Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Evidence

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. You must submit evidence in your own section. Editors who change other users' evidence may be sanctioned; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the committee by e-mail or on the talk page. The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 1000 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored or removed. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable. Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page. Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only arbitrators and clerks may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by Peter Damian

WP:Honesty

People who consistently fail to tell the truth cannot be trusted to keep their promises.

• Claim: 'my new account has nothing to do with the suspects; Isaacatm,biomolecules ainakan and any other user or the article about the non-notable researcher', adding that he uses a computer centre and perhaps the sockpuppets are also editing from the same centre with same IP. Fact " Confirmed abuse of multiple accounts".
• Claim: 'olatunde olalekan' and 'Olatunde Isaac' are two different people. "One was known for dacryodes edulis. Olatunde olalekan is a non notable researcher". Fact: unlikely
• Claim: vandalism was done by his son, after he left his computer open without logging out of Wikipedia. Fact: the edit was done from a mobile, not a computer. Fact: shortly afterwards the same account adds 'Major contributions to Dacryodes edulis' to the entry for ' Olatunde olalekan isaac,born (1987) Nigerian Biochemist.'
• Claim: he learned about the sockpuppetry policy at the end of May 2014, upon which ‘a few days later’, he made a fresh start with the Wikicology account. Fact: his first account was opened 10 months earlier in August 2013, during which there were multiple sock investigations and multiple warnings, [1].
• Claim: 'Wikicology in his office at Adekunle Ajasin University, Nigeria'. Fact: 'I have no personal office there'

False references

Consistently adds references that in no way support the claim. See this investigation. Many others have been spotted by other editors. The impression is that wanting to create many articles quickly, perhaps motivated by his desire to become an administrator, he searches on Google scholar for the subject, then chooses the very first references he can find. This is disturbing if true.

Connected with the honesty issue, he claims it is a mistake or an accident every time he is challenged. E.g I just detected it too, still a mystery that I added that source, my articles are not full of fake references. The ones that was pointed as was due to impatience, Its just like a dream. I can still not understand how I unintentionally created those mess. Maybe I was impatience!, It's a newbie mistake, too in a hurry to check the date, a bug in his browser, I can't remember doing that, I sometimes mistakenly add the correct source to a different statement, I never thought a claim of ACADEMIC will give an impression of dishonesty, I never really took the photo serious. In fact, that wasn't really my personal office.

"Wikicology seems to just make up excuses as they go along, and deny all responsibility when things go wrong for them".

Apologising after incorrect actions seems like a constant in their behaviour. It seems to me that this user wants to do too much, and too soon, hoping to become an important editor and administrator here on Wikipedia as quickly as possible. - Takeaway (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

---

The theme continues on this very page below. "I accidentally cited the wrong page" (twice) / "I mistakenly thought the fiction book was an okay reference for the article" / " I mistakenly place the source in the wrong place" / "This source did not support claim but I am yet to identify why I included it in the first place." To be clear, these aren't accidents, they are by design, i.e. with the purpose of completing as many articles as possible in the shortest amount of time and with the least possible work. And the purpose of doing this is to gain power and influence within the Temple of Knowledge.

Appeals to good faith

Wikipedians have a warm heart towards those who pay lip service to the vision and values of the project, and Wikicology seems to understand this well.

• My thoughts were, this editor has got hold of a copy of "How to become a Wikipedia Administrator in 6 months". (Worth reading in full)
• I have passion for this project.
• I'm depressed and I cried many hours that I unintentionally disruptive a project am passionate about.
• Life is meaningless without education because education is the bedrock of knowledge
• I care deeply about the integrity of the WMF and her projects

I add this because the combination of deception, poor editing, and successful appeals to 'vision and values' are a toxic combination.

Evidence presented by Pldx1

Self identification campaign

The identification IRL:Olatunde Isaac = User:Wikicology = Ambassador of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) has been campaigned by the subject in the press [2], on Channels TV [3], on the lead of his talk page [4], at Wikimedia-l [5], at Wikimania-l [6] and so on. Complaining now about a breach of privacy cannot be done in good faith.

