User:David Tornheim/EJustice Class Collaborative Discussion

PURPOSE: This page is meant as a collaborative space for discussion, including that which has been proposed by EdChem to address concerns raised by the community of the class on Environmental Justice run by EJustice in the Spring of 2017 at U.C. Berkeley with 180 students. The first section is dedicated to answering concerns raised in Jytdog’s AE filing here. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Analysis of Allegations by Jytdog on 25 April 2017

Full set of Allegations posted here.

Instructions for this section: For comments on each allegation, please only post in your own user section and do not use threaded discussion, except for the section dedicated to threaded discussion. You can create new sub-sections within the threaded discussion areas to continue your comments. Please limit responses in your user area for each allegation to 500 words. Anything that exceeds 500 words, you can created a collapsible area with the {{cot}} {{cob}} templates. No word limits on threaded discussion.

Allegation 1

Course page with clear BLP violations about Trump (later noted at class liaison page here and removed in this diff) and stating the class agenda: ...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. created 18 January 2017. While we have the "neutral, well documented" aspect, the agenda to use WIkipedia to raise the alarm is very clear. Please note that there are 6 sections for this class. Here they are at Wiki Ed: section 101, section 102, section 103, section 104, section 105, section 106. There are 180 students. Some of the articles and their fates have been tracked here.

Comments by David Tornheim

• Everyone, including the professor agrees that this is un-Wikipedian. As noted above, it has been redacted, in response to criticism. Professor noted this is part of his syllabus and he did not believe his syllabus posted on Wikipedia would be subject to Wikipedia rules. [1] Wiki Ed has acknowledged this is a problem they intend to fix. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Next User (please copy and paste to make new entry)

Please limit responses here to 500 words. (See instructions above)

Allegation 2

15 March 2017 Encouraging students to generate POV content, eg I like the bold statements, even more so when supported by articles (like the Mother Jones one about puppy mill lobbyists!) This was made at the Talk page of Impacts of concentrated animal feeding operations.

Am going to dig in here a bit. The article at that time was in this state and contained OFFTOPIC, POV content like As the most disliked POTUS of the United States in at least 60 years, Donald J. Trump has a highly contentious agricultural platform. and pretty much everything else in that section and other parts of the page.

Comments by David Tornheim

• Rather than try to fix the problems, Jytdog immediately advocated to have the article deleted [2]. Because it was deleted rather than userfied, we have no way to assess whether anyone helped the student(s). Based on the evidence below, it seems unlikely. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Next User (please copy and paste to make new entry)

Please limit responses here to 500 words. (See instructions above)

Allegation 3

15 March 2017 comment praising Environmental impacts of pig farming when it was in this state.

I am going to dig in here a bit. The article at that time contained content like The Midwest has traditionally been home to many hog CAFOs, but it became particularly populated with them between the mid 1980s and mid 1990s, especially located in the Black Belt region referring to an area where many slaves traditionally worked on plantations, and after emancipation many freed slaves stayed to work in that area as sharecroppers or as tenant farmers. The ref is about North Carolina which is not in the Midwest; the ref makes no mention of a "Black Belt", nor race at all, nor slavery, nor sharecroppers. It is about hog farming in N Carolina. The next sentence does deal with race: To this day, many black residents in the Black Belt region face high levels of poverty, poor standards of housing and low quality of education, employment and health care. This ref does discuss race and poverty but makes no mention of hog farming or CAFOs. It is clear there is WP:SYN going on here, to build an argument. The content that these students generated is shot through with this kind of thing. Not what we do in Wikipedia. EJustice has no awareness of this. These kinds of edits were later criticized, and you will see EJustice's response to that.

Comments by David Tornheim

• It appears to me that the student may have simply made some minor typographical errors in either the citation or the text. Does the sentence work if Midwest is replaced with North Carolina? Please see the article on Black Belt (U.S. region).

• The question I have is why did Jytdog make no effort to approach the student and engage at the talk page?

