Attribution and copyright/ArbCom appeal

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

23:20, 9 September 2011‎ w:User:Τασουλα (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (6,472 bytes) (+18)‎ . . (blocked template).

23:30, 9 September 2011‎ w:User:S Larctia (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16 bytes) (-6,456)‎ . . (Removing rest of page content.)

{{banned}} 18:13, 12 September 2011‎ w:User:S Larctia (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (Per AN discussion).

"This user has been banned for w:WP:COPY|massive copyright violations. If you have come here from a page to which he has significantly contributed, please check it for copyright problems." 19:45, 12 September 2011‎ w:User:HangingCurve

01:08, 25 July 2012‎ w:User:The Bushranger (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (207 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Protected User:Marshallsumter: Banned user (‎[edit=sysop] (indefinite) ‎[move=sysop] (indefinite))).

On the talk page is "Per w:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive720#User:Marshallsumter_disrupting_Wikipedia_for_.22research.22_purposes.|this WP:AN/I discussion and w:Wikipedia:List of banned users [which has been deleted]:"

On the user page at 15:15, 9 September 2011 is "Editing from Marshallsumter [on Wikipedia] has been blocked (disabled) by Lifebaka for the following reason(s): copyright violations and intent not aligned with Wikipedia's mission".

"This block has been set to expire: no expiry set."

ANI thread[edit | edit source]

In the AN/I thread involving yourself, it has come to light that your articles appear to have been written by copying sections from other Wikipedia articles without attribution (please see w:WP:CWW). Generally, if copying from another article it needs to be attributed in order to not violate the terms of the licence Wikipedia uses to publish content. This can be easily done in an edit summary, ideally saying "copied content from article; see that article's history for attribution" (from here).

More worringly, an article I spot-checked (an old version of HY box) contained sentences that were copied from abstracts under copyright (here is my comment, with examples of copied sentences). This violates copyright law and is not permitted on Wikipedia. Please see WP:COPYPASTE for more information.

I was wondering if you would be forthcoming and explain to what extent your articles are copied from either copyrighted articles or other wikipedia pages; this would be very helpful in determining what to do with them now. Are any of them entirely your own writing? It would be best to reply to this at the AN/I thread, but you are free to reply here if you wish. Thanks Jebus989 14:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

  • When anyone edits a Wikiversity page, they see "By clicking the "Save Page" button, you are agreeing to the Terms of Use and the Privacy Policy, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." This is attribution by hyperlink. Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 00:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop [neutral] educational content under a free [content] license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally."[1]

This mission statement affirms that Wikipedia as well as Wikiversity qualify for fair use per USA copyright law, especially section 107 (the fair use section) because they are educational content. Fair use in an education, teaching, and/or research environment such as a dot edu or a dot org is free use within such an environmental restriction. Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 00:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

In light of this and the Wikiversity page, I do not believe that you are necessarily here to build an encyclopedia. I have blocked you indefinitely for these reasons. Please review w:WP:COPYVIO to understand both why copyright violations are a huge problem here and how to properly use information from sources. In addition, you will need to either stop or finish your research before you can be unblocked, as Wikipedia is not a vehicle for this type of research and continuing it will have a chilling effect on others. You may appeal your block by using {{unblock|reason}} below. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

"unblock reviewed | 1=* With respect to text from other wikipedia articles I either use "main Wikipedia article title" or a link to the article title, actually references to the article, as I understand it are not done. * Regarding the w:HY box article, I haven't edited it since March 1, 2011. I have looked at each article or abstract that I referenced back then and compared my sentence (each of which is referenced appropriately) and none are close to any sentence either in Hgashikawa or Green's article. I usually use quotes if they state something important, or use my own words to keep content close to theirs and appropriate for the article. Reference 2 of the March 1, 2011, version is Dong which contains this sentence: "The Runx2 site on the type X collagen promoter is required for canonical Wnt induction of col10a1." This is my bad. It is a portion of a sentence from Dong and should have been stated as "[T]he Runx2 site on the type X collagen promoter is required for canonical Wnt induction of col10a1." with quotes in the article because it is important. Sorry about that, as stated here is better than as is in the March 1, 2011, version. With respect to building an encyclopedia I am trying to take articles to the 'state of the art', hopefully without making mistakes, but I make them. If there are any more of these, I can find and fix them. * With respect to the research on wikiversity, I only began there on August 23, 2011, while exploring the other wikimedia projects looking for other dictionaries or encyclopedias that may contain an entry on 'dominant group'. I don't need to write wikipedia articles for that research in any way. I've already stated exactly and completely why the additional dominant group articles were created. The only one created at wikiversity was the 'Dominant group (anthropology)' article and I am especially proud of that one. I don't use the AfD tag on articles because I follow the instructions on 'Wikipedia:Articles for deletion' and having never needed to, usually because with some care unless it's clear vandalism or exploitation, the article can be made better for wikipedia. As I would like to continue contributing, I am asking for this block to be removed. I'll be happy to answer any other concerns as long as the requester is specific and respectful. I really am a scientist (exploratory type - high risk science) and know what I'm doing with respect to original research (many publications), but I do make mistakes. Thank you in advance for your kind attention to this matter. Marshallsumter (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC) | decline=I had just deleted two of your recent articles on the grounds of copyright violations, and was about to block you myself when I saw that Lifebaka already had. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)"

(The idea is to replace the text "reason" with an explanation of why you feel you should be unblocked.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry I didn't make that clear. You might also want to take a look at our guide to unblock requests, as it contains useful information. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Please keep in mind that most PubMed abstracts (such as that one quoted at ANI) are available under NIH free access policy, and therefore their use is not a copyright violation per se. Biophys (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Reason for Wikipedia unblock[edit | edit source]

Reasons for unblock are

  1. the block is no longer necessary because I understand what I am blocked for, I will not do any of the "intent not aligned with Wikipedia's mission" per w:User:lifebaka again, and I will make productive contributions instead,
  2. Wikiversity provides a more than ample environment to write lectures and laboratories using original research and/or synthesis. I have no need nor desire to contribute to Wikipedia in this regard.
  3. Per w:User:lifebaka: "you will need to either stop or finish your research before you can be unblocked". I have finished my Dominant group original research with respect to such articles I created on Wikipedia.
  4. The block is no longer necessary because I understand what I am blocked for, I will not commit any "copyright violations" again, and I will make productive contributions instead.
  5. I would like to import many of my currently deleted articles to Wikiversity. This can be accomplished in two ways: (1) I can request a short term undelete by a sysop as I do now on commons of the sysop who deleted to import the article, or (2) I can request a short term undeletion of an article by email so that I can import it with its edit history to Wikiversity.
  6. Per w:Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks: "Earn back our trust by proposing improvements to articles or proposing firm steps you will take so the [issues] cannot happen again." Each of the fields that I have contributed to in the past have project pages such as w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy, w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics, w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology, w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Volcanoes‎, w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology‎, w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Genetics, w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry, w:User:Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology, w:WikiProject Ethnic groups, w:WikiProject Sociology, w:WikiProject Anthropology, w:User:Wikipedia:WikiProject History, and many others. Perhaps the easiest and best way for firm steps I will take so the issues cannot happen again is to suggest any changes, improvements or new articles first on these project talk pages to get consensus, review and/or guidance.
  7. I would like to import many of my currently deleted articles to Wikiversity. This can be accomplished in two ways: (1) I can request a short term undelete by a sysop as I do now on commons of the sysop who deleted to import the article, or (2) I can request a short term undeletion of an article by email so that I can import it with its edit history to Wikiversity.

"Dear Marshallsumter: We have received your message and will get back to you when we have discussed the matter. Thank you, Drmies" Sunday, September 10, 2017 11:30 AM.

ANI discussion[edit | edit source]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. S Larctia (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles created still on Wikipedia[edit | edit source]

  • w:Tephra layer 01:45, 16 February 2011‎ Marshallsumter (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,263 bytes) (+16,263)‎ . . (←Created page with '250px|thumb|right|Tephra horizons in south-central [[Iceland. The thick and light coloured layer at the center of the photo is [[rhyo...'). Redirected to w:Tephra, which contains: "The use of tephra layers, which bear their own unique chemistry and character, as temporal marker horizons in archaeological and geological sites is known as tephrochronology."
  • w:AZ Cancri 04:04, 7 July 2010‎ Marshallsumter (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,651 bytes) (+8,651)‎ . . (←Created page with 'AZ Cancri (AZ Cnc) is the name and designation for a flare star in the constellation Cancer. ==Location== {{seealso|Extras...')
  • w:Lockman Hole 09:17, 4 April 2010‎ Marshallsumter (talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,068 bytes) (+3,068)‎ . . (←Created page with 'thumb|right|300px|[[Chandra X-ray Observatory|Chandra mosaic of the X-ray sources in the Lockman Hole. Color code: Energy (red 0.4-2keV, ...')
  • w:Pharynx 20:54, 17 February 2009‎ Marshallsumter (talk | contribs)‎ . . (27 bytes) (+27)‎ . . (moved Pharynx to Human pharynx: The pharynx is a general structure that occurs in many animals.)

w:User:Marshallsumter disrupting Wikipedia for "research" purposes.[edit | edit source]

Marshallsumter, a previously productive editor, has recently created multiple articles which contain the words "Dominant group" and are essentially w:WP:SYNTH and w:WP:OR violations. Dominant Group was deleted at w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominant group, while the others at w:Dominant group (disambiguation) are all at w:WP:AFD and heading for deletion. It is obvious from this page at Wikiversity that Marshallsumter is creating these pages for a somewhat arcane research purpose. I am not clear exactly what Marshallsumter is trying to do, but it certainly seems to be disrupting Wikipedia unduly. Marshallsumter is furthermore keeping copies of pages nominated for deletion/deleted in his userspace, as well as multiple drafts of similar "dominant group" articles, which is in violation of w:WP:WEBHOST and suggests that he intends to place them back in articlespace. The wikiversity page clearly states that the "research project" will last a year or more - "hopefully a conclusion can be reached in one year", and overall suggests that Marshallsumter is purposefully creating articles not to improve the 'pedia but to reach a conclusion about "dominant groups". Marshallsumter has produced other problematic pages recently, including Metadefinition and Repellor vehicle, but I cannot understand why. --S Larctia (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Def. "Someone who is manipulative and able to get others to do what they want in a puppet-like manner"[2] is called a puppeteer.

Def. a "user in an online community, who has two or more accounts set up by that user so as to seem to be for different users"[3] is called a sock puppeteer.

On User:S Larctia {{blockedsock|Claritas}} at 04:23, 1 November 2011‎ MuZemike.

this is frankly ridiculous. --Simone (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

       What is frankly ridiculous? As it turns out, the block was quite legitimate; the IP you were using is hardblocked because you are a banned user with a history of repeated sockpuppetry. Should you wish to return to editing, you will need to meet the expectations set out in Wikipedia:Standard offer, which includes six months without editing under any account or IP address. At that point, you can appeal to the Arbitration Committee or to an uninvolved administrator to propose your return and to establish conditions. Risker (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

While lengthy, see Dominant group/Proof of concept.

