User talk:Pboshears

January 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Guy (Help!) 09:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Pboshears (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Regarding WP:SPA claim by @JzG:, I concede that my account has few edits—the first begins in 2008 with Talk:Okinawa Churamumi Aquarium—but there is no evidence that what I wrote on the Talk:European_Graduate_School page was maleficent or trying to whitewash. I apologize for presenting myself as doing either of those activities. Because @JzG:, @Quelfie:, and @Kizezs: asked for evidence of EGS accreditation in the U.S. (here, Talk:European_Graduate_School#Accreditation_Issues) and because WP:GAPB #Sticktothepoint states that I be brief and give evidence in my request for being unblocked I provide the requested evidence below. While it is not brief, I present the evidence without passion. 1) State of Michigan policy that @Quelfie: quotes at length is not a link from the State of Michigan, it is from abahe.co.uk (the Arab British Academy for Higher Education) and the PDF abahe.co.uk is hosting appears to be dated to 2009. If we visit the Michigan Civil Service Commission's current policy on "Non-Accredited Colleges and Universities Information" we see that they state, "Degrees issued by institutions that are accredited by an accrediting body recognized in the database maintained by the Council on Higher Education Accreditation (www.chea.org) are typically accepted." The current Register of Further & Higher Education Institutions issued by the National Commission for Further and Higher Education, Malta states that the European Graduate School is among their Higher Education Institutions offering offering courses from Malta Qualifications Framework (MQF) Level 5 to MQF Level 8. UPDATE 1/13/16: the NCFH in Malta site is undergoing maintenance today, so here is a cached version of the previous link showing that the NCFH accredits the EGS.They further state that the Malta Qualifications Framework (MQF) is "equivalent to the European Qualifications Framework (EQF)." One can read about the MQF here and see that the EGS is an institution that can grant postgraduate degrees. The European Graduate School has been accredited by the National Commission for Further and Higher Education, Malta (license number 2015-007) and and this entity is recognized by CHEA. So, @Quelfie:, @Kizezs:, and @JzG: are thus shown the evidence they need to see that the State of Michigan accepts the accreditation that the EGS possesses. 2) The State of Maine DoE does include the EGS on their list of nonaccredited schools, however they qualify this by stating their "list will never be complete or all-encompassing," and then they link to their page that lists which accrediting bodies that they recognize. Among the bodies they recognize is CHEA. Again, the European Graduate School has been accredited by the National Commission for Further and Higher Education, Malta (license number 2015-007) and this entity is recognized by CHEA. In a cruel moment of tautology for unsuspecting visitors, Maine's DoE also links to List_of_unaccredited_institutions_of_higher_education which of course lists the EGS (erroneously). Despite this tautology, @Quelfie:, @Kizezs:, and @JzG: are thus shown the evidence they need to see that the State of Maine accepts the accreditation that the EGS possesses. 3) While it is true that EGS is currently listed on this undated page from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, if we look to CHEA's "Directory of CHEA-Recognized Organizations 2015-2016" we will see that TXECB's "List of Recognized Accreditors" includes all the regional accrediting commissions that the CHEA lists (e.g. Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC), the Higher Learning Commission (HLC), the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE), etc.) CHEA states, "Recognition by CHEA affirms that the standards and processes of the accrediting organization are consistent with the academic quality, improvement and accountability expectations that CHEA has established, including the eligibility standard that the majority of institutions or programs each accredits are degree-granting." So, @Quelfie:, @Kizezs:, and @JzG: are thus shown the evidence they need to see that the State of Texas accepts the accreditation that the EGS possesses. Thank you for your kind consideration, I've spent hours writing this. Pboshears (talk) 06:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Pboshears (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Thank you, @ Ohnoitsjamie:, for reviewing. I understand why @JzG: initially blocked me: he stated that I was disrupting (ostensibly through my initial post on the EGS talk page). In my request for being unblocked I apologized for giving the appearance that I am trying to be disruptive. I have reviewed the Guide to Appealing, the Verifiability, Not Truth page, the Edit Warring page, and the Vandalism page. I am not trying to be disruptive, I am trying, in good faith, to improve errors from other editors by providing the evidence editors have requested. I am trying to make a useful contribution. I believe the block placed on me is not necessary. Thanks for your consideration. Pboshears (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Per user's agreement to stay away from European_Graduate_School article or talk page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt anyone will unblock you if you're only here to wikilawyer about well-sourced information on European_Graduate_School. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, again @ Ohnoitsjamie:, for your kind attention to the matter. I am chuckling at the pettifogging entry. Bottom line is: in my initial edit as well as in my initial block appeal I'm only trying to share verifiable information about EGS and observe the guidelines for contributing. My initial edit on Wikipedia in 2008 was about the Churaumi Aquarium in Okinawa. And then another edit about Louis O. Giuffrida in 2014. My first and only edit only to the EGS page was last week. I know that I could contribute more to the encyclopedia, but I don't think my editing history suggests I'm here for only one purpose. How can I contribute future edits if I'm indefinitely blocked? Cheers. Pboshears (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have a much better chance of being unblocked if you agreed to stay away from the EGS article and it's talk page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @ Ohnoitsjamie:. I can agree to that. But it's a shame that in my attempt to provide editor-requested verifiable information about the EGS I am, in effect, being punished. Pboshears (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a long history of accounts with zero or few other contributions trying to whitewash the accredidation status. As you might imagine, this gets to be tiring after awhile, hence the article protection and low tolerance for more of the same on the talk page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm totally sympathetic to that. For this reason I've tried to provide the verifiable information in a manner that is accessible and without embellishment. Like the admins, I am invested in a neutral, reliable resource. The links I've provided showing EGS's accreditation and reasons for doubting the reliability of the linkrotten state sites are toward providing reliable and verifiable information. I've enjoyed learning how to communicate through the Wiki platform, and for that I will give thanks to @JzG:. as well as you, @ Ohnoitsjamie:. Pboshears (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

