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)


[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)

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)
Dave, you wheel-warred with Marshall. You could have referred this to the community. You were, in fact, personally involved when you blocked me, and that was obvious. While Marshall may have failed recusal in blocking Sci-fi-, so did you in blocking me; and recusal failure is not a proper basis for unblocking, that should have been established, even though I saw the principle violated at times. (What Marshall might call the "dominant group" blocked policy formation, again and again, because it would have reduced their dominance.) You were here demanding that Marshall do what was his clear prerogative to not do. There is procedure for dealing with disputes like this which you did not follow.
I did not ever agree with your block. I did what it took to restore editing privileges, but abandoned Wikiversity for most practical purposes, because it had become toxic and unreliable, unstable. Your block was totally outrageous. Marshall followed policy: he did not unblock until I gave assurances. You bypassed that and just unblocked a request, without ever gaining his assent, nor did you wait for an unblock request and discuss it. And I see this as simply a continuation of the behavior that I was protesting and seeking community input on when you blocked me. You have seriously damaged Wikiversity, one deletion and one block and one act of domination and recusal failure at a time.
I have gone on to much greener pastures. Wikiversity had incredible possibilities, that I worked for, for years. I made it happen that you became permanent. I went to meta to resolve the problems with the rogue sysop. I developed procedures to create content on controversial subjects without creating endless conflict, and the Parapsychology resource was an example of it, one that was working. Part of the plan was to create a space for people who get blocked on Wikipedia, to reduce disruption there. A space where topics can be discussed freely, which is impossible on Wikipedia. Pointing to Wikiversity resources on Wikipedia talk pages should be completely legitimate. Sister-wiki links are used, but the anti-pseudoscience faction has fought against it tooth and claw. I find it all tragic. It is anti-academic. --Abd (discusscontribs) 02:28, 22 September 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)

Great. Since I see no Community Review, I may start one. You have gone a bridge too far. I've done it before, arranged for desysop. Do you know what the results were? In this affair, you behaved as if you have superior authority, as a representative of the community, to that of Marshall. You don't. What will the community decide? I don't know. That's up to the community. I was not thinking of going there, but seeing you attempt to bully Marshall here goes a bridge too far. If you want to avoid a CR, you could think about apologizing to Marshall. I'm not demanding it. I'm more interested in policy being established. --Abd (discusscontribs) 02:38, 22 September 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 Steigmann" 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)
Marshall, beware of SPAs bearing gifts. I'm not convinced that studying RationalWiki is useful. Someone impersonating Steigmann may have done it then, too. Or that might have been Steigmann. It's not solid. I've had direct communication with Steigmann since 2014, and I think I have communication with Rome Viharo as well. But none of this really matters. What I can see is that there has been disruption by SPAs, and almost certainly impersonation. We used to have guidelines and traditions that made most of this irrelevant. It has been a strong WMF tradition that one is not blocked on one wiki because they have allegedly been Bad on another. There were many good reasons for this. People's behavior is contextual, people may do well in one environment while doing poorly in another. Wikiversity created an environment where many points of view could co-exist and even collaborate and cooperate, something very difficult on Wikipedia, where the structure militated against it (and in spite of Jimbo Wales' vision, because of competition for space). Periodically, Wikiversity academic freedom was attacked, and in one sequence, much of the Wikiversity community left in disgust.
What happened on Wikipedia should have been irrelevant to Wikiversity. What I've seen, looking at the sock puppet reports, is that Steigmann was successfully libeled without clear evidence. He had, in fact, socked, and was quite naive, acknowledging it in his resource talk or something like that. His edits had been harmless, and few. The faction against him took that and then created a massive disruption. In fact, checkuser did not connect any of the disruptive accounts with Steigmann, but this was misrepresented by Sci-Fi-, and it appears that this wasn't carefully checked ... except that careful checking should not have been necessary because it was all irrelevant. Deletion of the resource was not at all normal. Such had been attempted many times and failed. At one point, I had invented a technique for a banned editor to make positive contributions without causing harm to ban enforcement. I cleared this with a Wikipedia Arbitrator. It was used quite a number of times, and it worked, until the faction that was, by that time, attacking me on wikipedia because I'd gotten one of their favorite administrators santioned, realized that I'd suggested this and attacked and disallowed it. When I was finally blocked by a on Wikipedia, I decided to test it, with self-reverted edits that were not disruptive and did not increase necessary labor. And then I documented the results of all the cases I knew, including my own, on wikiversity. They came after it, and failed. The Wikiversity documents was not causing disruption on Wikipedia, if anyone was, I was, except that it was all unnecessary. Self-reverted edits don't cause significant harm. What actually happens is that another editor sees them, checks the content, and then brings it back. If it's no good, it does practically no harm. It worked for many banned users, not just me. The page here reviewing that was in my user space. I thought it might eventually become an educational resource. I've seen hundreds of cases where disruption could be avoided. In actual practice, when permitted, self-reversion turned conflict into cooperation. But the Dominant Group only cares about its own power, not about actually serving the community. To avoid this requires structure and an aware community. The Dominant Group will normally avoid creating policy that might restrain it. But even good policy is useless if the community does not stand for it and protect it. --Abd (discusscontribs) 03:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Def. "Someone who is manipulative and able to get others to do what they want in a puppet-like manner" by JillianE, puppeteer, In: Wiktionary, 18 January 2006, 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", sock puppeteer, In: Wiktionary 19 June 2013, 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)