Articles poisoning

Promoting Nitrogen dioxide poisoning to Great Article Status was part of Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard#Online_Ambassador_application:_Wikicology. This contribution has been analyzed in details by others, everything has been deleted and the link is now a redirect. At one of his promotional biographies, there were: Olatunde Olalekan Isaac [birth identification] is a biochemist and a Medical researcher. He is one of the scientists that contributed to the in vivo study of the effects of dacryodes edulis. Isaac is one of the scientist who hails from Owo, Nigeria. He is a winner of many academics awards. He has contributed to life science especially in the field of Biochemistry. This has been duplicated outside of Wikipedia, and survived the deletions here. Now, at Dacryodes_edulis, the Wikicology contribution [7] is only a degradation of the summary of a 1993 research paper (accessed through a bibliography). An Ambassador should not put his Ambassadee in such situation.

Evasion from scrutiny

After [8], i.e. after 2 April 2016, User talk:Wikicology page threads are no more archived, but erased. Pldx1 (talk) 10:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

EACH reference at Igogo Festival in Owo is a forgery

Following the remark of User:Fram, I have studied the 21 references given at Igogo festival. Let us remember that Wikicology asserts to be a native of Owo, and has used this article to support his Online_Ambassador_application:_Wikicology and also tagged it as {{Vital article|level=3|topic=Society|class=B}}[9]. The result is User:Pldx1/Igogo Festival in Owo References. Three references are newspapers: one not found, two without the keywords they should support. Eighteen are books. They are the result of a same and unique google query [10] made June 28, 2015 . Never ever a page is given, despite the fact all these books are google searchable. When the sentence to be supported contains an identifiable keyword, this keyword is never found. Replaying this query today, the occurrences are given in col. 1. And this reveals the referencing algorithm: citations were attributed in order of appearance. Pldx1 (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2016‎ (UTC)

Follow-up

All these fake references have been trashed out by their author (and the article reduced from 11,250 bytes to 6,928 bytes). At [11], a new reference has appeared, supposed to be about the celebration of new yams. This Poynor's paper is easy to find . Page 86 is made of end notes. None of them is about yams or the Igogo festival. One of them, note 3, is about the signification of a 17 days period. One line refers to yams. Nor any other part of this reference paper. Dear mentors, any comments ? Pldx1 (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC) modified by Pldx1 (talk) 07:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Ooni of Ife

Article Ooni of Ife was created 2015-07-30 by Wikicology. As of now, he remains the only major contributor. Except from a bibliography, this page contains nothing more than List of rulers of Ife (created 7 September 2010). The paragraphs are only saying that x(n) was succeeded by x(n+1) or, perhaps, preceded by x(n-1). The biography contains six references to newspapers, and a reference to the terracotta head of Lajuwa (often said to have usurped the power at the death of Aworokolokin). The whole catalog is nice to see , even if p=274 (n66) says nothing about predecessors/successors of Aworokolokin. And then, we have nine Google books.

As before, each of these nine books is only in snippet view, while the page given is not a reference, but the total number of pages of the book. End of the story ? Not really. As documented now at List of rulers of Ife, there are many authors, and many different lists...

• ref 4. Awofinya says: 1. Oduduwa; 2. Obalufon Ogbogbodirin; 3. Obalufon Alayemore; 4. Oranmiyan. And therefore, he doesn't says: 1. Oduduwa; 2 Osangangan Obamakin; 3. Ogun; 4. Obalufon Ogbogbodirin; 5. Obalufon Alayemore; 6. Oranmiyan
• ref 5. Uses Alaiyemore; no 'last born', no 'overseer'.
• ref 6. No Ayetise.
• ref 8. No Ekun, Ajimuda, Gboonijio, Okanlajosin, Adegbalu, Osinkola, Ogburu
• ref 9. Luwo, Lajamisan, Ogboru only quoted once, on the same snippet. What does this prove ?
• ref 11. No Adejinle, Olojo, Okiti, Lugbade, Aribiwoso, Osinlade, Adagba. On the contrary, Ojigidiri Akinmoyero seems to be quoted p 92 as a single person, living in the 1830s. This looks strange!
• ref 12. No Gbanlare, Gbegbaaje, Wunmonije, nor 1800, 1823, 1835, 1839 (the book is about 1900-1980)
• ref 13. Ologundudu provides a complete list of 48 names, not 50.

References

Pldx1 (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@User:Tribe of Tiger. Adding or not 1894-1910 to article Adelekan Olubuse I is only a contents' matter, even if one can remark that Ologundu uses Olubose. But backing article Ooni_Osinkola by Ologundu is rather strange. Pldx1 (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Robert McClenon

Communication by Wikicology to Robert McClenon in response to preliminary statement

The subject placed the following statement on my talk page after I filed my preliminary statement:

Hi Robert, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARobert_McClenon&type=revision&diff=713960153&oldid=713942068

Assessment by Robert McClenon

The subject editor hasn't shown that they understand what Wikipedia is, an encyclopedia rather than a social medium, and hasn't indicated how they would contribute positively to Wikipedia if left as participants (or when they come off ban or block). The fact that they haven't indicated how they will contribute positively to Wikipedia is troubling. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

After more than three years, the subject admits above not to being aware of certain key policies. That indicates an editor who isn't trying to learn what Wikipedia is and how it works, but is instead still trying to learn better how to game the system to pursue some self-serving agenda. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

For an editor who has been disruptive for more than three years to describe the current community response as a "mobbing" again indicates that they are still minimizing the severity of a pattern of years, and want to be given another chance to continue to pursue their own agenda, whatever it is, which is not Wikipedia's. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk page banner

The following banner appears on User talk:Wikicology.

Give me a single reason why you should bite newbies and I will give you multiple reasons why you are not here to build an encyclopedia ~ Olatunde Isaac

Assessment

While it is true in the abstract, in the sense that any editor who actually believes that inexperienced editors should be “bitten”, bullied, or berated is a net negative, its presence on the talk page of an editor of two years standing under this account name (and possibly longer under previous accounts) is troubling. The statements by this editor, including on my talk page, make it clear that this editor is offering in his defense that he doesn’t really understand Wikipedia. After two years or more, there is only plausible explanation: He doesn’t want to understand Wikipedia. That in turn implies: He doesn’t want to understand Wikipedia, because he has an agenda which is itself not to build the encyclopedia. It is probably to advance his image somehow, but that does not matter. He doesn’t want to learn the ways of Wikipedia, because he isn’t here to build the encyclopedia, and so wants to continue to be able to plead ignorance.

We do have to be tolerant of ignorance in new editors, whose ignorance is the result of newness. We do not have to be tolerant of long-standing ignorance that is carefully kept as an excuse, and it would be foolish to be tolerant of a pattern of long-standing ignorance used to excuse systematic disregard of basic norms. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Evidence presented by FloNight

Relationship with wikimedia movement

Wikicology is in leadership positions in m:Wikimedia User Group Nigeria, and holds other positions with WMF groups.

Because of my interest in diversity in the wikimedia movement and my experience as a Wikipedian in Residence, I volunteered to act as mentor to some of the Wikipedians in Residence for the m:Wiki Loves Women project. Some members of m:Wikimedia User Group Nigeria are planning to work on Wiki Loves Women.

Last week when I became aware of concerns about Wikicology, I felt a responsibility to follow up with Wikicology, the leadership of Wiki Loves Women, and some staff in the Community Engagement Department at WMF. I know that the staff of Wiki Loves Women and the staff in the Community Engagement Department are taking immediate actions to protect the integrity of the wikimedia movement. And presumably, further actions will be taken after further investigation.

The type of mentoring that Wikipedians in Residence receive would not be a replacement for mentoring by active editors on Wikipedia English. So, if Wikicoloy would return to a role as trainer about editing Wikipedia, it would need to be after a period of mentoring on Wikipedia.

So at this point in time I don't think that anyone needs to be alarmed that Wikicology is going cause permanent damage to the wikimedia movement because there are competent people in Wiki Loves Women and Wikimedia User Group Nigeria who are managing the situation well. And Wikicology's future roles will be partially determined by whether and when he retrieves mentoring on Wikipedia English.

Evidence presented by Anthonyhcole

I looked at New York City Legionaires' disease outbreak and found instances of

• copying from another Wikipedia article without attributing or citing (that is, relatively minor plagiarism). The text copied was true for the original article but false for the article into which it was copied.
• copying from a newspaper without attributing or citing (more serious plagiarism)
• misrepresenting sources
• close paraphrasing

The details are at User:Anthonyhcole/Legionella. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Evidence presented by EdChem

Wikicology may have qualifications in science (I have no idea) but his writing includes substantial chemical errors. Examples from this version of the nitrogen dioxide poisoning page, when only Wikicology had been editing it:

Lead

Nitrogen dioxide poisoning is the illness resulting from the toxic effect of Nitrogen (II) oxide.

• Chemical names are not proper nouns and so are usually not capitalised.
• Oxidation states (the Roman numerals in parentheses) are not separated from the element to which they refer. Thus, the lead sentence should end "nitrogen(II) oxide" rather than "Nitrogen (II) oxide". These errors in nomenclature recur throughout the page.
• Disturbingly, the name nitrogen(II) oxide is used, though it is NOT the same compound as nitrogen dioxide. Nitrogen dioxide (or sometimes nitrogen(IV) oxide) is NO₂ whereas nitrogen(II) oxide is NO.
• Further explanation here

Nitrogen (II) oxide is often released into the environment as a byproduct of fuel combustion but rarely released by Spontaneous combustion.

• This sentence is true only because nitrogen(II) oxide, NO, is a combustion byproduct. NO₂ is present in air pollution from subsequent oxidation in air, not directly from combustion.

Known sources of Nitrogen gas poisoning includes automobile exhaust, Power stations, The toxicity may also results from non-combustible sources such as the one released from anaerobic fermentation of food grains and Anaerobic digestion of Biodegradable waste.[

• Nitrogen gas poisoning is the bends and has nothing to do with nitrogen dioxide poisoning.
• "Anaerobic fermentation" is wikilinked to lactic acid fermentation, which doesn't involve nitrogen (it is a major source of methane from sugars).
• The linked anaerobic digestion page show that nitrogen in these cases ends up mostly as ammonia. The reference does mention nitrogen and its oxides, but a biochemist should know that significant NO₂ production requires oxygen (ie. aerobic not anaerobic conditions) and that the anaerobic product of metabolising nitrogen is overwhelmingly ammonia. In other words, interpreting the reference appropriately requires recognition that one of the products listed is vastly more significant in terms of quantity than are the others.

Signs and Symptoms

Nitrogen (II) oxide poisoning is not harmful to all forms of life just like "Chlorine gas poisoning" and Carbon (I) oxide.

• Carbon(I) oxide is wikilinked to carbon monoxide poisoning but carbon(I) oxide would be C₂O, whereas carbon monoxide (CO)would be carbon(II) oxide.
• This sentence makes little sense, unless it refers to exposure not being problematic below certain levels.
• In this ANI discussion, Peter Damian refers to copying from other poisoning articles "(such as Chlorine and Beryllium)." SarahSV asks for clarification and is told by Wikicology:

I can't remember doing that. The truth is, most of these gas poisoning have similar symptoms but if the sources I provided does not support it, then its still a mess. I admit my errors on these topics and I will stay off-clear from topics like this.

It concerns me that beryllium poisoning is described by Wikicology as one of "these gas poisoning[s with] similar symptoms" as beryllium and its compounds are solids at room temperature. Beryllium poisoning is characterised by granulomas (from wiki-page: a "granuloma is an inflammation found in many diseases. It is a collection of immune cells known as histiocytes. Granulomas form when the immune system attempts to wall off substances it perceives as foreign but is unable to eliminate.") formed by the body to deal with solid particles of beryllium. Gas poisonings aren't like this, and while some symptoms might be superficially similar, I would expect a biochemist to understand the process and the differences

Biochemical effects

Chronic exposure to high level of Nitrogen (II) oxide results in the allosteric inhibition of Glutathione peroxidase and Glutathione S-transferase, both of which are important enzymes found in the mucous membrane antioxidant defense system, that catalyse nucleophilic attack by reduced glutathione (GSH) on non-polar compounds that contain an electrophillic Carbon and Nitrogen.

• The function of glutathione S-transferase is roughly as described, but the function of glutathione peroxidase is different - as our respective wiki-pgaes will confirm.
• More disturbingly, this section is referenced to a paper titled as "Biochemical effects of combined gases of nitrogen dioxide". Following the link shows the actual paper title is (emphasis added) "Biochemical effects of combined gases of nitrogen dioxide and ozone. IV. Changes of lipid peroxidation and antioxidative protective systems in rat lungs upon life span exposure." Truncation of the article title may be a coincidence, but the shortened name appears much more relevant than the full title and so the possibility of deliberate misdirection may be considered. It is a study on rats of a combination of NO₂ and O₃ and its abstract states "On the other hand, enzyme activities of ... glutathione peroxidase ... [and] glutathione S-transferase ... did not show any significant changes during this experiment." The claim made by Wikicology rests on shaky ground, without checking the text in detail.
• I doubt this single rat study in the journal Toxicology would be MEDRS compliant in any case.

It also causes a decrease in Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase which may results in Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency known as favism, a condition that predisposes to hemolysis (spontaneous destruction of red blood cells).

• The supporting reference is another rat study on NO₂, again a questionable basis for such a broad statement.
• The paper's abstract states that "The activities of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase and glutathione reductase were significantly higher than those in the control group for the 9-month exposure. In the 18-month exposure, however, they showed a tendency to return to control level." Any scientist should know that the control group is the one not exposed to the experimental conditions and so the abstract actually says that the levels of this enzyme were higher in the treatment group but Wikicology's version states that the levels decreased.

Reproductive effects

Exposure to Nitrogen (II) oxide have a significant effects on male reproductive system by inhibiting the production of Sertoli cell, a "nurse" cell of the testicles that is part of a seminiferous tubule and helps in the process of spermatogenesis.

• This claim is attributed to this paper titled "Role of oxidative stress in female reproduction." The words "Sertoli", "seminiferous", and "spermatogenesis" do not appear in the article. "Nitrogen dioxide" appears once as an introduction to the effects of nitrogen monoxide (NO) in primarily female reproductive systems, though male infertility is also mentioned in passing.
• The second part of this sentence is lifted from the Sertoli cell article, which I note does not mention nitrogen dioxide.

Comment

I submit this evidence of some of the issues I see with Wikicology because I see issues with competence and expertise. Wikicology's intent is open for discussion, but there is definitely damage being done to the encyclopaedic content.

Evidence presented by Fram

Not restricted to scientific articles

To avoid the impression that the problematic editing is solely to be found in scientific articles, I'll repeat the findings from one paragraph in one article I looked at during the ANI discussion.

"I just looked at this interview, linked in the latest incarnation of his autobiography. In it, he discusses Yoruba tribal marks: "for example, when I wrote an article entitled "Yoruba Tribal marks", I got a sense of accomplishment from knowing that over 5 million people would read it." (which, at some 1,000 pageviews a month, would take some 300 years to achieve; if you really did say that to the interviewer, then again I'ld much prefer that you no longer presented yourself as the face of the Nigerian Wikipedians).

Sure enough, that article has the exact same problems as those discussed above. I checked the "Pele" section. The first source[12] doesn't mention "pele" at all. The second source[13] mentions Pele, but doesn't support anything it supposedly references. Source 8 doesn't support the sentence it references. And so on. The final sentence, about president Obasanjo, is probably a reference to the source from the preceding sentence[14], but that source makes it clear that it was his father that had the marks, not the President. Basically, the whole paragraph should be removed and rewritten from scratch. I note that this article was on DYK as well... "

Just to indicate that e.g. a topic ban from hard science articles is not the right (or at least full) answer here. Fram (talk) 08:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Mz7

Wikicology and sockpuppetry

Parts of Peter Damian’s evidence assume that we already know the connection between Wikicology (talk · contribs) and his various other accounts, but it doesn’t appear that anyone else has made those connections clear here. Here it is for the record:

• Wikicology's first edit to Wikipedia as "Wikicology" is this edit to User talk:RHaworth on 3 June 2014.
  • He acknowledges Wikicology (talk · contribs) as a sockpuppet of Isaacatm (talk · contribs), which had been (and still is) blocked indefinitely on 9 October 2013 per WP:NOTHERE for repeatedly creating Olatunde olalekan isaac.
  • He apologizes for his “gross misconduct” under Isaacatm and promises not to be involve in such a nonsensical exercise and I will always make a very good contributions on wikipedia.
  • RHaworth responds with: I shall believe it when I see it. RHaworth does not block Wikicology, which Wikicology takes as permission to continue editing.
• Isaacatm has an SPI subpage: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Isaacatm.
  • Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Isaacatm lists 5 CheckUser-confirmed sock puppets:
    • Ainakan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    • Biomolecules (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    • Levels016 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    • Orimadegun016 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    • Sixtyn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Isaacatm lists 2 non-CheckUser-confirmed sock puppets
    • Osanlemu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    • Seventyx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• As far as I am aware, Wikicology has not edited under any other accounts after he began editing under Wikicology.

Evidence presented by Ocaasi (WMF)

Wikicology is a Wikipedia Library outreach and global branch coordinator who created a home page for The Wikipedia Library in Yoruba

1 of the 20 existing global branches of The Wikipedia Library was created in Yoruba language Wikipedia by Wikicology. [15][16].

Upon closer inspection, this page did not follow the setup guide for establishing a new branch [17]; rather, it exactly cloned and translated the ENWP main page. As such, none of the links work.

We appreciate WikiCology's effort to start creating a branch and have interacted with them in good faith off-wiki. I wrote a personal letter to the German Visa Office affirming Wikicology's contributions as an editor. These were based off of the published articles about him [18] [19].

As a Wikipedia Library coordinator [20] [21], WikiCology has a signed Non-disclosure agreement with the Wikimedia Foundation. This legally binds them from sharing any personal information about editors they may receive related to the Wikipedia Library. I want to be clear that they have no such access to any personal information at the moment. If Yoruba Wikipedia were to one day arrange publisher donations and WikiCology coordinated the distribution of accounts, this editor would theoretically receive personal information. Because of the ongoing investigation into WikiCology's trustworthiness, we are temporarily prohibiting any personal information from going to WikiCology (even with a legally-binding agreement). Again, this is only a hypothetical consideration, because Yoruba has no editor signups or any editor information collection at present.

I want to offer a personal comment, not in my strictly staff capacity. I find this entire situation sad. At worst, many of us have been misled--and yet--I still ponder that someone in an emerging global community wanted so much to be a part of our community and earn its esteem that this is the role they have chosen to build with their time. Whether they have inflated their resume, or edited without competence, I still finding it striking, and touching, and even inspiring that of all the things one could theoretically choose to try and become, even under potentially false pretenses, that they chose to become one of us.

We are a community that at heart relies on trust, and the questions about trustworthiness raised here are indeed concerning. I encourage us to proceed with rigor but also with sympathy.

Evidence presented by Alanscottwalker

I have no time nor any reason to rise in defense of Wikicology, whom I have never known (to my memory anywhere), but I voted for this committee because I believe you will endeavor to be fair and to really look at the bad and the good of this and any editor. So here's hoping you do so. Thus, I have just two brief assertions of evidence the first of which may lead to very good benefit for the project, here. The second, which this committee needs to examine in depth, because it points to the fact that Wikicology is indeed capable of competence (and thus throwing him away should be slowly and gravely done, if it is to be done), or this evidence points to a deep failure of Wikipedia administration, and this committee needs to see if there is a way to expose that failure and address it (so, that a future Wikicology is not misled, and so the community is not surprised).

Mentoring is a well accepted

This committee, in the past, has ordered mentoring to save an editor and it could be a way through here, as action against an editor is generally neither meant to be punishment nor permanent. As noted in the case statements, two editors in good standing have offered, and Wikicology has previously accepted during the AN/I, under strict conditions (so this committee should indeed consider formalizing all that).

