跳至內容

User:Marshallsumter

頁面內容不支援其他語言。
來自維基學院

Hope this content isn't a problem and I hope to contribute in a positive way!

WikiMedia user pages

From Steward request/Checkuser

Per a request from checkuser, "Well, for such a cross-wiki check to be possible, I must first provide a sufficient and appropriate rationale to the checkuser team on commonswiki. Since Kaldari is the sysop on commonswiki, I should be very clear about this. But I'm not sure about your explanation. If you believe this investigation is necessary, please discuss it first with your community that can better understand the context of this case before requesting it." --Sotiale (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC), url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Checkuser/2022-12#Omphalographer@en.wikiversity, I contacted several contributors to Wikiversity on 20 December 2022. Based on the evidence as presented at that time, see url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Marshallsumter&oldid=24262495, a contributor stated in a private email: "I've read over all the materials and I will have to concur with my fellow checkusers that this isn't very compelling evidence. A recent check already came up clean, so at this stage you need rock-solid evidence to warrant yet another check. The situation you describe sounds like it could easily be mere coincidence."

Based on the coincidence analysis presented on my user page, User:Marshallsumter#Omphalographer-Kaldari coincidences, it is beyond reasonable doubt that User:Omphalographer is a single purpose sockpuppet account, often used for disparagement, of User:Kaldari currently editing on Commons. --Marshallsumter (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Coincidence counting is a way to separate a rare event from ordinary events, background or noise, by improving the signal-to-noise ratio to the extent that a rare event can be studied, without removing the ordinary, noise or background, completely. See w:Coincidence counting (physics). --Marshallsumter (talk) 12:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Per the duck test, "The duck test does not apply to non-obvious cases. Unless there is evidence which proves otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt [such as above], editors must assume good faith from others." --Marshallsumter (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

A cross-wiki check is requested to confirm that Omphalographer is a sock puppet of Kaldari either by IP match (IPs not to be disclosed, of course) or by close geographic proximity such as Berkley, California, and Oakland, California, close enough to be likely sock puppet and owner. Or, San Francisco, California, versus Austin, Texas, for example, does not confirm unless both sources are very near or inside Natural History Museums where spiders can be studied and photographed. Just FYI but neither User:Vox Brevis nor User:Omphalographer have uploaded images of spiders to Commons or Wikiversity. But both sock puppets were used for disparagement. --Marshallsumter (talk) 07:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Both Omphalographer and Kaldari have been on Commons in December 2022, but the Commons Checkuser did not check because neither has been abusive on Commons. --Marshallsumter (talk) 07:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

If confirmed or likely I am requesting a block of Omphalographer on Wikiversity. We do not have Checkuser. --Marshallsumter (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Please check latest entry to User:Marshallsumter#Omphalographer-Kaldari coincidences, 99% certainty means you don't need to check with Commons/Checkusers! --Marshallsumter (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Marshallsumter, I'm afraid I can't help you since I have no rights to anything outside en-wiki. Drmies (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Just FYI - secondary accounts are allowed almost everywhere on WMF projects which I assumed you knew. If you had reviewed the coincidence test you would have found at least 25 incidents of violation of WV:CIVIL, a policy, by these two which are blockable offenses. Not being civil is blockable also on meta. The coincidence test or counting demonstrated both incivility and voting twice on an issue among other things thereby sock puppetry, which with incivility are violations of policy every where. --Marshallsumter (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Omphalographer-Omphalos coincidences

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, 18 October 2022. 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.

Omphalographer-Kaldari coincidences

Per a request from checkuser, "Well, for such a cross-wiki check to be possible, I must first provide a sufficient and appropriate rationale to the checkuser team on commonswiki. Since Kaldari is the sysop on commonswiki, I should be very clear about this. But I'm not sure about your explanation. If you believe this investigation is necessary, please discuss it first with your community that can better understand the context of this case before requesting it." --Sotiale (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC), url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Checkuser/2022-12#Omphalographer@en.wikiversity, I contacted several contributors to Wikiversity on 20 December 2022. Based on the evidence as presented at that time, see url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Marshallsumter&oldid=24262495, a contributor stated in a private email: "I've read over all the materials and I will have to concur with my fellow checkusers that this isn't very compelling evidence. A recent check already came up clean, so at this stage you need rock-solid evidence to warrant yet another check. The situation you describe sounds like it could easily be mere coincidence." Here is that rock-solid evidence using a coincidence table.

Coincidence counting is a way to separate a rare event from ordinary events, background or noise, by improving the signal-to-noise ratio to the extent that a rare event can be studied, without removing the ordinary, noise or background, completely. See w:Coincidence counting (physics).

Per the duck test, "The duck test does not apply to non-obvious cases. Unless there is evidence which proves otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt [such as below], editors must assume good faith from others."

Based on the coincidence analysis below, it is beyond reasonable doubt that user:Omphalographer is a single purpose sockpuppet account, often used for disparagement, of user:Kaldari currently editing on Commons.

