Jump to content

User talk:JzG/Archive 151

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 145←Archive 149Archive 150Archive 151Archive 152Archive 153→Archive 155

University of the People

Do you know anything about University of the People? I saw it at a noticeboard but cannot work out which of the SPAs are correct—is it a great educational project, or is it a scam? I might try a noticeboard but thought I would ask if you, or your watchers, have encountered it. Johnuniq (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not familiar with it. It seems to be an edge case: unaccredited but with a grant from the Gates foundation. Which board was it discussed on? Guy (Help!) 09:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Apart from some recent turmoil (WP:ANEW), all I can find on the noticeboards are: NPOVN Sep 2010 and a mention in an April 2015 AfD. The Gates Foundation gives it class, but for all I know the grant might have been a one-off blunder. Johnuniq (talk) 10:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Virtually every edit seems to be a SPA, which is never good. Guy (Help!) 10:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, this is singular. It is "accredited" but only by a body that typically does not accredit degree-granting programs; it lacks regional accreditation but the source for that is a blog. The blog is pretty solid, but it's stilla blog. I think this is a wannabe school and not a quality institution. Guy (Help!) 10:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the prune at the article, and I would say your assessment is correct. Google shows confusion. I think it is extremely reasonable to charge $100 per exam—proper assessment is a burden and its cost has to come from somewhere. However, there are one or two online activists who cannot accept that "tuition-free" does not mean free and they might have joined Wikipedia. As a sanity check, I examined one of the claimed trustees and found Daniel J.H. Greenwood's Hofstra University page here. It does not mention University of the People. That is reasonable as why would you promote a competitor on Hofstra's website? However, the CV linked to on the Hofstra site mentions that he is a Trustee of UotP and was on a committee and held another position. That, along with another minor mention I found, suggests UotP is ok. Johnuniq (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I noticed the filing at WP:ANEW. There appeared to be a series of editors who didn't want it mentioned that UotP's office in California is basically a post-office box. They also seemed to be trying to minimize the UotP's lack of the normal kind of accreditation. In this way, they are reminiscent of the 'diploma-mill' type of article, though they themselves are not actually a diploma mill. Their web site says they are an 'accredited online American university' which is skating close to the edge in all respects. Their claim to be 'free' is shading the truth, because the series of examination fees can make the total cost to the student be as high as thousands of dollars for a complete program. It appears that many of their actual workers are in Israel but their materials don't mention this. They do appear to have engaged in partnership agreements with various serious institutions from time to time (such as the Yale Law School) and I confirmed this from an archived version of a Yale web site. (Some of the sources of negative information are blogs which don't pass WP:RS). EdJohnston (talk) 02:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Ugh. A tag was just re-added and I thought I would rewrite the tuition section to remove the undue detail and indignant "criticism" (and the tag). However, that would have removed a very negative review which has detailed claims that scream "scam". JzG will have to enrol in a course and report the findings! Johnuniq (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Article needs protecting due to rampant spamming. Guy (Help!) 08:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
The "very negative review" was created by a website that has never reviewed anything except this school. I feel that does not bode well for it's credibility, to say nothing of it's bias language. It is also by an unknown, does not cite it's sources, and twists truths to serve an agenda. I have looked up the accreditation with the US Department of Education, it checks out. --Sadsignal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Guy, you state that "It is "accredited" but only by a body that typically does not accredit degree-granting programs" for which I must tell you, you are incorrect. If you click on the link I provided, then click on the "Distance Education Accrediting Commission" link, it which describes the "Scope of recognition: the accreditation of postsecondary institutions in the United States that offer degree and/or non-degree programs primarily by the distance or correspondence education method up to and including the professional doctoral degree, including those institutions that are specifically certified by the agency as accredited for Title IV purposes." You are welcome. --Sadsignal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

But is not regional accreditation and is from a body that does not normally accredit degrees. Much about this school is distinctly fishy, including the WP:SPA involvement. We have a very long history of people trying to whitewash dodgy schools on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I understand. But "Regional Accreditation" means nothing overseas. It is only applicable if someone wishes to transfer credits from a Nationally Accredited school to a Regionally Accredited school. Most Regionally Accredited schools do not accept credits from Nationally Accredited institutions, and that is only applicable in the United States. Everything on that University of The People article is backed up by credible sources, from the sources themselves... Gates, Yale, Microsoft, etc. Why would they be involved in a "fishy" school? They wouldn't be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadsignal (talk • contribs) 10:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
The problem here seems to me to be that the school started functioning before it was accredited, it subsequently gained accreditation from a body that is not well regarded and not much engaged in assessing degree programs, and its mission and methods are a long way from traditional. Searching the usual places I find concerns about credit transferability and the like. All this we have seen before, and, when combined with editors with little or no other history, who obsessively remove critical content and add PR guff, it is a huge red flag. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Well that is something we can definitely agree on! I have no idea if the degrees are transferable or if people have gotten jobs with them. But claiming the whole school must be "dodgy" because we just don't know yet seems a bit like jumping to conclusions. Nothing, so far, points to the likes of a scam or the dreaded 'diploma mill'. I do not see any PR stuff on the article now. I agree that there shouldn't be the names of all the "Board of Trustees" and the like that people kept posting, that was borderline advertisement. But until a credible source starts an uproar, I don't think the article needs to be such a hot-button issue. --Sadsignal (talk

Hi,what I dont understand is why the fact that it is not regionally accredited somehow makes the school dodgy.I mean regional accreditation is for brick and mortar schools and is probably irrelevant to online schools.I know that regional accreditation is a big deal in the US but for traditional schools who might also offer online courses Weatherextremes (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Regional accrediting bodies generally apply rigorous standards (other than to religious schools). That's why it's considered important. Guy (Help!) 11:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
This school is a non-profit with the goal of cheaper education for those less fortunate, so I doubt it applies rigorous standards for acceptance. Under your description, that would make Regional Accreditation not a very good fit for this school, in my opinion. --Sadsignal (talk)
Good intentions do not give it a pass on standards. Most universities around the world are nonprofit, it's only the US where the for-profit sector dominates. The UK has, last time I looked, only one or two for-profit universities, and those are outposts of US institutions. Accreditation is not optional. Dozens of unaccredited bible colleges claim that accreditation is not a good fit, their degrees are still worthless. Same for Bircham International University. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I didn't say what I said to imply good intentions. I said what I said to articulate that this school isn't applicable to "Regional Accreditation". You must have a brick and mortar campus to be Regionally Accredited. This school is solely online so this argument is pointless. National Accreditation is all this school can ever be, unless they open up at least 1 campus. --Sadsignal (talk —Preceding undated comment added 11:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Still the school is online and is nationally accredited by a relevant body on distance learning education.Can an entirely online school in the US even apply for regional accreditation?Weatherextremes (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, in the region where it has its offices. Guy (Help!) 11:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
No, an office is not a campus. A regionally accredited institution must have a campus in a region, hence the name "regionally" accredited. This school has no campus where students go to learn, its all online. --Sadsignal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes an office that deals only with admin stuff probably wont cut it.It would most likely need educational facilities such as a campus.Weatherextremes (talk) 12:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Correct. Regional Accrediting bodies require representatives who are assigned to accompany a visiting team to a campus for an accreditation visit. For this school, it can not be Regionally Accredited unless it opens a brick and mortar campus in one of the 6 regions. --Sadsignal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

And this is probably a way for UoPeople to bypass the regional accreditation (by not opening a physical campus anywhere) which will make the introduction of tuition fees compulsary and will skyrocket the cost for students attending.I vaguely remember reading an article about regional accreditation a few months back when I started researching UoPeople and I believe I had made the very same association. I am not sure if that stands to be honest but what we know for a fact is that regional accreditation is the most important reason for ridicoulsly high tuition fees in accredited schools.Weatherextremes (talk) 12:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Most likely. UoPeople certainly wouldn't be able to charge the low cost that they do, if they had a physical campus and Regional Accreditation. Regionally Accredited institutions charge high tuition and even more for out-of-state or out-of-region students. I should know, I graduated from 3 Regionally Accredited institutions. --Sadsignal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
See special pleading. What matters is that there is robust assessment of quality, and that does not appear to be the case here. Guy (Help!) 12:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think anyone here was debating quality. If you wish for more research, this website is great at detailing the difference in accreditation in the US and also works to bust diploma mills. The institution UoPeople is accredited by has been recognized by the US Department of Education since 1955, long before the internet. --Sadsignal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
As for my special pleading mishap, I retract my personal experience, but the rest of the information is common knowledge in the States. Apologies for the mishap, I was unaware you could not speak freely in the talk pages. --Sadsignal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay gang, can someone catch me up on this? It looks like the University thinks it owns this Wikipedia page and has been editing it to protect its reputation? And because they do not understand how Wikipedia works, they are not helping but making matters worse? Do I have that right?Sgerbic (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Everyone might want to check out the talk page now.Sgerbic (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Outcome of incident board

