User talk:Marshallsumter

From Wikiversity
Jump to: navigation, search

Hello Marshallsumter, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon Button sig.png in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

You don't need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --Abd 04:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Most Active Wikiversity User for January 2013[edit]

Learningcycle.png The Learning Cycle Barnstar
Most Active Wikiversity User for January 2013

Marshallsumter, I was reviewing the list of active users for this past month and noticed you had by far the most edits in January. Keep up the good work! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 00:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar for you![edit]

Star constellation.png The astronomy barnstar
Thank you for the massive edits on astronomy! Goldenburg111 (talk|contribs) 18:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your help with Research in programming Wikidata! -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (discusscontribs) 05:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

See also[edit]

External links[edit]

Wikimedia logo family complete-2013.svg This user has created a global account. Marshallsumter's main account is on Wikiversity (English).



Given your interest in Wiki.J.Sci, I was wondering if you'd consider listing yourself on its editorial board and helping find peer reviewers if an article in your area is submitted? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 22:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the consideration! I will place a request for this on the Discuss page. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 23:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
If there is some review to become a member of the editorial board I would be happy to undergo it. I would also be willing to review manuscripts or other submissions to the journal in astrophysics and materials sciences. If there are submissions not yet reviewed, in other fields, or when an additional review is needed, I can be tasked to do so and will do so time permitting. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 23:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]


  1. This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

Quadratic Equation[edit]

Hi Marshallsumter,

I'm new to Wikiversity, so I hope I'm communicating with you in the most suitable way.

Yes, please. I hope that someone may find it useful

Many thanks for your interest and encouragement.

ThaniosAkro (discusscontribs) 14:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Concerning Line (Geometry) announced on main page: Yes, please.

--ThaniosAkro (discusscontribs) 13:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


I've sent you mail. Thanks! -Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 13:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


Hello, I've left you a message on Meta Thanks! Cameron11598 (discusscontribs) 02:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice of upload removal[edit]

Dear Marshallsumter:

The Wikimedia Foundation (“Wikimedia”) has taken down content that you posted at File:Aurora surprise by torivarn-d6qsuny.jpg due to Wikimedia’s receipt of a validly formulated notice that your posted content was infringing an existing copyright. When someone sends us a validly formulated notice of copyright infringement, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) Section (c)(1)(C) requires Wikimedia to take the content down, and to notify you that we have removed that content. This notice, by itself, does not mean that the party requesting that the content be taken down are suing you. The party requesting the take down might only be interested in removing the content from our site.

What Can You Do?

You are not obligated to take any action. However, if you feel that your content does not infringe upon any copyrights, you may contest the take down request by submitting a ‘counter notice’ to Wikimedia. Before doing so, you should understand your legal position, and you may wish to consult with an attorney. If you choose to submit a counter notice, the alleged copyright holder can either refuse to contest the counter notice or decide to file a lawsuit against you to restrain Wikimedia from re-posting the content. Please note that Wikimedia will not be a party to any legal action that arises from you sending a counter notice, and that Wikimedia is unable to provide you with legal advice.

Filing a Counter Notice

If you choose to submit a counter notice, you must send a letter asking Wikimedia to restore your content to, or to our service processor at the following address: Wikimedia Foundation, c/o CT Corporation System, 818 West Seventh Street, Los Angeles, California, 90017. The letter must comply with DMCA standards, set out in Section (g)(3)(A-D), and must contain the following:

  • A link to where the content was before we took it down and a description of the material that was removed;
  • A statement, under penalty of perjury, that you have a good faith belief that the content was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled;
  • Your name, address, and phone number;
  • If your address is in the United States, a statement that says “I consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the district where my address is located, and I will accept service of process from the person who complained about the content I posted”; alternatively, if your address is outside the United States, a statement that says “I agree to accept service of process in any jurisdiction where the Wikimedia Foundation can be found, and I will accept service of process from the person who complained about the content I posted”; and finally,
  • Your physical or electronic signature.

Pursuant to the DMCA, Wikimedia must inform the alleged copyright holder that you sent us a counter notice, and give the alleged copyright holder a copy of the counter notice. The alleged copyright holder will then have fourteen (14) business days to file a lawsuit against you to restrain Wikimedia from reposting the content. If Wikimedia does not receive proper notification that the alleged copyright holder has initiated such a lawsuit against you, we will repost your content within ten (10) to fourteen (14) business days.