Coincidences of behavior between Omphalographer and Kaldari

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."[1] wiki account "I would like to report myself for making this edit from a single-purpose account."[2] 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)."[3] 0.75 0.25
3. deflecting responsibility "And I'm concerned by your suggestion that this request lacks "credibility"."[4] wiki account "the inability to examine motivation and history is exactly the reason that our socking policy forbids such use of alternate accounts."[5] 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?"[6] 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."[7] 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."[8] 0.20 0.80
6. copyright "Most of these images were uploaded under a claim of fair use."[9] fair use refers[10] to works by Marshallsumter 0.17 0.83
7. Marshallsumter see 6. above Wikiversity user:Marshallsumter refers[10] to works by Marshallsumter,[11] 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}}[12][13] 0.125 0.875
9. attributing to copyright holder see 8. above This was unauthorized change to our EDP[14] 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."[7] wiki account "I would like to report myself for making this edit from a single-purpose account."[2] 0.10 0.90
11. single purpose account III see 1. above wiki account "okay to sock"[5] 0.09 0.91
12. single purpose account IV see 1. above wiki account "use deception",[8] "gaming the system"[15] Kaldari is an‏‎ (interface administrator, administrator) on Commons 0.08 0.92
13. single purpose account V see 1. above wiki account Kaldari was caught by a checkuser[16] 0.077 0.923
14. fair use rationales "none of these fair use claims appear to be valid"[17] Wikiversity's Exemption Doctrine Policy,[18] see 8. above, unauthorized change of WV:EDP[14] and "fair use rationales"[19] 0.07 0.93
15. invalid fair use claims "invalid fair use claims on these files should speak for themselves."[20] "you have not presented any facts supporting"[21] your allegations supported validity "not a real research project"[22][23] 0.067 0.933
16. refusing to identify "I was an active editor on enwiki 10-15 years ago"[7] "Which one is you?"[24] former Wikiversity username Kaldari never edited the Wikiversity:Main Page 0.06 0.94
17. freely licensed images "did not care to use the [freely licensed image]s you found"[25] disparagement, the purpose of fair use is to use copyrighted works fairly so as not to spend time reinventing the wheel see 8. above and "no educational value"[26] 0.059 0.941
18. freely licensed images "use anything you find online"[25] disparagement, not used in ways which comply with Wikiversity's Exemption Doctrine Policy "no possible educational value"[27] 0.056 0.944
19. freely licensed images "used in a decorative fashion"[25] disparagement, neither WV:EDP or WP:EDP excludes decoration "What exactly does the word "educational" mean to you?"[28] 0.053 0.947
20. freely licensed images "your upload of File:Earth_Shells_to_Scale.png somehow overlooked File:Earth-crust-cutaway-english.svg"[29] disparagement, "I did not overlook the image you show."[30] This was an unauthorized change to our EDP.[14] and "no educational value"[26] 0.05 0.95
21. freely licensed images "reuploading some of the images that were deleted"[31] disparagement, "its copyright has likely expired"[32] "didn't integrate successfully"[33] 0.048 0.952
22. Wikiversity "images are not used in ways which comply with Wikiversity's Exemption Doctrine Policy"[34] disparagement see 20. above 0.045 0.955
23. Wikiversity "used in a decorative fashion"[34] disparagement "no possible educational value"[27] 0.043 0.957
24. Wikiversity "illustrate a topic"[34] disparagement, incivility "What exactly does the word "educational" mean to you?"[28] 0.042 0.958
25. Wikiversity "Wikiversity's Exemption Doctrine Policy"[34] disparagement see 20. above 0.04 0.96
26. Wikiversity "not to further any specific educational goal"[34] disparagement see 24. above 0.038 0.952
27. Wikiversity "use of non-free media as decoration"[35] disparagement, decoration is not in WV:EDP or WP:EDP see 20. above 0.037 0.963
28. Wikiversity not "an educational goal"[35] disparagement "a string of words"[28] 0.036 0.964
29. Wikiversity "a fundamental misunderstanding of what those educational goals are"[35] disparagement "Rules for drinking games are not educational."[28] 0.034 0.966
30. Wikiversity "what fair use permits in general"[35] disparagement see 20. above 0.033 0.967
31. Wikiversity "use of non-free media"[35] disparagement, purposes of fair use[36] "didn't integrate successfully"[33] 0.032 0.968
32. Wikiversity "Wikiversity does not have a unique mandate"[37] disparagement, purposes of fair use[36] see 20. above 0.031 0.969
33. Wikiversity not "unique privilege to use non-free content"[37] disparagement, purposes of fair use[36] "I see no possible educational value for this research."[27] 0.03 0.97
34. Wikiversity "non-free content in the pursuit of that mission."[37] disparagement "dumping ground"[28] 0.029 0.971
35. Wikiversity "educational content - that is the purpose of the entire Foundation!"[37] disparagement[30] see 20. above 0.029 0.971
36. Wikiversity "create educational content"[37] disparagement "False information presented as science is not educational."[28] 0.028 0.972
37. WV:EDP see 8. above disparagement,[38][39] see 20. above 0.027 0.973
38. WV:EDP see 8. above disparagement,[38][39] "Its meaning is obvious and consistent."[27] 0.026 0.974
39. WV:EDP see 8. above disparagement,[38][39] "So in your opinion, there is no line between information and misinformation?"[28] 0.026 0.974
40. WV:EDP see 8. above disparagement,[38][39] "You might as well be researching the phrase "red wagon" or "comfortable chair"."[27] 0.025 0.975
41. WV:EDP see 8. above disparagement,[38][39] "The only purpose of this "research" is to further pursue an argument on English Wikipedia that is already settled."[27] 0.024 0.976
42. software Operating Systems/PPC,[40] unusable mess "Yes, I'm a software developer for the WMF",[41] 0.024 0.976
43. quotations "it's almost entirely composed of quotations."[42] disparagement "Works consisting entirely of snippets from other works"[43], "The standards for such works, however, are necessarily stringent."[43] 0.023 0.977
44. quotations "the course is primarily composed of a collage of borrowed images and quotations"[44] disparagement "Works consisting entirely of snippets from other works"[43], "The standards for such works, however, are necessarily stringent."[43] 0.023 0.977
45. must be attributed to the author "must be attributed to the author"[45] w:Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria#Policy See 8. above 0.022 0.978
46. software "This page was a learning resource centered around a software application"[46] software "Yes, I'm a software developer for the WMF"[41] 0.022 0.978
47. Wikiversity's EDP "The use of non-free media as decoration is not permitted by Wikiversity's EDP."[35] "decoration" or "decorative" does not occur in either EDP, Wikipedia, w:Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, or Wikiversity, v:Wikiversity:Uploading files#Exemption Doctrine Policy see 8. above 0.022 0.978
48. educational goal "Declaring that simple decoration is "an educational goal" represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what those educational goals are"[35] simple decoration, "undisclosed accounts are used to circumvent the principle of "One person, one vote""Sock puppetry "I see no possible educational value for this research."[27] 0.021 0.979
49. must be attributed to the author "must be attributed to the author"[45] w:Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria {{Policy|WV:EDP|5 August 2010}}[12] 0.02 0.98
50. must be attributed to the author "must be attributed to the author"[45] "Identification of the source of the original copyrighted material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder, and year of copyright; this is to help determine the material's potential market value."w:Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria This was an unauthorized change to our EDP.[14] 0.02 0.98
51. must be attributed to the author "must be attributed to the author"[45] "Identification of the source of the original copyrighted material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder, and year of copyright; this is to help determine the material's potential market value."w:Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria "Wikiversity content that is used under the fair use doctrine must be properly attributed to the copyright holder.",[13] such attribution is not required[19] 0.0196 0.9804
52. voting twice, copyright issues v:Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion#Pervasive copyright violations by User:Marshallsumter "one person, one vote" {{Deletion request}}, "And yes, the dominant group page still includes extensive copyright violations"[47] 0.0192 0.9808
53. omphalo- Omphalo navel navel gazing,[48] 0.0189 0.9811
54. -grapher -grapher writes about,[49] navel gazing 0.0185 0.9815
55. omphalography,[50] omphalographer,[51] one who studies umbilical anatomy navel gazing 0.0182, Omphalographer may not know real meaning of omphalographer. 0.9818
56. omphaloscopy, literally[52] "the contemplation of one's navel"[53]. omphalo Synonyms: navel-gazing[54] navel gazing 0.0179 0.9821
57. Coincidence tables this table proof, v:Dominant group/Proof of concept#Hoax hypothesis Hoax content on Wikiversity?[55] 0.0175 0.9825
58. possible IP mismatch "Please note that your request would have much more credibility if you used your regular wiki account rather than a single-purpose account."[1] multiple IP use and access "Kaldari edited that wiki almost 2 years ago, so there will be no valid data."Steward_requests/Checkuser/2022-12#Omphalographer@en.wikiversity 0.0172 0.9828
59. Coincidence tables this table proof, tables such as these may be acceptable, especially if IP match is unlikely or cannot occur, "Kaldari edited that wiki almost 2 years ago, so there will be no valid data."Steward_requests/Checkuser/2022-12#Omphalographer@en.wikiversity Hoax hypothesis,[55] 0.0169 0.9831
60. likely lying "The use of non-free media as decoration is not permitted by Wikiversity's EDP."[35] disparagement ""Dominant group" is not a technical term in any field",[56], "Dominant group" is a technical word in Sociology, see v:Dominant group/Sociology. 0.0167 0.9833
61. quotations unsuitable for publication "WikiJournal preprint"[42] and "how the group handles abandoned preprints"[42] disparagement, "This right should also be effectively protected under the conditions of DRM [Digital Rights Management] and access to the relevant information should not be prevented by technical measures."[57][58] "Works consisting entirely of snippets from other works [...] The standards for such works, however, are necessarily stringent."[43] 0.0161 0.9829
62. quotations "It is organized in a fairly haphazard fashion"[44] disparagement, "the right of quotation and criticism ... is a basic prerequisite of any journalist's or scientist's works."[57] "Works consisting entirely of snippets from other works"[43], "The standards for such works, however, are necessarily stringent."[43] 0.0161 0.9839
63. pressuring See 52. above and "It's been open for nearly a month now with no action."[59] possible abuse of power "I could just temporarily make myself a bureaucrat on Wikiversity"[60] 0.0159 0.9841
64. Another contributor to Wikiversity stated, "ask other contributors in the public space of Wikiversity for their opinion on whether to implement the checkuser" See 52. above and "It appears that he's simply reuploading some of the images that were deleted"[61], "Now blocked."[62] exclusion "not a real research project"[22], "no valid argument here for deletion or exclusion"[63] 0.0156 0.9844
65. sock puppetry not on Wikipedia WMF project Kaldari on Wikipedia and Commons during both sockpuppetries, but not on Wikiversity with Omphalographer 0.0154 0.9846
66. c:User_talk:Rubikproxy contributed to this user talk on 18 December 2022,[64] User account Rubikproxy created automatically on 17 December 2022,[65][66] Pageviews Analysis on Toolforge: Brought to you by MusikAnimal, Kaldari, and Marcel Ruiz Forns.[67] 0.0152 0.9848
67. Abusiveness on Commons not abusive on Commons, c:Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Kaldari Abusiveness on Wikiversity by both not abusive on Commons 0.0149 0.9851
68. Fair use not allowed on Commons, but beyond reasonable doubt sock puppetry on Wikiversity fair use allowed on Wikiversity and Wikipedia sock puppetry on Wikipedia 0.0147 0.9853
69. attached accounts beta.Wikiversity, 0 edits editing 3 edits, last on 15 Feb 2011 0.0145 0.9855
70. attached accounts commons, 4 edits, last on 18 Dec 2022 editing 25,594 edits, last on 5 Dec 2022 0.0143 0.9857
71. attached accounts en.Wikiversity, 350 edits, last on 1 Jan 2023 editing 590 edits, last on 13 Sep 2020 0.0141 0.9859
72. attached accounts fr.Wikiversity, 0 edits editing fr.Wikipedia, 85 edits, last on 23 Jun 2020 0.0139 0.9861
73. attached accounts meta, 0 edits editing meta, 3434 edits, last on 22 Feb 2022 0.0137 0.9863
74. attached accounts pt.Wikiversity, 0 edits editing pt.Wikipedia, 12 edits, last on 16 Oct 2020 0.0135 0.9865
75. attached accounts ru.Wikiversity, 0 edits editing ru.Wikipedia, 15 edits, last on 10 Apr 2020 0.0133 0.9867
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"[25] 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."[55] 0.0123 0.9877, or 99 % certainty
82. Putting resources up for deletion put 17 resources up for deletion where others have had to remove all his deletion tags disruption v:Template:Spaced en dash Revision as of 15:40, 16 September 2008 by Kaldari (discuss | contribs) (nominating for deletion), followed by v:Template:Spaced en dash Revision as of 20:26, 16 September 2008 by Kaldari (discuss | contribs) (removing notice for now, considered disruptive) 0.0122 0.9878, or 99 % certainty
83. Copyright 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 minimis for GFDL. GFDL abuse see 8. above 0.0120 0.9880, or 99 % certainty
84. Software development Omphalographer changed or attempted to make 65 software edits. software abuse? 61 changes apparently unnoticed, 3 rejected (RoundBox templates and user space restrictions), 1 noticed and unchallenged "Yes, I'm a software developer for the WMF"[41] 0.0068 0.9932, or 99.3 % certainty with all 65 included
85. Software development Omphalographer created v:Module:Message box/imbox.css Loss of global edit interface rights "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."[3] 0.0068 0.9932, or 99.3 % certainty with all 65 included
86. Software destruction Omphalographer used 58 edits to destroy the v:Refresher/SDLC course linkage damage to donated Software Development Life Cycle course "Yes, I'm a software developer for the WMF"[41] that no longer works for the WMF! 0.0066 0.9934, or 99.3 % certainty with all 65 included