Hello, I noticed your decision to block user PAKHIGHWAYS. Was this based on consensus opinion or other criteria? It appears some commenters on the discussion page supported such a broad-based ban, but others instead advocated for a narrower ban, regarding Indian articles or articles concurrently related to both India and Pakistan. Thanks!Willard84 (talk) 07:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Not block, topic ban. He's had the WP:ARBPIA warning and he continues with nationalist edits. The whole point of discretionary sanctions is to preserve otherwise productive editors from self-destructive behaviour based on thier strong feelings. Purely disruptive users, we simply kick out. So, this is an opportunity for PAKHIGHWAYS to take a step back and breathe deeply. As I said on his talk page, an appeal after three months of otherwise harmonious editing is likely to succeed. He also has the right to appeal regardless (but you don't have the right to appeal on his behalf). Guy (Help!) 10:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Guy, I do see a problem here. Yamla's proposal was topic ban from topics that concern both India and Pakistan. Your wording seems to suggest topics that concern India and topics that concern Pakistan (even individually). A clarification is needed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
ARBPIA sanctions are largely standardised. This is the normal way they are implemented. PAKHIGHWAYS can appeal if he considers it overbroad. Guy (Help!) 15:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Not necessarily. See the examples here or for earlier years.
PAKHIGHWAY might merit a wider topic ban too, but I didn't see that emerging out of the ANI discussion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
As I said, he can appeal if he considers it overbroad. What he can't do is simply ignore it, as he has done. Guy (Help!) 00:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I think there may be a semantic difference between India and Pakistan and India-Pakistan. For what it is worth, I think the topic ban should be for the latter, ie: articles that may in any sense be construed as relating to both of those countries. I rather think that was the general feeling at the ANI discussion also. Quite a few people, including me in a rather oblique way, noted that PAKHIGHWAY is capable of contributing very usefully in areas related solely to Pakistan. At best, the problematic issue is that they seem not to appreciate the sensitivities in situations where their edits might be construed as impacting on both nationalities/cultures/whatever; at worst, they have been doing so deliberately. I think you may have been rather harsh with the imposed sanction but, yes, it can be appealed and I would support such an appeal if made. - Sitush (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • JzG, there was nothing wrong with your closure because most people including me voted for topic ban from both India and Pakistan. Pakhighway is already violating his topic ban, see [1][2][3] and there are more pages he edited that are related to Pakistan. Anmolbhat (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
    • If by "most people" you mean the more fervent portion of the group of Indian editors (themselves likely to one day end up on the receiving end of such sanctions), then yes. – Uanfala (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Actually, "the group of" Pakistani POV pushers is already missing disruption of PAKHIGHWAY than the user himself not only because they cherished it but it also distracted observers from their own disruption. You can be sanctioned right now for your comment if anything. Excelse (talk) 04:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • What I saw as the consensus in the ANI discussion was for a topic ban only for the area of overlap. Of course an admin is free to decide to use the ready-made discretionary sanctions, but I'm really not seeing the justification here. – Uanfala (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Referring to the votes, everyone supported topic ban except one editor and most supported topic ban from South Asia. PAKHIGHWAY is lucky he is not indeffed again for these comments[4] but still allowed to edit Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Bhutan. Making appeals in his behalf after he violated sanctions is just a waste of time. Nobody is going to think now that he will comply with any terms. Excelse (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
    • The "votes" might or might not have played any role here – and there are good reasons why these things shouldn't be decided on the streng of numbers – but if we're going to comment on them, can't we at least get the numbers right? From the the archived discussion I see that a topic ban for topics common to both India Pakistan was supported by three editors (Yamla, Kautilya3, regentspark), one editor proposed a ban that additionally included India (usernamerkiran), three editors supported an all-out topic ban from South Asian topics (Anmolbhat, D4iNa4, Tarage), one supported some sort of corrective action (Adamgerber), one opposed (Willard84) and one commented to the effect that a broad topic ban would not be a good idea (me). Out of these ten people, three supported the broad ban. This is not a majority in any sense of the term. Cheers! – Uanfala (talk) 06:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Still the topic ban from India and Pakistan seems justified, since there is support for a much broader topic ban while others mostly supported a topic ban that still involved both India and Pakistan. The conduct of PAKHIGHWAY was problematic throughout ANI and outside (see the comment I provided above). Just like I said that he was lucky not to get indeffed and is still able to edit a lot of South Asia, I would also add that 31 hours block is also a short block, I usually see 1 week for the first violation.[5][6] He has already proven that he can't comply with the terms and has increased appeal timestamp as well. Excelse (talk) 06:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I just blocked PAKHIGHWAY for making more nationalist edits. They continued making nationalist edits immediately after the scope of the ban was narrowed and, in my opinion, conciously did so in a way that tried to dodge the ban as-worded. Feel free to take a look and revise the ban's wording as needed. I think it's ridiculous that you were pressured into reducing the scope of the ban when it's obvious that this user's not trying to stay out of trouble. Swarm ♠ 01:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. WP:ROPE applies, IMO. Guy (Help!) 09:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Judicial Watch