Yup. Conclusive proof that Marshallsumter is 'contributing' to Wikipedia for purposes other than improvement of the encyclopedia. He seems entirely unconcerned that his "target population" has given no consent for his research, nor that his actions have already caused considerable disruption. I can see no course myself but to block him on Wikipedia. And as for Wikiversity, I suggest that they should point out to him that such 'research' is unlikely to do their reputation any good. And incidentally, now that we know what he is doing, his results are going to be useless anyway (not that there looks to be much evidence that his 'research' was in any way useful in the first place). AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
An interesting discussion can be found at User talk:Tom Morris#Request for comment, where Marshallsumter tries to gain support for a Request for comment on his now deleted article Dominant group (art) - a clear case of him attempting to waste Wikipedians' time for the sake of his "research". --S Larctia (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Could it be seen as canvassing to post a link to this discussion in the ongoing AFD's? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support block- I have looked at a handful of Marshallsumter's articles currently at AfD and his research proposal over at Wikiversity. I have to agree that he is only here to waste people's time with his "research", which is irrelevant, incoherent crap. Reyk YO! 22:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Changing opinion to oppose block- It seems MS is capable of writing credible articles on astronomical topics. As long as we get a commitment to leave his original research out of Wikipedia, there is no reason MS cannot be a productive editor. Reyk YO! 23:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually the articles were a response to a suggestion made here w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominant group to disambiguate and mentioned here w:User talk:Spartaz/Archive15#Dominant_group. I also asked w:User talk:Spartaz/Archive15, "I just read the next entry regarding another article where you are asking if the article creator is asking to have you review the close. If this is possible, and you can, please do so for 'Dominant group'." To which there was the response "I will come back with a response to your comments later today as I'm about6 to take my kids out to play in the woods for a couple of hours.", which I guess was done but not in writing. The close allowed a later article to be created if the new one was different, which I believed (still do) it was sufficiently. But the admin decided it was not and deleted it. So now we are here. And, I am still a productive contributor: w:Cometary globule. No further 'dominant group' or related articles will originate from me and be put in article space, nor will I contribute further unless asked. Further research will be filed elsewhere. Marshallsumter (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Do you propose to continue adding incoherent garbage on other topics, as with your Repellor vehicle article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Andy, you know I don't always approve of your grumpy words, but the gist of your question is valid (see my comment at the AfD). Drmies (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I see that the editor has shown no interest in contributing to the AfD discussions. That is troubling already. Their response here is a bit heartening, though. Anyway, it is clear to me that these articles are synthesis, and this is no place for it. That these articles were asked for sounds specious to me. Moreover, the AfDs clearly indicate that community consensus is against them. I was going to call for a block, even a ban, edit-conflicted with Reyk and Marshallsumter, and the latter's response takes the wind out of my sails. Anyway, what I would propose is a ban on creating new articles unless User:Marshallsumter agrees to study WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and agrees to not create any more articles that fall foul of those guidelines. I would construe that broadly, very broadly--and I don't know if that would be acceptable or not, but that is a way to prevent further disruption. Leaving the current articles alone while the AfDs run their course (they're on a fast train to deletion, on a snow-covered and therefore fast track) is a good start. If Marshallsumter can keep their word, "No further 'dominant group' or related articles will originate from me and be put in article space", to which I'd like to see them add "or user space", then I'm satisfied. Marshallsumter, you know that you interpreted this 'request' all too broadly; please don't do so again. Contributions are appreciated, but here we are, with an ANI thread and a dozen AfDs to plow through and close, and that is disruptive. Drmies (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. As it seems my understanding of 'original research', even after reading all of wikipedia's text on the subject differs from this group, may I suggest the following: I like to have people read my contributions, especially before put into article space, but my efforts in the past to get them read has been frustrating. If you would like, the next one I create I would be happy to request whomever's input where ever that might be convenient. My only restriction is this: you need to be a registered user and have written at least 20 articles that have been here for more than a year. Hopefully, this is fair. What do you think? Marshallsumter (talk) 23:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  • In a nutshell: putting together Darwin's uses of "dominant" with "group," that's a kind of synthesis. That's the work of scientists, not of Wikipedia editor. If a person is both, that's legal (at least where I live), but scientific writing (which really by definition is synthesis and/or original research) is not for Wikipedia. As far as editors are concerned, you're talking about a kind of mentorship. The list of interest editors at Wikpedia:WikiProject Science is not regularly updates, and I don't know anyone active in your field (whatever field that is...). I'm tempted to nominate User:Materialscientist, but I nominate him for everything. Anyway, you will want someone with both a knowledge of Wikipedia and some working knowledge of science, I imagine. We have such editors here; maybe some of them frequent this page and are able and willing. I have no desire to block you; I'd rather have good contributions. But I also like a place that requires less mopping, so to speak. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The term “dominant group” does not appear in Darwin’s 1859 book, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection”. But the plural term “dominant groups” appears thirteen times. The earliest use of the phrase is on page 343, “The dominant species of the larger dominant groups tend to leave many modified descendants, and thus new sub-groups and groups are formed.”[4]

"In 1831, ... [Darwin] had just completed his BA degree at Cambridge University in England. ... The voyage [on the Beagle] lasted from December 1831 to October 1836".[5] "Darwin had been much impressed by Paley’s Natural Theology while a student at Cambridge; and his greatest achievement ultimately lay in providing a different explanation for the apparent design of all living beings."[5] "He traveled with a copy of Charles Lyell’s pathbreaking summary of a new way of thinking about geological processes, Principles of Geology, published in 1830–1833. This book influenced Darwin greatly."[5] In Lyell's book is the phrase "dominant influence", but "dominant group" does not appear.

Def. “[u]nder the many conditions of life which this world affords, any group which is numerous in individuals and species and is widely distributed, may properly be called dominant" [a dominant group]. [Letter 110. To W.H. Harvey, August, 1860][6]

  • Support indef block. This editor cannot understand Wikipedia's WP:NOR policy. His creations are too often incoherent. His articles frequently get nominated for deletion. If he were unable to edit it would waste less time for productive editors. Binksternet (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I have to admit some confusion. I think that Marshallsumter has been productive in the past, he created a number of articles and was granted the "autopatrolled" right (which he still has). He also received a DYK for Io as an X-ray source. So what happened? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atama (talkcontribs)
    • Who are you asking? (I'm not being facetious.) Drmies (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to insert a comment here: other articles in the social sciences that are doing okay: Sex-neutral skill, Sex integration, Religion and sex segregation, Origin of sex segregation, and Occupational gender segregation. Marshallsumter (talk) 01:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
        • Binksternet, that is a pretty damning list of diffs. I wonder if Marshallsumter has any comment. But what do you think? Do you have any proposals? Drmies (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support non-indefinite block. This came up at WT:AST over {{article|Sun as an X-ray source}}. I've just taken a look at M's last 2500 edits or so (and that's just this year), and the vast majority seem to be synthesis-related (albeit with a substantial minority being things like minor linking). He's extremely prolific, and while I'm willing to assume he's acting in good faith, it's going to take person-months of effort to vet what he's done and clean up all of the messes that have inadvertently been created. Per above, he also has a large collection of both drafts he's moved to user-space and personal forks of articles, which means all of this is likely to happen again in the future. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
    • True dat, on the user subpages. They need to be removed. There are articles also which I'm not qualified to judge (a quick look at Star fission reveals that the writing is certainly not wholly encyclopedic). But block or ban or not, those need to be perused anyway. The critical point, IMO, is article creation, also per Lady below. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  • At the very least, the "autopatrolled" status needs to be removed immediately. That so many articles so clearly in violation of NOR were created by one user indicates that other people need to be reviewing his or her work. With that addition, I could agree to Drmies's proposal. LadyofShalott 23:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree, no one who gets more than 10 articles deleted in such a short amount of time should be autopatrol...--Cerejota (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
autopatrol is removed. Drmies (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • oppose indef, support remove autopatrol and remove article creation rights (ie force WP:AFC) - I am the nominator of a large number of the Dominantgroupcruft, but indef here seems excessive and punitve. Marshallsumter is communicative and has not been uncivil or performed vandalism, but clearly cannot be allowed to create articles for now. I suggest an indefinite ban to be revised upon request either every three months or after successful creation via AfC of ten articles (ie if denied then create ten more). Some people here are out for blood, but lets focus on the real problem: lack of judgement in creating articles.--Cerejota (talk) 23:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Quick comment. Understanding the essence of the whole WP:NOR guideline can be difficult; I've had problems in the past properly grasping exactly what it means, although I grasp it now. It sometimes takes time to get the hang of it, particularly if a person is predisposed to thinking and researching.Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree WP:OR can be hard to grasp and contentious when talking about article content, and in particular WP:SYNTH is an issue, but I disagree that is the case with article creation, WP:NOR is fairly straight forward: if a topic only exists in your mind, then it is not worthy of inclusion. And the deletion discussion of Dominant group made that clear to this user. This becomes an issue of willful ignorance and we must take action to protect the wiki. THis user can take the elimination of the privilege to create articles directly as an opportunity to learn the letter and spirit of WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH.--Cerejota (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Seems rather fierce and somewhat punitive. Some of us Wikipedians (myself included) have learnt by making mistakes. That's all I'm saying. I am not familiar with the specifics of this user or those articles. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Punitive is the indef block proposal, which I suggest be reversed by those who support it and proposed it. Removing the privilege of article creation from someone who in this very thread is telling us he disregards our article creation policies, is not punitive, it is the every definition of protecting the wiki. When the community is satisfied the rules are understood, then the ban is removed - no harm done.--Cerejota (talk) 01:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd see a block here as preventative, not punitive: the point is to not have even more volunteer-months of vetting and likely cleanup to do. I'm open to other options, but at minimum, whatever option is chosen should result in the articles-to-vet queue shrinking rather than growing. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support removal of article creation rights - having spent the better part of a morning last week looking through this editor's history, I think they clearly need more practice editing articles and learning wikipedia protocols. I'm not convinced at all that this editor is willing to do so, but at the very least, they should not be allowed to create new articles.AstroCog (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Not through technical means, but a topic ban certainly is possible. Reyk YO! 01:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict)Entirely possible, its called a ban. Or bans are only for interaction and topics/articles? --Cerejota (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think that we should perhaps look further into the content of the article posted by Marshallsumter at Wikiversity. In particular, I refer to the section entitled "Hoax hypothesis": "Specifically, the principal investigator (PI) is perpetrating an elaborate (or maybe not so elaborate) hoax on the Wikiversity community by passing off nonsense as real research and fact". I would like to see an explanation as to what 'research' he considered that he was conducting on Wikipedia, and an indication as to whether he intends to continue with this supposed 'research'. Given what he has written in Wikiversity, I think there may be strong grounds for assuming that his disruption was intentional. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "Hoax hypothesis", see Dominant group/Proof of concept#Hoax hypothesis for proof dominant group is not a hoax!