As a matter of policy and under appropriate circumstances, Wikimedia will block the accounts of repeat infringers as provided by Section 512(i)(1)(A) of the DMCA. After speaking with Wikimedia Foundation legal counsel, this upload will not be treated as a "strike" because they believe it is likely there was a mistaken belief of compliance.

If you would like to learn more about Wikimedia’s policies, please refer to the Wikimedia Terms of Use, available at Terms of use, and the Wikimedia Legal Policies, available at m:Legal/Legal_Policies. More information on DMCA compliance may also be found at:

Wikimedia appreciates your support. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions regarding this notice.

Sincerely, JSutherland (WMF) (discusscontribs) 22:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Move review to article talk page[edit]

Hi! Thanks a lot for reviewing the article Atlantis/Location Hypotheses! I know it's a lot of work and you're the first one to undertake it, so double thanks! I've been thinking about the submission process of the journal, and decided to vastly simplify it. You can see a draft of the new approach at WikiJournal of Science/Contribute. Part of the simplification will be getting rid of the "Submission pages" such as WikiJournal of Science/Submissions/Location Hypothesis of Atlantis in the Azores, as they are difficult to use, maintain, understand, etc. (even for me!) Therefore, I wanted to ask if you could move your review to the talk page of the article itself, and continue there. I would have done it myself but I thought maybe you want to ask an admin for a merge, to save your review history. If you don't care much about the history in this case, a copy-paste should suffice. Thanks a lot!! --Felipe (discusscontribs) 23:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Sophivorus:! Special:MergeHistory did not work because user RAYLEIGH22 made an entry on 24 April, right in the middle of when my entries would go. It can be done by parts but copy & paste is easier. Just FYI, I am an admin but not the best at complicated page history merges. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 23:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


[1] and [2] demonstrate "discriminative notification and [are] considered inappropriate canvassing". If you want to indiscriminately bring users to the discussion, there are Wikiversity:Colloquium, Wikiversity:Notices for custodians, and MediaWiki:Sitenotice. Any approach that selectively notifies users of the discussion is inappropriate and must cease. Let me know if you have any questions. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 23:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Requesting a comment is not canvassing or inappropriate, but I would be happy to use MediaWiki:Sitenotice. How about "Please comment on Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion#File:The same man at 18 and 80 years old.jpg"? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 23:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks and question[edit]

Hi Marshall. First of all I'd like to thank you for the phenomenal work you're doing for the WJS. Right now, if it's moving forward, it's thanks to you. I hope I'll be able to join you this week with a few reviews, so that we may approach the release of the first issue. Anyway, I have a question for you: I noticed that you left some reviews on the talk page of the "submission pages" of various articles. For example, at Talk:WikiJournal of Science/Submissions/Astronomical spectroscopy. My intention was to "phase out" these pages, because they are unnecessary and difficult to maintain. I think that reviews should go in the talk page of the article itself, where it's most natural and useful to find them. Do you agree? Are you posting them on the submission pages because of your ban on Wikipedia? Kind regards. --Felipe (discusscontribs) 20:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words!
Do you agree? In general, yes! Contrarily, I like them with the submission on Wikiversity because we have greater freedom to try to get these submissions to be a credit to the journal, although this may not be in agreement with the submitters' original purpose for the article. I also like to have each article as close to a stand-alone piece as possible so links to significant Wikipedia articles can be gotten around by including the salient points.
Are you posting them on the submission pages because of your ban on Wikipedia? Yes! As you pointed out most or all of the so-called copyright violations were for cited quotes or sentences as part of what was perceived as original research and easily covered by fair use. But, not on Wikipedia! One way around this would be for me to email the reviews to a rep say from w:WikiProject Astronomy for posting on their talk page to see if they even want to include them. What would you like to do? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 21:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
For transferring the reviews to Wikipedia, my user name can be left off. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 01:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
In looking at contributors to w:Alpha Centauri over the past two years, five editors stand out as members of w:Wikiproject:Astronomical objects and w:Wikiproject:Astronomy: w:User:Exoplanetaryscience, w:User:Primefac who also has edited w:Astronomical spectroscopy, w:User:Maranello Prime, w:User:Praemonitus, and w:User:JorisvS. w:User:Primefac appears to be the best choice. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 04:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I sent the following email to w:User:Primefac:

"Hi Primefac!

We at WikiJournal of Science have a problem I am hoping you can help with.

