Wikiversity:Request custodian action/Archive/20

Mass copyright violations
Please take into account that files, uploaded by Special:Contributions/Shustov and Special:Contributions/ShustovVal are all copyvios, and both accounts are indefblocked on Wikimedia Commons (1 and 2). Regards, Sealle (discuss • contribs) 14:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

For the record, the discussion of the copyright violations is at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Shustov. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The photos containing Shustov can be treated as fair use here. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 15:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Not as labeled. They are not the contributor's own work, and do not have proper licensing information. See Uploading files. "Wikiversity content that is used under the fair use doctrine must be properly attributed to the copyright holder." -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The files containing Shustov have been tagged as missing license information. The contributor has seven days to provide accurate licensing information for these files. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Sealle (discuss • contribs) 15:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Protect Guided tour
The Guided tour was vandalized last year; I reverted it. Now it needs semi-protection. --George Ho (discuss • contribs) 01:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Good catch! —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Mass copyvio uploads
Please check this user contributions.--Darwinius (discuss • contribs) 13:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅ -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Ologies
The Ologies page has been vandalized, especially recently. --George Ho (discuss • contribs) 08:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems like one IP and he's moved on. I can protect the page for a bit but I don't think that there's much to do here. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ...I'm fine with temporary protection if that's necessary. Thoughts? --George Ho (discuss • contribs) 09:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It was ✅ before you posted the above comment. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Should this user - Brad Watson, Miami - be allowed to run around?
User:Brad Watson, Miami was blocked forever ago on Wikipedia for... well, lots of things. Like at Wikipedia, he seems to be here to promote his blog, push fringe theories based on his "divine" insight,* and creating POV-forks.

* (he's the second coming of Jesus even though he's somehow Einstein reincarnated, you know! And that somehow doesn't make Einstein the second coming and Brad the third...)

Is there some reason he's allowed to "teach" here? 218.32.21.214 (discuss) 01:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for sharing your concerns. Please focus your comments on content rather than contributors. As to why content is allowed at Wikiversity when it has been rejected elsewhere, see Mission. You are welcome to enhance the learning opportunity for others by either improving resources that you feel are inadequate, rebutting resources that are inaccurate, or proposing deletion using for any resources that you feel do not support Wikiversity's mission. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * So it's totally OK for someone to promote their blog and add spurious information that would be rejected by any real learning center, all on the basis of magic math and claims of godhood? Because, if you actually looked at the diffs I linked to, that's what your response sounds like.  218.32.21.210 (discuss) 02:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I have to admit that some of this is also concerning to me but the problem of forking isn't necessarily an issue. If someone wants to set up an alternative method, that's not inherently a problem. In this case, I am definitely concerned with the blogspam and some of this being so far off-base as to be almost unintelligible. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * No, it is not okay to promote a blog. But you have already demonstrated at that you are capable of addressing these concerns yourself. Editing an article doesn't require custodian action. I suspect that you posted here because you were seeking action against the user, for edits that are now more than a year old. As I tried to explain above, this is a content issue, not a user issue. If the user reverts your changes, I'd be glad to intervene on your behalf. Otherwise, please improve the resources that you feel are inadequate, rebut the resources that are inaccurate, or propose deletion for any resources that you feel do not support Wikiversity's mission. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 04:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree at all, but removing the blogspam doesn't require a custodian, or a curator. Other than that, the community, so far, has been exceedingly tolerant of and  content. But the Deletions options are always available for content that doesn't belong. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 04:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Brad Watson, Miami's edits to Biblical Studies (NT)/III. THE SEVEN SEALS seem okay, although they were not Discussed first, and adding an external link to a dot com is not in itself a promotion. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 23:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