The idea is to disprove all hypotheses except the 'Term hypothesis' and to determine what type of term it is. I have found one source that's helping with that: "One dictionary has been found which does contain a definition of dominant group: "a social group that controls the value system and rewards in a particular society." Moseby's Medical Dictionary.[7] Marshallsumter (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Well that definition is bollocks too. Nobody with any real understanding of the social sciences will assert that a society has a single 'value system'. Ridiculous. Still, if you use medical dictionaries for definitions of social science topics, what do you expect? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
You know, when I read though his articles last week, my first thought was "This reads like the Sokal Hoax."AstroCog (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I second that, when I first saw the Dominantgroupcruft farm, mfw: WIKISOKAL. Then I thought this was the guy from San Diego with autism that has created one of the largest sock farms ever (I forget the name) but then I saw the coherent communication at Dominat group so then I decided this was willful. Hoax or not hoax, no article creation and lets see what the edits are to see if further blocking is warranted. I think this should go to ArbCom if its more serious because of the interwiki component...--Cerejota (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Having now had time to read the Wikiversity page, I am also concerned about this "research project". It is one thing to research how a particular topic is treated on Wikipedia. It is quite another to deliberately provoke reactions from people and then collect those reactions... If that is not what has occurred here, I would like an explantation of how I'm misinterpreting it. None of us gave consent to participate in someone's research experiment. LadyofShalott 01:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
You haven't been but you've made comments that I consider valuable and I noted them there. Unless I'm mistaken these are in the public domain. Marshallsumter (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
The above comment was added by marshall while i was writing my comment below. If what he just wrote is what it sounds like, that he is using our current comments as part of his research, he needs to be banned indefinitely. if i am mistaken, heres my thoughts before he wrote the above statement:
I havent read the Wikiversity page from start to finish, and i havent reviewed all of their edits, but im struck by the notion that they may be contributing material to the target "population" (hopefully this refers to articles not people) they are studying. If they are in fact editing material (WP) that they are using as the basis for their research, thats really, really, really bad research practice, like "lose your funding, your tenure, your job" bad practice. So we have either have an editor who is clueless as to original research, an editor who is deliberately writing bad articles to gauge responses, an editor who is using us editors as unwilling research subjects, or an editor who is engaged in flat out unethical research in their field (or some other as yet undetermined activity). I would support a total ban on article creation, a topic ban on any specialized fields where the technical level of discourse make it hard to judge content, and before that a time limited ban, say 6 months, along with hopefully someone who can mentor them. I also need an explanation from the editor that makes sense of all this arcane language at the wikiversity page, and explains in laymans terms what they were doing, and full Mea Culpas if they were doing any of their editing here as a research project with WP or the editors of WP as the subjects. I also would need to see all their subpages deleted that in any way mirror deleted articles or appear to be new articles blooming. I just dont feel comfortable with this material and this editor, and dont trust they are being upfront with us. I do, however, greatly appreciate that they are willing to talk with us and at least make some effort to stop some of the contentious editing. If they are actually a respected scientist in their field of expertise, i would love if they could tell someone who they are, who can confirm that without "outing" them. I would hate to lose an actual scientist or academic to our project.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Whether Marshallsumter is an 'actual scientist' or not I don't know - though what he is doing is self-evidently not 'actual science'. So, I'll put something else into the 'public domain' too - he is either a troll, exceptionally stupid, or just plain nuts (or any combination thereof). His last response suggests that he either doesn't understand the problem, or doesn't care - either way, he needs to be given the boot. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I've skimmed the linked wikiversity article about three times so far. As far as I can tell, it'd be best described as an "armchair research" hobby project: something he's doing for his own purposes that would be better described as "inspired by academic research" than called "academic research" itself ("goal is to disprove hypotheses A, B, and C and prove hypothesis D" was an especially clear indicator of this). Wikiversity isn't a university; it's a repository for people to create content that they feel might be useful to universities (much as WikiBooks lets you create textbook-like content). Long story short, the "research" appears to be a harmless personal project rather than any form of actual institutional meddling in Wikipedia.
That said, I don't know exactly what he's trying to do or how Wikipedia comes into this. I've found that I usually have an easier time of things if I focus on peoples' actions on Wikipedia, rather than trying to delve too deeply into their motivations (ObCaveat that you guys may be better at understanding people than i am). For practical purposes, the Wikiversity page doesn't matter much (beyond potentially giving reason to ask M, "are you deliberately writing articles that violate WP:V/WP:OR?"). What mostly matters is the article creation spree on this wiki, with mixed quality and a lot of review hours needed. How to deal with that is (justifiably) under debate. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support ban on article creation, but disagree that it is sufficient: in the first round of mass AfDs of sex integration-related articles, I seem to recall that the user responded to the impending deletion by adding the material in question to other articles (without indicating that it was a "merge" from an article about to be deleted). From what I've seen of his contributions, I think a topic ban on social sciences, broadly defined would be appropriate. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 03:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite block. I also read the Wikiversity article, and it seems to show a clear intention to use Wikipedia for something in direct contradiction to its fundamental purposes. If I understand it correctly (and no promises that I have--that thing is a mess), the logic is that xe uses Wikipedia itself as a test to so whether or not a definition exists for "dominant group", basically by throwing up every single possible definition in each field xe can think of, and then see if any of them survive our editing/deletion process. That is using Wikipedia to create new knowledge; we simply aren't here to do that. Would we allow a user to upload hundreds of images under various fair use rationale to test what a common understanding of "fair use" is among Wikipedia users? Would we allow someone to deliberately vandalize with the intent of testing human or AI ability to spot vandalism of various types? It is absolutely disruptive for dozens of other editors to now have to sort through xyr contributions to see if there is any actual, non-original research, verified information in the articles that is worth saving. Since Roscelese pointed out that this information extends to adding information to existing articles, an article creation topic ban is not sufficient. Since some of the articles, like Repellor vehicle fall outside of the social sciences, a ban there would be insufficient. More importantly, since Marshallsumter's fundamental purpose in using Wikipedia could easily be re-adapted to any topic, while retaining the same type of disruption, I cannot see any way to safely allow the user to keep editing. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Give him a cookie for good faith effort. He/she created ~270 new articles, and at least some of them (like Perinuclear space) are very much valid. Unfortunately, I do not have time to look at all pages created by him. Perhaps some of them should be deleted, but this must be decided by consensus at AfD. Biophys (talk) 04:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Site ban and nuke all pages created. The user clearly does not intend to abide by our core policy WP:NOR. After a look at their page creations, it is transparent that most or all of them are original research and that Marshallsumter does not intend to stop engaging in such. For instance, their most recent creation, User:Marshallsumter/Radiative dynamo, appears to be entirely original research by synthesis: while I have very little knowledge of physics, the term "radiative dynamo" is found almost nowhere on the Web except on Wikipedia and its mirrors, according to Google. It appears a reasonable assumption that all their contributions are at risk of being likewise deficient, and so require deletion as a precautionary measure. A ban on article creation is not sufficient, as that would not prevent the addition of original research to other pages.  Sandstein > 05:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Actually, it turns out to be a WP:SYNTH-ish spin on a real concept. That triplet of articles (Radiative dynamo, Shell dynamo, and Distributive dynamo) describe various components of the interior flow within stars that generates their magnetic fields. The problem is we'd need a dedicated astrophysicist (with a university subscription to appropriate journal databases) to figure out what's synthesis, what's not, and what the final merged-and-trimmed article should look like (probably merged into stellar magnetic field and solar dynamo, though it'd be a shame to lose the more detailed content if it turns out to be verifiable). I made WP:AST aware of this triplet; what's needed is a long time spent with a mop while about three different wikiprojects work through the full article list and do merge/cleanup work. Preferably without any more such articles being generated in the meantime. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Ummm, this one pretty clearly falls into the category of "crazy shit". Yup, ban it, nuke it, get rid of it. And stop wasting people's time by trying to take it seriously.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support three week block + indefinite ban on article creation - seeing the extent of Marshallsumter's creation of synthesis pages, including the sex integration ones. As s/he has been a productive contributor in molecular biology and astronomy before, some form of mentorship might be appropriate. I don't think Marshallsumter should be allowed to edit until we've sorted out the mess s/he's caused. S Larctia (talk) 06:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I came across this user's articles a few months ago, and they certainly had a distinctive style which made them easy to spot without checking the history. I notified MS of this here (diff) and he then sent a very reasonable reply indicating he had accepted some of my criticisms. This 'research' seems misguided but I don't think a block is called for, certainly not indef. The user appears to be willing to self-impose a ban on article creation by having them vetted first (AfC?) Jebus989 07:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I've seen AfC proposed a few times here, and I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that that's probably a bad idea. I've seen a fair amount of dubious material pass through it despite the best efforts of the people manning the queue. It mostly functions to stop pages containing blatant vandalism, prank pages, or completely meritless content from being created. For articles like M's which take a specialist to make heads or tails of, I'd fear that AfC would function as a rubber-stamp and we'd be back to the status quo. Mentorship might work, but you're going to need experts in at least three unrelated disciplines to vet all of the topics M has been writing about over the last year or two, and he's prolific enough that it would be a full-time job to evaluate everything he wants to write. I'll be the first to cheer if you find volunteers for this, but I'm not sure it'll end up being practical. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 07:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
      • I agree with this actually, AfC would likely not pick up the issues we expect to see in this editor's articles. And the volume of articles produced thus far has created a significant workload; I tidied a couple myself before leaving him the above message and would not fancy repeating that on a hundred more. The fact that the user responds reasonably to criticism, though, makes me hope that this thread will be a wakeup call and serious action can be avoided Jebus989 08:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support block with a caveat - Obviously this user has some issues that need worked out, though I see no reason to take it any further than the minimum required to achieve the desired results. I see way too many people above that are quick to jump on the bandwagon of an indef block based on information they don't really understand. I'm an educated man, I took college-level astronomy, and I will be the first to say I'm nowhere near qualified to pass judgment on the legitimacy of most of this user's articles, I don't think there are more than a handful of people on the project that truly are. Typically absurd Sandstein-style hyperbole like "nuke all pages created" just show a disturbing level of cluelessness that makes me remember why too much Wikipedia gives me migraines. Action obviously needs to be taken, but I don't think that it involves more than the minimum block needed to protect the encyclopedia (blocks are not punitive. period. full stop.) and to recruit the correct people to verify this user's other created content. For the time being, I think we need to start with removal of article creation rights, and see where we stand after that. Trusilver 07:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Ban and nuke. MS seems to be continuing his behaviour despite this AN/I thread (see User:Marshallsumter/By definition, especially the section on Impredicativity: the individual sentences make sense and are true, the article as a whole is utter nonsense) Sampling a few of the articles, they seem to be created by copying and pasting sentences from various journal papers into an incoherent whole. Unless someone is willing to vouch for the accuracy of particular articles, I strongly suggest indiscriminately nuking all articles he created. —Ruud 11:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Having previously extended good-faith to this user, I checked one of his articles for evidence of the above claim. The entire article was copy and paste. Several setences were copied from their respective 'main' articles on wikipedia (e.g. hypotrohpy section, RUNX2 section) while other sentences were copied word for word from their cited sources; examples:
article: The HY box is the core promoter element responsive to RUNX2 in the human gene COL10A1 promoter
source: the HY box is the core element responsive to RUNX-2 in human COL10A1 promoter
article: The Runx2 site on the type X collagen promoter is required for canonical Wnt induction of col10a1.
source: the Runx2 site on type X collagen promoter is required for canonical Wnt induction of col10a1
Both of these were copied word-for-word from the abstracts of the respective sources, both under copyright. I retract my earlier good-faith assumptions, a large number of this user's articles may be copyvios Jebus989 11:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
The same is true for other articles, e.g. Phosphate transistasis has:
"positive feedback loop in which Ras signaling promotes CD44v6 splicing, and CD44v6 then sustains late Ras signaling, which is important for cell cycle progression" (without quotes) verbatim from this; and
"the dominant feedback mechanism [in this cell type] appears to be Ca2+ stimulation of phospholipase C once this enzyme has been activated by hormone receptors" (without quotes) verbatim except for 4 bracketed words from this.
-- 202.124.75.185 (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Ban. Like Jebus, I also retract my earlier good-faith suggestion. Given the (admittedly barely comprehensible) mess at Wikiversity, the odd answers and suggestions given here and the general cryptic nature of their communications, the extent of dubious article creation tainted by charges of plagiarism and doubt about the facts, the broad reach of their original research and synthesis and their apparent unwillingness to understand those basic concepts (I thought it was incapability, but I know suspect bad faith in the existentialist sense), I think we have little option but to block/ban and hope that we can clean up this mess. I don't know if nuking is the way to go; I'll leave that to the experts. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • In light of the copyvios, and mostly because of the research, I've blocked Marshallsumter indefinitely. I've encouraged him to read over WP:COPYVIO to help with that problem, but I don't see that he can remain a contributor while he is conducting this research; it can have a chilling effect much like a legal threat. Users will need to go over his contributions to check for more copyvios, which the below should help with. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 15:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support nuking the articles, a topic ban and an article creation ban might be sufficient here instead of a full Site Ban. This user since 2008 has 8,821 live edits still, which suggests that they were contributing before this recent mess which is really bad. If this user decides to give up this disruptive "research" project he/she might want to come back as just a normal editor. Hobartimus (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure "8800 edits" is a good thing. The 2500 that I skimmed looked a whole lot like more of the "recent mess", and I have a nasty suspicion that all of them might end up being the same mixture (some wikignoming, quite a bit of synthesis, and quite a lot of linking to his synthesis articles). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 01:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support ban. We have a prolific and credentialled editor who is generating lots of content. Unfortunately, that content cannot be trusted even though it may have lots of citations. High productivity and questionable content creates a lot of work for other editors. On the whole, there's a lot of damage to WP. It reminds me of an editor adding a lot of cited material about ancient mathematicians: half the material was right, but half of it was wrong. The problem is bigger than just creating articles. Stop the damage. Glrx (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Ban - the "research", the copyvios... this editor is a net drain on the project, not an asset. LadyofShalott 21:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Site ban and nuke all articles - per Sandstein. I took the time to examine a number of the articles, and too many of those I could understand were totally OR. The ones I couldn't understand need to be examined by an expert, but I feel that given the quality of the other articles, the assumption should be that an article created by this editor is suspect unless someone with expertise clears it. In any case, we are not a specialist encyclopedia, and an article on any topic with is not comprehensible to a reasonably intelligent adult shouldn't be here. The safest choice here is deletion of all the editor's articles, and a permanent site ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Let me add that it would be great if the articles could be cored sooner rather than later: I have a feelinng we may be in Sokal territory here (deliberately or not), and the longer these suspect articles are in the project, the more our reputation for accuracy takes a hit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I analyzed a few articles where I had sufficient knowledge to do so Basically they consist of a random sampling of material from sources somewhat related to the topic. So, while each sentence had some legitimacy somewhere, as articles they were random gibberish. We have a big problem here. North8000 (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Ban and delete It's clear we have a massive problem here, and if North8000's findings ring true for the whole list, we basically have a series of worthless articles. Combined with the copyvios and the copy-paste moves into userspace, we are left with a huge amount of cleanup to do. N419BH 18:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm up to 4 articles, and the situation was the same on all 4. I have a new theory. This is a second experiment about Wikipedia... generate random collections of material as hundreds of articles, intelligent-sounding, where each sentence is legit somewhere but where the article is gibberish. And see how long before it gets discovered.  :-) North8000 (talk)