Number of edits by Jytdog of the article: 0

Number of edits by Jytdog to talk page: 0

--David Tornheim (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Next User (please copy and paste to make new entry)

Please limit responses here to 500 words. (See instructions above)

Allegation 4

15 March 2017 Comment on draft of "Farmworkers in California" in a sandbox: An important topic, so work on getting a strong scaffold/outline to make your big points!

Comments by David Tornheim

The statement “work on scaffold/outline to make your big points!” might give the impression the scaffold is a structure and foundation to support the “big points.” But the scaffolding process has a different meaning when used by some of the Wiki Ed folks.

The scaffolding is the process of creating an outline of major subtopics of an article that will need content added. With this course, since Environmental Justice can be a subtopic, creating a scaffold of Coal mining in Appalachia for the content of the more limited scope Environmental justice and coal mining in Appalachia. Ian (Wiki Ed) explains:

And while it's better to create a good, balanced article, if you can't do that, create the framework on a good, balanced article, the scaffolding for a good balanced article, even if what you create has a lot of very thin sections. [3] [emphasis added]

See also: instructional scaffolding.

Another case where EJustice speaks of scaffolding as building structure [4].

· Jytdog’s engage engagement at the talk page: 0 edits.

· Jytdog’s edits at the article: 0

Note: This article is still in the sandbox. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Next User (please copy and paste to make new entry)

Please limit responses here to 500 words. (See instructions above)

Allegation 5

6 April 2017 First comment in an AfD, saying article is education program and that it is fine. Article was userified.

Comments by David Tornheim

I agree the professor—someone new to Wikipedia—probably should not have made the comment.

Now, look at the discussion at the WP:AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Undocumented_Farmworkers_in_California

Is it really that important to delete student’s work before it is completed? Sage_(Wiki_Ed) acknowledged it was moved prematurely, and tried to save the students’ work.[5] So why did editors feel it so important to be able to delete the students’ work?

Again, Jytdog made no edits to talk page, article page, nor to the AfD discussion. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Next User (please copy and paste to make new entry)

Please limit responses here to 500 words. (See instructions above)

Allegation 6

10 Apirl 2017: comments on Water contamination in Lawrence and Morgan Counties, Alabama: Additionally, any thoughts on how the Trump Administration's actions will impact this issue? can you find citations to such analysis?

Comments by David Tornheim

Article appears to be well-referenced. No major drama. However, since the RS in the EPA section and regarding to Trump’s plans and actions to reduce regulations probably does not specifically mention those two counties of Alabama, it might be argued that material would have to be deleted, as there is a WP:SYN conclusion that what applies to the U.S. as a whole also applies to County X that lies within the U.S. Perhaps there is an exception for that.

But please note that the instructor asked for citations.

· Article edits by Jytdog: 0

· Talk page edits by Jytdog: 0

--David Tornheim (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Next User (please copy and paste to make new entry)

Please limit responses here to 500 words. (See instructions above)

Allegation 7

10 April 2017 comment on draft - note that their attitude is hardening now: 1) keep your eyes on the prize -- focus more on strengthening and deepening your citations and evidence on issues of justice than on combatting those who seek to erase any mention of it.

Comments by David Tornheim

• Keeping one’s “eye on the prize” is not a phrase I would use for contributions to Wikipedia. However, the advice to use high quality citations to WP:RS to back up content is, of course, good advice, which the students ultimately adhered to. Was asking them to add WP:RS “disruptive”? I could understand the professor being frustrated with editors deleting unsourced material before giving students a chance to put the sources it, so I see him saying add the WP:RS for the content, and then it won’t be deleted. Good advice. Here Jytdog is reading the comment in the worst light possible. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Next User (please copy and paste to make new entry)

Please limit responses here to 500 words. (See instructions above.)

Allegation 8

10 April 2017: key comment -- comment on draft: Remember however that your grade depends also on the extent to which you cover EJ in the article.