"Please focus your comments on content rather than contributors." My religious views or anyone's religious views should never be the issue when it comes to their editing articles. Is it ever appropriate for an atheist to edit or moderate any article on the Bible or Qur'an? They obviously have a bias towards the subject matter as do strict fundamentalists. The Truth is what everyone should be seeking at all times. When it come to the "7 Seals", I AM the leading expert on them. These 'Beyond Einstein Theories' are on the cover of the 74-page "book/scroll" referred to in Revelation 5:1 and titled There Are No Coincidences. I realize how this makes many people feel uncomfortable, but everyone has to deal with the fact that they exist and are correct. - Brad Watson, Miami (discuss • contribs) 20:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * As above, content is the issue. Promotion of external sites is not accepted. External links have been removed. Please be careful, as there have already been requests to block your account for self-promotion. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Dave: Noted. I tweaked the above. Brad Watson, Miami (discuss • contribs) 08:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Protection needed for more tour pages
The above pages and their subpages need protection. They have been vandalized for years, especially this year. --George Ho (discuss • contribs) 19:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Help:The original tour for newcomers
 * Help:Creating educational content at Wikiversity
 * Regarding Help:The original tour for newcomers, five of six vandals were registered users. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding Help:Creating educational content at Wikiversity, four of the seven vandals were by registered users. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * True but the goal is for these to be very outward-facing pages, so I don't think protection is a bad idea. If anyone feels otherwise, please feel free to unprotect or ping me to do so myself. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your interest! Protection level set at Custodian! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Page Recovery
A while back I wrote a Draft Communications Bill either using this account or my abandoned alterante User:Sfan00_IMG, which I requests a user deletion on. However I was wondering if a custodian was able to retrieve the deletion so it could be worked on further? ShakespeareFan00 (discuss • contribs) 23:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Draft Communications Bill has been restored. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 23:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I've not removed the RfD tag yet, I mayy userfy th page in a few days if there is no interest in working on it ShakespeareFan00 (discuss • contribs) 00:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Vanished user ij3rnfkmclk3tkj4ncknefkjnadmcnbgrju
The former user name should be hidden from the history. 83.31.75.34 (discuss) 17:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Why? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 20:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Ben Steigmann
I'm aware of the prior discussion regarding this user from two years ago but I thought it might be worthwhile to post an update. For those who don't want to bother looking, Ben Steigmann, known on Wikipedia as Blastikus and by a variety of other names through sockpuppet accounts was indefinitely for disruptive POV-pushing.

He recently posted a message on my Wikipedia talk page indicating that he believes that the continued presence of his materials on this site entitle him to continue to disrupt Wikipedia.

I'm aware that Wikipedia and Wikiversity have distinct goals and methods. I don't want to believe that one site would condone and remain complicit in disruption of the other. Ian.thomson (discuss • contribs) 23:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, and he's spamming his "course" as well. Ian.thomson (discuss • contribs) 23:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I looked at Ian.thomson's request and he (Ben Steigmann) does seem to be soliciting. I will remove the solicitations,here and placed then here but have no idea what else to do.  --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 02:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Money would explain why Steigmann is so insistent on socking on Wikipedia to spam his course. Ian.thomson (discuss • contribs) 02:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Based on, it would appear that User:Ben Steigmann should be blocked for cross-wiki abuse and the content that he is soliciting from be tagged as RFD. I'm having difficulty coming up with a good faith interpretation based on the evidence provided. But let's start with the RFD and allow Ben the opportunity to defend the content and apparent actions first. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 03:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Impersonation
This was impersonation, now confirmed. Ben Steigmann was not paying attention to Wikiversity. It is now clear that the alleged disruptive sock puppetry on Wikipedia, that to which Ian.thomson reacted, was not Steigmann, but an impersonator. He was not doing what he was accused of doing above, the impersonator was.

As to solicitation, that is not contrary to policy, AFAIK, though obviously some users don't like it. Any custodian thinking it harmful could (1) remove the solicitation and (2) warn him and, if he ignored the warning, (3) block him pending possible review by the community. It is obvious that he did not realize it would be considered some sort of violation, and it was harmless. This community was railroaded by a highly unscrupulous puppet master who knew how to anticipate the reactions of a Wikipedia administrator. It was not Ian.thomson's fault, other than being incautious. Not all socks that claim to be a person are, in fact, that person. See Steward requests/Checkuser.

Please resolve this by unblocking Steigmann. Solicitation can be discussed later, and not here. It is not, in fact, likely that he will edit at all, he was already moving on, but he has been unjustly accused and blocked without any ignored warning. I will also be requesting blocks of certain identified or likely sock puppet accounts involved here with this affair. Impersonation is a major -- and highly illegal -- violation of the WMF TOS. This is critical. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 23:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * unblocking Steigmann! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 12:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Suggested resolution: A closing or acting administrator may always revert their close, actions, or both, no "consensus" is needed. In this case, was also the originator of the proposed deletion. Theoretically, anyone could revert that close, but the least disruptive way forward at this point would be for Dave to unblock, undelete, and close the open Request for undeletion as done, with or without prejudice. If there is something contrary to policy about the restored resource, it could then be addressed normally, deletion policy suggests attempting to fix problems (such as the alleged "solicitation," already fixed). This case was unusual in that it was fundamentally based on allegations of other-wiki disruption, which were based on impersonation, now confirmed. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have asked to review the Wikipedia situation. I emailed him the next day. He has not responded yet, but has also not been active on Wikipedia. I cannot create a request for admin action on Wikipedia. Any unblocked Wikipedia user may do that, referring to the necessary evidences. (The involved accounts should be blocked there, as they have been here and on Commons (for the two that edited commons), and the incorrect tags as Blastikus should be replaced by w:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mikemikev, plus an innocent user was blocked, also due to impersonation socks. Ben Steigmann may decide, some day, to request unban, and should not be held responsible for socking that was not his. (I have seen low-level, non-disruptive, admitted socking, as his was, forgiven, a case could be made.) I could email another administrator there, I still have email access, but I reserve that for rare emergencies. I have also requested global locks for the probable puppet master, and related recent socks, which is awaiting steward review. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I have been following this so let me add a few points. Ben Steigmann is a perm banned Wikipedia editor. He was banned on the accounts, pottinger's cats, Blastikus, Joel Slovo in 2013-2014. He was very disruptive posting anti-semitic material. Your statement that he should be unbanned is not a neutral suggestion.