Category[edit | edit source]

I created Category:Articles created by User:Marshallsumter based on the list from Soxred93's tool. Currently has top 100, but will add full list soon. This is to aid on cleanup. A cursory look revels most of the material is not deletable, but alot is mergable, some of it redundant (as such WP:COATRACK/WP:POVFORK) and otherwise problematic. I am tagging with "expert" attention tags as I get time. Please help by tagging the articles with the category and deleting from the list.--Cerejota (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; I've pinged the astronomy project about it. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I update the cat with the list, and added a few to the cats and commented them out of the list, please help with that part too ;)--Cerejota (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Before too many AfDs get under way/too much cleanup work is done I suggest waiting until the copyright status of these articles becomes clear (see above). All the ones I have seen have sections copied from other WP articles without attribution (WP:CWW) and at least one contains copy-and-pasted copyrighted material (I would bet many more do) Jebus989 12:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that most PubMed abstracts (such as that one quoted at above) are available under NIH free access policy, and therefore their use is not a copyright violation per se. And even if there is a copyright violation, one should only remove a part of the text, not the article. Looking at Structural phosphate, some parts of the text are written by someone who was well-intended, but did not clearly understand the subject and terminology ("The structural phosphate becomes the hydrolyzed nucleotide" or "EC 4.1.3.8 contains one structural phosphate"). This is all fixable. Biophys (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Free access does not mean public domain material, it just means they are granting you access without charging you. See the PMC copyright notice at NIH. —SpacemanSpiff 18:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

also when dealing with non-attributed copy-paste, make sure the material is restored in the original source, some of these were forked with material removed.--Cerejota (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Cerejota is in my understanding correct: the abstract is publicly available, but in most cases it otherwise remains under the same copyright restrictions as the article, and may be viewed, but not republished. NIH copyright policy--the abstracts are not written by pubmed staff, but transcribed from the article. Open access is much less than "free" in the sense WP uses it. DGG ( talk ) 22:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree, and I was not the one who commented on pub med, I simply spoke about internal attribution, a topic I am very familiar with (see below soon).--Cerejota (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • More generally, under our own copyright policy, anyone may use Wikipedia content as they see fit as long as they preserve attribution. This does not mean they may contribute to Wikipedia content as they see fit. Wikipedia:Research isa guideline, not policy, but I think it has wide consensus, and says "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, even if that point is in the name of research." If these articles are true research, it appears to me that the point is to examine what a community of people judge to be a fixed phrase as distinct for am ad hoc combination. Introducing a large number of very questionable articles under this guise is indeed disrupting Wikipedia. It might have been reasonable to test a few articles, choosing ones where acceptance by the community would be a real possibility, and be guided by the results. I doubt it would ever be acceptable to introduce articles that any reasonable person would know to be unacceptable, just to see how we get them out--certainly not in such numbers. There are quite enough genuine AfD discussions to observe. DGG ( talk ) 22:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I draw your attention to {{Notice-history-incomplete}} and {{Notice-history-incomplete-multi}} templates I created in 2007 for the purpose of drawing attention to attribution issues. So I am very familiar with these questions, and for some time :) I know we are now CC etc, I am just giving you an idea of the time frames we are talking here...--Cerejota (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Updated {{CWW}} and {{CWW-multi}}--Cerejota (talk) 09:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • DELETE IT ALL. I strongly suspect that there is a lot of copyvio buried here along with all the synthesis. I think the only clean way to root it out is just to delete it. Example: I tried some searches for phrases in calibrated camera (a topic that I believe can be encyclopedic) and found many long phrases copied from this 1987 paper. Together with the other known problems in this work I believe the cost of trying to salvage anything from them is too high, and the benefit too small, to do anything but delete them all. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
    • That was pretty egregious. Article deleted. — Scientizzle 17:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
That was one of the ones I reviewed in depth and found to be a random gibberish collection of material. So we have a random gibberish collection of copy vio's. North8000 (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete as much as possible. I'm an astrophysicist, and I tried to edit some of Marshallsumter's bad articles (Proton-proton annihilation and Stellar surface fusion among others. They're incredibly disruptive articles---they seem to consist of vague keyword searches, assembled into boilerplate pseudo-articles citing every Google Scholar hit on a few related terms; furthermore, they link densely to one another, creating a tiny distorted walled-garden-pedia which I presume is the point of the disruption. Please scour it away before any more editors make my mistake---and waste time trying to "improve" this hall of mirrors. Bm gub2 (formerly User:Bm_gub) 02:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete as much as possible I analyzed some where I had the knowledge to do so and found them to be a random gibberish collection of material from elsewhere. I'm starting to suspect that this is some kind of a giant HOAX. North8000 (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Some texts indeed remind computer-generated combinations of paragraphs taken from wikipedia and other sources like texts in WikiGenes [1]. But such texts can be used as initial version for human editing, and some articles created by him have been corrected by other editors (like here. So, please respect their contributions. No blank deletion without review, please. Biophys (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I took a look at the linked example. First, it appears to have the same problem, though I am not an expert in that field. Other than the first sentence, it appears to be a random collection of related material from elsewhere. Again, each sentence is legitimate/correct somewhere and has some relationship to the topic, but there is no real article writing writing here, and, as an article it is total gibberish. It has had only a tiny amount of work (like adding a ref) by others, no rewriting. Plus, regarding building a real article, the current state is "less than zero". Trying to edit such a random mess into a article would probably start with, after dozens of hours of careful deliberation, removing 100% of the content and then starting over. North8000 (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Sure, the Perinuclear space is not a good coherent article. But it is not a "total gibberish". No, this is more "than zero", because it defines the subject and provides some sourced information about the subject. I have seen many articles much worse than that. Neither of them was (or could be) deleted after AfD discussions. This is wikipedia, not Encyclopedia of Life Sciences. Biophys (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

There might be a problem with using Category:Articles created by User:Marshallsumter to hold the list. I assumed incorrectly that it was a category (WP:Categorization applied to individual pages). Since it's in Category: space, the page cannot be moved or renamed normally. Moving it will require a cut/paste + list of authors, so sooner is better than later. Flatscan (talk) 04:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio issues[edit | edit source]

A number of instances of copyvio were noted above. Perinuclear space is also a problem, since that article talk page includes an admission of WP:CWW. -- 202.124.74.191 (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Should I open a WP:CCI? MER-C 02:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
That seems like a wise move at this point. LadyofShalott 02:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I still favor the nuclear option. No offense to the diligent folks who work there, but cleaning up through CCI can take a long time, and there are serious issues here beyond COPYVIO, particularly NOR and possibly HOAX. I don't believe this editor is any longer worthy of AGF: nuke now and ask questions later. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
The easiest option might be to PROD every article this editor has created, on the basis of probable WP:OR and copyvio, and then handle the ones that survive. -- 202.124.73.9 (talk) 03:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Prod isn't even necessary. Just delete them. A CCI will identify his contributions to existing articles. MER-C 03:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support indef block and delete all Please do not open a copyright investigation. As others have stated, whether intended or not, the text introduced by the editor is indistinguishable from a hoax (albeit clever enough to waste vaste amounts of time from WP:AGF). Accordingly, the editor should be indefinitely blocked and all content should be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Does it mean that Wikigenes is a copyright violation? The entire resource consists from computer-generated combinations of phrases taken from PubMed abstracts [2]. No one complained about copyright violation in wikigenes. Biophys (talk) 04:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Can't comment on WikiGenes, but it's copyvio for Wikipedia to copy from copyrighted abstracts. -- 202.124.73.227 (talk) 05:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
WikiGenes can probably claim "fair use" in a way that Wikipedia's licensing terms do not permit. -- 202.124.73.227 (talk) 05:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • No CCI, just G12 A CCI seems an incredible waste of time and space for this given all the other problems. In this case if two editors identify copyright issues in parts of the article they just ought to be deleted. A modified version of G12. {{db-G12|url=See Marshallsumter discussion at ANI; text in this article has been copied from xxx}} —SpacemanSpiff 06:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I second that and get all the open AfDs closed as delete per SNOW or G12.--Cerejota (talk) 06:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I suggest that, per normal practise, we G12 cases which are obvious copyright violations, and send others (such as Io as an X-ray source) where the copyright violation is much less clear, to the copyright noticeboard. S Larctia (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Site ban, and delete most articles. All of the articles by this editor I have looked at have WP:CWW problems, many of them have direct copyvios from the references, and most of them seem in fact to be barely coherent juxtapositions of quotations from the cited sources. It may be possible that there is some small amount of worthwhile content out there, but I suggest that articles be deleted with prejudice unless a very good reason can be found to keep them. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment the user also seems to be copying articles they created from main space to a subpage of their user page User:Marshallsumter/Repellor vehicle is from Repellor vehicle. In doing so they seem to be copying the most recent version ([3] is in their subpages), regardless of changes by other users in the interim and without noting the source which is a likely to be deleted article. I.E. They are violating contributors copyrights. It seems they don't understand they need to request an article be moved, along with the history, to their user space if it contains contributions not their own. Given this problem (although it sounds like this should be obvious due to the possible copyvios with their content in general), I suggest all their user page sub pages be deleted. Nil Einne (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree that we need to deal with his user space articles, probably deleting them all, certainly templating and noindexing. Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, delete them all. Additionally, they are WP:FAKEARTICLEs created solely to circumvent the community consensus that his articles should be deleted. MER-C 02:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Marshallsumter's continued Wikiversity activity[edit | edit source]

Over at Wikiversity, Marshallsumter is recreating many of his synth/copyright pages - i.e. [4]. You can find a catalogue of them at his userpage [5], although there are several more. --S Larctia (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Are any WikiVersity admins watching this discussion? I have no idea what the policies are over there, but I would assume that copyvios are verboten there too. LadyofShalott 03:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Hmmmmm. Count Iblis (talk) 04:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Judging by his talk page on 'versity, I'd assume that at least someone is aware. I couldn't locate anything akin to WP:AN to leave a general notice at, however, so I didn't try to get more eyes on it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
The closest there is to WP:AN over there is [6]. However, don't expect to get a positive response. Abd, a banned sockpuppeteer on en.wikipedia is a custodian there, and has essentially told Marshallsumter on his talk page that 1) his en.wiki block was uncalled for 2) his research is suitable for Wikiversity 3) he should copy all the pages that were deleted from Wikipedia for copyright reasons to Wikiversity. Apparently original research, hoaxes and minor copyright violations are alright there as long as they are "educational". Good grief. --S Larctia (talk) 07:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikiversity got exactly what it deserved, if they chose him as a custodian after all the bullshit in wikiversity:Wikiversity:Candidates_for_Custodianship/Abd_2. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
So the Foundation doesn't care about copyright there? I don't understand that, but then Wikiversity seems to be a place where almost anything goes - if you write a rubbish article here and it's deleted because it ignores all our policies and guidelines, you seem to be able to add it there. It's almost a reason not to donate to the Foundation. Dougweller (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Is there a general Wikimedia noticeboard to comment about the way that banned Wikipedia users are now running Wikiversity ? :S --S Larctia (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Guys, this isn't exactly on topic. I'd suggest starting a thread at one of the village pumps or the mailing list if there's more to discuss. We ain't gonna' be able to solve any such problems here. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Just popping a few words here from the perspective of someone who has had some positive experiences with the English Wikiversity:

  1. Wikiversity is actually a pretty good place for university-level instructors to organize collaborative projects. That's mostly what goes on these days if you look at the RC feed.
  2. Wikiversity's mission and scope is poorly defined. This has been good in some ways, but very problematic in others.
  3. Like most WMF wikis that aren't the English Wikipedia, there's a certain resistance to following the lead of the English Wikipedia. This sometimes reaches the point where anything the en.wp community says is just assumed to be wrong-headed.
  4. There's been a disproportionate amount of "drama" over the past 3 years or so, which has led most of the admins to give up and just ignore anything that might involve yet another drama, so the only people willing to "take on the mantle" these days tend to be people like Ottava Rima and Abd. Speaking for myself, I've pretty much given up now that Abd has yet again become an admin.

If you want to fix en.wv, just become an admin there and fix it. Seriously: I'm a 'crat there, and will happily give tools to any sane admin from WP who's willing to spend a minimal amount of time watching over a very slow project. --SB_Johnny | talk 23:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Just one more thing to put out there: Abd is pretty much the guy in charge of RC patrolling and doing admin chores these days. He's also done his share of doing experimental research on the WP community. --SB_Johnny | talk 00:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The only good thing about Wikiversity is that no-one outside the project has heard of it. If anyone does re-open a "Close it all down" movement, please flag it clearly here too. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus here for a ban...[edit | edit source]

Resolved: There is clear and overwhelming consensus for a ban. Deletion issues are being discussed in the sections below. --SB_Johnny | talk 17:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:Discussion top ...and for deleting all the articles. I know that we try to give ban discussions a good amount of time to come to fruition, but in the meantime, I would think a mass deletion of all the articles would be a good thing. The ban discussion can continue, but deleting the articles protects the project from potential harm -- and DRV can undo any mistakes. I'd like to say again that our rep is at issue here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. I withdraw my previous statement that the articles should be refactored. With this much copyvio, it becomes easier to write new articles from scratch instead. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Agree, having participated in discussion with this editor (for example, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominant group (Moon), it is obvious that nothing short of a ban and a wholesale delete will adequately protect the project, as the user in question seems to want to intentionally cause a problem as part of his "research" and so many issues exist with current creations. Moogwrench (talk) 05:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Ban - Marshallsumter's extensive copyright violations and deceptive responses are a major issue. Deleting all the articles per CSD G12 is probably the way forward if the copyright violations are ambiguous. --S Larctia (talk) 06:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Delete all of the articles, and block the individual Offer them due process before a ban. I'm up to checking about 6 articles, and the story was the same on all of them. As an article, random gibberish. A random collection of related material from elsewhere, each piece of material correct and legit elsewhere, but the collection is uninformative random gibberish as an article. And for those topics where an article is in order, the current state is less-than-zero. It would be much easier to start from zero than trying to modify those random messes. Also, all of the 6 IMHO either shouldn't have been a topic or didn't need to be a topic. So even keeping these as one-sentence stubs (which I contemplated suggesting) may be a less-than-zero value situation. Again, this was based on reviewing about 6 articles. My theory is that this is a big hoax which successfully showed a Wikipedian weakness...that (except for copy vios) our policies/guidelines look much more favorably on random messes such as these than they do on the editor activities like summarization and material selectivity that create informative articles. North8000 (talk) 10:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose to deletion of all his articles without review because some of them appear to be valid (see my comments above). There is an ongoing review process using prods and AfDs, and this is way to go. Biophys (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose deleting all articles without review. Some are okay. Binksternet (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose deleting articles. How about some people do something totally amazing and actually do a little research before giving a dismissive shrug and saying "delete everything"? I've spent a day and a half now picking through these articles one by one and checking the references for them. A majority of them are so filled with OR and SYNTH issues that they are totally beyond redemption, but there's still a sizable chunk of legitimate articles here. Trusilver 15:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Any examples of legitimate articles which make sense, aren't made up of copyvios and non-attributed CWW and are devoid of OR? Jebus989 17:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, even ONE example of an article which informs, makes sense, and was actually written about the topic vs. a random collage generation would certainly sway me to say slow down. North8000 (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I went through fourteen articles yesterday that this individual created, about half of them I am in agreement to delete, a few I'm unsure of, but I'm supporting keeping Propulsion system, List of human hair color genes needs work by someone that knows what they are talking about, but is still legitimate. List of solar X-ray astronomy satellites is good. Sounding rocket X-ray astronomy looks like it has some potential or at least some worthwhile information to merge into Sounding rocket but I've spent 10 hours in the last two days reading this guy's writing, and I'm too burned out at this point to even consider doing any more today. Trusilver 17:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I have yet to see an articlre for this editor that held up under close scrutiny. Propulsion system, for example, has massive WP:CWW. -- 202.124.73.164 (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Not only that, but IMHO that "better" article Propulsion system isn't even a legit article topic and as an article is worthless. That's like writing an article on "wheels for movement" and then putting in material on various things in the world that move with wheels. A section describing automobiles, a section describing trains, roller skates etc.
I spent time fixing articles months ago (e.g. HY box and degenerate nucleotide) but I've seen enough in the thread above and in this user's contribution history to honestly think deleting everything is going to save a number of users a lot of time and effort, at little or no loss to the encyclopedia. When you add to this the legal implications of the copyvios (which appear to be widespread in these articles) and to a lesser extent the CC violations of copying from other articles without attribution, I think a quick mass delete becomes the only viable option Jebus989 18:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I hate the idea of deleting content that is good, but at the same time I DO have a very easy time seeing your point. I have wasted two days worth of free time reading and researching just a small fraction of this user's articles. So I'm not about to say I don't see the benefits of your suggestion. Trusilver 18:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
That's fair. And I'm not trying to 'drive the point home' but taking a look at List of human hair color genes, which you give as an example of a legitimate article, 'White hair' section is copied from Achromotrichia#Grey and white hair, the dermal matrix melanocyte section is copied from melanosome and possibly others, each other section is copied from its respective "main" article (all unattributed, falling foul of WP:CWW). The table at the end appears to be synthesis, as it bears no reference and links together several gene functions Jebus989 18:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC) edit: I just picked this one out of your examples as biology is my subject of interest, a quick look at the others suggests the same issues.
  • Nuke articles created by MS, reluctantly. I don't think salvage is worth the effort. I'd like an alternative such as propose-delete each, but then we're trusting that someone who removes the tag has also vetted the article against copyright and other problems. I don't think we can choose that alternative. We are aware of many copyright problems, so it is our duty to find them rather than just wait for a copyright holder to complain. I don't think there is a viable half step. Glrx (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Plan B. Propose delete all articles on the list for copyvio, or, and synthesis. After that cycle has run, look at the surviving articles on the list and decide their fate. If too many remain, nuke could still be on the table. Esoteric subjects will still be a problem to judge, but many may not survive propd. Glrx (talk) 01:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. I support a community ban. It seems clear that most of this editor's contributions have been deliberately designed to disrupt the project a la the Sokal affair. There's always the Wikipedia:Standard offer. The condition of which that I would like to see enforced is that this editor must make a full public disclosure of his attempts to inject nonsense into the project. It is clear to that this was willful disruption: the admission of a research project is particularly damning in this regard, but the pattern of nonsensical articles also speaks for itself I think. As for whether his articles should be deleted, I also prefer to deal with them on a per case basis. However, I am inclined to err on the side of accidentally deleting possibly good, copyright clean content, rather than to allow bad, misleading, nonsensical, or potentially infringing material to remain in article space. If there is a question about copyrights, plagiarism, copying from other Wikipedia articles without attribution, or OR/SYNTH/nonsense, I am prod'ing or AfD'ing them. About 80% of the articles I have reviewed have had multiple such issues (the other 20% were inconclusive). I don't wish to be overzealous in issuing prods. I would welcome the opportunity to work with any editor on improving any article that I prodded, if someone sees that the content can be rescued. Please stop by my talk page if you wish to discuss this with me. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment  I spent a few more minutes on Greenland ice cores, and verified a source, [7].  It wasn't a source that would reveal a copyvio.  There was an error in the citation, in that the page listed, 23, was the page that the Acrobat PDF reader reports as the page number, not the page number, 21, that would be found in hard copy.  Here is the comparison from another source with the article:
  • We report here measurements of [SO4 2−] and [NO3 −] in firn samples spanning the period 1895–1978. Samples, each covering 1 yr, were taken from a 70-m core drilled at Dye 3, South Greenland; [NO3 −] and [SO4 2−] both increased by a factor of ˜2 during the period.
  • Dye 3 1978 to 90 m, measurements of [SO42-] and [NO3-] in firn samples spanning the period 1895-1978 are from the Dye 3 1978 core down to 70 m,
In conclusion for this source, no copyvio.  I'm new to the issue of WP:CWW, but at Greenland ice cores it seems that the articles from which the text is copied are clearly identified.  My initial impressions continue to be "keep".  Unscintillating (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
But this article has image copyvio problems. -- 202.124.73.164 (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • (e/c) I've found copyvios in that article that I won't repeat. See the AfD discussion if you're interested. Let me reiterate an observation that I made there, though: with this editor, if you don't find a copyright violation, then you simply haven't looked hard enough. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I found even more textual copyvios in the same article. See the AfD for details. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete all articles. There is too little value, and too much copyvio. -- 202.124.73.164 (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
    • 202, that's not on point: much too vague. Drmies (talk) 23:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
"Too little value" -- the overwhelming majority of articles have WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues, and even articles that looked OK to me (e.g. on astronomy) have turned out to be problematic when experts looked at them. "Too much copyvio" -- most articles I've seen from this user have copyvio of some kind: copying from sources, WP:CWW, or image copyright problems. The presumption has to be that copyvio exists in them all, unless someone does a very careful check to exclude it. -- 202.124.73.164 (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
We still have to look at these on an individual basis. I cited Vertikal, below, as an article that in my opinion (now) is unproblematic. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
202 is overstating the case about image copyright problems and it is not helpful.  One of the "image copyright" issues mentioned at WP:Articles for deletion/Greenland ice cores is a public domain NASA image of Greenland used in 50 articles.  There are two new issues posted within the last hour on two other images from the Neils Bohr Institute, issues that I don't understand, but appear likely to be resolved with return email.  Certainly none of these "image copyright" issues rises to the level that they should be given any weight whatsoever at the current time toward a consideration of banning.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe that anyone ever suggested there was a problem with the NASA image at Greenland ice cores, just the others. And it turns out that Greenland ice cores also has text copyvio problems. -- 202.124.72.232 (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Ban but not nuke. Some articles are OK (see Vertikal), and as tempting as it is to delete the lot and not deal with it, that's probably not something we can do. It's not all gibberish or plagiarism. Drmies (talk) 23:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
@Drmies - Even in as simple an article as this, there are copyvios. Consider:
Vertikal#Vertikal 10: Electrostatic analyzers aboard Vertikal 10 detected fluxes at night of cold ions moving from the mid-latitude plasmasphere to the ionosphere after launch on December 25, 1981, at 22:35 MLT.[11] The flux velocity is approximately 1000 m/s with a flux density of 0.8-4.0 x 108 cm-2 s-1.

Original source: Electrostatic analyzers aboard the Vertikal'-10 rocket (launched on December 25, 1981 at 22.35 MLT) detected fluxes of cold ions moving from the midlatitude plasmasphere to the ionosphere at night at L = 2. The flux velocity was observed to be approximately 1000 m/s, and the flux density was (0.8-4.0) x 10 to the 8th/sq cm s.
The passage is reffed to the abstract, but the degree of difference between the original and the resulting text is not enough to take it out of the realm of copyright violation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. Marshallsumter is currently working on his page on Wikiversity, by integrating the discussions we have here about him. His page on Wikiversity even link to delete discussions on Wikipedia. Example: His article "Dominant Group (moon)" was deleted because it was not a valid subject. The discussion about it is now used as a reference in his own research: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Dominant_group#Astronomy. He is using us as a jury to decide the existence of some concepts he put as titles for new articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin7x (talkcontribs) 00:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - he started editing in October 2008. How did this not get picked up before? What was the earliest article created and is it possible to create a complete list of all articles created (including those deleted before this discussion started) rather than have just Category:Articles created by User:Marshallsumter? A complete list of all articles edited might be needed as well. Carcharoth (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Manually crawling his contributions and adding the cat is likely to be the best we can do, unless someone wants to write a bot to find everything (and it'd need viewdeleted rights to see many of them). As for the earliest, it appears to be Inhibitory peptide (admin-only link), which was deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inhibitory peptide. The second, Riboside, looks fairly kosher at first blush (though I haven't checked for copyvios myself). And the third article he created, List of human ATPase genes, is currently at AfD for the same reasons many of his other articles have problems, so I don't know what can be concluded other than what we already knew. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I just took a close look at the first article Riboside that they put up as they initially put it up in 2008 and the gibberish-regarding-being-an-article pattern is already there. It started with a 6 word sentence "defining" it: "A riboside is any glycoside of ribose" and linking to the entire articles on those two words. End of explanation about Riboside. Then it immediately changes the subject to all kinds of sophisticated material which is not about the topic. The only thing in the rest of the article that was about the topic is a brief statement stating that a particular item is an example of a Riboside (taken from a source). I see no attempt there to really write anything about Ribosides nor inform the reader about them. North8000 (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete all and ban the creator - I've just been looking at astronomical X-ray source and that is another mish-mash job that seems to have involved pasting together bits from different articles. This is all absolutely horrendous, and I'm still puzzled that no-one spotted these before now. I can only think that they were a walled garden unto themselves and people searching for articles vaguely on these topics were ending up at the real articles with different names (which would rank higher in Google searches, I hope) and that these fraudulent articles were only linked to themselves. Carcharoth (talk) 04:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm guessing on two common scenarios on how they "got by" this long. #1 Someone reads it, looks impressive, but they get nothing out of the article. They just think: "I guess I'm not smart enough to understand this article" #2 For folks who know better, but don't have the big-picture context of the overall suspicions, it just looks like one badly written article. There are also sincerely written technical articles with issues that look similar. A lot of piecemeal material which sort of "talks around the edges" of a topic without really explaining / defining it. It takes someone with the rare combination of empathy for the non-expert reader, strong expertise on the subject, ability to write/summarize (violating wp:nor if taken literally) & willingness to spend the time to fix the article. North8000 (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Ban I was initially inclined toward just letting the indef stick. But no fewer than seven articles have been found that are laden with copyvios. Additionally, his behavior at Wikiversity could put the WMF in great legal danger. Seal the vault. Blueboy96 12:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Ban to protect the project, for the reasons given above by Carcharoth and Blueboy96 above. Moreover, even after the mass-deletion of articles created by this user, there is still an immense amount of material to wade through checking for copyvios: the effort involved will soak up many editors' efforts for some time to come. The Wikversity hints about this being a "research activity" are the last straw. -- The Anome (talk) 13:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:Discussion bottom

Needed: Bold appplication of WP:IAR[edit | edit source]

I think this situation is precisely the kind of circumstance that IAR was designed for. Sure, we could limp along dealing with this with our usual processes, but as we do, our exposure is greater and greater, and the probability that people will try to use these articles becomes higher. I think it would be much better to speedy delete them under IAR, then if people have concerns that perhaps a good article or two was deleted in the process, specific ones can be userfied for expert examination (or looked at on Wikiversity). Doing it the other way will be much too slow, and too dangerous. Let's start undoing this mess instead of worrying away at it.

If a bold admin (or two or three) isn't willing to step up and do the right thing, then the only other option to cut short our slow-motion car crash would seem to be opening an arbitration case, and who the hell wants that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Doing..., using the list from X!'s tool. T. Canens (talk) 06:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The category might be better, because it list those that already survived AfD or otherwise not kosher (ie in AfD). Also gave you barnstar.--Cerejota (talk) 06:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, T. Canens!! I hope you don't get a lot of blowback from this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
YesY Done. Orphaned talk pages and broken redirects can be handled in the usual course. No objections to any admin undeleting at their own discretion without consulting me. T. Canens (talk) 06:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
This is one of the most awesome things I have seen any admin do in a big while... this should go into WikiHistory--Cerejota (talk) 06:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, excellent work! I think we are supposed to have spent at least another week debating whether obvious junk should be deleted, but sometimes common sense does win. Johnuniq (talk) 07:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Wow, I'm impressed. Did we get the ones he userfied too? Also, does someone want to judge consensus for a ban? N419BH 07:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
All the self-userfied pages and drafts are also gone. -- The Anome (talk) 11:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
An editor who is indef blocked and just had every article he ever created deleted from the encyclopedia is unlikely to be unblocked any time soon, so there's a de facto ban in place -- but it might still be a good idea to formalize a community ban, just in case somone comes along who doesn't understand the enormity of what this editor did. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Now formalized. --SB_Johnny | talk 17:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

11:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Good move on the deletions Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • After reading the Wikiversity page, this action was more than needed. I thought we were just dealing with sneaky copyvios, but what this guy is doing is so far from what Wikipedia is that it isn't even funny. Blueboy96 12:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

ATTENTION[edit | edit source]

If you think any of these articles was worth it, or the topic notable, simply userfy a deletion and work from that (if you are a regular user ask any admin to userfy it for you). Otherwise, simply start the article from scratch - but be careful with WP:CWW issues if you userfy. In my case I already got me one userfied, but I am planning on skipping any WP:CWW by only using infobox and the bare sources/links. I want to minimize giving credit, but do it in a legal way.Smiley.svg--Cerejota (talk) 07:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Existing article contributions[edit | edit source]

While the creations have all been deleted, there are still other articles that have to be checked. e.g. X-ray astronomy. Between this revision and this revision he has added more than 160KB of content to the article, there were a few minor edits by others, but I don't doubt that at least 95% of the added content is from Marshallsumter. In fact, the amount of content added to this article is more than the size of many of the creations. I'm sure there are other articles like this, but these need someone from the relevant wikiprojects to look at them for OR/SYNTH issues and possibly a CCI to address copyvios. —SpacemanSpiff 09:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

On further looking at the history, I see that content was split off from the above example to X-ray astronomy detectors, X-ray astronomy history, and X-ray astrophysical sources and also partially merged to X-ray astronomy satellites etc. So, it's not just direct contributions that need checking. —SpacemanSpiff 10:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Geez, that is a nightmare. What we need is some magic way to lift his contributions out, leaving behind everything else, and then fix the article from there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm working on a list of the articles he edited that weren't article creations. I've gotten through 2008 & 2009. I'll post again when I'm done.Cloveapple (talk) 10:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The contribution survey does that automatically. (It's intermittently broken, just hammer reload a few times. I have a copy saved to my hard disk.) MER-C 10:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, Sounds like I should quit working on my list. Can we put a copy of the contribution survey somewhere central so people could see what articles have been checked and what remains to be done? Maybe something like the list on page Category:Articles created by User:Marshallsumter? Cloveapple (talk) 11:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I've dumped it at User:MER-C/Marshallsumter for now. It may be moved under WP:CCI. MER-C 11:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Wow. I'd gotten farther on the list then I realized. The list on page Category:Articles edited but not created by User:Marshallsumter has 198 out of 221 contributions. Should I put it up for deletion or would adding the articles to a category be helpful? (I'd only categorized one so far.)Cloveapple (talk) 12:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I think in this case a diff listing is more helpful. I have no opinion on the categorization. MER-C 13:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
A big chunk of that diff are blatant pastes from various NASA articles, including [8] [9]. Although it's public domain, it doesn't look good. The duplication detector fails on the most used source. I should note that all a CCI is is a listing of major contributions by one editor. While the intention is to look for copyvios, a contribution survey can also be used to eliminate (say) systematic additions of OR or poorly sourced BLP material throughout Wikipedia. MER-C 10:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I would agree with MER-C that a diff listing is more helpful. Also, the other articles he has touched have also been edited by multiple other editors and most of them are likely to be regular topics (for lack of a better term), so adding the category, even if it's hidden isn't really a necessity IMO. The article list is available, based on the categories within the articles they could be divvied up to wikiprojects and at least announced on their talk pages as those needing some special attention. —SpacemanSpiff 15:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
[10] contains a copyvio from [11]. MER-C 10:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I took a look at Pulsar, Astronomy, Earthworm, Mosquito, Lightning, Gliese 412, Brown dwarfs, Comparative anatomy, SN 185, Phosphate, and Nuclear Fusion. None had the problem where the article was significantly gibberish. I just gave those articles a quick overall look for that problem, nothing else. North8000 (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Just because an article was created by this editor doesn't mean it needs an out of process deletion, which is what has happened here (anytime somebody invokes IAR you know they've broken rules). I can't get uncited BLPs deleted as fast as you've deleted all of Sumter's articles!! So how do you justify THAT?

Because of this "bold" move (why don't you bold people go work on the 1000 BLPs with no source?), I now can't go over gamma-ray production or list of astronomical gamma-ray sources to see what it salvagable. I did contribute some to the first article (as I recall) and that's gone, too. If the second article involved copying a lot of lists from NASA, so what? Many list articles are straight copies, and if the original is a government document meant to be disseminated and copied, so much the better. As a result of this purge (what else to call it??) Wikipedia no longer contains a list of astronomical gamma ray sources. I can invoke WP:IAR to point out that you've harmed the encyclopedia thereby. SBHarris 17:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Read the "ATTENTION" section above. If you'd like one of the articles userfied in order to fix it, please ask any admin. N419BH 17:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
There was a pretty strong consensus for the move, a strong rationale for it, and consensus that it was important for doing so. North8000 (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, neither of the two pages you cited has ever existed on Wikipedia. T. Canens (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay, the exact names are Gamma-ray generation and Astronomical gamma-ray source. Consider this an asking of an admin. SBHarris 19:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I've restored them. If they contain copyvios, it'll be up to you to identify and remove them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Gracias. I will attempt to do so. SBHarris 20:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
You may also want to spend a bit of time searching for similar content elsewhere in Wikipedia. M had a history of copy/pasting and forking content, so I'd strongly suspect that the contents of the two articles you link are already represented in some form. If so, consider merging any useful content back into them (after googling phrases and checking the in-article references to check for external cut/paste work). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio is not the only problem here. Given that Marshallsumter has exhausted any benefit of the doubt, these should be deleted again unless Sbharris can positively vouch for the contents being of a coherent and encyclopedic nature (unlike the vast majority of Marshallsumter's work). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Chris. I think this situation is exactly analogous to what happens when a banned editor makes a productive edit, one editor comes along and deletes it by right (as the contrib of a banned user), and another restores it because it's good material. The editor who restores it takes responsibility for the veracity and quality of the edit, as if they were the originator of it. The same thing needs to happen here: articles should probably be userfied rather than directly restored, so that the requesting editor can go over the article and vouch for its contents. Then it can be moved back into articlespace, under the auspices of the vouching editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
No problems with deleting all the contributions - there is a provision within WP:CCI that this can be done. In this case, I'll give Sbharris a day or so then follow up with him as to what he's done. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I've read the article Gamma-ray generation, it seems to be ok. except for one paragraph. I don't know anything about the copyright violation issue that is suspected to be at play here, but that can be dealt with by rewriting and expanding some sections. Count Iblis (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? The article was constructed as a pasting together of stuff copied from other articles with the editor demonstrating no understanding of the topic. The articles I looked at that were like this appear to have been machine-generated following a fairly simple and formulaic algorithm. This becomes clear when you compare the content listings for articles such as astronomical X-ray sources and astronomical gamma-ray source:
  • 1 X-radiation/Gamma ray
  • 2 X-ray source/none
  • 3 Astronomical source/Astronomical source
  • 4 Celestial X-ray source/Celestial gamma-ray source
  • 5 Astronomical X-ray object/Astronomical gamma-ray object
  • 6 Extrasolar X-ray source astrometry/Extrasolar gamma-ray source
  • 7 X-ray astronomy/Gamma-ray astronomy
  • 8 Spectral energy distribution/Spectral energy distribution
  • 9 Temporal distribution/Temporal distribution
  • 10 Spatial distribution/Spatial distribution
  • 11 Diffuse X-ray background/Celestial gamma-ray background
  • 12 Visibly dark X-ray source/Visibly dark gamma-ray source
  • 13 X-1 X-ray source/First gamma-ray source
  • 14 Astronomical X-ray source catalog/Gamma-ray source catalog
  • 15 Astrophysical X-ray source/Astrophysical gamma-ray source
And the wording of some of those sections is identical, and nonsensical to boot: "An astronomical source is the start, beginning, or origin of something that suggests or indicates the presence of an astronomical object or astronomical body, where a source is the start, beginning, or origin of something." That is meaningless and self-referential. The same applies to : "The terms astronomical objects and astronomical bodies differ from "celestial objects" and "celestial bodies" only in that the latter terms do not include the Earth." That is not a meaningful thing to copy and paste into articles and seems to be there only for padding due to the lack of having anything really meaningful to say. Ditto for: "Astronomical objects are naturally occurring physical entities, associations or structures that current science has demonstrated to exist in outer space. Such an astronomical object may be only an astronomical gamma-ray object. The term astronomical object is sometimes used interchangeably with astronomical body. Typically an astronomical body refers to a single, cohesive structure that is bound together by gravity (and sometimes by electromagnetism). Examples from visual astronomy include the asteroids, moons, planets and stars. Astronomical objects are gravitationally bound structures that are associated with a position in space, but may consist of multiple independent astronomical bodies or objects." This is just pasting together poorly worded definitions to pad the articles. And the extensive and similarly identical 'see also' sections just confirm that these are walled gardens of formulaic cookie-cutter articles pasted together using extracts from other articles. If you look at a version of gamma ray generation edited by this editor, such as here, you will likely find the text in question copied over from the articles linked to as the 'main article' for each section. The equivalent 'article' for X-rays is X-ray generation, which was turned into a redirect but should probably be deleted. In fact, the articles created by this editor that were turned into redirects should go as well. Carcharoth (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that version of "gamma ray generation" clearly reads like written by someone who doesn't understands what he writes about. But this particular article has undergone some editing by knowlegable editors (like Sbharris), and it seems to me that one can keep this article, rewrite and expand some sections, add some other sections etc. etc. I think that Sbharris who was aleady involved with that article is going to do that. Count Iblis (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
It would be better if any remedial work and initial seeding of any potential article was done by someone who has studied astrophysics to some verifiable level, or is prepared to rigorously use sources (i.e. not making unsourced corrections and additions of proofs like you did to 'Helmholtz free energy'). This can't be left solely to those with an interest in this area of science, or to physicists or doctors who studied different areas of science. There will be those at the Astronomy WikiProject able to do a proper assessment of what is needed here. Please don't risk compounding the mistakes made here by building on something that may mislead those trying to correct it. There are those on Wikipedia who study astrophysics who are able to correct what has happened here. It is those people that need to step up to the plate here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The thing that amazes me is how he was able to keep this up for over a year--an eternity in Wiki-terms--before getting caught. Especially since he was editing in an area that gets a lot of traffic. Blueboy96 22:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

These aren't the most prominent astronomy related articles, so they don't get the scrutiny other articles get. But I have seen much worse cases. Some core thermodynamics articles were fundamentally flawed for many years. I rewrote quite a few of them in 2008, e.g this article. The problem here was a lack of expertise among the regular editors at the time. At the time, I argued on some policy talk pages that one has to re-think the approach to editing articles on technical subjects, but most editors didn't want to go there. A year later, after a bad experience with an editor on the entropy page, I thought that it is high time to propose a new policy, so I wrote up WP:ESCA, but that went nowhere. It's Wiki-politically incorrect to make such suggestions :( . Count Iblis (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
That edit you made to Helmholtz free energy may have corrected things, but it still reads like a high-level textbook page rather than an encyclopedia article. Not many readers will actually learn anything from that article in the state it is in at the moment. Most will just walk away more than a bit befuddled and wondering why there was a need to include a proof and lots of mathematical symbols and formulae. Carcharoth (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
In contrast to many other thermodynamics subject, Helmholtz free energy is mostly a theoretical physics subject and things like the "Bogoliubov inequality" are notable and they are also used a lot in computations. I would guess that many people do read this page, people who read the technical stuff are mostly physics students and professionals who want to quickly look up things.
The Gibbs free energy is similar to the Helmholtz free energy, but this quantity is used a lot more in chemistry, and then there is more to write about those applications. But there is still some fair amount of math in that article. I have never edited that article though, because the math wasn't flawed when I checked all thermodynamics and statistical physcis articles back in 2008.
And then there are other statistical mechanics articles that are even more heavy in math, some have only been edited by math editors, like Yang–Baxter equation. This article should be rewritten more in the spirit of my edits to Helmholtz free energy, i.e. expanded with more context so that studens can read how it is used. Count Iblis (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
At least it is coherent and has explanatory statements, a step better than many highly technical articles in Wikipedia. But doesn't achieve the ultimate which would be to explain it to the average person of those who would be trying to learn from the article. North8000 (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I was looking for the proton antiproton annihilation article, for which the links exist but not the page. In following up to see what the problem was, I stumbled on this page. Gosh. I just cannot believe you all spend so much time on such discussions, and I am unsure whether to be grateful for your vigilence, or disappointed at your subjectivity. I don't know all the details about the infringements, but in a quick perusal I didn't see any actual factual evidence of copyright infringement -which seemed to be the main complaint - and the whole decision-making process seemed simply a lynching. So you just go and 'nuke' (your words) every article that this person has ever written, regardless of merit? You feel that is a rational response? I'm glad I came and sat in the court spectator gallery - but I don't think I saw a fair trial. John Pons (talk) 08:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It frequently takes something more than a "quick perusal" to uncover copyright violations, and since all the editor's original articles have been deleted (properly so), you have no basis for evaluating the original research and synthesis they contained, so perhaps your judgment might be a little hasty. It may seem like a "lynching" to you, but it took four or five days of evaluation, consideration and debate from a large number of editors before someone acted for the good of the project on the consensus which had formed. If you are familiar with any of the deleted articles, and want to have a go at fixing it up to be a useful and informative contribution to the encyclopedia, you can ask an admin to userfy it to your usespace, where you can work on it until it fulfills our requirements.

On the other hand, with 53 edits in 4 years, 10 of them deleted, and a deleted article which apparently was WP:FRINGE, you may not be in the best position to pass judgement on the proceedings here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

There's plenty of evidence above, some provided by myself. I urge editors entering this discussion to assume good faith and read the above investigation in its entirety before commenting down here and jumping to conclusions Jebus989 09:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this most recent thread seems to be missing the main stuff from the main discussion. North8000 (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I know nothing about this user, but I checked a few biology-related articles created by him. Although relatively poor quality (just as many other wikipedia articles), none of them deserved deletion. This is my conclusion, and I work in this area. Biophys (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
There might be a mixup. Which articles did you check? The recent thread went off the section topic and into articles that are already deleted. The more recent listings (and this section) are about articles where they we just a contributon and deletion looks unlikely on those. North8000 (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there's a mixup. This user has commented several times demonstrating a misunderstanding of copyright policy, saying it's perfectly acceptable to copy verbatim from pubmed abstracts (which it's not). Article quality had nothing to do with the deletions, they were entirely copypastes from other wikipedia articles or from sources under copyright. Any original text was unreferenced and synthesis or original research. None of the users involved above were able to produce a single reliably-sourced article composed of original text... Jebus989 14:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes. With the added note that the result was things that were random gibberish rather than articles. North8000 (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I am talking about articles like Perinuclear space, which was placed for AfD discussion, where no one provided a single example of copyright violation, and no one provided valid arguments for deletion during the AfD discussion.Biophys (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
By all means ask to have a copy of the article userfied, before doing so I thoroughly recommend reading the above conversations and all the evidence presented; you may especially be interested in the above section where another user asked for articles to be restored (Gamma-ray generation and Astronomical gamma-ray source, for reference). They were (unsurprisingly) exactly what we expected—unattributed CWW, synthesis, incoherent jumbled together sentences etc. Jebus989 16:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but I have no intention to userfy and restore any of these articles (there are more interesting/important subjects to edit). They had to be simply kept to allow contributions of multiple editors, as time allows. Biophys (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
With respect to that specific article, I did a search on a few random text strings: first string, closely paraphrased from a journal, second, copied from another article, third was copied either from Nuclear envelope or this 2001 page. I need to go look into that content at Nuclear envelope. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Which means I was wrong about this. Sorry. T.Cannes was right by doing the blanket deletion. In fact, all relevant information should be in Nuclear envelope, and we hardly need Perinuclear space. Biophys (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, how about:

Are they properly stubs? WERE they previously stubs and are now deleted? You see, if you just delete long lists, nobody else can TELL what was in the deleted articles. Given the extreme specificity likely from looking at just the titles, it seems to me that there isn't much room here for anything but useful information. Considering the totally squalid state that most WP articles historically start in (do you all really get the historical idea of Wikipedia??), I think the level of picky-ness being shown here decends very far toward DICKishness. Vandalism, I cannot abide. But deleting every article created by a poor writer (I mean a writer who writes poorly), not having even looked at some of them first, is really going too far. Especially on Wikipedia. SBHarris 16:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Really, from the articles I've had a closer look at, anyone willing to "restore" these article is much better off starting from nothing than from what was there previously. If you're unable to create a stub on these topic from nothing then you're not the right person clean up what was there previously either. —Ruud 18:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
That's quite a bold inductive statement from somebody who hasn't seen any of the aricles in question. But let's do a bet: take Index table for X-ray and gamma-ray sources. I haven't seen it, and neither have you. You go ahead and start it from scratch, and I'll watch. Keep track of your time. By and by, I'll obtain the old copy and cut it, or add to it. Then we'll see who made the foolish prediction, you or me. How about it? If the possiblity of black swans doesn't bother you, then you should have no problem. SBHarris 18:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
"from somebody who hasn't seen any of the aricles in question" Wrong. "go ahead and start it from scratch" I know next to nothing about astrophysics, so I'm not going to do that. "I'll obtain the old copy and cut it, or add to it" Unless you do happen to have a degree in astrophysics, you won't be able to differentiate between what's right and what's nonsense and just end up copying and pasting more factual inaccuracies and gibberish. —Ruud 19:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
It is better to have no article at all than a deliberately disruptive article which consists largely of garbage which looks sensible enough for well-meaning editors of an overly inclusionist bent to consider salvageable. There's already strong consensus for that above. Unless you are quite literally promising to remove the garbage from these articles then there is little rationale for keeping them, as potential is not a guarantee. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 19:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Eh? I have no evidence that an article like Index table for X-ray and gamma-ray sources is a "deliberately disruptive article." Here you are claiming knowledge of another editor's malicious intent-- do you have prima facie evidence of this? Let alone that this article "consists largely of garbage which looks sensible enough for well-meaning editors of an overly inclusionist bent to consider salvageable." That's a complete straw man, if you mean to apply it to every one of the articles we're discussing, or even the ones I've named above.

