Wikipedia:Education noticeboard

Project #KMUOS

There is a potentially excellent educational project being run by the Department of Foreign Languages at the University of Sharjah. It was run previously in February. See this link. It's run with goodwill, but is exposing its students to the many challenges of editing Wikipedia without truly understanding that it is not a kind place.

My talk page shows a dialogue with one of the participants, a dialogue which has gone nowhere. The WP:AFC Talk Page shows more background information.

This note is to ask those with an interest in helping that project to grab hold of it and bring it into a 'safer' place for the students to edit. They are being graded on successful publication.

I have emailed Prof. Sane Yagi from the February project with, so far, no reply. I'd very much like someone with education expertise to pick uo this baton, please. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@SPatnaik (WMF), @NSaad (WMF), @MGuadalupe (WMF), @VHargyono (WMF), can one of you help? --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent It looks like @Smmohd: has simply given up with trying to get articles approved through AFC and instead has resorted to just creating them in the main namespace.

I think this is happening because they're being given the assignment of translating Arabic documents describing a person rather than creating something from scratch. And because they're being graded on completion, they're frustrated that they can't get them to pass and are now just publishing them. Lectrician1 (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Lectrician1 Regrettably this is Wikipedia. If they are poor quality then they must either be improved or deleted Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Issues with Black Women and Popular Culture (Fall 2021)

Hope this is the right place for this - I've noticed a fair few issues with the above course's students unfortunately, and wanted to mention it somewhere in the hope that they/their instructor can be given some guidance perhaps by someone from the WikiEd team.

Specific issues that I've come across:

• Creation of pages directly in mainspace - this specific one was later deleted under A7/G11.
• Moving drafts that duplicate existing articles to inappropriate titles in mainspace
• Creation of articles with serious copyright violation issues (see also above).
• Not sure I particularly agree with this move from the instructor either

Can someone give them some guidance? Thanks, firefly ( t · c ) 17:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Firefly Helaine is setting up a call with the instructor. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ian (Wiki Ed) fantastic - thank you :) firefly ( t · c ) 17:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Firefly, I just talked with the instructor. She's going to work more closely with the students to check their work before moving it to the article main space. Thank you again.Helaine (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I came across this course content as well and have some concerns. It appears that the instructor is stealth canvassing (example on Twitter here) to try and keep the now-redirected Ratchet Feminism article live; the instructor is not sure about the draft article process (see where the instructor questions if others can edit a draft here); and the instructor's oversight of the creation of articles with major rewrites and overhauls needed, such as Black women in the romance industry, which has no less than five tags on it currently. Can someone help the instructor? Thank you. --Kbabej (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

It is difficult to see why a WikiEd course should be creating an article called Black women in the romance industry when there is no article Romance industry. Do multiple reliable sources discuss the asserted "romance industry" topic? Are there articles about the Science fiction industry or the Mystery novel industry or the Spy novel industry or for any other "industries" associated with genres of novels? It seems not. No way am I disrespecting the contribution of Black women to the U.S. Those who follow me off-Wikipedia know that I often describe them as the stalwart saviors of U.S. democracy, and I have respected them since the days of Fannie Lou Hamer and Ella Baker and the historic presidential campaign of Shirley Chisholm. My wife and I hired an African-American woman to assist us in an extremely important aspect of our personal finances recently. I love and will always respect Black women. It is quite concerning that a university level instructor allowed her students to get so far out of control that poor quality contributions were added this encyclopedia, and that attempts to bring the new content into alignment with policies and guidelines has led to a vigorous campaign of off-Wiki harassment of a good faith editor trying to improve the situation and help other editors out. Cullen328 (talk) 05:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

FYI @Cullen328 there is a more active discussion ongoing here. JoelleJay (talk) 06:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

FYI, independent class assignment going around

I wasn't sure what the procedure is with this, but there's an independent assignment that doesn't appear to have gone thru WikiEd. One of the students asked me a question about it on my talk page here. Since apparently articles are going through AfC, I didn't think there would be any issues, but I thought it best to mention it here just in case. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 14:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I just left a note on the student's talk page. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the same class or not, but the page Concept 2 Rowing Oars seems to be from another independent class assignment, based on the comments on the talk page. ~~~ Niftysquirrel (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Organized harassment of me over botched course

I have been harassed on Twitter by the organization Black Women Radicals (who's article is up for deletion). I had to make my Twitter account private because of them. This is all because I explained in a Twitter comment to the instructor of the course, Mkibona, that the article on them was being put for AFD because of notability guidelines and explained what canvassing was. Then the Black Women Radicals organization retweeted my post and I received harassment from them and their supporters. This was because they accused me of being racist and creating a racial bias for simply explaining about the notability standards and the rules against canvassing. The harassment included:

• falsely accusing me of blocking the instructor from editing, when I am not an admin and could not have done that; Ohnoitsjamie was the one who protected the page and Vaticidalprophet was the one who decided this, not me.
• multiple ageist comments stating that I am too young to use Wikipedia, from the organization itself to the supporters of them.

I had to block many people, including the organization, as the harassment was immediately overwhelming to me as soon as I saw it. They then proceeded to tag Wikipedia, accusing me of mean behavior when I was simply trying to protect myself. This is not OK for an organization to be doing, and I am now scared of what they will do next, if they'll follow me into other social media or even here to make attacks or potentially doxx me as an act of 'revenge'. I've been crying over and over today because of them because I am very, very scared and hurt by their comments. Please help. wizzito | say hello! 05:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

There's been some frankly vile Twitter harrassment of Wizzito for his attempts to explain in good faith why the page was at AfD. There are some really grotesque claims of racism -- one of those links is mocking him by using the N-word. Vaticidalprophet 06:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure why you took the conversation to Twitter and publicly announced your connection to this issue in a way that continued to chastise me for my behavior and accuse me of trying to canvass for votes. I initially only turned to my community on Twitter because I was frustrated, I was not being heard, and I didn't know what to do. I've asked for the redirect to be stopped, it never was. I addressed many of the issues around citations, etc... those were deleted. I needed help getting resources and ideas for the article, as well as help navigating Wikipedia. I also needed support from my community because it is not a good feeling to feel like you're not being heard and to feel powerless to do anything about it. The "backlash" you felt was from other people who at various times have experienced similar silencing and powerlessness. I've talked to several people about this over the last couple of days and it really struck a nerve. I do not want to trivialize your feelings, but I have been around long enough to recognize this shift in the narrative. I promise you that no one will hurt you. We are not a bunch of violent thugs. Many of the people who expressed themselves are fellow academics. None of us is willing to risk our careers over this. Mkibona (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mkibona: Well, it really hurts when these academics mock me by using the N-word, attack me for protecting myself, and make ageist comments telling me to "go back to school". I do regret bringing the conversation off-wiki, but I felt just as frustrated as you were at the time, and that still doesn't excuse the harassment. wizzito | say hello! 06:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I also tend to overthink a lot, especially when I feel harassed, abused, or threatened. wizzito | say hello! 06:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, FYI, this discussion really isn't about you. It's mainly about the harassment by the Black Women Radicals organization and their followers. There was little or no harassment until the organization stepped in. wizzito | say hello! 06:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Wizzito: I am so sorry you've experienced this off-wiki harassment - I am disgusted at the comments you've received for trying to explain what was going on. I strongly recommend you report this to Trust and Safety who will investigate this and take legal action if merited. Behaviour like this damages our community, and I will not stand for it. I will review if Mkibona's off-wiki actions constitute a violation of our harassment policy, seeing as they "initially [...] turned to [their] community on Twitter" - I would expect better behaviour from a Wiki Ed instructor and will be asking Ian from Wiki Ed to review this internally -- TNT (talk • she/they) 06:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• I think that the instructor is innocent and acting in good faith; the harassment only started when the Black Women Radicals Twitter jumped in and they are the ones who should be looked at. I only blocked people on Twitter in an effort to prevent further harassment by others. wizzito | say hello! 07:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

FYI here is the instructor's original tweet. wizzito | say hello! 07:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'm sorry that you've been subjected to that, Wizzito. Twitter is a nasty place. I've experienced my fair share of harassment there myself and 100% of it was related to Wikipedia. Unfortunately it's got to the point where I rarely talk about my work here there, because there are so many people who can only see "Wikipedia" is yet another faceless corporation and, when "it" does something they don't like, will take it out on anybody who sticks their head above the parapet. I'll second TNT's suggestion that the best people to follow up on this are WMF Trust & Safety.

That said, looking at the page history, this was handled really badly and I can see why things escalated. Many of the tweeters and perhaps Mkibona herself display the (very common) misunderstanding that an 'editor' is someone with special authority over Wikipedia content – like editors in the real world. Of course we know that anyone who edits Wikipedia is an editor, and anyone can edit Wikipedia. But that is not obvious to everyone, especially when you act like someone with elevated authority: Vaticidalprophet blanked and redirected the page with no discussion and a jargon-filled edit summary, you restored it with no additional information after Mkibona had tried to make changes, and then an administrator came in to back you up with technical protection. When she tried to start a discussion about it, she was met with bureaucratic stonewalling and the bizarre accusation that asking for help with an article is a wiki-crime. Looking at it from the other point of view, is it really surprising that people reacted badly to the perception that two self-disclosed young men had the only say on whether an article on a feminist movement gets to stay on Wikipedia? That isn't how people expect we do things, nor how they should be done. I know that you only played a small role in this, Wizzito, and again I'm not condoning the Twitter harassment, but all involved really should have done better here. – Joe (talk) 08:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: - As seen in Talk:Ratchet Feminism, the main issue causing protection was that the instructor refused to discuss with other editors or use an edit summary. The instructor discussed with others only when the article was protected. wizzito | say hello! 08:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

And where was she invited to discussion? – Joe (talk) 08:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a Wiki Ed course, which has liaisons on our side, and instructors know that. Multiple issues with the course were raised, and still things are only getting worse. MarioGom (talk) 09:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When I encountered the article, it was 1100 words with 10 references, most of them not about the concept of ratchet feminism. I considered a BLAR appropriate given the circumstances and the existence of a related article to redirect to. I mentioned in my edit summary that a de facto merge (that is, adding new content, with better sourcing, presented as an encyclopedia article and not an argumentative essay, to the target article) could be an appropriate way to incorporate information on this concept to Wikipedia. Retrospectively, I should've made that clearer.

I sought administrator help to protect the article to try and induce discussion on the talk page or an appropriate other page between editors, which I have repeatedly seen discussed as a legitimate cause for protection; I consider redirect-warring a particularly destructive form of edit warring due to the greater impact on readers (similar to move warring, which is explicitly called out as requiring rapid protection due to its unusually destructive position) and moved accordingly to prevent redirect warring while discussion occurred. I kept the page on my watchlist but was not asked about it either there or on my talk page (I see now Wizzito was on his), so eventually took the page off out of concern the instructor had decided not to communicate entirely, especially given the course was over by this point.

At the time of this series of events, it felt the best one available to me with the apparent situation; I redirected an article not appearing to satisfy our standards for inclusion to an appropriate target, attempted to give an edit summary pointing towards how to incorporate content related to it in the encyclopedia (retrospectively this is a weak link, and it should have been more explicit), and prevented a destructive edit war that would handicap readers and place strain on NPP. I think retrospectively there were likely ways to handle it better, but I don't believe any of it is much worth a kid getting dogpiled on Twitter for supposedly being a racist. Vaticidalprophet 09:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• To observers: I'd suggest not engaging with this organization on Twitter. They seem to have picked a fight, and I doubt anything positive can come out of further engagement. Please, stay safe. MarioGom (talk) 13:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks unfortunate all around. More or less agree with Joe's summary above. I want to validate both the professor's frustration and Wizzito's feeling about what happened on Twitter. Only want to add a note about Wikipedia and Twitter, coming from personal experience. It's useful [for me anyway] to remember that the nature of Twitter is to encourage quick responses. People aren't going to be doing a deep dive into article histories or policies, but reacting based on their personal experiences, feelings, perceptions, and judgments based on what limited information they do have. Having accidentally done this myself [at least] once in the past, when people are on Twitter talking about or venting about injustices on Wikipedia, especially when they connect to injustices outside of Wikipedia and Twitter, it's a bad idea to respond with anything remotely resembling a claim that there was not, in fact, an injustice, or with instructions about how to work around that injustice. That's especially true for anyone who might not be able to see the events through the same lens. It's obviously heavily context-dependent, but IMO the best approach, if you want to reach out on Twitter, is to offer to talk by email or some other less public medium. Some people really appreciate that, and it limits the discussion to the people who really do want to figure things out. None of this is to say you deserved those responses -- you most definitely did not, and I'm editing this comment again because I want to emphasize that -- just my $0.02 about Wikipedia controversy and Twitter. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

My fundamental belief is that anyone with hard power over another person (an adult, an employer, etc.) who harrasses said person who lacks it has crossed a line it's exceptional to come back from. I was the target of sustained online harrassment campaigns by adults at Wizzito's age and younger, sometimes much younger, and it flecked my worldview in ways I can't quite paint over. I am sure this is a well-intentioned post (I concur with the broad "Twitter is the worst thing ever because it handicaps longform communication" stance), but fundamentally the response to "these people with hard power over my livelihood are systematically harrassing me" is not "maybe email them next time". Vaticidalprophet 21:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm horrified at what has happened here, and I feel awful that I didn't jump into the Twitter thread yesterday when it was first posted to try to explain RS and N. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ian (Wiki Ed):, don't. You'll become a target of them if you do so. wizzito | say hello! 15:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Wizzito. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ian (Wiki Ed):, I see you responded to them already; maybe your comments will be the ones that help them understand, maybe not. Your conversations with them so far have been very good, though. I hope you or someone else can clarify that I am not lying about my age or using multiple accounts, like they are accusing me of. wizzito | say hello! 16:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

FYI the organization is also attempting to harass other people who attempted to explain policy to them. This includes taking another editor who responded to them's opinions on a separate Twitter thread and using it as a personal attack. They also made other personal attacks towards them and falsely accusing them of blocking the organization as they think it's me, it's not. There's another ageist comment in that link as well. Here's another personal attack of theirs on another user, claiming that they were just asking questions. They are also accusing me and other editors of faking our ages and hiding behind anonymity. Ironically, a bit of the harassment was from anonymous users. (These other people have given them answers, yet they continue to stick their fingers into their ears and say "la-la-la"!) I'm done interacting with them, just monitoring and archiving the instances of harassment as they continue. I also highly suggest not interacting with them; if you do, you become a target of theirs and they will not hesitate to use anything they find against you. wizzito | say hello! 15:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Here's a Black Women Radicals supporter, linked to initially as being one of the harassers, falsely accusing me of defending child pornographers and also insulting Ian (Wiki Ed) because of where he is from. This is absolutely unacceptable and I am deeply offended at these false accusations being launched at me by the organization and their supporters. wizzito | say hello! 17:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• While people can hold views as to whether it was wise to reply on-Twitter, it remains that the user had every right to do so, and their reward for trying to be helpful has been vile. While being on the outside might be good reason for not understanding (or, more accurately, accepting explanations of notability) and partial reason for canvassing, it would escape me on how it could then be viewed as even partial cover for many of the statements made. I do wonder what any topic as potential controversial as this was doing as the focus of any wikied course and why an instructor made a public response rather than handling it internally. Surely any instructor should be abundantly aware of both the relevant policy and how to handle disputes like this in-house? Nosebagbear (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

(EC) It's also troubling that WikiEd instructors do not seem to have adequate familiarity with how Wikipedia works?? This is far, far from the first time an Ed class has produced articles that get speedied per G11 or A7, get taken to AfD for lack of notability, and/or require history revdel for copyvio. I don't know how common this actually is in proportion to the number of classes on Wiki -- maybe it's only a small percentage that are even dealing with mainspace creations at all. But I think a much more rigorous understanding of WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:COPYVIO (and WP:BRD) among WikiEducators would go a long way in reducing these issues. The way I learned about notability and RS criteria (and maybe more importantly their actual application) was by reading hundreds of archived >10kb-discussion AfDs in my areas of interest and then participating in active AfDs. Maybe some kind of training module involving discussion participation would be helpful here? JoelleJay (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

That really is the most fundamental problem here I think and something I was also concerned about. It's been hard for me to help people understand the site (admittedly, I'm no teacher, but this is regarding interested people I know), and I'm sure that if I were a student in the class of an instructor who does not understand Wikipedia, it would be a bad experience. Not blaming the instructor, but we are not preparing them well enough if this sort of thing could happen. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I have worked with instructors, including difficult ones that the fallout ended up on national news websites. I really want to defend the instructor, but I can't. The instructor broke the rule by attempting to WP:CANVASS via Twitter. And that attracted others who attack Wizzito. I agree with TNT here. It is borderline harassment, specifically off-wiki harassment. The only argument against that is that the instructor didn't attack the editor, but someone else did. TNT, I'm willing to analyze that with you and co-endorse any admin action that may be taken. Time to sharpen my block hammer. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:18, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@OhanaUnited: I'm waiting to see if Mkibona is going to reply before making any decisions of if they should be blocked. I absolutely do not want to see them doing any other Wiki Ed work (and frankly I'm getting sick of the issues Wiki Ed causes in general) -- TNT (talk • she/they) 05:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime: There's plenty of good work done by Wiki Ed and its predecessor. It's typically the bad cases that raise the surface (aka negativity bias). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I have intentionally disengaged from a lot of the hour-by-hour, back & forth. I doubt my words will provide you with the solace you are seeking. My class is tied to my research around the misrecognition and misrepresentation of Black women’s voices. The assignment was both an academic exercise, and a contribution of content important to Black women. For the class of mostly 1st year Black women, and myself, the assignment signified a lot. I am more than willing to admit my errors in not adequately preparing students to carry out the assignment. They needed a lot more oversight. I also deeply regret the pain that some of them experienced in what they saw as an environment in which they were not heard. I took on the editing for a few pieces because 1, I am better positioned to do so and 2, as the instructor who brought them into this space, I felt I had a responsibility to protect them. I could take being called names and being chastised (even the title of THIS discussion is offensive), but I didn’t want to subject my students to that. I tried to be heard more than once, and I felt ignored, and I was even chastised. The experience was hurtful for me and for my students who witnessed it. It is easier to find the words to criticize others, but far more difficult to constructively engage with people.

As for going to Twitter, after being frustrated and feeling silenced… I won’t apologize for that. I needed help learning to navigate Wikipedia and I wanted resources for the article. I wanted to save and improve the work the students put into writing a topic, which is very relevant for millennial and gen z Black women. I read the policy on canvassing (after the fact), and I never asked for “votes” or for anyone to come on Wikipedia on by behalf. I am connected to a network of Black feminist scholars on Twitter who know this topic well. While people expressed their frustration, more importantly, they listened and reach out to help. I received a lot of sources and ideas for the article. Some of which were incorporated.

The engagement with Wikipedia editors on Twitter was ONLY done when editors volunteered to identify themselves. No one sought to find out editors’ identities. Some editors actually engaged in a helpful & meaningful dialogue on Twitter. @Wizzito had a different experience. Honestly, knowing his age, I hate to single him out because I feel that it’s irresponsible. But I will say, when he went on Twitter, identified himself, and continued with the tone of criticism and chastising that I had experienced on Wikipedia, I anticipated the reaction. I wish it had not happened, but it did not have to happen.

I would be more than willing to engage in a constructive dialogue around some of the larger issues. We could discuss the idea of engaging students in editing on Wikipedia if we also discuss problematic interactions experienced by people of color and women in the Wikipedia community. That would be far more productive. Mkibona (talk) 06:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Mkibona, I appreciate your comments especially your willingness to engage in dialogue and I encourage you to read the comments I made in a related thread above (and respond if you choose to). You have already conceded that you made errors and so I will refrain from chastising you. Successfully editing contentious topics on Wikipedia requires a deep understanding of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and social norms. My friendly question to you is how can you expect to be able to guide your students to do so when you yourself acknowledge that you lack that deep knowledge? I have edited here for over twelve years, am an administrator and have spent an enormous amount of time assisting new editors. I would be happy to engage with you about Wikipedia's social norms if you want to do so. Just reach our to me on my talk page at any time. Cullen328 (talk) 07:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the accusation of canvassing, I think Wizzito interpreted your tweet I don’t know where the Black (& allies) nerds are, but I really need support in editing & saving https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Women_Radicals as an attempt to recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate. The intent may have been to vent or to solicit solid references for the articles, but I believe most editors would see it as directly asking supporters for help in keeping the article at AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 08:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328 I read the comments. I do not want to speak for WikiEd, but I see the benefit of having subject area experts guide their students in contributing content in those subject areas. While a professor may not be a regular editor on Wikipedia, many have the subject expertise. I see the importance of guiding students in creating articles with the goal of addressing specific representations. It’s similar to the goals of projects like WikiProject African diaspora or WikiProject Africa… Which is relevant to discussions around Racial bias on Wikipedia.

For my class, I gave students topics related to Black women in popular culture: music (especially hip hop), film (including adult film), literature (including romance), digital media (including spaces like Wikipedia), etc…. While I have published extensively in this area and I am well positioned to identify topics that are “notable”, there were issues with that notability being demonstrated via citations. But again, I teach this course and selected those topics because it’s an area I know well. Students are required to complete 10-12 Wikipedia tutorials over the course of about 15 weeks before they draft their articles. But undergraduates are notorious for not doing their readings or homework. This is where additional oversight was needed.

You specifically questioned the notability Black women in the romance industry… There have been publications (scholarly and news) and documentaries on the increase in self-published authors to emerge in the romance industry in the wake of 50 Shades of Grey. There are also sources, discussing emerging Black women romance authors and the depiction of Black love in those books. There is an upcoming book on the topic coming in February (Black Love Matters: Real Talk on Romance, Being Seen, and Happily Ever Afters). There are also several podcasts (The Black Romance Podcast, The Turn On, #fallsonlove, etc…) dedicated to Black romance and erotica. I could go on, but you get the point.

The issue regarding the redirect… As a subject area expert, I was very upset that the article on ratchet feminism, which is often critical of womanism (& feminism) because of their respectability politics, was redirected to womanism. Inadvertently, I’m sure, the redirect silenced ratchet feminists by inferring womanists were better equipped to speak to the issue. This ended up being an example of the respectability politics that is at the core of ratchet feminism. And it is also why I tried repeatedly to get the re-redirect undone while the issues with the article were worked on. While editing these types of topics does require an understanding of “Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and social norms”, editing, redirecting, or dismissing these types of topics should require a deeper understanding of politics around that topic.

I have tried to read all of the comments. Rather than engaging, like we are now, my ability as a professor was critiqued, I was called irresponsible, it was said that my behavior was “disgusting”, and I was admonished of me stepping in to work with my students. There seems to be the misconception that I willfully ignored editor’s concerns. That is not the case.

JoelleJay I understand the thoughts on canvassing. I did clarify the reasons I sought help on Twitter via one of the talk pages before Wizzito went on Twitter to criticize. I reviewed the timeline and I posted my explanation on the 15th and that Wizzito took to Twitter on the 16th. Mkibona (talk) 08:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I just want to say how saddened I am that some of our longstanding norms seem to be crumbling. We have a norm that if the deletion of an article is controversial and non-urgent, we hold a weeklong discussion at WP:AfD and the article is deleted only if there is consensus to do so. (Yes, I know that redirection is covered by a different policy than deletion, but the effect of redirection is the same or even worse, and I'm talking about norms rather than the letter of policies.)

Another norm is that admins use the protection tool with ambivalence to whichever side of a content dispute is the right one - admins should choose to get involved in a content dispute either as an editor or as an admin, not both. Reading the discussion on the Talk page, I think OhNoitsJamie mixed up these roles by expressing opinions on content.

These norms are valuable for exactly the reasons we're seeing here - we invest the time for community discussion at AfD because it causes fewer mistakes, and because while it sucks to have your article deleted the process at least feels respectful if you have a chance to express yourself and have your views considered by the wider community. We have survived for 20 years as a community largely because our culture and processes allow us to feel respected even when we disagree.

A third norm, not specific to Wikipedia, is that we refrain from cruelty to children. Even if they are in the wrong, unfairly criticizing our friends, or furthering systemic bias. None of us here have been cruel to children, but some of our friends have. It's concerning to me that we don't all seem to find it shocking. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 10:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Safety first

@Wizzito:, above you said that you were scared of this group or individuals that are harrassing you, and I just wanted you to know that whatever the issues about the article are, your safety comes first. The Wikimedia Foundation that runs Wikipedia and other sister projects, has an office dedicated to preserving the safety of everyone, and if you feel the slightest concern for your safety, you should consider contacting them. The link Wikipedia:Trust and Safety is a soft redirect that will take you to the right place and explain how to contact them. I see that a couple of editors have already mentioned this, but I didn't know if it got lost amidst the rest of the discussion, so breaking it out into a new subsection to make sure you've seen it. Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: have already emailed Trust and Safety wizzito | say hello! 23:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

    Mathglot (talk) 23:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)