Reflist

  1. ↑ a b 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. 
  2. ↑ 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. 
  3. ↑ a b 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. 
  4. ↑ 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. 
  5. ↑ a b 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. 
  6. ↑ 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? 
  7. ↑ a b c 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. 
  8. ↑ a b 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. 
  9. ↑ 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. 
  10. ↑ 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. 
  11. ↑ 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. 
  12. ↑ a b Geoff Plourde (5 August 2010). marking our Exemption Doctrine Policy as Wikiversity policy. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 21 December 2022. 
  13. ↑ a b Kaldari (22 September 2011). copyright holder. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 21 December 2022. 
  14. ↑ a b c d 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 
  15. ↑ DDStretch (7 March 2014). [w:Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive831#Sock_puppetry_by_an_admin gaming the system]. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 21 December 2022. 
  16. ↑ Eric Corbett (7 March 2014). [w:Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive831#Sock_puppetry_by_an_admin principled stand]. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 21 December 2022. The course of events is that he [Kaldari] was caught by a checkuser and decided in consultation with others a few days later that this would be his least damaging course of action. So let's hear no more talk of a "principled stand". 
  17. ↑ Omphalographer (18 October 2022). invalid fair use claims. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Unfortunately, none of these fair use claims appear to be valid. Almost every one I have looked at followed the pattern "No free licensed or public domain alternatives known to exist to show…" followed by the description of the image. 
  18. ↑ [v:Wikiversity:Uploading_files#Exemption_Doctrine_Policy Wikiversity:Uploading files#Exemption Doctrine Policy]. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 22 September 2011. Retrieved 21 December 2022. 
  19. ↑ a b United States Code (1978). [s:United_States_Code/Title_17/Chapter_1/Section_107 Section 107]. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 21 December 2022. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes 
  20. ↑ Omphalographer (18 October 2022). [v:Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Pervasive_copyright_violations_by_User:Marshallsumter Speak for themselves]. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 21 December 2022. The invalid fair use claims on these files should speak for themselves. 
  21. ↑ Marshallsumter (19 October 2022). [v:Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Pervasive_copyright_violations_by_User:Marshallsumter Unsupported allegations]. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 21 December 2022. so far you have not presented any facts supporting that this is what you are doing. I've discussed these matters extensively with WMF legal and supplying the rationales here on Wikiversity as I've done for these images meets and has met their concerns. 
  22. ↑ a b Kaldari (22 September 2011). Dominant group User:Marshallsumter#Wikiversity 6. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 21 December 2022. Marshallsumter's Dominant group project is not a real research project. 
  23. ↑ SB Johnny (24 September 2011). Dominant group User:Marshallsumter#Wikiversity 4. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 21 December 2022. Building an argument for using the term [dominant group] in a technical sense is perfectly valid as academic work. The only similar examples I can think of off-hand are "neurotype" and "sexual identity", but I assume those are enough to make the point. If the copyright concerns aren't an issue anymore, then I think there's no valid argument here for deletion or exclusion. 
  24. ↑ Marshallsumter (19 October 2022). Which one is you?. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 21 December 2022. All or nearly all of the users at Wikiversity 10-15 years ago are contributors listed in the "View history" of the Wikiversity:Main Page. Which one is you? 
  25. ↑ a b c d 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. 
  26. ↑ a b Kaldari (25 September 2011). Dominant group. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 21 December 2022. I haven't argued that Dominant group is out of scope because it's disruptive, I'm arguing that it's out of scope because it has no educational value. Indeed it has no value to anyone other than Marshallsumter. 
  27. ↑ a b c d e f g Kaldari (24 September 2011). Dominant group. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 21 December 2022. As to the educational value, I see no possible educational value for this research. "Dominant group" is one of the most straight-forward, non technical phrases in the English language. Its meaning is obvious and consistent. You might as well be researching the phrase "red wagon" or "comfortable chair". The only purpose of this "research" is to further pursue an argument on English Wikipedia that is already settled. 
  28. ↑ a b c d e f g Kaldari (20 April 2010). Information and misinformation. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 21 December 2022. So in your opinion, there is no line between information and misinformation? What exactly does the word "educational" mean to you? At what point does a string of words become educational in your view? False information presented as science is not educational. Religious propaganda is not educational. Rules for drinking games are not educational. This project should aspire to be more than simply the dumping ground for everything that is rejected from other Wikimedia projects. 
  29. ↑ Omphalographer (19 October 2022). [v:Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Pervasive_copyright_violations_by_User:Marshallsumter#Discussion Use anything you find online]. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 21 December 2022. If you conducted any search for free content before uploading these images, that search was clearly so cursory as to be entirely ineffectual. For example, your upload of File:Earth_Shells_to_Scale.png somehow overlooked File:Earth-crust-cutaway-english.svg, which presents substantially the same information and was visible on the enwiki article "Earth" on the day you uploaded the image. (And no, even if you preferred some detail of the other image's presentation, that isn't sufficient reason to reject the freely licensed content and substitute a piece of non-free media.) 
  30. ↑ a b Marshallsumter (19 October 2022). [v:Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Pervasive_copyright_violations_by_User:Marshallsumter#Discussion USGS image]. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 21 December 2022. The USGS image that I used is to scale and accurately represents the inner structure of the Earth for the purposes with which it has been used. I did not overlook the image you show. File:Earth-crust-cutaway-english.svg isn't accurate. 
  31. ↑ Omphalographer (16 November 2022). [v:Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Pervasive_copyright_violations_by_User:Marshallsumter#Discussion Reuploading deleted image]. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 21 December 2022. Where does that put us with regards to further uploads by Marshallsumter, though? It appears that he's simply reuploading some of the images that were deleted, like File:1_2_Crystal_tcm14-406719.jpg and File:I-love-a-mystery-original.jpg. 
  32. ↑ Marshallsumter (18 November 2022). [v:User_talk:Marshallsumter#Ongoing_Violations_of_WMF_Terms_of_Use_and_Wikiversity_EDP I love a mystery]. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 14 January 2023. File:I-love-a-mystery-original.jpg is still available on the website included and dates from 1945 according to that website so that its copyright has likely expired (1945 + 75 = 2020 per USA copyright law). Other files on this website that are still covered by copyright are clearly marked! 
  33. ↑ a b Kaldari (15 March 2010). didn't integrate successfully. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 21 December 2022. It's also somewhat disturbing that many of the most active editors here are refugees from other WikiProjects (where for some reason or another they didn't integrate successfully). 
  34. ↑ a b c d e Omphalographer (18 October 2022). Comply with WV:EDP. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 21 December 2022. Moreover, most of these images are not used in ways which comply with Wikiversity's Exemption Doctrine Policy. The vast majority of them are used in a decorative fashion to illustrate a topic mentioned in the text of a page, not to further any specific educational goal. 
  35. ↑ a b c d e f g h Omphalographer (19 October 2022). [v:Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Pervasive_copyright_violations_by_User:Marshallsumter#Discussion Decoration]. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 21 December 2022. The use of non-free media as decoration is not permitted by Wikiversity's EDP. Declaring that simple decoration is "an educational goal" represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what those educational goals are, and what fair use permits in general. 
  36. ↑ a b c Marshallsumter (22 May 2017). [v:Fair_use/Case_law#Purposes_of_fair_use Purposes of fair use]. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 14 January 2023. 
