pages should be deleted. One said "Principal", the new one was corrected to "Principle". I blanked the one that was wrong, but this was before I knew that the article was inappropriate, although it had been flagged (and I copied the flagging messages) to the new page).AngelicBeaver (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@AngelicBeaver: For information for your future editing (please do stay around after your course assignment!), if you need to change the title of an article the way to do it is to "Move" it to the new title - that preserves all its history in terms of who contributed to it etc. You can usually "Move" the article using the tab at the top of it, but in complicated cases you'd need to go to WP:Requested moves and follow the instructions there. Moving the article this way also creates a useful "Redirect" from the old/wrong title, in case anyone has links to it. PamD 21:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I did not think that the Black Lives Matter articles were hopelessly promotional or that they warranted G11, or I would have tagged them for it. I do think that they do not fit within the scope of Wikipedia and cannot be made neutral, which is why I did tag them for AFD. Some things do not qualify for speedy deletion but should still be deleted, and the Black Lives Matter articles are a case in point. I have not reviewed the Environmental Justice articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Incidents"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA