Wikiversity:Community Review/Marshallsumter

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Collaboration with Globally Banned User

[edit source]
Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.


This community review is being opened in response to troubling edits by User:Marshallsumter, working in collaboration with a globally banned user.

In October 2018, User Projects/George Reeves Person was globally banned from participating in all Wikimedia projects. See meta:List of globally banned users.

In November and December 2018, User:Marshallsumter collaborated with George Reeves Person on multiple resources. For a history of these edits, refer to:

In February and March 2019, User:Marshallsumter again collaborated with George Reeves Person on multiple resources. For a history of these edits, refer to:

While this collaboration has been long suspected, it has been difficult to prove until two edits were posted today. Refer to:

There are multiple individuals who can confirm that the abuse log post and Wikisource post are consistent with edits and harassment from George Reeves Person. Any custodian can view the deleted edits from the Undelete links above to confirm the same.

Based on today's confirmation from the globally banned user, I am seeking immediate removal of custodian rights from User:Marshallsumter, followed by discussion regarding any other appropriate sanctions, including a timed or indefinite block from editing Wikiversity.

For any users participating in this community review who do not have access to the linked resources, please contact a custodian you trust and have them confirm the information for you. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the content posted by George Reeves Person, it is not possible to make this content public. The reason the user was globally banned is based on the intensity of his attacks across multiple Wikimedia projects.

Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions I, II, III, & Summary

Removal of Rights

[edit source]

Discussion I

[edit source]

All of the above matters were discussed with the Wikimedia Foundation’s Trust & Safety team starting on 17 April 2019 including subsequent apparent attacks against me for refusing to block Dave Braunschweig for his efforts against the WMF banned user. The Trust & Safety team provided me with a source for the WMF Ban against these boxing fans or the so-called George Reeves person and I've cooperated with them fully since. This matter has been settled. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for confirming your collaboration with a banned global user. Any Trust and Safety discussions would be for WMF Office implementation. This a Wikiversity discussion that now has public evidence to proceed. It's up to this community to decide whether the matter is closed, and whether you still retain the trust and support of the community. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 03:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above matters were not collaboration but concern editing initially a talk page with references confirming valid boxing history facts. I also received expressed written permission from the sculpturers of the Rocky Marciano statue and the photographer of the statue to include the statue, pictures, and it's history and construction on the above listed pages. These were then edited by this apparent group of boxing history fans and were protected by me to confirmed users only which prevented further disruptive editing. Dave subsequently deleted the pages which was apparently what the WMF banned user wanted. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the best possible outcome? How can we get there? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtneill: As with all ethics violations, the best possible outcome is for the violation to have never occurred. That's not an option now. What we are left with instead is a choice of whether an ethics violation that has clearly had a net negative effect on Wikiversity will be addressed or ignored. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am having trouble following the trail of evidence. It is much more difficult to study the history of deleted pages. But if this custodian deliberately encouraged this globally banned person, then we do have a problem.-Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 02:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See the "View history" for my Discuss page from about 1 October 2018 to 9 May 2019. User names to check are redlinked but not ThaniosAkro. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy vandegrift: The trail is much easier to follow than the edit history suggests. Marshallsumter extensively edited content on behalf of a globally banned user. There is both private and now public evidence documenting that this effort was undertaken in collaboration with the globally banned user. This collaboration is also documented on User_talk:Marshallsumter by the absence of disruptive posts between 12 August 2018 and 14 March 2019, and the outrage shown by the banned user once the collaboration was forced to end and the supporting content deleted. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've spent some time reviewing the suggested Wikiversity edit histories, so it is making more sense, but agree with @Guy vandegrift: that it is not easy to piece together. As I understand it: @Dave Braunschweig:'s view is that Marshallsumter deliberately collaborated with a global banned user who used sockpuppets in creating Wikiversity content that has since been deleted (Nov-Dec 2018, Feb-Mar 2019), whereas @Marshallsumter:'s view is that this involvement was innocent/well-intended and that he took appropriate actions. Is that the essence of it? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 20:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtneill: Yes, that's the essence of the publicly available information as described so far. Although, if you read the detail of the sockpuppet edits, there is certainly the impression that the sockpuppet believed he was receiving collaborative assistance from Marshallsumter, and the sockpuppet became extremely abusive when that assistance was cut off. There is separate private information that leaves no doubt Marshallsumter was aware that supporting this user was neither innocent nor well-intended, and yet the support continued for months afterwards. I'm happy to share that information off-wiki with anyone any trusted user who requests. It can't be made public because it details real-world identities and illegal, abusive activities. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 21:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Dave Braunschweig:. @Marshallsumter: could you elaborate further about the nature of your interaction with the global banned user and related Wikimedia activity? Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rockystatue.png --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 14:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Marshallsumter: Three questions about c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rockystatue.png:
1. Did you know or suspect that Lubekwandastatue was a probably sock of the banned user?
I agreed with Hedwig. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC) For the record Lubekwandastatue was declared a sock of the banned on 19:57, 12 January 2019 by Hedwig in Washington--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 17:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add that if Hedwig states such then because I know Hedwig's work on Commons well then it became a fact to me that Lubekwandastatue was determined presumably by Checkuser to be linked in some way to this George Reeves person. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I checked Hedwig's wording, he used "a copycat / sockpuppet" so Checkuser may not have been involved and Lubekwandastatue may not be this George Reeves person. He also added "I'll leave a note on the category page, but I doubt that the sockmaster or his cronies care about a note." Apparently they are not the same user! At any rate the image could not stay on Commons because of the Sculpturers' statement of Educational use. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. Were you aware of a request to refrain from editing the WV page where this image was placed?
There was no such request that I'm aware of. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. Were there any other interactions with the banned user (either on or off-wiki?)
Given the need to protect user identities, it would be best to answer the question about off-wiki interactions with a "Yes" or "No". We can use private emails to sort out the details if necessary--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - this matter has been settled! I believe the use of private emails here is inappropriate independent of their content. As I recall the only interactions on-wiki pertain to this photograph or in the records above. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Marshallsumter: The matter is not settled with this community, and it is clear from your response that there were off-wiki interactions with the banned user. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 17:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rockystatue.png and the agreement with Hedwig indicated above, Marshallsumter knew in January that all efforts related to this statue were in support of the banned user. Therefore, all contributions to Special:Undelete/Arts and Special:Undelete/Sculpture in February and March were clear and publicly-documented ethics violations resulting in persistent harassment and having a net-negative effect on Wikiversity. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 17:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, these efforts were to see if it would be possible to place these images on Commons or Wikiversity in support of my efforts to bring the facts to Wikiversity about Rocky Marciano and the Statue. In case you missed it: "According to Google image search, this image, one on wikiwand at http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Rocky_Marciano (cache), and in Gallery 5 at https://rockymarcianowines.com/to-brockton/ are a match. Copyright holder (photographer) so far not mentioned. Unknown whether copyright excludes commercial use. Photo taken at ceremony of unveiling of statue 23 September 2012. Contacted winery for possible answers. --Marshallsumter (talk) 13:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)" All my efforts predate the edits by the George Reeves person sock puppet identified by Hedwig except when I added my content from the email to the sculpturers. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Marshallsumter: My email records for December 2018 show an email requesting that no edits be made on the Boxing page due to issues with the banned user. Did you get any such messages on or about that time?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 19:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've got nothing on that. My edits in December on or before 12 December 2018 were to add the subpages I created for Oliver Kirk and Rocky Marciano and to insert the word "Draft:" in front of the link to Sports. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Marshallsumter: I wasn't talking about edits. I was asking about emails requesting you to stop editing certain pages.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 08:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion II

[edit source]

I'm confused as to Marshallsumter's motivation here in assisting a user who is globally banned, clearly unconstructive in their editing and interactions, and actively disruptive on and off-wiki. Whether or not it was Marshallsumter's intention to assist that user, it has caused huge difficulty and disruption to several members of the wikiversity community. I don't think it is only hindsight that is showing how escalatory that user was, so upholding the global ban should have been obvious at the time. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 05:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See [1]. We are all still dealing with the impact of this collaboration. What are we going to do about it? -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 21:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I've suppressed the revision Dave has linked due to the nature of the comments presented by "George Reeves Person". If any trustable user would like to to view this revision with good intentions in mind, feel free to email me asking for it. Thanks. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 16:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Set the protect to your talk page to auto-confirmed users only for some time! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 21:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just protecting the talkpage is a short-term patch to a problem that has spilt over to multiple pages as well as off-wiki. It also has the potential to easily continue or flare up again, so it's important to know that there is no chance of supporting or engaging with that user (or obvious sock-puppets). I guess my question is: why did we get to this point, since that determines how we avoid getting to the same point again. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 02:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We also need clear and unanimously understood rules as to how to deal with any such events that come up in the future.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to revert this modification of the discussion, but the signature timestamps are out of order because we have two entirely different issues: (1) actions and (2) motivation. Both are important, so I created a new discussion thread called "Discussion II".--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion III

[edit source]
  • Leaning towards Support unless more cogent explanation for actions can be provided by Marshallsumter. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you elaborate a bit on what you mean by "more cogent explanations for actions"? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 05:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes e.g., see #Discussion and #Discussion II. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope this helps even though some is repetitive: The reason we got to this point has nothing to do with me! From looking at various page histories, it appears to have started back in about 2015 when Dave Braunschweig began deleting contributions from this apparent group of boxing history fans from Boxing and Martial arts pages. Let's say you are a boxing history fan and especially of Rocky Marciano. You'd like to put the facts you know on Wikiversity. As a group you and your friends have been contributing to various WMF projects since 2005. Sometimes your edits get reversed sometimes they don't. You've contributed to articles on Wikipedia and Simple Wikipedia such as Boxing. Some of your efforts have been successful. When you come to Wikiversity, your edits get reversed by Dave Braunschweig who labels you a spammer and a vandal. How would that make you feel? While the anger that might generate may be contained, maybe not. So you begin to try more often. Maybe you get blocked, so you revert to sock puppets (easily identified as you, i.e. not illegal sock puppets). But each time you try you get labeled the same a spammer and a vandal. That's how we got to this point! These users or this user (I don't know how many are involved) has gotten very angry at Dave Braunschweig. As their efforts escalated they may have gotten banned by stewards (a global ban). Here at Wikiversity we have a long history of making our own judgements regarding users whether they've gotten banned on other WMF projects or even here. We ask were they treated appropriately. Were they mistreated for being bold and hopefully not reckless. But most importantly were they mistreated for entering factual information whether attributable but unattributed or with references. I entered this mess in November of 2018 after I checked up on some of their statements and found them to be factual and provided references on the Boxing talk page. All harassive editing by the group stopped here! Because I checked out what they wrote and verified it! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 05:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Consider Dave's accusation of an ethics breach. It sure looks like I made a horrible one. When I checked up on what these "George Reeves persons" were putting on our pages I was expecting to agree with Dave. Something similar happened years ago with a group of about 14 volleyball players who'd chosen Wikiversity to host their high school project studying the history of International Women's volleyball competition. Their sources checked out too! No one here actually recognized what they were doing and initially I didn't either so per Dave's request for help I put a prod on one of their resources which Abd reversed and asked me to look more closely at what was really going on. They appeared to be misunderstood. They were getting blocked and some of their work which they needed for a grade was being deleted. Their high school adviser approved their project and efforts but did not contact Wikiversity to let us know as a courtesy. The reasons they were being blocked all stemmed from how they were treated here. The steward who was blocking them later resigned as a steward for personal reasons likely unrelated to my efforts here. The students finished their project primarily through Abd's efforts to help them. And, I was able to verify what they were doing and why. We had another possible ethics breach regarding Shustov an adjunct professor from California putting in photographs of himself and claiming he had the copyright. He verified that he did even though he was the one being photographed. Dave apparently refused to accept it even though it was true so Shustov left. These boxing users are retaliatory. They appear to be at war with the WMF and its projects, except for a brief period here. I do believe there has been an ethics breach here but I believe it was not made by me! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 07:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Marshallsumter: It doesn't help your cause to insinuate that others are making an ethics breach, especially when it seems to many of us that your problem with the WMF isn't a matter of ethics but judgement.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 09:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First of all thanks for agreeing my efforts aren't "a matter of ethics". And, I don't have a problem with the WMF. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 11:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Responding:

  1. The issues with the banned user go back to 2004 with attacks on Jimbo Wales and Wikipedia. This has been a problem on and off ever since. The user has abused multiple accounts on Wikiversity going back at least as far as 2012. See Special:Undelete/Boxing for examples.
  2. There is no group of boxing history fans. Only a single, prolific sock puppet. To suggest otherwise, in spite of involvement by stewards, check-users, and WMF, documents a lack of understanding and appreciation necessary to hold this trusted position.
  3. The recent explanations of Marshallsumter above document intentional acts supporting a banned user over a fellow custodian and bureaucrat. These intentional acts have resulted in persistent harassment, personal attacks, and a net negative effect on Wikiversity. The only question remaining is whether or not this is also "per community consensus".

Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 17:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1. Just a small point regarding Boxing: User:HappyCamper deleted page Boxing (cross wiki spam) 06:01, 8 January 2012 and Shustov began a new page in 2014 before User:Boxwears2 edited on 1 June 2015, so anyone looking at the page history would only have been aware of User:Boxwears2 as I described. User:Adanys was not blocked according to the Block Log so probably is not a sock puppet for User:Boxwears2. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 23:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2. I don't know how many people are involved here but there is or was a Jan Lubek and he had a grandmother with the name(s) indicated. The World Boxing Commission did acknowledge his efforts regarding the statue. So either someone, perhaps Jan Lubek is this George Reeves person or someone is cleverly imitating them all. Worse, several people may be editing similarly to hide their identities collectively. Check user can look at IPs, usernames, locations, etc. but for living people is not supposed to connect IP to a user name, even someone who may have committed suicide around 1960 (George Reeves). It's a serious liability issue. People can be connected to another user through the Duck test and that can be sufficient reason to conclude they are the George Reeves person. Steward Basadowski did that several times without being or using check user. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 23:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3. No! From about 4 November 2018 to past mid-March 2019 that's about 4.5 months to my knowledge there were no attacks by this banned user(s) on Wikiversity including to Dave Braunschweig --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 23:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Marshallsumter: There is only one user. His real-world identity is known and documented, as are significant details about his background that verify that it is only one user. The harassment here has been ongoing since May 2018, and is documented by police reports in multiple jurisdictions. You apparently have no idea how much real-world damage has been caused and how many people have been impacted, but your continued efforts to minimize and redirect do nothing except enhance the case against you. See Wikipedia:Law of holes. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Thank you for acknowledging "You apparently have no idea how much real-world damage has been caused and how many people have been impacted". So if you don't mind my asking: what started the harassment that has been ongoing since May 2018? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Marshallsumter: I do mind. I can't tell you on-wiki, and I already explained it off-wiki in November and December. Having no idea in this case is not a good place to be. It confirms that you cannot be trusted to act in the best interests of the community. I see no benefit to continuing the discussion and risking any additional impact. I've heard enough and confirmed everything necessary for the vote. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 00:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On-wiki: "22:18, 6 May 2018 . . Dave Braunschweig (discuss | contribs | block) m 1,303 bytes (Protected "Boxing": Excessive vandalism ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 22:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)) [Move=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 22:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC))))". Well, there's this. Anything on-wiki is okay so "Having no idea in this case is not a good place to be." is incorrect. "It confirms that you cannot be trusted to act in the best interests of the community." Well, if it's incorrect and it is, then it is a good place to be. And, does confirm that I can be trusted to act in the best interests of the community. Sorry to raise this issue regarding a "troublesome, banned user" but perhaps accurate boxing facts are not vandalism and are in the best interests of the community if we're not mistreating a "troublesome, banned user". After all we've had successes dealing with at least one "troublesome, banned user" in the past. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 17:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've had to deal with this troll on Wikibooks and Wikiversity. I also have received emails about a "forgotten password" for my account originating from an IP in Chicago, which I believe it is him (according to information that I already have about this vandal). I don't believe that accommodating a troublesome, banned user is any light issue and I fail to see anyone of Marshallsumter's justifications as plausible. I have to admit, though, I may be missing a vital piece of information in this case and I would be delighted if anyone can tell me anything that I've missed (I've been unbelievably busy and had not a lot of time to dwell myself into this issue). Right now I'm siding with a removal of the custodian rights and about a year or so block from Wikiversity. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 16:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What plausible justifications, if any, do you see? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 17:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

[edit source]

There are two reasonable explanations for this collaboration:

  1. Marshallsumter knowingly and deliberately collaborated with a globally banned user in spite of multiple public and private warnings that he was doing so.
  2. Marshallsumter disregarded multiple public and private warnings that he was collaborating with a globally banned user because the warnings were inconsistent with his understanding of the circumstances.

Either of these explanations disqualifies him from a trusted position representing Wikiversity as a custodian. Removing someone as a custodian requires community support and steward action.

(The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dave Braunschweig (talk • contribs) 2:37, 8 October 2019)

Vote to Remove Custodian Rights from Marshallsumter

[edit source]

It is obvious that there is a consistent and growing consensus to remove custodian rights for User:Marshallsumter. The responses to the community questioning why they should have trust in the judgment of a participant who has advanced rights have been confused and persistently evasive. I do not see an alternative outcome regardless of how long this review remains open. I am closing this discussion as support removal of rights.

I agree with the proposer that the removal of rights review should be "followed by discussion regarding any other appropriate sanctions, including a timed or indefinite block from editing Wikiversity." Please contribute your thoughts on this in the Sanctions section below. --mikeu talk 18:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Link to meta request for removal of access. --mikeu talk 20:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal - as involved proposer -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as indicated above the individual editing the resources may not be the banned user any more than the possible copycat or crony on Commons. But the information put of the pages on Wikiversity were shown to be factual and the resources created contain additional information and media allowed here by its creators. The attacks on Wikiversity stopped because of this and began again only because I refrained from blocking Dave Braunschweig without consensus for his potentially libelous comments against the user. We have a long tradition of only going by what a user does here. While I don't condone incivility or retaliation, I believe my solution produced for however short a time the best possible solution. Such contributors need a place to make positive contributions and Wikiversity is it. But, only if possible abuse against them ceases and their retaliatory behavior ceases. Discussions on Meta indicate the unpopularity of WMF Office bans and additional legal measures exist to bring a halt to the retaliation. Our custom here of going by what a user does here is more important than submission to global bans. I reserve the right to question my accusers! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just FYI - there are no results on Wikimedia (Meta-Wiki) regarding connection or ban of User:Martialartists or User:Workinghard2 by Stewards or anyone to any banned/blocked/locked or whatever uncivil or retaliatory user, nor of User:Headbandboxing for edit here on 11 December 2019. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I've been mulling this over. From what I can tell, based on this review and private emails received, this is a messy case. Marshallsumter seems to have diminished trust from at least several Wikiversity users, custodians, and/or bureaucrats as a result of editing boxing-related resources which were also being edited by sock puppet accounts linked to a globally banned user. My understanding is that there was serious off-wiki disruption by the globally banned user and that Marshallsumter was asked to stop editing those boxing related resources in light of the broader situation, but continued. So, while I agree with Marshallsumter about several specifics with regard to the Wikiversity community making its own decisions about users and good faith editing of content, this seems to miss the bigger picture scenario that the global banned user was banned for important reasons and that it likely wasn't particularly helpful in this respect to continue to engage in probable off-wiki interaction and on-wiki editing of the target resources. So, if the community feels trust has been lost, removal of custodian rights seems reasonable. However, I not in favour of an editing block. Marshallsumter continues to make many helpful edits. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just FYI my computer has a spam filter if emails come in from an untrusted source which I designate it goes into spam which is deleted monthly automatically. Off-wiki information that affects my decisions on-wiki must come on-wiki or from the host and did as I indicated. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 12:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with the understanding that Marshallsumter can become a useful member of this community in the future. But instead of "more cogent explanations for actions", I would prefer less explanations and less actions. @Marshallsumter: Dave does lots of things I do not understand. Most recently he informed me that while NC (non-commercial) licensing is allowed of WV files, text with NC is not allowed on mainspace pages. But I would be hurting WV if I wasted Dave's time with this question. So I let it go.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 10:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have supported Dave's efforts regarding spam: "Any undesired electronic content automatically generated for commercial purposes"[1] as well as many of his judgment calls. But these were not spam or vandalism! And, I have wasted perhaps a lot of my time on this matter which is precious to me. I also have no desire to waste anyone's time! Nor do I wish to betray the community's trust, or believe that I did so! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 11:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - there is a great deal of documented problematic decision making here and I have no confidence that we can trust someone who shows such poor judgement. I've reviewed the evidence and I also see that the discussion on this page is going around in circles. The severity of involvment with GRP obviously warrents removal of rights. --mikeu talk 18:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The involvement was not with GRP. A simple Google search allows anyone to know who some of the people involved with this "troublesome, banned user" may have been except with the GRP. The boxing facts put here were verified. Any effort regarding removal of any ban for a "troublesome, banned user" by me, perhaps Jan Lubek, was contingent on retaliation being reduced. This did not occur. Maybe Abd was the only one here who could help a "troublesome, banned user". And that option is being removed here. Psychology, of course, is not one of my areas of expertise and I am a big Rocky Marciano fan! Perhaps I was duped into believing I could turn this "troublesome, banned user" into a valuable contributor or duped myself or I let my emotions get in the way, but even logically it was worth a try. There was likely no error in judgment, no error in emotions, or in logic or ethics. The error perhaps lies with others. I own my mistakes and I make them. It looks like I made a big one here. Perhaps the error here was in believing. After all if we don't believe in people, assume good faith, give them the benefit of the doubt occasionally we could lose our humanity. There is also the possibility of an impersonator of Jan Lubek! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 20:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - Nothing but confusing responses which seems to showcase Marshallsumter's lack of seriousness in this case. I'd also support a 1-4 year block as well. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 23:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just FYI, there are serious legal issues (and laws involved) here that I have to follow. I've attempted to state them but I'm not a lawyer. If you're not sure check with one. While trust is important, these other issues over ride perceived trust and must be followed. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Custodian tools removal. This has been a particularly messy situation, but I don't think it has been handled well by Marshallsumter. This also touches on some pretty deep issues of community safety versus openness. e.g. what to do with suspected sockpuppets, when edit revertions are sufficient or when whole-page deletion is necessary, how that affects good-faith contributors, and how to balance that with community safety (on and off-wiki) in extreme circumstances, and what is the best way to question the decisions? In this case, I think the scorched earth policy of page deletion has been sadly necessary. In cases with extreme community safety aspects, undeletion and interaction with banned users has to be extremely cautious. I don't know how other wikis (e.g. en wikipedia or other language wikiversities) handle similar cases. Larger wikis typically seem better equipped to weather the storm if a topic attracts problematic users. However it seems that there are topics on Wikiversity that have to be treated with extreme caution, not because they are intrinsically problematic (e.g. a slanderous topic) or even attract counter-factual editing (e.g. Parapsychology), but because they happen to be the focus of a problematic user. The current restrictions seem the safest way to avoid disruption on-wiki and greater dangers off-wiki. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 04:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just FYI the protection to "auto-confirmed users only" worked! Scorched-earth policy was not necessary! No free public records (or behind pay walls) exist through using three different search engines regarding any convictions of the GRP with any alias for any crime. Such records must also be readily available! People are innocent unless proven guilty. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 12:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.