I understand that you have voluntarily topic banned yourself from the European Graduate School article in exchange for being unblocked. It appears to me that you probably have a conflict of interest with regard to that article that you didn't declare when you worked on it. It would help clarify the recent history at that article, if you would reply here, and disclose if you have some connection with EGS that was driving your edits to the article. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog. Yes, you're right: I do have a COI regarding the EGS because I am a graduate of the EGS (you can see my academic profile here). I was asked by another EGS alum to join the discussion on the EGS talk page because there had been some dust-up about the EGS and accreditation. Through my participation in that discussion I have learned a lot about how to properly contribute to Wikipedia, including the WP:CONFLICT policy. There is likely still plenty that I am not doing right, I'm sure. For example, I am still unclear about the difference between contributing to the talk pages versus the article pages. I engaged the EGS talk page only to clarify and had no intention of editing the article itself. I thought that the talk pages were where "the community" went to argue the merits of the information being presented in the articles. I'm still unsure about that. Thanks for reaching out. Pboshears (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for disclosing, and thanks too for saying that you were recruited to the article. (I'll want to ask you more about that in a bit....but not yet) Just so you are aware of it, please read WP:MEAT, which is a section of Wikipedia's WP:SOCK policies. ~~You were blocked under that policy not for COI.~~

To be clear about the COI guideline, the heart of the guideline is exactly in line with how COI management works in academia - you should disclose your COI, and you should submit proposed edits for "peer review" by others (who will review them in light of your COI) instead of editing directly.

Let me explain that "peer review" thing a bit further, as it may be counter-intuitive at first glance - but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and voila there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world.

What we ask editors to do who have a COI and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is first of course disclose the COI, and then a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft, disclose your COI on the Talk page using the appropriate template, and then submit the draft article through the WP:AFC process so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself.

By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies. (which I will say more about, if you want).