  37. ↑ a b c d e Omphalographer (19 October 2022). Unique privilege to use non-free content. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 21 December 2022. Wikiversity does not have a unique mandate to create educational content - that is the purpose of the entire Foundation! - and neither does it have any unique privilege to use non-free content in the pursuit of that mission. 
  38. ↑ a b c d e Marshallsumter (23 December 2022). Total number of combinations. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 14 January 2023. There are five separate acts of disparagement each by Omphalographer and Kaldari, the total number of combinations is 25 that have now been added to the Coincidence counts. 
  39. ↑ a b c d e Wikipedia editors (7 May 2022). [w:Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria#Policy Wikipedia Policy]. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 14 January 2023. Identification of the source of the original copyrighted material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder, and year of copyright; this is to help determine the material's potential market value. 
  40. ↑ Omphalographer (19 November 2022). [v:User_talk:Omphalographer#Five_astronomy_pages_deleted_or_proposed_for_deletion PPC subpage]. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 14 January 2023. Operating Systems/PPC was me, though. Operating Systems (as well as its twin, Operating systems) is an unusable mess of half-written pages, with most of the important halves missing, which is why I'd like to try to merge any usable content to Operating system and get rid of the rest. The /PPC subpage is entirely useless, though. It's barely even a sentence long, none of the other subpages in the resource mention anything technical about PowerPC, and the topic isn't even particularly relevant to a course on operating systems. PowerPC is a type of computer processor, not an operating system, and it's one which has largely faded out of use after Apple stopped using it in their computers in 2005. I've probably already put more effort into this explanation than the original author did into the page. 
  41. ↑ a b c d Kaldari (7 March 2014). [w:Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive831#Sock_puppetry_by_an_admin Software developer]. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 14 January 2023. 
  42. ↑ a b c Omphalographer (19 December 2022). WikiJournal preprint. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 14 January 2023. A closely related question is what should be done with the (unreviewed) WikiJournal preprint WikiJournal Preprints/Cryometeors, which was part of this group of articles (cf. User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Cryometeors). I've got an open question with the WikiJournal User Group to determine how that group handles abandoned preprints - but this article is likely to be unsuitable for publication anyway, as it's almost entirely composed of quotations. 
  43. ↑ a b c d e f g Kaldari (25 September 2011). Snippets. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 14 January 2023. Works consisting entirely of snippets from other works are not necessarily copyvios. This is why we can have projects like Wikiquote. The standards for such works, however, are necessarily stringent. I'm satisfied at this point, however, that there are no obvious copyright violations remaining in the work. 
  44. ↑ a b Radiation astronomy course. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 8 December 2022. As Brianjd observed, the course is primarily composed of a collage of borrowed images and quotations, with very little original material to bind the course together. It is organized in a fairly haphazard fashion, with most pages starting from a general topic and proceeding to list quotes and images related to that topic without explaining the context or significance of those elements. It frequently digresses into topics which seem to have a tenuous connection to astronomy, like chemistry, geology, meteorology, or even religion. None of this feels conducive to effectively teaching about the topic. 
  45. ↑ a b c d Omphalographer (30 November 2022). Wikiversity's EDP. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 14 January 2023. Wikiversity's EDP (which applies to all content, not just file uploads!) is pretty clear that fair-use content must "significantly increase understanding of the topic", must be non-replaceable, and must be attributed to the author. None of those was the case here - the content I removed was vague, was redundant to the Wikipedia article, and was uncited. 
  46. ↑ Omphalographer (9 December 2022). Mediafire. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 14 January 2023. This page was a learning resource centered around a software application created by the author in 2008. Unfortunately, the application was hosted offsite (on Mediafire), and can no longer be downloaded; the "generator" used to build the application is a dead link as well. With those links dead, the page no longer contains any usable educational content. 
  47. ↑ Kaldari (22 September 2011). Extensive copyright violations. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 16 January 2023. And yes, the dominant group page still includes extensive copyright violations, and not just one sentence ones as claimed by Abd. 
  48. ↑ Kaldari (15 March 2010). Navel gazing. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 21 December 2022. It looks like a bunch of bizarre pet projects, half-implemented ideas, content dumps, and navel gazing. 
  49. ↑ SemperBlotto (11 April 2006). -grapher. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 21 December 2022. "someone who writes about a specified subject, or in a specified manner" is called a -grapher. 
  50. ↑ F Lagrot, P Micheau, M Costagliola, H Toulemonde, F Lazorthes (1968). "Personal experience with omphalography: some anatomical details of the umbilical vein with a view to its catheterization". Mem Acad Chir (Paris) 94 (8): 300–8. PMID 5758574. Retrieved 21 December 2022. "anatomical details of the umbilical vein" is called omphalography. 
  51. ↑ Marshallsumter (21 December 2022). Omphalographer. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Def. someone who writes about the anatomical details of the umbilical vein is called an omphalographer. 
  52. ↑ Mglovesfun (30 August 2013). omphaloscopy. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 21 December 2022. 
  53. ↑ Kwamikagami (21 August 2010). omphaloscopy. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 21 December 2022. 
  54. ↑ Equinox (21 May 2018). omphaloscopy. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 21 December 2022. 
  55. ↑ a b c 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. 
  56. ↑ Kaldari (22 September 2011). Technical term. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 14 January 2023. "Dominant group" is not a technical term in any field, indeed, it is about as straight-forward a phrase as you can find in the English language, and all of the "research" makes that completely apparent. 
  57. ↑ a b Christoph Beat Graber (2005). Christoph Beat Graber, Carlo Govoni, Michael Girsberger, Mira Nenova, ed. Copyright and Access - A Human Rights Perspective, In: Digital Rights Management: The End of Collecting Societies. Bern: Staempfli Publishers. pp. 71–110. Retrieved 2011-09-17. the right of quotation and criticism ... is a basic prerequisite of any journalist's or scientist's works. 
  58. ↑ Trupti More, Vandana Shelar (March 2011). Plagiarism and Copyright Violation: A Need of Information Literacy Framework towards Ethical Use of Information, In: INFLIBNET's Convention Proceedings (PDF). INFLIBNET Centre. ISBN 978-93-81232-01-9. Retrieved 2011-09-17. According to Copyright Law of the United States: ... Short quotations of a copyrighted publication may be reproduced without permission in books, articles, and other publications. This is often interpreted as fewer than 250 words (in total) from a book-length work or less than 5% of a journal article. 
  59. ↑ Omphalgrapher (16 November 2022). No action for a month. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 14 January 2023. What is the status of this discussion? It's been open for nearly a month now with no action. 
  60. ↑ Kaldari (3 September 2011). Bureaucrat on Wikiversity. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 14 January 2023. Well, if it comes down to soliciting help from Meta, I could just temporarily make myself a bureaucrat on Wikiversity and perform the name change (using my staff developer rights). 
  61. ↑ Omphalographer (16 November 2022). Reuploads. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 14 January 2023. Where does that put us with regards to further uploads by Marshallsumter, though? It appears that he's simply reuploading some of the images that were deleted, like File:1_2_Crystal_tcm14-406719.jpg and File:I-love-a-mystery-original.jpg. 
  62. ↑ Dave Braunschweig (17 November 2022). Reuploads. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 14 January 2023. 
  63. ↑ SB Johnny (24 September 2011). Dominant group User:Marshallsumter#Wikiversity 4. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 21 December 2022. I think there's no valid argument here for deletion or exclusion. 
  64. ↑ RubikProxy. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 2 January 2023. Retrieved 14 January 2023. 
  65. ↑ Rubikproxy (2 January 2023). RubikProxy. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 14 January 2023. 
  66. ↑ Rubikproxy (2 January 2023). RubikProxy. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 14 January 2023. 
  67. ↑ MusikAnimal, Kaldari, and Marcel Ruiz Forns (2 January 2023). Pageviews Analysis on Toolforge. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 14 January 2023. 