Comments by David Tornheim

• Since it is a course on Environmental Justice, one would expect the students should be graded for their inclusion of content and high quality WP:RS on the subject, not an irrelevant hobby. Seraphim System explained that quite well:

I don't think we would sanction an economics professor for "putting an economics spin on the article" because he instructed students to emphasize core economics principles in their contributions. [6].

EJustice similarly states:

A key issue here is whether environmental justice is by definition a POV term. It is a field of academic research that is over 30 years old, yet Jytdog [writes above] as if students' coverage of this issue in an article is somehow wrong.

If I insisted in a chemistry class that articles cover chemistry, would I be subject to sanctions? [7]

--David Tornheim (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Next User (please copy and paste to make new entry)

Please limit responses here to 500 words. (See instructions above.)

Allegation 9

13 April 2017 first comment addressing non-students Responding to comments by User:dsprc made in response to questions from students about dsprc's edits, in this section of the Talk page. EJustice cites WP:Systemic bias and doesn't hear dsprc's policy-and-guideline-based objections. They have the "systemic bias" hammer in hand now, and will be responding regularly with that, instead of addressing issues.

Comments by David Tornheim

• Here as usual, Jytdog takes the most negative aspect of what is going on here. The students in fact thanked both Dsprc and Train2104 for the feedback.[8]

• From what I read, EJustice was not trying to discount the valuable advice the two experienced editors had to make—advice I too would have made--but to explain that trying to prevent inclusion of material about Environmental Justice literature of high quality secondary sourced material into the encyclopedia would create systematic bias and that those who might most benefit from that information would lose out if that material was systematically excluded on the claims that documenting inequalities is somehow by definition “POV”.

• Jytdog makes 1 edit to the talk page. The edit is not a comment but just the addition of a section header.

• Number of edits to article by Jytdog: 0.

--David Tornheim (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Next User (please copy and paste to make new entry)

Please limit responses here to 500 words. (See instructions above.)

Allegation 10

13 April 2017 at EJustice talk page, responding to dsprc: Your input above strikes me as gratuitous, meaning unsupported by fact. Feel free to point to actual text that represents non-neutrality or maligning of others. Please also reflect on how much you are violating Wikipedia's own expressed guidelines for avoiding systemic bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#What_you_can_do).

Comments by David Tornheim

• Certainly a harsh response by Ejustice. However, Jytdog left out dsprc's aggressive, accusatory and threatening statement that preceded EJustice's response:

If one desires to malign others, do so elsewhere. Otherwise it may negatively affect pupils', your own and the institution's participation in the project going forward.

Ejustice appears to be saying that the harsh allegation that he was claim he was “maligning” others was unsupported. Who was being maligned? Where was the evidence? If the allegation was that EJustice was maligning the new president with the statement about the new president’s environmental policies, EJustice was simply following the WP:RS that made these same statements. Again we all agree now that the sentence in the syllabus was not appropriate. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Next User (please copy and paste to make new entry)

Please limit responses here to 500 words. (See instructions above.)

Allegation 11

13 April 2017 AfD !vote: ...The course, among many other things, aims to help neutrally document the Trump Administration's assault on environmental protection....Finally, please consider this advice about systemic bias from within Wikipedia itself

Comments by David Tornheim

• No comment at this time. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Next User (please copy and paste to make new entry)

Please limit responses here to 500 words. (See instructions above.)

Allegation 12

13 April 2017 partially deletes a PROD. See edit note.

Comments by David Tornheim

• WP:PROD says, ”PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected.” I think it is safe to assume that if a student put that much effort into making the article, that the student or instructor would object. Maybe I don’t understand WP:PROD---I have never used it or seen it used until now.

From what I read at WP:PROD, he was entirely within his right to delete the WP:PROD:

To object to and therefore permanently prevent a proposed deletion, remove the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from the article or the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} tag from the file. You are strongly encouraged, but not required…[additional steps]

It further says:

If anyone, including the creator, removes a proposed deletion tag from a page, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith.

All of this language suggests to me that he was within his rights to delete the WP:PROD. What is the issue?

In addition, this page went to WP:AfD and there was no consensus to delete it.

--David Tornheim (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Next User (please copy and paste to make new entry)

Please limit responses here to 500 words. (See instructions above.)

Allegation 13

ANI discussion: Re: POV Forks opened by EJustice 13 April 2017 (linked above).

1. says in OP for example .... I think the underlying challenges the community faces with these articles have quite a bit to do with systemic biases. I'd suggest a read of this article to help understand some of the reactions the students' work is eliciting, and a focus particularly on what to do about it. Finally, a number of Wikipedians have suggested that our class syllabus is itself flawed and biased. I would welcome their input to improve it and make it more factually correct.... (problem is not its "factual correctness" - EJustice is not hearing the problem, and does this typical advocate thing, where the problem must be with other people.)

2. 14 April 2017 not seeing the problems Sections and pages were deleted without any real evidence while the sections themselves were well supported by scientific journal and popular literature citations

3. diff comment: Their (my 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. Emphasis added. Note responses to that, here and here.

4. Please also note this series of responses from User:MelanieN, going from at first very sympathetic, to somewhat exasperated and sharp, as their interaction with EJustice unfolds: diff, diff, diff, diff,

Comments by David Tornheim

• I will reserve comment on this for another time. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Next User (please copy and paste to make new entry)

Please limit responses here to 500 words. (See instructions above.)

Allegation 14

03:29, 15 April 2017 at an AfD. key comment I agree with your assessment that the students' work (upper-division students at one of the world's pre-eminent universities) has been treated with untoward hostility. I could anticipate this because this work does get regularly attacked in the real world. (Check out Rush Limbaugh, 2004.) And we trained the students to stay calm in the face of such attacks and to do their best and, most importantly to rigorously source their statements. I disagree a bit about the cause of the turmoil. It is a political topic, but more importantly acknowledging issues of race and class challenges many of the known systemic biases within Wikipedia. Many of these topics though are not political, certainly not by the definition of BLP or the discretionary sanction for post-1932 politics. Are the legalities of tribal lands and waterways really about biographies or direct politics? If not, then what might be at play in seeking to eliminate this as a topic for Wikipedia? The last question there is rhetorical, and it is clear what Ejustice believes the problem is.

Comments by David Tornheim

• EJustice did an excellent job keeping the students calm, keeping them from edit-warring (except in I believe 4 cases of 180 students) and keeping them from other disruptive behavior when their work was challenged. From what I saw they were very open to advice, and it was only their instructor that stood up for them when their work was so harshly attacked. I did not see any students calling other editors names or getting hostile and overly defensive. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Next User (please copy and paste to make new entry)

Please limit responses here to 500 words. (See instructions above.)

Allegation 15

17:52, 17 April 2017 Again, in EJustice's view there is no real problem with specific edits students have actually made, nor with the mission of the class and its agenda; the problem is systemic bias among Wikipedians. ...It's (Environmental justice is) 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. ...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.

Comments by David Tornheim

• The professor has repeatedly told his students to add more citations to their work. Jytdog said, “in EJustice's view there is no real problem with specific edits students have actually made.” Which edits? This allegation is not correct. The professor continually asked his students to improve their work on the talk pages. He acknowledges that he and the students are new to Wikipedia and that they wish to learn to include WP:RS properly in complicate with are guidelines and following WP:NPOV, which is why the students completed the Wiki Ed training module. Jytdog has had little to no engagement with the students at the talk pages of the articles to address the edits he alleges are such a problem. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Next User (please copy and paste to make new entry)

Please limit responses here to 500 words. (See instructions above.)

Allegation 16

As is extremely common in student editing, copyvios were found, which EJustice doubted and pushed back a bunch of times to have versions restored - no concern that WP cannot host COPYVIO. Diffs: at deleting admin's talk; at ANI, back at admin's talk page; at their own Talk page; at User:Ian (Wiki Ed)'s talk page; diff, etc.