Does that make sense? Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC) (redact, not accurate Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks, Jytdog, your explanation is really helpful! I know that it sounds overly-naive, but I thought that the talk pages were the place where the "peer review" happened. What I'm learning (obviously the hard way) is that there is a much more complex language and grammar to WP than I had ever appreciated. I spent the last couple of minutes (since I sent you my reply here) looking at the EGS talk page, and man—it's such a mess. Because the EGS is a low-residency program, the EGS alumni communicate fairly regularly through email, Facebook, etc. This is why I knew that there was something weird happening on the EGS talk page—a fellow alum emailed me and asked me to take a look and comment. Does that help? Thanks again! Pboshears (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying where/how the recruiting happened. Yes, absolutely, talk pages are where peer review happens. It is not clear to me what you are confused about there... would you please explain? (Are you trying to figure out what you did wrong, for example?) Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I understand why I was banned: JzG/Guy (I'm not tagging him here to avoid having too many cooks in the kitchen) thought that I was a sockpuppet, he said as much in the EGS talk page. He archived what I wrote there and perhaps he archived where he called me a sockpuppet. What confused me at that time was why he would ban me when I was trying, in good faith, to do the "peer review" as you called it. What I understand now is that he would likely not have banned me then if I had declared I had a COI. Again, I know it's naive, but I thought that the way to avoid COI was to only engage on the talk page, which is what I did. If I had known in advance the way COI is supposed to be disclosed on WP we would all likely not be in this conversation now.

Because EGS has entered this new phase with the two campuses (one in Switzerland and the other in Malta) they've undergone the steps necessary to get accredited by the Maltese National Commission for Further and Higher Education. So now the EGS has hired legal counsel to write and send letters to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and to the Maine Department of Education explaining these changes in accreditation and requesting those state agencies remove the EGS from their "diploma mill," or whatever, list. I know this because that legal counsel was approached after I was banned and I was asked by the EGS administration to explain what happened. I'm in those email conversations.

I had a look at the EGS talk page a few minutes ago and it's clearly a mess largely because none of us know how this COI process works or why it's to our benefit to adhere to WP norms like it. Does that clarify? Thanks for helping me understand what's going on! Pboshears (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow thanks for providing that information. Good lord they are watching that page closely. About why you were blocked - you don't seem to understand yet. You were not blocked because of COI. The reason given for your block was this. Guy was responding to you showing up along with several others to lobby at the article's Talk page on behalf of EGS. There was a wave of WP:SPA editing there, and WP:NOTHERE is a broad bucket under which promotional editing by WP:SPA meatpuppets can be handled. (how is that for a some dense wiki-jargon?) It wasn't COI per se. Does that make sense? By the way, based on what you have written here I have added a "recruiting" template to the Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to help me get my sea legs. I saw that there's a request to take down the EGS article. Is that the nuclear option? Just tear it all down and start again? Holy moley. Pboshears (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One way to deal with problematic articles is to delete them. I wouldn't call it a "nuclear option". Article deletions are decisions that are made by community consensus, based on the WP:NOTABILITY policy. Deletion discussions are very publicly available within Wikipedia (you can can scan ongoing deletion discussions here). Please know that it is very common when an article is put up for deletion for "recruiting" to happen; the community quickly and easily recognizes when new editors show up at a deletion discussion to argue to "keep" the article and the !votes of those editors are discounted.

It is not clear to me what the outcome of this particular discussion will be. I am pretty sure the outcome will be "keep" but the amount of pressure that EGS is putting on the article is actually driving !votes to delete it as being too much trouble to maintain. Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

note

Hello, Pboshears. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quick explanation of how this place works

OK, so I would like to get you oriented to how Wikipedia works, just so you have this. There are some non-intuitive things about editing here, that I can zip through ~pretty~ quickly....