Both w:Alpha Centauri and w:Astronomical spectroscopy have been submitted to the WikiJournal of Science for publication by w:User:Guy vandegrift. Each has been reviewed and these reviews can be found at v:Talk:WikiJournal of Science/Submissions/Alpha Centauri and v:Talk:WikiJournal of Science/Submissions/Astronomical spectroscopy, respectively.

Both have been authored by w:Alpha Centauri: Revision history (Parent article editors) and w:Astronomical spectroscopy: Revision history (Parent article editors).

The original plan was to have the reviews placed on their respective Talk pages.

So is it better to place the reviews sans my user name on their respective talk pages or on the w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects and w:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy?

Thank you in advance for your kind consideration of this matter!


The user's response: "If you wrote the reviews, I think it would be good for you to sign your name ;-) The talk page of the respective articles would probably be good, since those are the pages that would be directly affected."

I have modified each review so that my user name appears as follows: v:User:Marshallsumter. This should allow it to be copied or exported to their respective talk pages without being accused of editing Wikipedia. What do you think? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 18:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Becoming a student[edit]

How do I become a student of Wikiversity? I thought my perceptions about others would improve. However, suddenly, I realize that they have not. Also, my writing/typing skills need improvement as well. I thought that my contributions in Wikipedia have improved. However, I realized that maybe I need to know how to avoid having more disputes with others. Do you know which e-courses I can take? --George Ho (discusscontribs) 04:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

  • I believe we are all students so Welcome aboard! Feel free to concept search here for resources that may help! Dispute resolution is a tough one! If you don't find much here, feel free to create it! The San people of the Kalahari almost always walk away from disputes for two really good reasons: (1) life is precious to them and (2) everyone carries small poison tipped darts. One scratch and you're dead even before you say "ouch". It's a fast acting neurotoxin. I hope this helps! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 01:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

regarding the Atlantis location hypothesis[edit]

Can you go to this site and get a map of the Mediterranean Sea between Greece and Turkey to show it was a dry land 12,000 years ago that I can use? This would correspond with Critias. I printed up Critias and on the 3rd page it describes Greece before the floods (apparently caused by the melting of the ice). Since the Egyptian Priest describes multiple floods this would correspond with the meltwater pulses the climatologists are describing. This validates the story Critias is telling. Marshalsumter, I just need the map. Can I add this on to the part where you describe the Canary islands and the area outside the Pillars of Herecles? Or, should it be separated under a different title? when I printed this out it was 9 pages.

on page 3 it says," Concerning the country the Egyptian priests said what is not only probable but manifestly true, that the boundaries were in those days fixed by the Isthmus, and that in the direction of the continent they extended as far as the heights of Cithaeron and Parnes; the boundary line came down in the direction of the sea, having the district of Oropus on the right, and with the river Asopus as the limit on the left."

Also, " How shall I establish my words? and what part of it can be truly called a remnant of the land that then was? The whole country is only a long promontory extending far into the sea away from the rest of the continent, while the surrounding basin of the sea is everywhere deep in the neighbourhood of the shore. Many great deluges have taken place during the nine thousand years, for that is the number of years which have elapsed since the time of which I am speaking; and during all this time and through so many changes, there has never been any considerable accumulation of the soil coming down from the mountains, as in other places, but the earth has fallen away all round and sunk out of sight."

This verifies sea level change in the Mediterranean Sea during that time period.

RAYLEIGH22 (discusscontribs) 12:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you please fix the map and the credits regarding the Pillars of Heracles and the map of Gades/Cádiz in the Atlantis Location Hypothesis that I just finished?

Thank you

RAYLEIGH22 (discusscontribs) 03:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


Thanks for your help and for your edits. Still working on this. I believe the point has been made with the hypothesis. Now, we must be concerned with the political ramifications of this. How does this go with mankind and their contribution to global warming and climate change. It's starting to look like nothing we can do will change what is already in motion and has been in motion for the last 12,000 years. What can be done by mankind to moderate this? I am beginning to think that the Hopi Indians of North America had this right all along.

RAYLEIGH22 (discusscontribs) 02:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Marshallsumter I left you this note in the Atlantis talk page.

Check out the landscape. It is not satellite, but I bet we can find some of the Azores islands that put Campi Flegeri to shame.