Sanctions

[edit source]

Are any other sanctions appropriate including a timed or indefinite block from editing Wikiversity?

Statements

[edit source]

Each participant should create a subsection for your thoughts on the application of sanctions. Others should please refrain from commenting in another community member's section.

Dave Braunschweig
[edit source]

Points for sanctions:

  1. I'll start by stating the obvious. Wikiversity:Blocking policy includes "Behaviors that have a net negative effect per community consensus." The above vote makes it clear that Marshallsumter has engaged in behaviors that have had a net negative effect, which is now confirmed by community consensus. A block or ban is appropriate.
  2. Marshallsumter has consistently ignored Wikiversity policy / proposed policy (Wikiversity:Vandalism) by explicitly and intentionally creating shrines for vandals. Examples noted above include Boxing, Sculpture, Volleyball, and Shustov.
  3. Marshallsumter has consistently ignored and attempted to bypass community consensus regarding Main Page "Lectures". He has made multiple attempts to restore this content to its original location, and failing that, led Wikidata to believe that Wikiversity wanted to change Wikidata policy regarding draft namespace article references, as outlined at Wikidata:Administrators%27 noticeboard.
  4. Marshallsumter has consistently and repeatedly opposed common sense responses to issues that would trigger a snowball clause at Wikipedia. Examples include Wikiversity talk:Drafts and multiple Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion discussions.
  5. Throughout this review, Marshallsumter has consistently refused to accept responsibility for his actions, blaming almost anyone and anything but himself for the situation he finds himself in. It is, perhaps, this last item that is most frustrating. Wikiversity's mission is focused on learning, but Marshallsumter has yet to demonstrate an ability to learn from these mistakes, take responsibility for them, and not repeat them.

Points opposing sanctions:

  1. Marshallsumter does good work at Wikiversity, welcoming newcomers, maintaining the front page News area, deleting abandoned resources, and occasionally reverting vandalism.
  2. Marshallsumter is a prolific contributor to Wikiversity. There are questions regarding quality and usefulness of the content contributed, but he is clearly dedicated to shared learning at Wikiversity.

Summary and recommended sanctions:

  1. Losing custodian rights is a significant penalty, but not one that will impact Marshallsumter in his day-to-day activities. In fact, his administrative efforts at Wikiversity are much more in the Wikiversity:Curator realm than in interacting with users in a custodian capacity.
  2. Because Marshallsumter has consistently refused to accept responsibility for his actions, additional sanctions are necessary.
  3. Any block needs to be long enough for Marshallsumter to become frustrated with himself and his own actions rather than remaining outwardly focused on other things or people he may try to blame for his circumstances.
  4. I recommend starting with a 30-day block, which would be followed by stipulations that must be accepted and agreed to before resuming participation. These would include, but not be limited to:
    • No on- or off-wiki engagement with any user who is blocked or banned on any Wikimedia project.
    • No shrines for vandals, trolls, etc. This designation is determined by Wikiversity and other project admins, and must be accepted.
    • Acceptance of the Main Page "Lectures" community consensus and removal of "Conscriptions" from his user page.
    • Acceptance of a "snowball clause" that the community will stop arguing and wasting time on opposition to common sense approaches to issues the community faces.
    • While I don't know that I am in a position to require it, a sincere apology for creating and prolonging this mess would certainly go much further toward demonstrating learning from mistakes than the evasiveness exemplified thus far.

Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 20:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jtneill
[edit source]

I have not followed Marshallsumter's edits closely, but when/where I have and when I've gone looking, they largely seem to have been helpful content or admin. I am less familiar with the edits that have caused community concern.

Probably there are good arguments for and against blocking. So my view is to take one step at a time. The decision has already been taken to remove custodian rights. Then, maybe, let's just see what happens. There may be no more problem. If there is, let's deal with it on its merits or revisit this discussion. In the meantime, Marshallsumter's good work could continue.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atcovi
[edit source]

Marshallsumter may be a positive contributor to Wikiversity in terms of content creation (even that is questionable), but assisting a lifeless troll who has committed some heinous acts (as mentioned below) makes me a strong advocate for an indefinite block for Marshallsumter. The fact that he is, to my impression, treating this delicate issue as a sort of joke reassures me of my stance in this matter. I see no reason for a shameless person who has created this whole, unnecessary drama to remain here on our project. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 01:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mu301
[edit source]

A WMF Office action to globally ban a person is a rare sanction that is only applied in the most extreme cases where the trust and safety of community members is endangered. The Foundation takes these actions based on non-public complaints that they have received and revision deleted edits on wiki that most of the community can not review. I trusted that the initial ban on the person known as GRP was based on valid reports that he posed a risk to participants cross-wiki and that office action has been validated by the subsequent activity that we, along with many other WMF project volunteers, have reverted on numerous occasions. After the Oct. 2018 ban of GRP both Dave and I have endeavored to create a safe environment for contributors here by enforcing this ban. As a consequence of our activity we, and other admins, have received repeated abuse and threats of physical harm.[2] There is much more activity that has occurred off-wiki. The most recent that I've seen included language calling for 36 stewards at meta to "PAY DEARLY" and stating that they "WILL BE BEHEADED!" During the time that Dave and I have acted based on the best interests of our project and the people who contribute to it we have been thwarted by Marshallsumter who we now know had encouraged and welcomed this abusive and disturbed individual. If Marshallsumter had a legitimate concern about the initial ban the appropriate action would have been to question WMF in a community forum such as meta or to contact the office staff privately. Any participant who unilaterally ignores such a ban is demonstrating an extreme failure of judgment. The comments here by Marshallsumter fall far short of adequately acknowledging his participation in this matter. This was an egregious violation of both WMF-wide consensus and common sense. I have no confidence that he would act any differently if another situation occured. Our community needs to make a strong statement condemning this activity and supporting our staff who have suffered real world consequences. I support a community ban implemented by a block of indefinite duration. --mikeu talk 16:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guy vandegrift
[edit source]

Instead of a forced ban, I would much prefer a voluntary "topic-ban", i.e., a redirection towards efforts in WV draftspace as subpages underneath one draftspace page that are deemed to be nondestructive. I am not persuaded that Marshallsumter means any harm. But I see many cases where he interferes with administrative decision-making. Marshallsumter has a wide variety of interests that he/she/they can pursue under this draftspace resource. Draftspace is where innovative projects should begin, and Marshallsumter's efforts are certainly innovative. I support a 2-month period of voluntary abstention from all wiki-activity outside of WV draftspace (or personal userspace) with two stipulations:

  1. No mention of any topic related to any page or discussion on any WMF wiki or administrative decision.
  2. No effort to dispute decisions to remove material deemed to be in violation of the previous rule.