 * Abd is a personal friend of Steigmann. This person seems to be unware that Steigmann is a white supremacist / racist he has posted offensive things about Jewish people being a disease and black people being criminals. All his posts are logged on the Internet going back years, search online for Ben Steigmann and race.


 * Steigmann has admitted on several blogs from suffering from mental illness. How do we know the sock-puppets were not him? And not impersonations?


 * Steigmann has admitted to owning myerslover and psychicbias, so why not the others. He is guilty of disrupting Wikipedia and evading his ban. Why would someone 'impersonate' him?


 * Abd also says one innocent user was blocked. This is false. The user Gggtt is Ben Steigmann. He was editing the Julius Evola article. Check the SPI archive, a screen-shot was posted of Ben Steigmann's public facebook page. Steigmann has admitted in his own words to being Gggtt on Facebook and linked to his edits on that article. If you log in on Facebook you could easily find his post. It has also been archived. Steigmann is thus a proven liar, if he is not owning up to that one as well.


 * Abd seems to have a personal vendetta against Mikemikev. I know Mike and he says all the accounts are Steigmann. These are not impersonations. I would not trust the word of Steigmann he has been banned all over the web. Abd is not a neutral observer, this person is associated with Steigmann off-site. They have been duped by Steigmann's lies. Stiegmann will do anything to evade his ban. He should be perm blocked. Lady Dragon. LadyDragoner (discuss • contribs) 18:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, every bit helps. Facts: Lady Dragoner is an SPA apparently created to make this comment and others on other pages here, today. We know about the impersonations because of neutral checkuser investigations.
 * Of course he has been following this, like every other SPA that the puppet master created, repeating exactly the same arguments with exactly the same goal, and that's called the "duck test."
 * I had never heard of Mikemikev until finding that an apparent sock here was tagged on Wikipedia as Mikemikev. I now see the oldest account and probable puppet master as Anglo Pyramidologist. I don't care about the various points of view, I care about users who lie and cheat and impersonate and disrupt in order to push their own ideas -- and/or personal hatred. Though this is irrelevant here, I also previously investigated the claims about Gggtt. Checkuser found no connection with Psychicbias, i.e., with Steigmann. There was no link to a Facebook page, only a screenshot, with discrepancies with the actual Steigmann Facebook account, so Lady Dragoner is now repeating the exact and unconfirmed argument of a known impersonator, someone willing to lie and impersonate, apparently a long-time banned user (on Wikipedia). If any legitimate user has questions about my behavior in this, or any aspect of this case, I will answer, but I will not create useless responses here to apparent trolling, trolling is designed to solicit improper behavior. Appropriate custodian response is invited. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 20:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi abd, Ben's facebook is here scroll down on his page, he admits to editing the oswald spengler wiki article and links to his edits on his Ggggtt acount... do u want another screenshot. And please don't try and take a moral high ground. You are friends with a racist/ white supremacist Ben Steigmann. You are not looking at this objectively. You say all those accounts are mikemikev, now you say they belong to pryamidologist. You simply have 0 evidence and are making this up as you go along. I have never edited wikipedia. Am I an SPA of course I am, no crime in that. Am I interested in geting Ben banned? Why not the guy is a racist scumbag. Am I trolling? Not at all. You are Ben's friend off-site, this is not neutral investigating.. as for being banned on Wikipedia I know you have been. LadyDragoner (discuss • contribs) 20:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * that is solid evidence. Do I get an apology abd, perhaps now you can see Ben is a proven liar. Gggtt is 100percent him. LadyDragoner (discuss • contribs)


 * By the duck test, see global account activity, connecting with checkuser data and community conclusions on Wikipedia, LadyDragoner is the latest incarnation of Anglo Pyramidologist/Mikemikev/Michael skater. The above edit is grossly and blatantly uncivil, as are some of the other edits. Gggtt is actually irrelevant here, he is not a Wikiversity user. What Michael skater put up in the Wikipedia sock puppet investigation (and which I just covered on my Talk page) showed that Steigmann provided a link between himself and Gggtt, and thus it is possible that a checkuser missed the connection somehow, but that off-wiki evidence was weak, and evidence from a banned user, on principle, should never be used to tag and block a user as his sock. (Or it would be trivial for a blocked user to get another user blocked.) Gggtt had not been disruptive, and the actual blocking was not from that presented evidence. Rather it was from a registration and disruptive editing with a sock now known to have been Michael skater, and, here, LadyDragoner is insisting on that same evidence for the same end, as an attack on Ben Steigmann, which appears to be an agenda at least as far back as 2014. He has gone ballistic defending an impersonator, in the declared cause of attacking a "racist scumbag," and that evidence is clear. Why? I find it obvious.
 * By the way, I checked my records. Steigmann did not specifically deny to me that he was Gggtt and I did not specifically ask him. There is no evidence that he lied. He did deny being that blizzard of disruptive socks pretending to be him, and that was confirmed. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 04:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

"connecting with checkuser data and community conclusions on Wikipedia, LadyDragoner is the latest incarnation of Anglo Pyramidologist/Mikemikev/Michael skater."