Actually, a review of the Wikipedia checkuser evidence did not show that Steigmann was any of the accounts on Wikipedia, but Steigmann acknowledged being Psychicbias, and an IP and one old account. None of the disruption on Wikipedia was from any account linked to Steigmann except that they claimed to be Steigmann, and it was those accounts that taunted the Wikipedia administrator, leading him to complain on Wikiversity. Steigmann's resource was deleted and his account was blocked, and he was not warned, nor did he apparently know about any of this activity. This is an appalling mess. SciFi- was an SPA, an obvious sock of someone, and should not have been considered at all. The first checkuser request on Wikipedia was filed by another SPA, and the purpose of that request was to attack the Wikiversity resource. When that failed, then all those truly disruptive socks appeared. This was clearly an attack on Wikiversity's hosting of material friendly to parapsychology. It may also have been personal about Steigmann, he has enemies, but he had been nondisruptive here. And, in fact, he is telling me that he doesn't want any fuss. He just wanted his content back, for use elsewhere. This was cross-wiki disruption managed by socking on Wikipedia, then spread by a gullible administrator. (His response was understandable, but naive. Arrayed against Steigmann are some seriously unscrupulous people, who won't hesitate to do whatever it takes to "win.")
Sci-Fi- misrepresented the checkuser results. No connection was found between the known Steigmann accounts and the disruptive/defiant ones by checkuser. Because of his being an SPA and showing up when he did, Sci-Fi- is likely connected with the plot. --Abd (discusscontribs) 02:12, 22 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." by Mike.lifeguard, Cross-wiki spam, In: Wikibooks, 28 November 2008. 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" by Mike.lifeguard, Cross-wiki spam, In: Wikibooks, 28 November 2008. --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" by Oiyarbepsy, edit war, In: Wiktionary 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).

Bigcheeses is a sock puppet, also Sci-fi-[edit]

Checkuser#Sci-fi- this puppet master also filed the abusive checkuser request on Wikipedia (as Michael skater), and was the horde of abusive socks disrupting Wikipedia to attack Wikiversity. I'll file an RCA for this. I don't like being suspicious, but I was right. SPA bearing gifts ... check wallet. --Abd (discusscontribs) 23:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Ben Steigmann sock-puppeting[edit]

(edit conflict with below) Ben Steigmann came to Wikiversity as a refuge, where he could research and document what he found in a fringe field, in a context that preserves overall neutrality. He was attacked and harassed here, repeatedly, and those attacks can be tracked back to the same sock farm. Establishing Wikiversity as a refuge avoids disruption on Wikipedia. But if the Wikipedia disruptors are allowed to pursue targets here, that is damaged. Wikiversity administration must become more sophisticated.
I had thought this was a certain well-known skeptical faction, that's organized off-wiki, and that checkuser might come up empty. I was wrong. This was just one obsessed fanatic. (And though I did not accuse that faction of this disruption -- at least not publically -- I apologize to them. However, where were they when someone supporting their point of view was on a rampage? Factions, ideally, police their own.
Wikiversity should be ready if true factional attack ever starts up. Large factions could mobilize large numbers of "voters." This is why it is essential that decisions be made by established Wikiversitans and based on policy and only secondarily on votes, and vote counts should not include SPAs. It is common on Wikipedia to deprecate SPA !votes, making them stand out as likely biased. This is also why we should have established clear policies long ago. I worked for it, and that was always opposed by enough to keep it from becoming consensus. And, in fact, those same opposers deprecated long-established policy to "proposed." Yuck! --Abd (discusscontribs) 21:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

WikiJSci submission system[edit]

