Afrikaans | العربية | অসমীয়া | asturianu | azərbaycanca | Boarisch | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца) | български | ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ | বাংলা | བོད་ཡིག | bosanski | català | کوردی | corsu | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form) | Zazaki | ދިވެހިބަސް | Ελληνικά | emiliàn e rumagnòl | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | Nordfriisk | Frysk | galego | Alemannisch | ગુજરાતી | עברית | हिन्दी | Fiji Hindi | hrvatski | magyar | հայերեն | interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Ido | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | ភាសាខ្មែរ | 한국어 | Qaraqalpaqsha | kar | kurdî | Limburgs | ລາວ | lietuvių | Minangkabau | македонски | മലയാളം | молдовеняскэ | Bahasa Melayu | မြန်မာဘာသာ | مازِرونی | Napulitano | नेपाली | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | Kapampangan | Norfuk / Pitkern | polski | português | português do Brasil | پښتو | Runa Simi | română | русский | संस्कृतम् | sicilianu | سنڌي | Taclḥit | සිංහල | slovenčina | slovenščina | Soomaaliga | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ꠍꠤꠟꠐꠤ | ślůnski | தமிழ் | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Türkmençe | Tagalog | Türkçe | татарча / tatarça | ⵜⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖⵜ  | українська | اردو | oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча | vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 吴语 | 粵語 | 中文(简体) | 中文(繁體) | +/-

Welcome to Meta!

edit

Hello, Marshallsumter. Welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing!

- Ottava Rima (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Old post

edit

Hey there, I removed an old post from your talk page - it was made by a spamming banned user who abused multiple accounts. Thanks for your Wikiversity work! ~riley (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

  • Hey there, I am seeing your steward votes. Just a heads up that for new steward votes, you need to use # {{Se-vote|2020|Marshallsumter|checked=|cb=}} before your vote rationale. Thanks for participating in the election process. ~riley (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
    In the current election, please remember to add |checked=|cb= onto the end as shown above but with 2020 -> 2022. Thanks. --Ferien (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
edit

Hi there, you could cite a link by [], you don't have to add url= to it. Happy editing. Lemonaka (talk) 11:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Follow up re SRCU

edit

I'm sorry, I did try and read through your coincidence spreadsheet. It made absolutely zero sense to me - that's why I couldn't see what you were requesting. WV:CIVIL violations are something that need to be handled by a local administrator, Stewards are not involved in that. As for the voting twice - with claims of sockpupptery still, could you please explain this in easier terms than on your spreadsheet for me? -- Amanda (she/her) 16:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I thought you had meant on the same page with actual votes. Expressing an opinion 11 years apart, when you have been a user for that long, is useless in terms of sockpuppetry evidence. So that'll wrap it up for me. Also I note that you are currently blocked from enwv, so you don't have much of a leg to stand on here. Either way, there are no actionable sockpuppetry concerns and everything else is for an admin to consider - not stewards. -- Amanda (she/her) 21:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Pardon @AmandaNP:, I wonder why you made this input on the top of Marshallsumter's replies, is this a bug of DiscussionTool? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Not a bug, I just wanted to keep it separate from their notes as not to interfere with them. Keep the discussion with discussion. But I also see the notes have changed since I left my message - but I won't be reviewing it. -- Amanda (she/her) 04:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Voting twice

edit

Def. "a formalized choice"[1] "on legally relevant measures such as employment or appointment to office or a proceeding about a legal dispute"[2] or "any judgment of intellect leading not only to a formal opinion but also to a particular choice in a legally relevant measure, a point of view as published"[2] is called a vote.

Def. "a person completely controlled by another"[3] or an "alternative [pseudonymous online][4] account, [especially one][4] used for abuse"[5] is called a sock puppet.

"Generally users are requested to only use one account, though there are circumstances that may have users to have additional accounts. Where a user has multiple accounts it is an expectation that they publicly disclose those accounts, usually on each of the relevant user pages providing links to each other." m:Sock puppetry

"The major complaints about sock puppetry are where undisclosed accounts are used

"Generally the issue of sockpuppetry is a local issue to be managed by each community, there are occasions, however, when the matter will be dealt with universally within the Wikimedia communities. This is usually in the more severe cases and depending on the circumstances and the severity it can involve the use of community global block and/or global lock." m:Sock puppetry

Def. a "person who controls a sock puppet"[6] is called a sock puppeteer.

First time

edit
  1. "If the copyright concerns aren't an issue anymore, then I think there's no valid argument here for deletion or exclusion." --SB_Johnny talk 20:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC), url=https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion&direction=next&oldid=784380. User:Marshallsumter#Wikiversity 4.
  2. "Well, perhaps you're right. I'm just not encouraged that his only contributions here relate to a dispute on en.wiki. This seems emblematic of a person that is not able to disengage from a disagreement. Anyway, I've had my say on the matter, so I'll let it rest for now." Kaldari 05:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC), url=https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kaldari&diff=prev&oldid=787345.
  3. Bureaucrat v:user:SB Johnny's last edit on Wikiversity: 4 March 2020. And, v:user:Kaldari's last edit on Wikiversity: 13 September 2020, last edit on Wikipedia: 30 August 2022. During those eleven years between 24 September 2011 and 18 October 2022, Kaldari stated nothing regarding the fair use images that Marshallsumter had uploaded, the earlier ones without rationales like most other user uploads for the period. The later ones used Template:Information1 which contained a line for the fair use rationale.
  4. "Expressing an opinion 11 years apart, when you have been a user for that long, is useless in terms of sockpuppetry evidence." But, then there is User:Omphalographer in 2022-23 attacking Marshallsumter after 11 years over copyright issues and Vox Brevis in 2014 attacking Eric Corbett over an edit revert four days earlier. Per Kaldari: "This seems emblematic of a person that is not able to disengage from a disagreement." Marshallsumter has never used a sock puppet.

Second time

edit
  1. "Where does that put us with regards to further [file] uploads by Marshallsumter, though?" Omphalographer 19:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC) and "Now blocked." -- Dave Braunschweig 16:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC), url=https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion&oldid=2451670. --Marshallsumter (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
  2. Omphalographer's first edit on Wikiversity: 18 October 2022 was on Wikiversity:Colloquium ‎ →‎Pervasive copyright violations by User:Marshallsumter: new section. Same day Omphalographer put six resources up for deletion - all were reversed by other Wikiversity users, oldest, url=https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Omphalographer&target=Omphalographer&dir=prev.

Omphalographer-Omphalos coincidences

edit
Item Omphalographer Meaning Omphalos Coincidences Sockpuppetry
1. omphalo- Omphalo, c:user:Omphalographer navel c:user:Omphalos 1.0 0.0
2. Autoconfirmed users c:user:Omphalographer, 4 edits, 3 deleted Autoconfirmed users c:user:Omphalos, 26 edits, 7 deleted 0.75 0.25
3. User page on en.Wikiversity User account "Omphalographer" is registered on this wiki, 4 January 2023. No information has been provided by this user yet. 374 edits, 67 deleted registered users User account "Omphalos" is registered on this wiki, 22 October 2008. No information has been provided by this user yet. 0 edits. 0.67 0.33
4. User page on login.wikimedia.org User account "Omphalographer" is registered on this wiki, 18 October 2022. There is currently no text in this page. 0 edits. registered users User account "Omphalos" is registered on this wiki, 26 June 2015. 0 edits. There is currently no text in this page. 0.75 0.25
5. User page on meta.wikimedia.org User account "Omphalographer" is registered on this wiki, 18 October 2022. There is currently no text in this page. 0 edits. registered users User account "Omphalos" is registered on this wiki, 2 August 2008. There is currently no text in this page. 0 edits 1.0 0.0

No coincidental edits no sock puppetry.

Coincidences of behavior between Omphalographer and Kaldari

edit
Item Omphalographer Meaning Kaldari Coincidences Sockpuppetry
1. single purpose account I "Please note that your request would have much more credibility if you used your regular wiki account rather than a single-purpose account."[7] wiki account "I would like to report myself for making this edit from a single-purpose account."[8] 1.00 0.00
2. single purpose account I see 1. above wiki account "I used one sockpuppet account to make one edit in violation of the policy (in an effort to report incivility anonymously)."[9] 0.75 0.25
3. deflecting responsibility "And I'm concerned by your suggestion that this request lacks "credibility"."[10] wiki account "the inability to examine motivation and history is exactly the reason that our socking policy forbids such use of alternate accounts."[11] 0.50 0.50
4. deflecting responsibility see 3. above wiki account "Then why did you feel it was necessary to make it sound like I was purposefully abusing the tools and was no longer a trusted user of the rights?"[12] 0.25 0.75
5. deflecting responsibility "This is the only active account I have. I was an active editor on enwiki 10-15 years ago, but I've long since lost the login information."[13] wiki account "If at some point an administrator feels that they need to use deception or some other means to deflect retaliation in the course of performing the administration role, rather than taking those steps (like creating an undisclosed sock account) they should consider whether or not they should resign the bit."[14] 0.20 0.80
6. copyright "Most of these images were uploaded under a claim of fair use."[15] fair use refers[16] to works by Marshallsumter 0.17 0.83
7. Marshallsumter see 6. above Wikiversity user:Marshallsumter refers[16] to works by Marshallsumter,[17] 0.143 0.857
8. Wikiversity:Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) Wikiversity:Exemption Doctrine Policy redirected to Wikiversity:Uploading files#Exemption Doctrine Policy EDP point 6. Wikiversity content that is used under the fair use doctrine must be properly attributed to the copyright holder. "#Wikiversity content that is used under the fair use doctrine must be properly attributed to the copyright holder." Kaldari 22:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC), {{Policy|WV:EDP|5 August 2010}}[18][19] 0.125 0.875
9. attributing to copyright holder see 8. above This was unauthorized change to our EDP[20] see 8. above 0.111 0.889
10. single purpose account II "I was an active editor on enwiki 10-15 years ago, but I've long since lost the login information."[13] wiki account "I would like to report myself for making this edit from a single-purpose account."[8] 0.10 0.90
...
76. editing Commons in the last 90 days c:User contributions for Omphalographer gaming the system, c:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kaldari, see m:User talk:Vituzzu#CheckUser help from Commons/Checkusers c:User contributions for Kaldari 0.0132 0.9868, or 99% certainty
77. User:SB Johnny leaves Wikiversity in March of 2020 Omphalographer shows up on Wikiversity to attack Marshallsumter regarding copyright in October of 2022 after more than 2 years of being gone SB Johnny's bureaucrat tools have been taken away by stewards while SB Johnny is on Wikiversity Kaldari makes no further copyright attacks on Marshallsumter 0.013 0.987, or 99% certainty
78. Registered on Commons Omphalographer, 4 edits, 3 deleted registering sock puppets Vox Brevis, No changes were found matching these criteria, 0 edits 0.0128 0.9872, or 99% certainty
79. Attacking other users with sock puppets Marshallsumter over copyright issues "This seems emblematic of a person that is not able to disengage from a disagreement." Eric Corbett over an edit revert, using User:Vox Brevis 0.0127 0.9873, or 99 % certainty
80. First edit/last edit 17 November 2022 first edit (registered) on Commons, 18 December 2022 last edit on Commons No check user possible unless abusiveness shown 19 May 2005 first edit on Commons, 5 December 2022 last edit on Commons and everywhere 0.0125 0.9872, or 99 % certainty
81. Disparagement "did not care to use the ones you found"[21] disparagement, incivility "The only other possible explanation I can conceive of is that this editor has some extreme form of autism which makes his mode of organizing information appear to be total nonsense to a normal reader."[22] 0.0123 0.9877, or 99 % certainty

Just a sampling! --Marshallsumter (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

The rest is on my user page. Marshallsumter (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

References

edit
  1. Emperorbma (24 July 2003). vote. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 9 January 2023. 
  2. a b Fay Freak (21 December 2020). vote. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 9 January 2023. 
  3. Conrad.Irwin (10 November 2009). sock puppet. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 9 January 2023. 
  4. a b Jberkel (14 December 2018). sock puppet. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 9 January 2023. 
  5. Anareth (26 May 2016). sock puppet. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 9 January 2023. 
  6. LlywelynII (12 August 2018). "sock puppeteer". San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 9 January 2023. 
  7. Dave Braunschweig (18 October 2022). [v:Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Pervasive_copyright_violations_by_User:Marshallsumter Single purpose account]. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 21 December 2022. 
  8. a b Kaldari (7 March 2014). [w:Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive831#Sock_puppetry_by_an_admin single purpose account]. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 21 December 2022. I would like to report myself for making this edit from a single-purpose account. 
  9. Kaldari (8 March 2014). Loss of global edit interface rights. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 16 January 2023. As far as my "breach of trust", I used one sockpuppet account to make one edit in violation of the [global edit interface] policy (in an effort to report incivility anonymously). I reported myself for the violation, apologized to all involved, and immediately resigned my administrator rights. I really don't see how that would lead the global community to lose trust in my ability to edit site JS and CSS. 
  10. Omphalographer (18 October 2022). [v:Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Pervasive_copyright_violations_by_User:Marshallsumter single purpose account]. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 21 December 2022. 
  11. Risker (7 March 2014). [w:Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive831#Sock_puppetry_by_an_admin okay to sock]. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 21 December 2022. What you're saying is that it's okay to sock on this noticeboard if one is worried someone might question the motivation for the report. But the inability to examine motivation and history is exactly the reason that our socking policy forbids such use of alternate accounts. 
  12. Kaldari (8 March 2014). Trusted user. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 16 January 2023. Then why did you feel it was necessary to make it sound like I was purposefully abusing the tools and was no longer a trusted user of the rights? 
  13. a b Omphalographer (18 October 2022). [v:Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Pervasive_copyright_violations_by_User:Marshallsumter regular wiki account]. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 21 December 2022. I was an active editor on enwiki 10-15 years ago, but I've long since lost the login information. 
  14. Atama (7 March 2014). [w:Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive831#Sock_puppetry_by_an_admin use deception]. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 21 December 2022. If at some point an administrator feels that they need to use deception or some other means to deflect retaliation in the course of performing the administration role, rather than taking those steps (like creating an undisclosed sock account) they should consider whether or not they should resign the bit. The best thing for Kaldari to have done would have been to resign the bit before taking any of these controversial actions, as doing so would have prevented disruption and would not have involved giving up the tools under a cloud. I'm just making this suggestion in case another administrator feels tempted to take similar steps. 
  15. Omphalographer (18 October 2022). [v:Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Pervasive_copyright_violations_by_User:Marshallsumter Pervasive_copyright_violations_by_User:Marshallsumter]. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 21 December 2022. 
  16. a b copyright violations. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 25 September 2011. Retrieved 21 December 2022. I'm satisfied at this point, however, that there are no obvious copyright violations remaining in the work. 
  17. copyright violations. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 30 September 2011. Retrieved 21 December 2022. Well, perhaps you're right. I'm just not encouraged that his only contributions here relate to a dispute on en.wiki. This seems emblematic of a person that is not able to disengage from a disagreement. Anyway, I've had my say on the matter, so I'll let it rest for now. 
  18. Geoff Plourde (5 August 2010). marking our Exemption Doctrine Policy as Wikiversity policy. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 21 December 2022. 
  19. Kaldari (22 September 2011). copyright holder. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 21 December 2022. 
  20. Marshallsumter (21 December 2022). unauthorized change. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. This unauthorized change of adding "6. Wikiversity content that is used under the fair use doctrine must be properly attributed to the copyright holder." after the EDP had been marked as policy puts our altered, unapproved EDP in direct and likely illegal conflict with the United States Code/Title 17/Chapter 1/Section 107 Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use, see s:United_States_Code/Title_17/Chapter_1/Section_107 
  21. Omphalographer (19 October 2022). Use anything you find online. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 21 December 2022. The simple fact that you could not find a freely licensed image that met your needs (or did not care to use the ones you found) does not grant you the right to use anything you find online, for any purpose. This is not true of copyright law in general, and it is particularly not true on Wikimedia sites, which have stricter copyright policies. 
  22. Kaldari (22 September 2011). Extensive copyright violations. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 16 January 2023. The only other possible explanation I can conceive of is that this editor has some extreme form of autism which makes his mode of organizing information appear to be total nonsense to a normal reader. 

Re:

edit

Some of the coincidences you highlighted are significant, others aren't at all. But the main point is: what is/are the abuse(s) by Omphalographer which would justify a block if proven to be an alternate account of Kaldari? Vituzzu (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your interest and comment! The behavioral coincidences including the positive ones by Omphalographer to our Wikiversity software demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt together with all the others I've listed on my user page that there's a 99 % probability that Kaldari is the puppet master of Omphalographer. I put that together to demonstrate that even though use of check user fails because Kaldari is gaming the system, the behavioral coincidences succeed using the duck test. His lying about fair use and rationales, voting twice on excluding me from Wikiversity, putting 17 resources up for deletion where others have had to remove all his deletion tags is sufficient abusive behavior to warrant an indefinite block on Wikiversity. I've been blocked for far less! Altering our EDP after consensus approval so that he could misuse it later is egregious.
The three custodians here at v:Wikiversity:Request_custodian_action#User:Marshallsumter failed to fulfill their duties as custodians to review the evidence presented here as you were courteous enough to do. I realize voting twice by Kaldari over eleven years to have me excluded from Wikiversity is a stretch to the belief system, but it is what it is! Please block Omphalographer and for a real challenge remove the custodial tools from the three custodians who have been derelict in their duties to Wikiversity. It is not a consensus matter! Also, the 90 day period for check user is arbitrary, check user should be allowed to specify this period so that appropriate checks can be performed even here at Meta where Kaldari edited last February. --Marshallsumter (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Just FYI: what Omphalographer/Kaldari is doing is fighting against reasonable fair use so as to continue to promote Commons. Recent research[1] has demonstrated that fair use is a far easier and better tool to use to advance scientific research & journalism than Creative Commons which often requires reinventing the wheel. --Marshallsumter (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
While I use Commons images a lot and will continue, images often end up getting deleted for one reason or another and I've had to fairuse the image to keep it available in resources. --Marshallsumter (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Omphalographer changed 46 GFDL files, as designated by the uploader v:User:SpicerK, to fairuse by declaring each to be a "non-free screenshot" and that "The individual who uploaded this work and first used it in an article, as well as subsequent persons who place it into articles, asserts that this qualifies as fair use of the material under United States copyright law." which they did not! Each qualifies under de minimus for GFDL. --Marshallsumter (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

References

edit
  1. Patricia Aufderheide and Peter Jaszi (27 April 2018). Reclaiming Fair Use: How to Put Balance Back in Copyright, 2nd Edition. Chicago, Illinois USA: University of Chicago Press. p. 256. ISBN 9780226374222. Retrieved 6 February 2023.