I am mikemikev, Anglopyramidologist and Michael skater because you say so? That is not evidence. There is no checkuser data linking me to any of those accounts so you are a liar. Why you are making wild allegations and then presenting they are factual. You have 0 technical evidence linking me to any other account. I have never been banned on wikipedia. Please stop posting misinformation. You also archived this conversation and unblocked Steigmann without consensus. You are slandering me with libel claiming I own those accounts when I do not, you have 0 checkuser evidence. Gggtt is Ben Steigmann you have since admitted this so you have a record of being wrong. LadyDragoner (discuss • contribs) 07:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Resolution
✅ Dave has unblocked Steigmann. There is still a discussion of the deleted resource, but that will be decided there. This RCA request is resolved. If a user has a complaint about an custodial action, the first place to take it is to the custodian. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 05:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Please block user that operates at least on the avcounts User:Liberty and Basher and User:Abd dirty old bloke in his 70s
Spams the user pages and content pages with images and removes content. As far as I see no unethical comments - Decision Support Layers, User Pages Humanitarian Open Street Map, ...

Use page protection for one day for those pages, because after reverting disruptive activities, vandalism did not stop and another username did the same alterations on pages (insert an image multiple times on user pages. --Bert Niehaus (discuss • contribs) 19:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Liberty and Basher disrupts User pages excessive vandalism --Bert Niehaus (discuss • contribs) 18:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC) User:Abd dirty old bloke in his 70s same alterations with different account - excessive vandalism --Bert Niehaus (discuss • contribs) 18:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC) ✅ --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 19:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Normally, reporting abuse here is appropriate. However, long-term abusers have a common trick. They create a user name with their message, and then someone complains about it, propagating the name. The standard method for dealing with that is to have an off-wiki reporting method. There should be a Wikiversity staff email list that anyone can send mail to but that can only be read by staff. Such lists can be abused, but they also have a purpose. I recommend that this be set up, with subscribers being those with community trust (with advanced tools) who are willing to receive reports when they are better not made public, where public requests can propagate harm. (There should be stated rules for what this list is for and how it is used. It should not be used to negotiate consensus off-wiki, unless that is critically necessary, which should be rare.


 * Pending that, custodians can normally be emailed with a heads-up.


 * I've been charged with unethical behavior, with one custodian appearing to support that as a possibility. One edit by me has been alleged to be a justification for hundreds of vandalism edits, but no custodian has not warned me, nor has he pointed to it, and my policy at this point is not to argue with trolls and vandals. If any legitimate user has questions for me, I've invited it already and will be happy to answer. If anyone thinks I have done something improper, the normal way to handle it is to contact me on my talk page. I respond to such. But not to trolling socks, and others are now handling keeping my talk page clear. Nonetheless, I intend to blank that text, just because I can and because there is no necessity to keep it live.


 * I also have email enabled, and private non-abusive communications through the Wikiversity system are welcome. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 01:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Reporting to stewards
While this page may be used to request custodian action here, for an LTA (long-term abuser) with cross-wiki socking history, it may be better to email the stewards. You may use the form at meta. You will need to have email enabled (Preferences). There are instructions for dealing with vandalism (which is what the recent mess amounts to) at Vandalism_reports. Offensive usernames are not to be published, but may be reported to that mailing list. As well, such names can be hidden in on-wiki reports. On meta, this is an example of a user links template that hides the user name, while still providing it to anyone clicking on the link:. That could also be done here without that template: suppose my user name was offensive. User:Abd could be presented as Hidden Username. The link still works, but does not display my name.

I have not complained about the several personally offensive user names used because it's not worth the increased attention of custodians and stewards, who are already handling these issues as they have time.

Please comment on process. Thanks. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 12:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Please block SPA users for cross-wiki sock puppetry, disruption, and impersonation.
See Steward Requests/Checkuser. The following two Wikiversity accounts, all SPAs, were clearly identified as being in the impersonating sock puppet army verified by the steward.