Hi, Since you've been organising most of the peer reviews so far for WikJSci, I thought I'd check with you before making a change to the submission system. I'm hoping to switch WikiJSci over to a system that I think requires less manual maintenance. The WikiJournal_Preprints page allows submissions to be added with some basic formatting already in place, and then automatically tracked via categories:

  1. Category:Pre-prints_not_yet_included_in_WikiJournal_of_Medicine
  2. Category:Works submitted for peer review
  3. Category:Articles_included_in_WikiJournal_of_Medicine_in_2017

I think that overall the workload ends up being lower for both author and editors. It would also allow a unified submission system so that works submitted to one WikiJournal could be easily transferred to another if out of scope. What do you think? Happy to discuss on the WikiJSci talk page if you prefer.T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 03:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

  • I've been considering your suggestions! Our Chief Editor has designed our submission system with these sections:
  1. Articles awaiting reviewer
  2. Articles under review
  3. Articles approved for the next issue
  4. Articles rejected

The last section after number 3 not on the list but for publication concerns a lay-type description, formatting conformity, and journal issue formalities. Our first section Category:WikiJournal of Science/Submissions awaiting reviewer is probably comparable to Category:Pre-prints_not_yet_included_in_WikiJournal_of_Medicine and Category:Works submitted for peer review. Our Category:WikiJournal of Science/Submissions under review and Category:WikiJournal of Science/Submissions already reviewed appear to be between WJM category #2 and #3. WJM category #3 appears to be ahead of WJS category #3 and comparable to our last section not on the list. Perhaps at this point it would be best to include our Chief Editor User:Sophivorus for working out any subtleties. Our sections could easily be journal, article review specific subsections of WJM categories. What do you think? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 00:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science board applications[edit]

Hello Marshal,

We've received several applications for editorial board membership of WikiJournal of Science: Talk:WikiJournal of Science/Editorial board, and I'd like you to join the board discussion about these by email. I don't have (or I've lost track of) your email address, so please send me an email so we can add you.

Best regards,

Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 14:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Question about Guillain-barre-syndrome[edit]

Should the 2nd dash not be there? Artix Kreiger (discusscontribs) 22:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you! The resource title should match journal article titles, e.g., Guillain-Barré syndrome. Please feel free to change it! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 22:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


Marshallsumter, I left a message here for you regarding my wife's illness. Turns out she most likely has histoplasmosis. We are at IU Health in Indianapolis getting her a biopsy. So things are looking up for us. So yes, we had a lung cancer scare.

RAYLEIGH22 (discusscontribs) 18:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