Possible checkuser history

See Steward requests/Checkuser/2017-09: Sci-fi-@en.wikiversity and LadyDragoner@en.wikiversity.

See Steward_requests/Checkuser/2022-11#Omphalographer@en.wikiversity: No other accounts, no history on the CU logs for the underlying IPs, and nothing particularly suspicious. -- Amanda (she/her) 20:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC).

See Steward_requests/Checkuser/2022-12#Omphalographer@en.wikiversity

Comments from Kaldari and associated with Kaldari

Comments are in approximate present to past chronology. The IP 216.38.130.163 is an IRC for guests of the WMF. Kaldari may use internet access at or very near museums visited to study spiders.

Commons

  1. "Drawing from a 13th-century manuscript of Pseudo-Apuleius's Herbarium, depicting a pregnant woman in repose, while another holds some pennyroyal in one hand and prepares a concotion using a mortar and pestle with the other." Kaldari 01:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC) and "Drawing from a 13th-century manuscript of Pseudo-Apuleius's Herbarium, depicting a pregnant woman in repose, while another holds some pennyroyal in one hand and prepares a concoction using a mortar and pestle with the other. Pennyroyal was historically used as an herbal abortifacient." 216.38.130.163 18:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC), url=https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Medievalpreg.jpg&diff=47327574&oldid=47271834.

Meta-Wiki

  1. "Hello. I regret to inform you that, in accordance with Meta:Administrators/Removal and as a result of making less than 10 edits in the last 6 months, administrator rights have been removed from your account. The relevant part of the policy reads: "Users who have made fewer than ten edits in the six months immediately prior to the designated removal date (April 1 or October 1) are desysopped without notice." Please see Meta:Administrators/Removal/October 2021 for details. You are free to re-apply for adminship again by submitting a new request for adminship. Kind regards," —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC), url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kaldari&oldid=22150107#Notice_of_removal_of_adminship.

Wikiversity

  1. "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.
  2. "No, Marshallsumter was actually banned for pervasive copyright violations (and refusing to help meaningfully address the issue). His "research project" only exacerbated the problem. I have no objection to Abd welcoming Marshallsumter. I object to Abd getting involved in issues on a wiki he is banned from, especially if it involves another banned user. I'm not saying this is currently causing disruption, I'm just saying it's a bad idea." Kaldari 06:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC), "Works consisting entirely of snippets from other works are not necessarily copyvios. This is why we can have projects like Wikiquote. The standards for such works, however, are necessarily stringent. I'm satisfied at this point, however, that there are no obvious copyright violations remaining in the work." Kaldari 06:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC), "I haven't argued that Dominant group is out of scope because it's disruptive, I'm arguing that it's out of scope because it has no educational value. Indeed it has no value to anyone other than Marshallsumter." Kaldari 06:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC), url=https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kaldari&diff=prev&oldid=784634.
  3. "The copyright concerns have mostly been dealt with it seems. As to the educational value, I see no possible educational value for this research. "Dominant group" is one of the most straight-forward, non technical phrases in the English language. Its meaning is obvious and consistent. You might as well be researching the phrase "red wagon" or "comfortable chair". The only purpose of this "research" is to further pursue an argument on English Wikipedia that is already settled." Kaldari 18:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC), url=https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion&direction=next&oldid=784380.
  4. "Building an argument for using the term in a technical sense is perfectly valid as academic work. The only similar examples I can think of off-hand are "neurotype" and "sexual identity", but I assume those are enough to make the point. 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.
  5. "The reason I brought this issue to your attention was due to Abd's behavior. User:Marshallsumter caused massive disruption on the English Wikipedia, resulting in the deletion of about 200 articles and the loss of countless editor hours of work. See w:User:Marshallsumter disrupting Wikipedia for "research" purposes. Abd's offer to help him get unbanned from the project is completely inappropriate, especially coming from someone that is also banned from the same project. Everyone here insists that Wikiversity is not a haven for disruptive editors who have been banned elsewhere. But here we have an editor, Marshallsumter, who's only contribution to Wikiversity is a "research project" to continue an argument on English Wikipedia that was settled 2 months ago and which he can no longer pursue there due to being banned. And we have Abd, who is also banned from English Wikipedia offering him advice on how to get unbanned from the project and encouraging his "research" here (as a custodian no less). This is exactly the type of behavior that has resulted in previous calls for the Wikiversity project to be closed entirely. As one of the few people here who is trying to do legitimate research, I would hate to see the project closed, but if it means that such cross-wiki disruption could be put to an end, I would gladly support it. Make no mistake, Wikiversity has an image problem, rightfully or not, and Abd is actively making it worse. If no is willing to raise this issue with Abd besides myself, I would question the purpose and efficacy of him having a mentor." Kaldari 19:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC), url=https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Draicone&oldid=784639#User:Marshallsumter.
  6. "Marshallsumter's Dominant group project is not a real research project. As far as I can tell, it's an experiment to see if total nonsense made to look like actual research will be accepted on Wikiversity - it even self-referentially hints at this possibility several times in the text. Marshall also created dozens of nonsense articles on en.wiki before he was banned: Egalitarian mortality, Heterointegration, Repellor vehicle, Radiative dynamo, Abstract concept generator(!), etc. In all of these cases, the articles were simply cobbled together from text in other articles or text copied from various academic journals. On the surface they looked like well-researched Wikipedia articles, but if you actually bothered to read them, they were basically nonsense. Same for Dominant group here on Wikiversity. If you actually read the entire page, it is quite evident that this "research project" is extremely elaborate nonsense. The project purports to investigate the usage and meaning of the term "dominant group" in various academic disciplines. "Dominant group" is not a technical term in any field, indeed, it is about as straight-forward a phrase as you can find in the English language, and all of the "research" makes that completely apparent. At one point, he lists 3 possible explanations for the research project in the project text itself: 1. The project is total nonsense and a hoax; 2. The project author is completely naive; 3. The project is a waste of time and effort. In both this case and the nonsense articles on en.wiki he is basically repeating the famous Sokal hoax, but with a web 2.0 twist. On en.wiki, this was eventually realized and repaired. Here, however, we have accepted it with great enthusiasm (at least from Abd). I worry this will turn out to be another embarrassment for the project." Kaldari 21:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC) and "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. Either way, I don't see any use for it. And the fact that the author was not willing to defend their articles at AfD on en.wiki also makes me quite skeptical of their purpose. And yes, the dominant group page still includes extensive copyright violations, and not just one sentence ones as claimed by Abd." Kaldari 21:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC), url=https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Colloquium&oldid=783696#Hoax_content_on_Wikiversity?.
  7. "Although User:Marshallsumter was ostensibly banned from en.wikipedia for copyright violations, I'm much more concerned with his Wikiversity "experiment" (which used English Wikipedia as a testbed) and its ramifications and ethics. (See User:Marshallsumter disrupting Wikipedia for "research" purposes for more background.) I don't want to see a repeat of the "Ethical breaching experiments" debacle. I'm especially concerned that Abd is actively encouraging Marshall's activities: "I see you have been blocked on WP. Not terribly surprising. Piece of advice: don't try to make sense of it. If you want to, you can probably get unblocked there. If you want advice, ask me." It's one thing to argue that Wikiversity is autonomous and can welcome users banned elsewhere; it's another thing entirely to offer them advice and encouragement on how to continue their disruptions elsewhere. I would appreciate it if you would look into this situation. Thank you." Kaldari 18:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC) and "The "ethical breaching" page was of an entirely different character (have a look by hitting the preview button of that diff), in that it was or the most part documenting a trend that was going on at the time, and organized on WR. M.S. seems to have been doing a different sort of research (more or less crowdsourcing the perceived definition of "dominant group" as a technical term). Abd himself has a userpage documenting his own block evasions on WP. I'd prefer not to get particularly involved with this if it becomes a dispute... perhaps you (and Abd) can open a discussion about these issues on the Colloquium rather than on my talk page?" --SB_Johnny talk 19:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC), url=https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SB_Johnny&oldid=783661.
  8. "Just capitalize the S, no other changes. I'll go ahead and inform him. Thanks for taking care of this!" 216.38.130.163 02:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)" and "Just capitalize the S, no other changes. I'll go ahead and inform him. Thanks for taking care of this!" Kaldari 02:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC), url=https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SB_Johnny&diff=next&oldid=773283.
  9. "Nice. I didn't even know we had a Topic:Arachnology page :)" 216.38.130.163 20:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC) and "Nice. I didn't even know we had a Topic:Arachnology page :)" Kaldari 20:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC), url=https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kaldari&diff=prev&oldid=770266.