 * extensively participated in the Deletion Request based on abuse this user created as an impersonator.
 * reblock of this user! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * reblock of this user! --Bert Niehaus (discuss • contribs) 19:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * reblock of this user! --Bert Niehaus (discuss • contribs) 19:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * fed Marshallsumter possibly misleading information about Sci-fi (while actually being Sci-fi-)
 * block of this user! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * block of this user! --Bert Niehaus (discuss • contribs) 19:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * block of this user! --Bert Niehaus (discuss • contribs) 19:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The following account was stale and checkuser would not find it, but is likely connected and was an SPA harassing Ben Steigmann back in January:


 * This user listed many of the same accounts later listed in the Wikipedia sock puppet investigation by Michael skater, one of the identified abusive socks. See [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Ben_Steigmann#Sock_putting_on_the_main_Wikipedia his challenge to Steigmann. In fact, of the four listed, two were not identified as Steigmann socks and probably were not. This was misleading, trolling. In fact, it took a long time before the real Steigmann socks were tagged, because they had not actually been disruptive and Wikipedia tends to ignore minor socking if not disruptive. Michael skater appeared quite frustrated and apparently decided that he needed to draw much more attention, so, I infer, he created a series of abusive socks to make it happen. It worked, until it was examined more closely. We've had impersonating socks here before.
 * block of this user! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * block of this user! --Bert Niehaus (discuss • contribs) 19:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * block of this user! --Bert Niehaus (discuss • contribs) 19:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

There are other accounts in the global sock list that registered first on Wikiversity, but did not edit here. Sometimes accounts with no local edits will be blocked as a precaution, in cases like this. This is not some minor content dispute, this was blatant impersonation and cross-wiki disruption, attacking Wikiversity academic freedom, far beyond mere "personal attack."

Thanks. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 23:50, 22 September 2017‎


 * For the record, from Steward requests/Checkuser


 * I checked on loginwiki, where Psychicbias and Myerslover are stale. The results are that: Ben Steigmann Blissentia,  Blastikus the cat,  Blastikus Cats,  Spirit of Myers,  Ben the Blissentia,  Jamenta 2,  Spirit of James 2,  Gggtt Steigmann,  Michael skater,  Bigcheeses,  Sci-fi-,  Gavarn1982,  AlienMan99,  Braude194 and Atheistic guy are  the same user. Ruslik (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The following accounts are not registered. Tools do not allow blocking an account that does not exist. The user page has been created, tagged as a sockpuppet, and protected.
 * The following accounts have been blocked for abusing multiple accounts and disruptive edits. The user page has been created, tagged as a sockpuppet, and protected.
 * The following account has been blocked for harassment. The user page has been created, tagged as a suspected sockpuppet, and protected.
 * Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Braude194 was a typo by the steward. It's Braude1945. The report has been corrected. For a fuller story see this Request for global lock. (The probable sock master is Mikemikev.)--Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The following account has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts and disruptive edits. The user page has been created, tagged as a sockpuppet, and protected.
 * --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 12:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The following accounts have been blocked for abusing multiple accounts and disruptive edits. The user page has been created, tagged as a sockpuppet, and protected.
 * The following account has been blocked for harassment. The user page has been created, tagged as a suspected sockpuppet, and protected.
 * Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Braude194 was a typo by the steward. It's Braude1945. The report has been corrected. For a fuller story see this Request for global lock. (The probable sock master is Mikemikev.)--Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The following account has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts and disruptive edits. The user page has been created, tagged as a sockpuppet, and protected.
 * --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 12:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The following account has been blocked for harassment. The user page has been created, tagged as a suspected sockpuppet, and protected.
 * Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Braude194 was a typo by the steward. It's Braude1945. The report has been corrected. For a fuller story see this Request for global lock. (The probable sock master is Mikemikev.)--Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The following account has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts and disruptive edits. The user page has been created, tagged as a sockpuppet, and protected.
 * --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 12:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Braude194 was a typo by the steward. It's Braude1945. The report has been corrected. For a fuller story see this Request for global lock. (The probable sock master is Mikemikev.)--Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The following account has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts and disruptive edits. The user page has been created, tagged as a sockpuppet, and protected.
 * --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 12:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 12:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

SPA disruption continues
Additional checkuser requests have been filed on meta, but that is going slowly, meanwhile, additional obvious socks or MEAT|meat puppets, all attack SPAs, are appearing.

These users are clearly not on Wikiversity to learn, nor to improve educational resources. They are here, as they were from the first appearance here as Sci-fi-, to attack and harm. They have been outing (see the deleted revisions on my talk page), to create confusion and disruption (a user outed another user, who replied, and when the attacks were blanked, the outed user, apparently -- I can't tell --, restored them so that he could defend himself, and he was blocked for that, while the blatant offender was not blocked, nor even warned. This particular sock army knew how to provoke administrators into serving their agenda. They know what buttons to push, they have been doing it for years. They are extremely dangerous and will troll users into response, creating more and more confusion.