RAYLEIGH22 (discusscontribs) 11:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Importing w:Light-independent reactions from Wikipedia[edit]

Hello again. I could not request importation at WV:Requests for Import because I can't be the one working on the Wikiversity copy. I did ask others at Wikipedia (w:Talk:Light-independent reactions#Copy the whole article to Wikiversity?), but they seem reluctant to work on it at Wikiversity. Do you know someone else interested in the topic who does? --George Ho (discusscontribs) 04:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Resource Template Errors[edit]

The various resource templates are generating hundreds of high priority errors. See Special:LintErrors/pwrap-bug-workaround and mw:Parsing/Replacing Tidy/FAQ#What will editors need to do.3F. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 17:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


You inverted my edit on Plasmas without any explanation. I wrote that there were two sorts of plasmas: hot plasmas and cold plasmas. It was wrong ? Can you explain the reason of this revert ? cordialement, Geoleplubo (discusscontribs) 08:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

  • First, thanks for your interest in the Plasmas lecture! The top change you made was to a quote so I would have to rewrite it back to the quote. The definitions can go either way though there's no problem using a colon (:). You also changed another quote! I reverted your edit. Adding a section on hot or cold plasmas as a separate section is okay! Custom here is to discuss changes first to others' bold edits. Adding sections with references is great! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 14:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • thanks for you answer. Sorry, I had not understood that I was modifying a quote. My level in English is intermediate and I do not understand exactly what mean " others' bold edits " ? cordialement, Geoleplubo (discusscontribs) 09:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Radiation astronomy/Courses/Principles/Final quiz[edit]

Why is the my edit deleted ? I added Question ! Jan Paweł ll (discusscontribs)

  • Thanks for your interest in the radiation astronomy final quiz! Our custom for additional bold edits to a learning resource is to discuss it first on the resources Discuss page! I reverted your edit because your question is elementary arithmetic not astronomy. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 01:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Table Tag Errors[edit]

The following pages are generating high-priority table tag errors:

Wikitables cannot be nested inside of other wikitables. Please correct these errors. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 21:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

YesY Done --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 22:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Pages using web citations with no URL[edit]

See Category:Pages using web citations with no URL. The remaining pages appear to be your resources. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 22:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Block of Sci-fi-[edit]

Your block of Sci-fi is inappropriate and an abuse of custodian rights. You are personally involved. Please remove the block immediately and address your concerns first through discussion. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 16:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Sci-fi- was warned by both of us to refrain from personal attacks but continued to do so and I blocked Sci-fi- for that. It was not an abuse of custodian rights. Just FYI but you were personally involved in your block on Abd and I backed you up then because it was a personal attack. The comments by Sci-fi- were personal attacks on both Steigmann and myself. I expect the same here. If Sci-fi- returns and appeals the block by agreeing to refrain from personal attacks on users and sticks to issues of content, I will be happy to unblock Sci-fi-. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 17:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Sci-fi-'s last edit was yesterday. There is no reason for a block today and absolutely no reason for you to perform the block. Abd was warned repeatedly and directly over a series of weeks, all others were asked / encouraged to get involved before the block, and all others were asked by Abd to remove the block. No one did because the block was reasonable and the requirements 28thfor unblocking were also reasonable. Abd ultimately agreed and was unblocked. You need to remove the block on Sci-Fi- immediately. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 18:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the further background on the events with Abd! I was not aware of "Abd was warned repeatedly and directly over a series of weeks, all others were asked / encouraged to get involved before the block, and all others were asked by Abd to remove the block." Here's my dilemma: to decide the content of a personal attack, in the matter between you and Abd, I looked at what Abd stated that produced the block: words to effect "Dave doesn't know". This is not a compliment and it's not neutral; therefore, it's a personal attack and I refrained from unblocking Abd. I don't recall reading any additional personal attacks on you, but I take these very seriously! Now, what do we have from Sci-fi-: words to the effects: "Marshallsumter doesn't know" and "Marsallsumter lies". These are personal attacks against me and we have two warnings beforehand, one from you and one from me, followed as I noticed later by these two attacks on me. As I recall this was on the 28th here where I am but UTC on the 29th with respect to Wikiversity. The personal attacks on Steigmann preceded, as I recall, Sci-fi-'s personal attacks on me. So where are we? Sci-fi- made 11 edits between 8/21-28/2017, all and only on Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion against Steigmann and myself. No comments on any Discuss page for any resource, including Steigmann's regarding anything. When I tried to verify Sci-fi-'s accusations of wiki abuse of multiple accounts on whatever wiki the user was from on Google I got nada, no wiki and no supporting evidence of the claims, at least under the username Sci-fi-. As I wrote: "If Sci-fi- returns and appeals the block by agreeing to refrain from personal attacks on users and sticks to issues of content, I will be happy to unblock Sci-fi-." I changed my wording to neutral since we don't know sexual status! We allowed Sci-fi- to comment and "vote" without any verification! So why should we allow Sci-fi- multiple opportunities to continue personal attacks should a return occur? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 00:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Please review Wikiversity:Blocking policy. Your actions are inconsistent with this page. There is no continuing behavior to block, there wasn't any continuing behavior when the block was applied, there are custodians capable of impartial treatment available, and you should have asked for a second opinion before acting. I'm sorry, but this isn't a discussion or debate. On behalf of the community, I ask you a third time to please remove the inappropriate block. If you refuse, I will be forced to unblock Sci-fi- tomorrow and begin a Community Review of these events. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 00:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay! I've reviewed the Wikiversity:Blocking policy. "Libelous material about living people.", or potentially libelous statements is a reason for a block and there's no need for any other's opinion because it's a legal matter. I'm well aware that the comments on my user page and talk page on Wikipedia are potentially libelous and have been used to deny or influence decisions on funding. So here's how this is going to go down: I will remove the block after I save this edit. If Sci-fi- returns and commits even one personal attack, assuming you or I become aware of it, you or I block this user. If you believe Sci-fi- does not understand what personal attacks are, please do your best to help this user understand, assuming you are available to do so, or I will do so. Just to be clear about the seriousness here, a Community Review of libelous or potentially libelous comments by Sci-fi- will follow should Sci-fi- be allowed to continue to commit personal attacks. Do you have any questions? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 01:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Approximately 42 ± 4 % of User:Sci-fi-'s sentences are potentially libelous, which means his primary purpose is not to commit libel. However, each sentence can be legally significant. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 15:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