  10. "Hello Abd. I recently started collaborating with some arachnologists to write an article about Recently discovered exotic jumping spiders (Araneae: Salticidae) from Massachusetts. In the middle of our work, however, you moved the page to the User space of one of the collaborators. Could you explain the purpose of this move and why the article is not acceptable in Main space? Isn't collaborating on original research within the scope of Wikiversity? Also, the person you left the comment for isn't going to understand a word of it, as he didn't create the article and has never used Wikiversity before today. I would appreciate it if you would discuss such moves either on the article talk page or with the article creator (me) before unilaterally taking action." Kaldari 21:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC), "I went ahead and moved the article back since regardless of whether it belongs in Main space or not, it certainly doesn't belong in Gristwik's User space." Kaldari 21:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC), "I re-moved it to my own User space for the time being." Kaldari 21:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC), "Well, if it comes down to soliciting help from Meta, I could just temporarily make myself a bureaucrat on Wikiversity and perform the name change (using my staff developer rights). Of course, since I don't always get along with all the admins here (due to their reluctance to reign in trouble-makers), that might be a bad idea. So on second thought, nevermind. Better to avoid the drama :)" Kaldari 00:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC), "Ha, well, present company excluded! :) The main problems I've known about are users using Wikiversity as a way to work around restrictions on other projects, i.e. to continue campaigns of stalking, harassment, or disruption "outside the reach of the law" so to speak. Some of the admins on Wikiversity have taken a defensive stance rather than a proactive stance in many of these cases, which only makes the problem worse, as a perception has developed that Wikiversity is a "safe-haven" for users exiled from other projects. As to the view that there are only problematic behaviors, and not problematic users, as a long-time OTRS volunteer and someone who works half the year under the WMF community department, I have to say that isn't always true. Although the vast majority of "problem users" are just editors with an axe to grind or a chip on their shoulder, we do have a few people that seem likely to be actually mentally ill and unlikely to be reformable. Luckily, these are rare exceptions to the rule. Anyway, sorry for the rant. Back to work." Kaldari 02:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC), and "Wow, this whole time I had no idea you were also banned from English Wikipedia. Is there a single active editor on Wikiversity that isn't banned from English Wikipedia? No wonder you don't care about moving articles without discussion. Looking at your block history it seems you have little patience for discussion and compromise, and prefer to act unilaterally. For the sake of Wikiversity, however, I hope my assessment turns out to be wrong." Kaldari 23:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC), url=https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abd&oldid=769262#Page_move.
  11. "Hello Sebmol, I have a very minor username change request. I convinced a friend of mine who is a curator at a museum to create a Wikiversity account and try editing an article. He created the account User:Dr.salticid earlier today, but would like it changed to User:Dr.Salticid (with a capital S). Unfortunately, he couldn't just create a new account with the different capitalization because MediaWiki complained that it was too similar to the existing account. I'm making the request on his behalf since he is a total newbie and already feels a bit put off by the difficult user interface of MediaWiki. I'm afraid making him jump through more hoops will leave him with a totally bad experience. I know this is unorthodoxed, but considering the circumstances and the very minor nature of the change, I hope it is acceptable. Thanks for your help!" Kaldari 20:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC), url=https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sebmol&diff=prev&oldid=768468.
  12. "And you believe that if Poetlister were blocked from Wikiversity, he wouldn't take up residence at some other obscure Wikimedia project?" Kaldari 07:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC) and "I'll ignore the threat. Ironically, I actually use Wikiversity, which is why I think it's so disappointing that it's become the preferred hangout for Wikimedia trolls." Kaldari 07:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC), url=https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Colloquium&oldid=759682#Meta_RFC:_global_ban_for_poetlister.
  13. "Wikiversity contains two very different types of content: resources for learning (teaching curriculums, language tutorials, introductions to various fields of study); and original research (some of which includes pseudoscience, fringe science, emerging science, philosophical arguments, etc.). Unfortunately, there is no line drawn between the two and indeed much of the original research goes to great lengths to present itself as mainstream resources for learning. In a real university, original research would require peer review before being published to the masses and presented as legitimate information. Here, we hawk the snake oil right along side the medicine. Are there any plans to set up any type of quality-control system within Wikiversity? Do we really want teachers coming here and teaching their students about the God Gene, the "Myth of Mental Illness", drinking games, cold fusion, and the like? If so, how can anyone take us seriously as an educational resource?" Kaldari 21:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC) and "So in your opinion, there is no line between information and misinformation? What exactly does the word "educational" mean to you? At what point does a string of words become educational in your view? False information presented as science is not educational. Religious propaganda is not educational. Rules for drinking games are not educational. This project should aspire to be more than simply the dumping ground for everything that is rejected from other Wikimedia projects." Kaldari 22:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC), url=https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Colloquium&oldid=561400#Differentiating_between_learning_resources_and_original_research.
  14. "Delete. These are not "useful learning resources", these are fringe theories and original research presented as established science. While original research is allowed on Wikiversity, it needs to be identified as such, not passed off as mainstream science. Otherwise we are only creating confusion for people actually trying to learn physics." Kaldari 20:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC), url=https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion&diff=583949&oldid=583947.
  15. "I find it ironic that you criticize Jimbo's blocking of Privatemusing as heavy-handed, but you have no problem blocking me solely for criticizing the project. It makes all the cries of "censorship" seem a bit hollow." Kaldari 19:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC) and "Criticizing the current state of Wikiversity is not a breach of civility. I did not criticize anyone in particular, and I even offered suggestions for how I thought the project could be improved. If this is grounds for blocking (without even a warning), I do believe Wikiversity needs to do some serious soul-searching." Kaldari 19:52, 5 April 2010 (OTC), url=https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kaldari&oldid=555174.
  16. "Changing the mission statement isn't going to help so long as the troll-to-legitimate-editor ratio is out of whack. This project should ban users who are banned from other projects and are known to have a history of trolling. They are not here to legitimately contribute to the project." Kaldari 15:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC) and "I would also suggest strongly liberalizing the deletion criteria here. At least on the English Wikiversity, 90% of the content is complete rubbish." Kaldari 15:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC), url=https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Rebooting_Wikiversity&oldid=555113.
  17. "Until I saw this, I thought the idea of shutting down Wikiversity was too extreme, but now I am 100% convinced. This particular asylum seems to have been taken over by the inmates." Kaldari 14:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC), url=https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity_open_letter_project/WMF_Board_March_2010&oldid=555081.
  18. "Is anyone actually using Wikiversity to do anything useful? It looks like a bunch of bizarre pet projects, half-implemented ideas, content dumps, and navel gazing. It's also somewhat disturbing that many of the most active editors here are refugees from other WikiProjects (where for some reason or another they didn't integrate successfully)." Kaldari 20:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC) and "Thanks for the examples. I'm glad to see people actually using this project for educational purposes. My main hope for Wikiversity would be to improve the signal to noise ratio. Right now it's hard to find any legitimately useful resources when browsing through the portal guides due to the huge number of questionable, unfinished, or poorly developed resources. Anyone coming here looking for useful learning materials on a particular topic or for a particular age group is probably going to leave in frustration. Wikiversity should really set some kind of minimum bar for inclusion in a portal. It doesn't necessarily have to be full-blown peer review, but at least some sort of cursory vetting process." Kaldari 22:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC), url=https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kaldari&oldid=544810.
  19. "there is never a "good reason" to encourage disruptive editing of Wikiversity or its sister projects" Kaldari 18:13, 15 March 2010 (OTC), url=https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Deletions&diff=prev&oldid=544733.
  20. "Research related to other Wikimedia projects should be limited to observational research only. Wikiversity is not a staging area for conducting "experiments" on sister projects." Kaldari 16:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC), url=https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Original_research&diff=prev&oldid=544410.
  21. "This breaching project should have been deleted on sight and the editors involved banned as trolls. Where are the Wikiversity admins and why are they not protecting the integrity of this project? The fact that Jimbo had to intervene is a sad commentary on the diligence of the admins here. It is especially troubling to see that two of the main people defending the breaching project, darklama and SB Johnny, are administrators here. Ottava is to be commended for at least objecting to the most blatantly problematic aspects of this project. I don't understand her reluctance, however, to delete the rest of it, nor the lack of any action by the other admins here to put an end to such trolling." Kaldari 15:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC), url=https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Community_Review/Wikimedia_Ethics:Ethical_Breaching_Experiments&oldid=544399.