There may be more than one actual person involved. User:God has never existed claimed to be a former Wikipedia user -- which would mean that he has an account and could edit here using it -- and that he received an email about a page here -- which makes him a meat puppet. For our purposes we do not need "technical evidence." This is the best case of w:WP:DUCK I have ever seen.

Please block. This is not a complicated issue. Real users have been harmed, and content has been damaged, and it's still happening. I will respond to comments from established users or good-faith comments and questions from anyone else. I am no longer warning these accounts, it just increases traffic for no good purpose. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * All of these accounts have been blocked for abusing multiple accounts and disruptive edits. The user page, where appropriate, has been created, tagged as a sockpuppet, and protected. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 20:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Marshall, I am still checking but a steward confirmed that all socks for which checkuser was requested were "confirmed," which is very strong. All accounts appear to have been globally locked, which is the strongest sanction applied to WMF users. Globally locks are very simple: login-in is prevented. You cannot see your own watchlist. And stewards are then on the case looking for locked users trying to create and use accounts. They can and do detect the accounts on creation, and lock before any edits. They are also not shy to use blocks and range blocks for IPs. One steward locking, 21 accounts. Another 6 accounts. I have seen these guys lock hundreds of accounts very rapidly.
 * There is evidence that Englisc was one of the sock army, but I'm not presenting it. Was an SPA, which is completely obvious, and a steward is not going to reconsider a lock for an SPA. The only hope for such is to wait a bit, at least three months or so, then register anew, and *don't repeat the same behavior,* or else, now, an army of wikignomes is on the case. These users pretended to be protecting a certain Wikipedia user. I make no assumption that this user is aware of any of this, but I intend to notify the user if possible.
 * As to the study in question. The intention of a study here is not to harass or impugn any user. It is just to look at "what actually happened," because we need to develop policies, and policies created without regard to reality are ungrounded. In that process, there is no "good" or "bad." Just reality. If there are errors, or alleged errors, corrections will always be welcome, at least by me!
 * Few people respond well to threats. I'm no exception. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 21:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * An SPA just edited this page. I reverted it. If this should happen to be a legitimate user -- the chances are very low -- this did no harm, since the edit contributed nothing (and appears to be trolling, like "see, you can't stop me." We cannot absolutely prevent all creation of socks, I worked with this for years, but ... see w:WP:RBI. They have worked with this for years! Reverting, avoid insulting the user, and avoid provocation in general, but doing what is normal and appropriate is not provocation. I will not be noting such actions here, it's too disruptive and this kind of LTA loves the attention. I'll just be reverting SPAs -- or even some clueless user who stumbles across a hot topic. This is a wiki, errors can be fixed. I am not examining new accounts, and haven't, so far. I recommend blocking all apparent attack SPAs on sight, without discussion. Then, later, if there are errors, they can be discussed. SPA requests are not community discussion.
 * And I'm not going to rattle a steward's cage for one effing sock. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 21:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Cross-wiki sock-puppeting and abuse from Ben Steigmann
Hi I am just reporting something that will be of interest to admins here. Wikiversity user Ben Steigmann (previously banned on Wikipedia as Blastikus) has just been blocked for sock-puppeting on several accounts and an IP on Wikipedia. See the recent SPI investigation here. He was blocked for not just socking but spamming his content that he wrote on Wikiversity onto Wikipedia.

He showed up on the Joseph Banks Rhine article and tried to insert a load of fringe material from his Wikiversity project. Knowing that it would be deleted he removed it and then re-added it a number of times. He did so he could link to it on his Wikiversity Project. I show below the diffs that demonstrate this.

On his banned sock Rhine Revival, Ben did did this a number of times. Please see his edit on Wikiversity which links to his edits on Wikipedia  added by his sock. His material has since been removed from the database on Wikipedia by an admin and Ben now claims the material has been "censored".

This is cross-wiki abuse. Ben is sock-puppeting on Wikipedia, uploading fringe material from his project and then linking to it on his Wikiversity account. He did the same on an IP on the Frederic W. H. Myers Wikipedia article. Again proof of this is directly in his own Wikiversity edits. After his edits were removed from Wikipedia and he was banned, he wrote on Wikiversity that his material was "censored" on the Myers and Rhine articles. He then changed to "removed by others"
 * Adding note after close: the .9 IP is now blocked on meta, a steward is reverting his edits there, and has also globally blocked the IP. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Ben has been banned on the account Com18, Rhine Revival and even turned up on the SPI and confessed to his sock-puppetry and former anti-Semitic comments.

I understand that Ben has been the target of various skeptical editors in the past who oppose his parapsychology project and in the past a group of editors spoofed his username to try and get him banned. No doubt Abd who is friendly with Ben will turn up here defending him claiming I am 'targeting' Ben. But please look at this from a non-biased manner. This is not impersonation, this is not skeptics harassing Ben. This is not me 'harassing' Ben. This is more sock-puppetry and disruption from Ben and the admins over at Wikipedia are getting tired of it. Again, there is no doubt on this one - this is Ben sock-puppeting and causing disruption, the evidence is in his own Wikiversity edits.