User account "Sci-fi-" is not registered on RationalWiki nor is Steigmann. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 16:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The term "Cross-wiki" suggests at least two wikis, apparently Wikipedia (Steigmann's existence confirmed by Steigmann but no Sci-fi-), not Rationalwiki (no Steigmann, no Sci-fi-, no edits by either using their search engine), and "another wiki". "Sci-fi-" appears to be a sock puppet and not a legal one. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 17:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Found this using Google web search "Ben Steimann" Rationalwiki: "Note the above sock IP is the psychotic internet sockpupeteer Mikemikev, who is also: RealBrandonPilcher, Brandon Pilchers, Krom Loser, Communist Scientist,EgalitarianJay,Ben Steigmann Blissentia, Antifa Scientist,John Fuerst and JohnFuerstwithhispantsdown (most on Human Varieties talk). On most those socks he is also impersonating people. Just run a google search for "rationalwiki mikemikev" to get the extent of his abuse.Antifascist (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)" --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 17:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

A Google search as suggested above "rationalwiki mikemikev" produced only the above and "Oliver D. Smith - Encyclopedia Dramatica There seems to be truth in this since Oliver has ignored [ ... into responding at Rationalwiki. Mikemikev still though obsessed with Oliver ...". Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev/Archive does not contain Steigmann. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 17:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Steigmann posts at RationalWiki, for example see this Reddit post. If you view Steigmann's Facebook, over the past year he claims he's a former racist who has turned anti-racist. You can dig up his old racist/white supremacist comments. However he now says he's ashamed of his racist past and now fights racists; he's been critical of the white nationalist John Fuerst and racialist Emil Kirkegaard at Rationalwiki. Steigmann shapeshifts his ideology a lot, one minutes he's a white supremacist/Alt-righter, next an ANTIFA/anti-racist.Bigcheeses (discusscontribs) 13:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
This could be his Rationalwiki account. Notice he spells his name differently on Facebook, so Ben Steigman (with one "m") is nothing unusual and the RW account is BenSteigman(s). Notice on that user he created the Emil Kirkegaard and John Fuerst articles at RationalWiki; Steigmann also showed up on one of Fuerst's racialist blogs. see comments: "Ben, I will look into the matter and get back to you on it. The issue is not particularly relevant to debates about the race concept." (Ben is commentating as "TMI" to John Fuerst, posting as "chuck".) Note the latter (October 2015) was before Steigmann turned anti-racist, and he was still recommending racist literature on race and IQ. In 2016, Steigmann changed his views and became an anti-racist, now proceeds to now criticizes John Fuerst who he was formerly friends with. Bigcheeses (discusscontribs) 13:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Rationalwiki account is User:BenSteigmans. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 21:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Re my comment page: I don't know who it is, but I think it could be Rome Viharo. He doesn't like Steigmann and has been attacking him on various blogs/websites. The posting style above is very similar to his.Bigcheeses (discusscontribs) 22:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Def. "Someone who is manipulative and able to get others to do what they want in a puppet-like manner"[1] 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"[2] is called a sock puppeteer.