Comments by David Tornheim

• This is grossly oversimplified. I looked at the discussions. I don’t know what the rules on addressing copyvio, but it is a problem if you spent 2 hours working on a draft, publish it, and then someone quickly destroys all your work so you can’t even look at it, because you messed up a quotation. The instructor wanted to know what happened, what the work was that was cited, whether it was public domain or not, etc. There was no way to find out what the problem was because all the versions were deleted, along with all of the rest of the student’s work. How could he help the student and other students when the versions were all deleted and inaccessible? If I remember correctly one or more of the admins who deleted those versions may have apologized or admitted that the deletion might not have been necessary--possibly that it was a precautionary measure. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Next User (please copy and paste to make new entry)

Please limit responses here to 500 words. (See instructions above.)

Allegation 17

here, I tried to call their attention to the underlying problem with the mission of the class via the excellent Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers essay. Their response which included 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..... But the inability of critics to separate their feelings about the topic from the facts makes some of the feedback less than useful. and 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.. and later (diff) You strike me as a live tiger This turning things back on people is the same thing they did in the ANI, and is what advocates always do in WIkipedia. They subsequently moved the DS alert I gave them and that discussion to a subpage, User:EJustice/notrelevant. The title of which speaks for itself.

Comments by David Tornheim

• Jytdog leaves out the part of the conversation where he approaches EJustice in an aggressive, negative and accusatory tone, with no concern for WP:BITE or Pillar 4--treating other editors with respect and civility. This is what I have seen in nearly every conversation where Jytdog approached EJustice, which was mostly at AN/I, EN/I, Wiki Ed talk pages, EJustice's talk page, etc., and not the article pages, where the alleged problems were occurring.
  In that same conversation, EJustice asks "show me how to write about environmental justice on Wikipedia". Jytdog’s response was to threaten him: "If you continue...you are probably going to end up indefinitely blocked...you are going to self-destruct" and then walks away "Done here."
  Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers is an essay, while WP:BITE is a behavior guideline an Pillar 4--treating other editors with respect and civility is policy. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Next User (please copy and paste to make new entry)

Please limit responses here to 500 words. (See instructions above.)

Allegation 18

comment at AfD, repeated 19 April 2017 here at the article talk page as an instruction to their students: Feedback from instructor: The literature cited shows that more regulation leads to more employment and economic growth in Appalachia. This paradox increases the notability of this subject and the page could be streamlined based on this connection. When I asked what that means exactly, EJustice wrote this. In other words, this instruction to the students was conjecture and advocacy stated as Truth^TM. This is where the class is coming from and where they are being led, in their Wikipedia editing. This is not what we do in Wikipedia. This is a thesis that someone would argue for in an essay.

Comments by David Tornheim

• Another misrepresentation of what happened. The entire conversation can be read here. The professor indicated that the WP:RS documented the claim. [9] He re-iterated that it was in the W:RS here. At the end of the conversation, Jytdog walks away, seemingly satisfied.[10] .

Please take a look at: Environmental_justice_and_coal_mining_in_Appalachia#Social_and_economic_impacts

It describes the problems experienced in Appalachia with high quality secondary sources. The section looks okay to me.

Jytdog did engage at the talk page and at the article. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Next User (please copy and paste to make new entry)

Please limit responses here to 500 words. (See instructions above.)

Allegation 19

23 April 2017 another attack on motivations of me and others.

Comments by David Tornheim

• I agree this comment was out of line. However, it is true that “Those advocating a move here had previously advocated deletion.” --David Tornheim (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Next User (please copy and paste to make new entry)

Please limit responses here to 500 words. (See instructions above.)

Allegation 20

25 April 2017 as above. Which prompted this filing.

Comments by David Tornheim

• Not a surprising response to the negative reactions and accusations he and his students have received, rather than editors working diligently on the talk pages and/or sandboxes to help make sure the material complied with Wikipedia standards and WP:PAG. Positivity goes a long way over WP:BITE. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Next User (please copy and paste to make new entry)

Please limit responses here to 500 words. (See instructions above.)

Threaded Discussion

References