I ask why does Wikiversity continue to host this guys fringe content? Why is he still a member here since being blocked on many sock-puppets? Do you think his behaviour is acceptable? Do you think that it is acceptable that he signs up to Wikipedia and spams articles? I suggest an outright ban for Ben Steigmann for his repeated disruption and sock-puppeting on Wikiversity and that his project be deleted, it is causing problems for Wikipedia. He is not on Wikiversity to create a valid research project, he is seeking controversy and attacking and disrupting another Wiki. Also please note that an admin on Wikipedia pointed out in the SPI, Ben has a history of lying. He has said before he will stop the sock-puppeting but he is back on Wikipedia every few months causing the same disruption. Wikiversity admins need to take action and not take a blind eye to this. This is very serious abuse of Wikis. Regards. 117.20.41.10 (discuss) 22:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This matter has been settled by checkuser investigations! Please move on! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 23:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Marshallsumter yes Ben has been blocked again on Wikipedia but he is still an active member on Wikiversity. Did you check the diffs I listed? What he is doing is cross-wiki abuse. Do you think what he is doing on Wikiversity is acceptable? 117.20.41.10 (discuss) 23:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Just to point out the checkuser is currently being performed. Ben may have other socks 117.20.41.10 (discuss) 23:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No checkuser was run. This was different from the previous case, I have not seen any impersonation this time, but Steigmann socking on Wikipedia is irrelevant here. This request is, however, filed by the same person who attacked Steigmann before, and steward checkuser did resolve that case, showing impersonation and cross-wiki socking, with the involved accounts being blocked and globally locked, so the user comes here now using an open proxy to evade locks and blocks to try again as he had tried before. No evidence was provided of any Wikiversity policy violations, and he is blatantly defiant. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Move on or be blocked. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The issue, as explained here and here, is that I was archiving information that could be obtained by Wikipedia article history - not attempting to get controversial articles to stick.
 * I do not consider this disruption, but in light of the reaction, I will focus on expressing content in nested resources in Wikiversity, and I will abandon Wikipedia.
 * Aside from that, I consider myself talented at finding mainstream sources supporting fringe notions (I am well aware that some of my archived info contains fringe, as opposed to mainstream sources). If people could let me back on Wikipedia provided that I only used mainstream sources and honored the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle, then I think the encyclopedia would benefit as articles would include reliable info that otherwise might be overlooked.Ben Steigmann (discuss • contribs) 00:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ben, Wikipedia administrators generally interpret policy as disallowing any edit at all if one is blocked, as you are. I.e., if you create a new account or edit anonymously, and they discover it, they will block no matter what. No excuses. Period. And it is possible, then, that someone could create a ban discussion and you would actually end up banned, instead of merely being blocked, as you now are. Bans are much more difficult to undo.
 * As you found out, they may also revision delete material when they think it was added to hide it in history. They want to you to stop all editing if you are blocked, and if you want to edit, you would need to request unblock first. Don't do this, the time is not yet ripe.
 * I will look at the new checkuser request, these are likely places to find Anglo Pyramidologist socks. For starters, there is the IP here. This is obviously the user who attacked Ben before, he describes his behavior as habitual. I'm tempted to file a request for global block on meta, because this is global lock evasion, and there is clearly cross-wiki abuse, see the global contributions.
 * Having looked at that SPI request, and at the global contributions of the IP, this is a global lock evader, and evading blocks on Wikipedia. I recommend blocking here, this was really obvious behavior. User information:
 * Heh! This site used to have checkusers. I thought that template might work! The only reason for filing a request on meta would be to stop this IP on Wikipedia. Possible, but I'd prefer to encourage Wikipedia to WTFUp. Highly disruptive requests and attack by IP (or SPA) certainly ought to raise suspicion, but I've seen it again and again: Wikipedians focus on the target, if the target is unpopular. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * global lock request. When I realized that the IP is likely an open proxy, that sealed it. It can be blocked on that basis alone. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 01:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Globally blocked as open proxy. His last edit was remarkable. Seeing the block coming (this had become open and shut), he requested it on Wikipedia and described his purpose in editing. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 03:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * and then, the very minute the IP was blocked as an open proxy, it started up again on Wikipedia with a new open proxy. Saying he was done, he was lying. See below. Now, he has said he is done again, in the last edits of the .9 account on Wikipedia. He is not done. AP never gives up, that is the reputation he has created. He has threatened to keep continuing socking forever. w:WP:RBI works when identification is swift. That is why I have been documenting this. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * You are only causing yourself more trouble Abd for defending Ben Steigmann's disruption and sock-puppetry. Ben also admitted to being an anti-Semite on the SPI case on another sock . Let me guess you defend that as well abd?. No matter how much disruption Ben does on Wikipedia you claim it is all 'harmless', lol. I understand you hate Wikipedia because you were banned there but seriously, you are not being objective here. You are supporting a known vandal. 117.20.41.9 (discuss) 04:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Lol "request unblock first. Don't do this, the time is not yet ripe", lol so you are saying in the future Ben should request an unblock on Wikipedia, despite the fact he has socked, posted anti-Semitic material and caused disruption for years. Right. 117.20.41.9 (discuss) 04:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The same user continues to sock, having shifted to a new open proxy. I suspect that the next meta response may be a range block, though they have far better information than I do. This user -- I call AP after the Wikipedia sock master name for the original blocked user, Anglo Pyramidologist (even though this might actually be his brother from behavioral patterns, Wikipedia treats them the same) -- will be blocked in short order, it's obvious and he expects it from his latest Wikipedia edits.