User:Sci-fi- as a registered user does not appear to be manipulating any one else to do what they want in a puppet-like manner, as Dave was willing to block Steigmann and delete the resource solely on the available evidence of Steigmann's abuse of multiple accounts on Wikipedia. Even after all Steigmann sock puppets had been blocked by 24 August 2017. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 22:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

"Cross-wiki spam means that a certain link has been added to multiple projects, normally by a single user, a set of SPAs, or an IP range."[3]

Spam means that a certain link has been added, normally by a single user, a set of SPAs, or an IP range.

Cross-wiki means to multiple projects.

"Some links are generally blacklisted on meta, even if the abuse has only been to one project, or when the link has not been used abusively yet".[3] --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 22:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit wars[edit]

Def. a "dispute over the content of a page on a wiki or other editable work where opposing editors continually change the page without discussion"[4] is called an edit war.

"And, if the edit warring between Steigmann and thomson continues, what have we accomplished?" should have been stated: "And, if the apparent edit warring between Steigmann and thomson continues, what have we accomplished?"

"Steigmann's stopped all contributions anywhere (WMF, all but one sockpuppet was edit warring on the Myers Wikipedia article, lately with thomson) on 21 August 2017 ("Discussion started on the 21st.") that I've found so far." should have been stated: "Steigmann's stopped all contributions anywhere (WMF, all but one sockpuppet was apparently edit warring on the Myers Wikipedia article, lately with thomson) on 21 August 2017 ("Discussion started on the 21st.") that I've found so far."

"Removing posts by community sockpuppets of individuals who were community banned for disruptive POV-pushing is not considered edit warring on Wikipedia. If you really think that calling it edit war is appropriate, please report me at the edit warring noticeboard on Wikipedia or even to the administrators noticeboard." While "continually change the page without discussion" may not fit the mathematical definition of "continual", statistical certainty begins with three to five instances. There are "illegal" sockpuppets where deception is the deciding factor. Steigmann has been identifying as "Steigmann" each time or preponderantly (≥ 51 %) as noticed so far but a complete count is needed. Wikipedia policy states: "Reverting edits by banned or blocked users is not edit warring." The definition makes no such distinction. Policies should have a legal basis but can be political. No case law for "edit war", "edit warring", or "edit warrior" was found in a full Google case law search at federal and state levels. "Edit war", "edit warring", or "edit warrior" do not appear to be liability issues and case law mentions applicable federal and state laws near to the time of publication. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 22:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

"Could you please explain why the copyright violation-laden material is "legitimate" instead of insinuating that other users just "don't like" or calling me an edit warrior (an insult, by the way, though one I assume coming from ignorance instead of malice)...? Ian.thomson (discuss • contribs) 13:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)" Correct no malice intended but actions do appear to match Wiktionary definition. Steigmann made less than 50 % copyright violations, probably less than 5 %. More than 51 % or all cites attribute the actual author though URLs are absent. These are not copyright violations and do fall under attributable. Mentioning an author's name for a quote fulfills attribution and copyright under fair use especially on a dot org or dot edu for research purposes. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 22:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Oddly, the only user of the two that did put comments on the talk page of the w:Frederic W. H. Myers article was Psychicbiases (Steigmann).


  1. JillianE (18 January 2006). "puppeteer, In: Wiktionary". San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2016-08-20. 
  2. "sock puppeteer, In: Wiktionary". San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 19 June 2013. Retrieved 2015-10-08. 
  3. 3.0 3.1 Mike.lifeguard (28 November 2008). "Cross-wiki spam, In: Wikibooks". San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2017-09-04. 
  4. Oiyarbepsy (22 May 2016). "edit war, In: Wiktionary". San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2017-08-29.