@Marshallsumter: If you agree to this voluntary redirection into draftspace for 20 days, I will oppose any motion to block you from editing. If you do not agree, I will have no choice but to support the block.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As usual you have a reasonable suggestion. It's okay with me! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit source]

This section is for discussion of various matters that may arrise from the statements above.

Marshallsumter, I would like to make a few things clear. "George Reeves person" is one person. He has created a club of his alternate identities, mostly fabricated with some names of real people. This is a single person, pushing his edits on these pages while simultaneously harassing and threatening anyone who does not support his previous threats and insanity.

It started in 1999, when he was kicked out of an offline chess group for fraud. At that point, he began his harassment of the person who exposed his fraud, online and offline, which later was the cause of his first arrest; it was not the last. In 2004-2006, this online harassment moved to Wikimedia projects, and became his prevalent place of persecution soon after. I started editing Wikipedia in 2016, and first encountered him in early 2018 while reverting his harassment on the Simple English Wikipedia. He added me to his list of targets, a very long list including many highly-trusted and dedicated editors, WMF staff, mailing lists, and others. His harassment and threatening of dozens of editors has been going on for over 15 years. His harassment also extends off of the internet; he was recently banned by a university near him from entering any of their campuses, for reasons not listed.

The last email I received from him was two hours ago. I had considered quoting it, however it would likely result in my edit being reverted and oversighted due to the vulgarity of his threats, mentioning beheading and rape. In late 2018, after months of continued threats in which, among other things, he claimed to know where I lived and threatened to arrive at my home with an automatic weapon to slaughter myself and my family, I requested a WMF global ban. You have attempted to justify his actions in this page multiple times, siding with him and refusing to recognize the damage he's caused. You should be ashamed of yourself. You are not fit to be an administrator, an editor, a reader, or even a user of the internet if you think that's okay. Vermont (discuss • contribs) 21:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The vagueness of some nouns is due to my rewording of this message after I had written it to remove specifics, due to concerns of outing. Such policies are unclear on whether discussing the patterns and history of globally banned users are prohibited. Vermont (discuss • contribs) 21:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments! And, I do consider you a credible witness! I have done quite a bit of checking through independent sources and much of what you've mentioned is not showing up; however, because you are a credible, independent witness I believe what you are telling me is the truth! Based on that you would be right that I would not be fit to be an administrator, an editor, a reader, or even a user of the internet if I really thought that this is okay. But, I do not! Thank you for coming forward! I wish I could have communicated with you earlier! If there are ways that I can help, please let me know. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I sent you an email shortly after I left my comment with some information you can use to confirm. Vermont (discuss • contribs) 14:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to elaborate on Dave's mention of the Main Page "Lectures" discussion and the outright misrepresentation of en-wv consensus at other projects. When I brought up the impropriety of linking to Draft space pages at wikidata[3] Marshallsumter reacted to further subvert our local decision making process by opening a task at phabricator[4] and lied about the task being supported by our project. Please also see my comments at w:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:X-ray astronomy and my reversion of misleading linkspam.[5] It has been clear to me for a long time that Marshallsumter is not participating in a good faith attempt to contribute to our project and he has demonstrated a blatant disregard for the community processes that the rest of us abide by. --mikeu talk 17:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any final decisions? —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 16:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome

[edit source]

This is a difficult call to make as there is such a wide range of opinions on what response is appropriate. It is clear that neither extreme of suggested sanctions has community support. The question is how to split the difference. The current block on mainspace and Wikiversity:News has been in place for some time. I'm going to make the call based on the input above that this is insufficient. A full block on editing Wikiversity for 3 months is needed to send the message that this behaviour was inappropriate and damaging to our community. After the 3 months expires the partial block on editing mainspace/News will continue indefinitely. --mikeu talk 02:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit source]
  1. ↑ Circeus (6 February 2008). "spam". San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 8 October 2019. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)

See also

[edit source]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Community_Review/Marshallsumter&oldid=2133432"