 * I have encouraged Steigmann to follow a generally accepted Wikipedia guideline, and what he did in the past can be irrelevant under conditions laid out in w:WP:Standard offer. I have not said that he "should" do this, that depends on conditions and his choices. I have privately encouraged him, exactly the same. Stop the socking for at least six months, stop violating actual and defacto Wikipedia policy, stop giving AP excuses to attack, but, in fact, Steigmannn has done the WMF community a service by being a target of AP, because AP has caused enormous damage over the years, many users have been blocked for responding normally to AP (with anger!), and AP has often succeeded in getting his enemies blocked. All the while being blocked himself under many, many account names. It is time that the community stands up against this.


 * Whether Steigmann is innocent (probably not) or guilty as sin (probably not in comparison to others, including one other who is very visible now, making a huge fuss on Wikipedia, here, and meta) is irrelevant. Steigmann is blocked on Wikipedia and there is no controversy over that, and the possibility of his return would depend on his being able to convince a Wikipedia administrator to unblock an account of his. That is not up to me. I know how he might be able to do it, but I also have told him that conditions are not yet right for it, and, meanwhile, no more socking even if he thinks it is harmless (as appears to be the case with the recent socking -- but that is not relevant here, it might be relevant to a future unblock request, but I would not necessarily recommend that he even mention it). What admins will want to know, first and foremost, is whether or not there will be more problems from him. This IP activity of the last few days is pure disruption, of no use for any educational or encyclopedic purpose, abusing Wikiversity and Wikipedia -- and meta -- as battlefields. Obvious obvious, and admitted in the most recent edits on Wikipedia of this IP. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * involved close: No WV support for action against Steigmann here. IP filer blocked locally and globally. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

194.81.238.59
194.81.238.59 - User repetetively adds nonsense to Is capitalism sustainable? despite reverts after reverts. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 11:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Blocked. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

82.21.88.44
❌: I am awaiting the outcome of the Checkuser and Steward investigations on meta. As wikiversity does not have local staff for these functions we rely on the duly appointed users who have been assigned the tools to perform these tasks. Please do not flood this notice board with information that is possibly incomplete and/or incorrect. Only those with access to the tools are qualified and approved to handle these investigations. I have blanked this page until such time that we have verified and factual information about the activity of edits from the ip addresses in question. Please see the prior revision for the blanked content. Also, do not allow disputes in other areas (WV:RFD or cross-wiki) to spill across wikiversity pages. --mikeu talk 00:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

No action needed. --mikeu talk 17:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Below is what I had written, which addresses what Mike was waiting for, but he has apparently misunderstood the issues. There was no request here that required checkuser. The meta checkuser requests were primarily filed in case there were sleepers. I had hoped they would look at the additional information (besides service provider) that can sometimes identify users, but there is no sign that they did. The primary "information" I added here was evidence of canvassing, and this was referenced from the RfD, where it matters, no checkuser required for that. What I wrote and lost in conflict:


 * Meta activity It took some time, but a steward ruled that this was a Wikiversity issue, not for global action, and on the checkuser request, it was also declined by the same steward as "not done," claiming that all active accounts had already been handled, but ... how would he know if he did not use checkuser? However, Rule Number One on meta: do not harass stewards with arguments, and I knew that this was the least likely request to be acted on that I had filed in the long series since September. Checkusers will commonly not comment on IPs, but such reports are accepted on Wikipedia -- they handle them but don't comment! (All the other requests were granted, with many global locks and blocks.) I did ask about one open proxy I'd reported, because normally that would be globally blocked on sight. We'll see if they do anything. Meanwhile, irrelevant personal attacks are continuing on the RfD, as above [in what Mike blanked]. My "paranoia" did not generate all those locked sock puppets, nor the attack articles on RationalWiki. As to "contact with stewards," the IP did comment on the Global block request with irrelevancies. (Frontiers Media and cold fusion? I don't think so! The reality is irrelevant here, so I'm not explaining. If someone is curious, my talk page!) --Abd (discuss • contribs) 01:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)