Right now we don't actually have a case where we can say this or that article clearly does not belong on Wikipedia, and how in the world did it ever get there? In the one I've just looked at, on the contrary I see an editor who seems very pleased with himself that he's finally been able to get rid of gamma ray generation and redirect it to segments of gamma ray, which essentially merges the two at the cost of absorbing one. Alas for this approach, it's not really very respectful of the way Wikipedia naturally grows. The astronomical parts of gamma ray that gamma ray generation is now redirected to, had been expanded by myself, starting last May. Before that time, this article was almost entirely about radioactive decay, and had only a few thumbs about anything else. I expanded the astronomical sections largely using information from gamma ray generation, gamma-ray astronomy, their sources, and some web content. In other words, in no small part from articles you just deleted (gamma-ray astronomy is left, but it doesn't have all this info). The gamma ray article needed a summary of the astronomical content and the astronomical mechanisms of gamma production, per WP:SS. Apparently this worked so well, that somebody has now decided that the main articles on astronomical gamma sources are no longer needed, or can be subsummed under gamma ray astronomy. Guess my writing was better than I thought, hey? But none of it really makes the case that Marshallsumter is there writing "deliberately disruptive articles full of garbage." In fact, the worst I can find from him (I did not know him) is bad writing. And if we removed all the bad writing from Wikipedia, there wouldn't be much left. And if we are committed to that, could we please start with the soccer trivia, the comic book trivia, and the local sports stars BLPs? Including the thousand BLPs still with not a single source? Not the astronomy articles where I hate to re-create data on astronomical objects and instruments just as much as any of you do? SBHarris 21:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Sbharris, there is a policy that when someone gets over a certain level of copyvio, all of their contribs can be deleted, which is what happened here. You want any of these articles, just ask - only proviso, could you check for copyvio promptly, and if you don't think they are worth anything, just let me know and I'll delete them again. How did you find the two I restored yesterday? Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I picked an article at random that Marshallsumter had contributed to (SN 185) and ended up having to delete essentially everything that he added. Only about 25% of the article is left, and the only one of his additions that I didn't remove was adding an image. Seems like there's going to be an awful lot of hatchet jobs required. Modest Genius talk 21:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

That is an excellent example. Sbharris, please look at this and compare it to the current version. That is typical of what Marshallsumter was doing, which was dumping lots of references into articles (often copying and pasting directly from the source) without properly integrating the information into the text, or being selective about what he was adding. If you are really prepared to do this tidying up for all the X-ray source articles listed, please do so, but many people agree that it is better just to start from scratch as there was too much indiscriminate copying and pasting. I've looked at three of the deleted articles you listed above, and Centaurus XR-4, Centaurus XR-3 and Centaurus XR-2 are all of the form (with slight variations): "1 Extrasolar X-ray source astrometry; 2 Astronomical visual source; 3 Astronomical X-ray source; 5 Visibly dark X-ray source; 6 Astronomical gamma-ray source", with an essentially incoherent catalog listing in prose form of the discoveries made in this region of the sky in these wavelengths. What Marshallsumter appears to have been doing is generating bot-like articles from journal papers and catalog listings. The same is true for Sagittarius XR-2, Scorpius XR-6 and Scutum X-1. For an example of a restored and remediated article, see Abell 2147. See here for how another editor handled that. That is what you (sbharris) need to do here if you want to work on some of these articles. Please, just take one article, ask to be provided with a copy, and see what you can do with it, and then come back here and see whether you have changed your mind about this. Carcharoth (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I've been going through a few of these, and I haven't yet found an example that wasn't better off being deleted and then either turned into a redirect, or re-started from scratch. -- The Anome (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, let us start with the example you both started with, which is the article on SN 185, in which all the X-ray and optical remnant work that Marshallsumter added was deleted by user:Modest Genius as being "gibberish". Well, I beg to differ. If you read [12] you see that what Marshallsumter added is a rather compact but essentially correct description of the work going on to identify a possible X-ray and optical remnant of this supernova remnant (RCW 86) G315.4-2.3, a.k.a. MSH 14-63 which would strengthen the case that it was indeed a core-collapse type supernova (type Ib/c or II) because it left us a core. That would be a neutron star, but perhaps not a conventional radio puslar but an anomalous X-ray pulsar. This work is not easy to summarize because there isn't a clear object where X-ray and optical images overlie, the ROSAT and Einstein observatories don't always give perfect alignment with optical telescopes (ROSAT has an attitude error), because data is limited, and because the putative optical counterpart of the ROSAT/Einstein X-ray source, a star in the USNO-A2.0 catalogue, is faint and not pefectly placed. That's a typical problem in astronomy, and actually the authors of the preceding paper are inclined to think that their X-ray source in this area is NOT from a remnant of SN 185, but is rather the active star they have from USNO-A2.0 catalogue. The SN 185 article mentions that (or used to). However, I don't see any cut and paste, and I don't see any "gibberish." The references are to the correct literature, which is about this supernova remnant and this area of space, which contains X-rays sources, SN 185, and RCW 86 which is the remnant of SN 185. I see no statements that are clearly wrong, save perhaps one statement that suggests that the well-known Centaurus X-1, a very well-known X-ray-emitting neutron star in orbit around a massive companion, is the remant of SN 185. It probably is not. However, Wikipedia now contains very little data about the X-ray sources in Centaurus, and I cannot find out if that error is repeated or systematic. If the ones it did contain before you all deleted them were badly formated, you should gone to the author and complained (I have to deal with format-box-happy editors all the time, and using headers in format-like style is always annnoying).

In any case, if sections of articles are too compact, and do not lay out the problems they address clearly enough, there are remedies for this, other than to simply delete them entirely with the comment "gibberish!" Perhaps they are gibberish to a modest genius, but a super genius could see what they were driving at, and could fix or tag them to be fixed. Or use the TALK page of article or TALK page of the author (okay, I admit attempt at humor).SBHarris 00:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

That's the problem with a lot of this user's contributions - they do indeed present 'facts' and cite them to literature, but as a whole they're completely unintelligible. I'm a professional astronomer, and well aware of the uncertainties involved in this sort of research. But I couldn't follow the text, which just listed sources and positions, without any indication of what they meant or why. That's the sort of material that should on a page of a researcher's notebook, not an encyclopaedia article. If you can add a coherent description of the studies to the article - perhaps based on what you said above - then please do. But what was there before I deleted it was worse than nothing. Modest Genius talk 11:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I see your point. I think you should edit that article to add what you are saying above, and discuss with other editors on the talk page of that article to work out how best to present this. If you can demonstrate this approach works for a number of articles (some were in a far worse state), you may be able to file a successful DRV (deletion review) for selected articles. But given the other concerns expressed above, it looks unlikely that more than this will happen. You may disagree with that approach, but that looks like how this is going to be handled. Carcharoth (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Incident Article Fix-up Coordination Page[edit | edit source]

The contents of the category have been moved there.--Cerejota (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Governing copyright law[edit | edit source]

The Wikimedia Foundation is based in the United States and accordingly governed by United States copyright law. Regardless, according to Jimbo Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia, Wikipedia contributors should respect the copyright law of other nations, even if these do not have official copyright relations with the United States.[13]

A brief summary of non-U.S. copyright laws, including guidelines on determining copyright status of the material in the United States, is available at Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights.

Attribution on Wikipedia[edit | edit source]

Def. some "text or a graphic in an electronic document that can be activated to display another document or trigger an action"[8] is called a hyperlink.

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true.

"Although everything in Wikipedia must be attributable, in practice not all material is attributed."[9]

Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material."[10]

If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Any reader should be able to verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be accompanied by a clear and precise citation, normally written as a footnote, a Harvard reference, or an embedded link; other methods, including a direct description of the source in the article text, are also acceptable.

Your email[edit | edit source]

...seems to have slipped through the cracks: your case was looked into, but we never responded to you. I'm no longer on ArbCom so I can't deal with it, but I bumped up the thread and have asked the new member of ArbCom to look into it. Please accept ArbCom's apology: we should not have let this slip by. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Unblock appeal[edit | edit source]

Response to unblock appeal #20391 from the "Unblock Review Team":

I have unprotected your talk page to enable you to start the unban process there. You should include text that you would like to be put to the Community with a request that an Admin post at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN. You should follow these instructions.

Thank you,

Just Chilling English Wikipedia Administrator

Per the above I would like to include the following text to be put to the Community with this request that an Admin post it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN.

Reasons for unblock are

  1. the block is no longer necessary because I understand what I am blocked for, I will not do any of the "intent not aligned with Wikipedia's mission" per User:lifebaka again, and I will make productive contributions instead,
  2. Wikiversity provides a more than ample environment to write lectures and laboratories using original research and/or synthesis. I have no need nor desire to contribute to Wikipedia in this regard.
  3. Per User:lifebaka: "you will need to either stop or finish your research before you can be unblocked". I have finished my v:Dominant group original research with respect to such articles I created on Wikipedia. See v:Dominant group/Proof of concept.
  4. The block is no longer necessary because I understand what I am blocked for: I will not commit any "copyright violations" per local en:Wikipedia policy again, and I will make productive contributions instead.
  5. Per Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks: "Earn back our trust by proposing improvements to articles or proposing firm steps you will take so the [issues] cannot happen again." Each of the fields that I have contributed to in the past have project pages such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy, Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology, Wikipedia:WikiProject Volcanoes‎, Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology‎, Wikipedia:WikiProject Genetics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups, Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology, Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthropology, Wikipedia:WikiProject History, and many others. Perhaps the easiest and best way for firm steps I will take so the issues cannot happen again is to suggest any changes, improvements or new articles first on these project talk pages to get consensus, review and/or guidance.
  6. I would like to import many of my currently deleted articles to Wikiversity. This can be accomplished in two ways: (1) I can request a short term undelete by a sysop as I do now on commons of the sysop who deleted a file to import the article, or (2) I can request a short term undeletion of an article by email so that I can import it with its edit history to Wikiversity.

--Marshallsumter (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Copied to WP:AN. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I have unblocked you per the AN discussion.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)}}

References[edit | edit source]

  1. Eloquence (25 April 2007). Mission Statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. San Francisco, California USA: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2017-06-01.
  2. JillianE (18 January 2006). puppeteer. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2016-08-20.
  3. sock puppeteer. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 19 June 2013. Retrieved 2015-10-08.
  4. Charles Robert Darwin (1859). On the origin of the species by means of natural selection: or, The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London: John Murray. p. 516.
  5. 5.0 5.1 5.2 Janet Browne (May/June 2009). "Darwin the Young Adventurer". Humanities 30 (3). http://www.neh.gov/news/humanities/2009-05/Darwin.html. Retrieved 2011-10-28. 
  6. Charles Robert Darwin (October 1902). Francis Darwin and A. C. Seward (ed.). More Letters of Charles Darwin A Record of his Work in a Series of Hitherto Unpublished Letters Volume I. Cambridge. Retrieved 2011-11-18.
  7. Farlex (2009). The Free Dictionary by Farlex: Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. Elsevier. Retrieved 2011-09-07.
  8. Mzajac (28 January 2012). hyperlink. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2017-09-10.
  9. Radiant! (14 November 2006). Wikipedia:Attribution. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2017-09-10.
  10. SlimVirgin (11 October 2006). Wikipedia:Attribution. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2017-09-10.

External links[edit | edit source]