Unilaterally removing {{tl:Scope}} templates on Sciences and Fringe sciences is a serious violation of policy. The template clearly states "If the deletion is contested, then please list the page at requests for deletion for discussion instead." We have a process for contesting Scope that should be strictly adhered to. The only appropriate circumstances under which it could be removed is if replaced by {{tl:Deletion request}} along with a statement at WV:RFD contesting Scope and explaining why you think it should be kept. Involved editors of a page are especially cautioned to be careful about this type of contentious editing. I'm very concerned about your disregard for our processes. This is especially problematic for a Custodian who is expected to both act professionally and follow the same principles as every other user. Please review Wikiversity:Custodianship#How_are_custodians_expected_to_act? Being a Custodian does not excuse you from the expectations that would apply to any other contributor. Further disruptive editing will result in a block. --mikeu talk 16:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Your warning is noted. I have met and exceeded your request for "Scope", and there is no need for RFD by the resource creator. But, you also did not answer my request for you to verify your apparent understanding of the real science and physics of fringes. Am I correct that the SPIE article is you? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 17:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
That paper is not mine. While I have a great deal of experience with the topic including CCD astronomy and x-ray diffraction, my background is irrelevant to wikiversity scope as Dave explained on the page talk.[3][4] Our policy mentions the concept of peer review but does not require credentials for it, as it appears you are suggesting.[5][6] Any editor may request clarification of learning objectives or scope if they question a resource. Prior publication of a paper is not a criteria for doing so and never has been. You could, however, request Wikiversity:Research guidelines#Peer review from external entities. I would be amenable to such a process and would abide by the assessment of a neutral expert in the field. An RFD remains an open option, if you wish to pursue it. Let's continue discussion of the specifics of the page at Talk:Fringe sciences to keep everything in one place. --mikeu talk 18:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
If you check on Talk:Fringe_sciences, we already have an additional one! Both phrases, however, refer only to the real pointless topology, not any alleged 'fringe science'. You are free to remove the {{Scope}} emplaced by Dave per consensus. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 18:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Re: "an additional one". An Additional what? It is way to early to judge consensus but there is clearly disagreement at the moment. If Consensus is what you are looking for you should open up a WV:RFD to get a broader range of opinions. The current state of the discussion is 4 contributors to the page talk: 1 argues within scope, 2 argue out of scope, and 1 comment of 'I suspect that the name "fringe science" for the theory of fringes is, to some extent, a joke...' The latter comment I interpret as supportive of the page name being misleading thread. Please also try to keep the discussion consolidated in one place. It is difficult to follow a discussion scattered here, there, and at the page. --mikeu talk 19:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Opening an RfD is a choice for one proposing deletion, not for one opposing it. A speedy tag (and the Scope tag is a speedy tag) is for action without discussion, and implemented if there is no dispute. RfD is for finding consensus though announced deliberation, to be reserved for disputes. The opinions at the Talk page are not binding, it obviously isn't a community consensus and the new page will not be on many watchlists. (I have seen RfD opened up by a custodian "to seek consensus," which then avoids having a responsible proposer. In the case I have in mind, the custodian then closed the RfD, and normally a nominator cannot close, unless consensus is obvious.) --Abd (discusscontribs) 20:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I found a discussion on {{Scope}}. It is here. It was agreed to by many, including this, "Removing the template yourself shouldn't cause a problem, but it's a good idea to link to the page from a topic or school (or two). I'd rather this template was only used on entirely non-controversial deletions of pages that really belong somewhere else (such as another wiki or the bitbucket), are not adding aything to Wikiversity, but were brobably good faith attempts at pages, and thus should not be speedy deleted. If there is anyone that still wants the page deleted, then point them at RfD. Michael Billington (talkcontribs) 06:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)" This also confirms that the person requesting deletion be pointed to RfD. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 12:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC) This is copied and presented to clarify for all concerned (1) removal of the template in the mentioned quote "shouldn't cause a problem", (2) "I'd rather this template was only used on entirely non-controversial deletions of pages that really belong somewhere else (such as another wiki or the bitbucket), are not adding aything to Wikiversity, but were brobably good faith attempts at pages, and thus should not be speedy deleted.", and (3) was approved during this Colloquium discussion by some 8 wikiversitans. They also stated assume goodfaith and if there really is a problem, fix it! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 00:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

As the above consensus approved policy indicates, the following statement is not true: "Unilaterally removing {{tl:Scope}} templates on Sciences and Fringe sciences is a serious violation of policy." --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 04:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Python Concepts[edit]

Hi Marshallsumter

Do you think it would benefit from being announced on our Main Page News?

Yes, please.

--ThaniosAkro (discusscontribs) 18:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Parkland and the American Revolution[edit]

Hi, Marshallsumter:

Since you've previously featured multiple articles of mine on "Main Page News", I thought I'd bring my latest addition to your attention: Parkland and the American Revolution leverages some of my previous contributions to Wikiversity into the on-going debate on arming school teachers. I'd be pleased to get your thoughts on this. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (discusscontribs) 02:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I like it! I'll probably be looking for more likely contributions about Sunday. While this one already appears well-developed and ready for learners, let me know if you consider it ready and I'll be happy to announce it, or like several others who enjoy announcing what they've found or prepared, or published like the WikiJournals, you are also free to do so. Brevity works well! We have a small space. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 04:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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

WMF Surveys, 18:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


Oh dear! What have you been up to Marshall? Questionable language indeed! 😀 Green Giant (discusscontribs) 19:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why these changes are triggering this filter. The current Lua program version we use does not recognize "cite web" so I've been changing "cite web" to "cite book". --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 19:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I've checked the most recent change to the filter from August 2017. None of these additions are occurring! The previous changes are from 2015 which are before the recent editor change. This is coming indirectly from the new editor. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 19:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
There's nothing obvious in all the changes to this filter since the first change on 1 October 2013 to indicate this filter would trip over changing "cite web" to "cite book", or any change I made! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 19:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, it's quite bizarre because I didn't see any obvious triggers either. I wondered whether it might be matching "book" with something like "poo" but then it should have triggered earlier? Pinging @Dave Braunschweig: to impart wisdom on the matter. Green Giant (discusscontribs) 10:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
@Green Giant: Whirlpool triggers it. Filter 4 doesn't block the edit. It just puts it in the log to be checked later. If it's generating too many false positives, we can adjust the filter. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 01:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@Dave Braunschweig: Cheers for the information. There are not too many false positives, so no adjustment necessary yet. That particular one just stood out because it was Marshall. Green Giant (discusscontribs) 02:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 01:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 00:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)