Wikipedia

  1. Regarding w:user:Vox Brevis, "This account is a sockpuppet of Kaldari (talk · contribs · logs), and has been blocked indefinitely. Please refer to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive831#Sock puppetry by an admin for evidence.", w:User:Vox_Brevis.
  2. "Just to confirm, Kaldari's admin rights were removed this morning and the SPA User:Vox Brevis was blocked indefinitely a couple of days ago." WaggersTALK 09:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC), w:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive831#Sock_puppetry_by_an_admin.
  3. A "Checkuser was used to identify me as the source of the sockpuppet account. Once it was clear that I had been associated with the account, I decided to out myself and resign my administrator tools. I did not speak with anyone from ArbCom directly prior to posting the statement, although according to Beeblebrox, the ArbCom was already aware of the identity of the account at that time. As there was a good chance that my identity would be publicly revealed at some point, it would be fair to say that I reported the sockpuppet due to being discovered, regardless of the fact that no one had actually threatened to out me." Kaldari (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC), w:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive831#Sock_puppetry_by_an_admin.

Wiktionary

  1. Etymology omphalo- +‎ -scopy, literally "the contemplation of one's navel", url=https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/omphaloscopy.
  2. "navel-gazing (countable and uncountable, plural navel-gazings)", "Contemplation of one's navel as an aid to meditation.", "Synonyms: navel-watching, omphaloskepsis (derogatory) Excessive focus on oneself; self-indulgent introspection", omphaloskepsis (sometimes derogatory) (Disproportionate) concentration on a single issue.", url=https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/navel-gazing.
  3. See under section "Wikiversity", point 18.

Comments from Omphalographer or associated with v:user:Omphalographer

See v:User contributions for Omphalographer, url=https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Omphalographer&target=Omphalographer&offset=&limit=500.

  1. Several contributions appear to involve software development.

Special pages

  1. Special:CentralAuth
此頁的內容是位於 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Marshallsumter 的全域用戶頁面。
取自 "https://zh.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Marshallsumter"