The first thing, is that our mission is to produce articles that provide readers encyclopedia articles that summarize accepted knowledge, and to do that as a community that anyone can be a part of. That's the mission. As you can imagine, if this place had no norms, it would be a Mad Max kind of world interpersonally, and content would be a slag heap (the quality is really bad in parts, despite our best efforts). But over the past 15 years the community has developed a whole slew of norms, via loads of discussion. One of the first, is that we decide things by consensus. That decision itself, is recorded here: WP:CONSENSUS, which is one of our "policies". (There is a whole forest of things, in "Wikipedia space" - pages in Wikipedia that start with "Wikipedia:AAAA" or for short, "WP:AAAA". WP:CONSENSUS is different from Consensus. ) And when we decide things by consensus, that is not just local in space and time, but includes meta-discussions that have happened in the past. The results of those past meta-discussions are the norms that we follow now. We call them policies and guidelines - and these documents all reside in Wikipedia space. There are policies and guidelines that govern content, and separate ones that govern behavior. Here is very quick rundown:

Content policies and guidelines

WP:NOT (what WP is, and is not -- this is where you'll find the "accepted knowledge" thing. Because Wikipedia is so influential, a lot of people come to Wikipedia with the sole purpose of using it as a soapbox to promote some idea or some product, person or institution. This is something I spend a significant amount of my time here keeping out of the encyclopedia, and I spend a lot of time to time trying to educate folks about why it is a bad thing to use Wikipedia this way. See the WP:SOAPBOX section within this policy.)
WP:OR - no original research is allowed here, instead
WP:VERIFY - everything has to be cited to a reliable source (so everything in WP comes down to the sources you bring!)
WP:RS is the guideline defining what a "reliable source" is for general content and WP:MEDRS defines what reliable sourcing is for content about health
WP:NPOV and the content that gets written, needs to be "neutral" (as we define that here, which doesn't mean what most folks think -- it doesn't mean "fair and balanced" nor does it mean "just happy things" - it means that the language has to be neutral, and that topics in a given article are given appropriate "weight" (space and emphasis). An article about a drug that was 90% about side effects, would give what we call "undue weight" to the side effects. We determine weight by seeing what the reliable sources say - we follow them in this too. So if there are reliable sources out there that say bad things, we cannot ignore them. We cannot. So again, you can see how everything comes down to references.
WP:BLP - this is a policy specifically about articles about living people. We are very careful about these articles (which means enforcing the policies and guidelines above rigorously), since issues of legal liability can arise for WP, and people have very strong feelings about other people, and about public descriptions of themselves.
WP:NOTABILITY - this is a policy that defines whether or not an article about X, should exist. What this comes down to is defined in WP:Golden rule - which is basically, are there enough independent sources about X, with which to build a decent article.

In terms of behavior, the key norms are:

WP:CONSENSUS - already discussed
WP:CIVIL - basically, be nice. This is not about being nicey nice, it is really about not being a jerk and having that get in the way of getting things done. We want to get things done here - get content written and maintained and not get hung up on interpersonal disputes. So just try to avoid doing things that create unproductive friction.
WP:AGF - assume good faith about other editors. Try to focus on content, not contributor. Don't personalize it when content disputes arise. (the anonymity here can breed all kinds of paranoia)
WP:HARASSMENT - really, don't be a jerk and follow people around, bothering them. And do not try to figure out who people are in the real world. Privacy is strictly protected by the WP:OUTING part of this policy.
WP:DR - if you get into an content dispute with someone, try to work it. If you cannot, then use one of the methods here to get wider input. There are many - it never has to come down to two people arguing. There are instructions here too, about what to do if someone is behaving badly, in your view. Try to keep content disputes separate from behavior disputes. Many of the big messes that happen in Wikipedia arise from these getting mixed up.
WP:TPG - this is about how to talk to other editors on Talk pages, like this one, or the one in the article about you: Talk:YYY

If you can get all that (the content and behavior policies and guidelines) under your belt, you will become truly "clueful", as we say. If that is where you want to go, of course. I know that was a lot of information, but hopefully it is digestable enough. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this crash course, Jytdog. I'm feeling "clue-y." Pboshears (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Well good luck to you. I hope you stick around. :) Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]