I reviewed the editor's contribution history last night and discovered the extreme disruption on other AP talk pages. I also discovered their ANI report. Personally I think a topic ban based POV pushing, IDHT, and CIR is warranted. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Christopher Booth (disambiguation)

A tag has been placed on Christopher Booth (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
  • disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. feminist (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#user:PAKHIGHWAY

I've posted their AE appeal there for them and thought I should let you know. Thanks, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

user:Binit00gogoi

You have blocked this user for sockpuppetry. I have no reason to doubt you, but you have failed either to give a link to an SPI or to post an explanation on his userpage, which makes it difficult to consider his unblock request, which I would normally do as it is not a checkuser block. Could you clarify, please?--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

It's the Chutiya vandal. Already tagged by DoRD I think. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi JzG

I wanted to understand why you thought the following links were 'spammy' and should not be in the external links section:

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

External links are for things that would become sources given time. This is purely decorative. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@JzG:, I don't think this is accurate, I do not think the links are spam and they fit the description of Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues. Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 11:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Amen, brother

Amen -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
  • Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

  • A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Wrong and unfair

No.[7] I did not make comments on this mess of an RfA to get back at Jytdog. If an admin can read between the lines then he might note how I have despite Jytdog's slurs tried to be fair to him. I am sick of editors being hurt for things they did not do. That's why I commented and continued to try and show how things had gone wrong. Your comment is threatening and that is unfortunate, and is massive assumption of bad faith. I made the comments I did to make sure Andy's position was clear. It was not being presented accurately, and that's all. Do I like the way Jytdog has treated Andy and others. No. But I will never stoop to trying to hurt him or anyone else. I haven't been angry through out this but I am now.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC))

You have previous, and what you wrote could be seen as furthering a grudge. This is going to end up being escalated, you are very much better off keeping well away, IMO. Guy (Help!) 10:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
To further a grudge you have to have a grudge. I don't; I can't be bothered. I have previous interactions with many editors on Wikipedia many of whom I should have very serious grudges with. But I don't. That does not mean I don't understand and dislike the way those people have acted. What it does mean is that life is way too short for me to run around Wikipedia looking for ways to hurt somebody. This whole debacle was so simple and could have been kept simple. But tangled up in that and what caused escalation was an extreme position on COI that was untenable if we are to have Wikimedians in residence. The positions taken by some editors also created a COI position on Wikimedians in residence that did not exist previously. This wasn't about Jytdog; it was about a Wikimedian in residence who is being told despite the fact that the Wikimedia Foundation supports Wikimedians in Residence and despite the huge amount of work Andy has done for Wikimedia and Wikipedia that he has a COI as a Wikimedian in Residnece. Further, a position on COI was being defined in and by this mess and that's just silly. I must not support this kind of wrong against an editor not only for his sake but for the environment I and others have to work in. If some misguided person sees this support as attacks on Jytdog that's unfortunate. As it goes I have very little more to say on this. I voted. I stated my position. I tried to make sure I mentioned that I understand why Jytdog has concerns about COI however misguided I feel they are in this instance. I take threats seriously not because I'm afraid of them; I know how unfair this place can be, but because they too should be untenable on Wikipedia.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC))
And if you meant to warn rather than threaten. Thank you.:O) (Littleolive oil (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC))
Is there some part of "could be seen as" that is unclear? Guy (Help!) 18:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
When you falsely accuse someone perhaps you should expect confusion in understanding what is being said.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC))
It was neither accusation nor threat nor warning. It was a statement of fact and a word to the wise. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC

It was an accusation based on your own opinion, not fact. You assumed and you assumed wrong.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC))

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG/Archive_151&oldid=1034038506"