Wikicology was an 'approved' content creator

As noted by Xeno and others in the case statements, Wikicology was made WP:Autopatrolled by English Wikipedia. To be given the autopatrolled right, the "permission is granted only to accounts that have extensively demonstrated their knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines . . .". The basis for the permission is "extensively demonstrated" by examination of Wikicology's editing of content (ie., not what they say, what they do), particularly the content in his creation of articles (that obviously does not mean perfect but it does mean good enough). Thus, either we have an editor that has in the past proven his capability and acts of good for project content, or we have a severe failure of English Wikipedia administration.

Evidence presented by Lankiveil

Qualifications

As noted by User:Amatulic in this diff, Wikicology has sent through photographs of a number of documents through to OTRS, where they are logged under ticket 2016040310006004. I have reviewed myself, and if genuine these documents would seem to corroborate the claims made by Wikicology on their user page that they are (or were) employed as a medical laboratory scientist, as well as claims made in the various deleted autobiographical articles of having university qualifications in biochemistry. These documents do not specify the duties involved in the position, nor do they confirm he is still employed in the field. I urge ArbCom to examine these documents as they are directly relevant to the question of misrepresentation of qualifications.

Motivation

While the issues of plagiarism and the introduction of elementary errors into chemical articles are real and serious, none of the evidence so far indicates that Wikicology has been acting with malice. Some form of probation is definitely warranted to deal with the undeniable issues, however I would prefer that Wikicology is put to work in cleaning up the messes that they have created, rather than hitting him with a siteban. The user has already committed to this, as well as a number of other commitments. These commitments are good ideas, and could be made "official" by becoming binding in any remedies that are imposed as a result of this case.

Office Image

On 21 March 2015, Wikicology uploaded this photo of himself, which has now quite properly been deleted as a copyright violation. In the metadata, he gave it the description "Wikicology in his office at Adekunle Ajasin University, Nigeria.", and the source information "I created the file in my office in Nigeria". The image itself shows someone who I presume to be Wikicology sitting side-on in a nondescript office; it is not possible to tell solely from the image where it was taken. As it later turned out, he did not have an office at the university. This is perhaps a small thing, but it fits into the pattern of other evidence submitted here.

Evidence presented by SilkTork

Along with some others, I reached out to Wikicology after his failed RfA [22]. I had concerns regarding his treatment of others, his general attitude - especially as shown in the now deleted essay User:Wikicology/Mosquitoes, and seeming inconsistencies in statements made about his academic status. At the same time I was getting the impression that he was well meaning and enthusiastic, and that he was willing to do outreach work in a neglected region. I noted that he responded well to advice, which was encouraging. I reviewed for GA an article he created - Isaac Folorunso Adewole / Talk:Isaac Folorunso Adewole/GA1. The review was sometimes one step forward, three steps back, however, he did listen, and would respond positively, and I listed the article. (In the circumstances it might be worth giving it a harder glance to see if there are copyright infringements - I cut and pasted a few sentences into Google at the time, but if the original sources are off-line then I wouldn't have been aware of plagiarism.) It struck me that he was a somewhat naive person rather than a deliberately misleading one. Whenever I explained something to him, he would take on board what I said, and move forward positively. I had concerns regarding two images used in the article, which he resolved by claiming authorship of the images. Those images have now been deleted as copyright infringements: [23] [24]. Wikicology has said that he took photographs of the originals, and didn't realise this was a copyright infringement (forgive me, I can't find a link for that at the moment - perhaps someone else has it?). I am disturbed to discover the full history behind the man, though much of what I am seeing does fall into my instinctive feeling at the time that he is a well meaning if somewhat naive and immature individual rather than someone deliberately deceptive and empire building. If Isaac Folorunso Adewole is Wikicology's own work, then he can be an asset to the project if given clear directions on what he can and can't do. Adewole is a significant Nigerian figure, yet before Wikicology wrote that article we had no information on him.

We don't need to be perfect to edit Wikipedia, though competence helps. Mentoring is difficult and rarely works, though is more likely to succeed with individuals who are well meaning, but naive, than individuals who misbehave and are deceptive. I am not volunteering to be a mentor - due to personal circumstances I can't commit to being regularly available; nor do I feel it would be helpful to appoint individuals. As a community we can generally assist users (particularly those who are new or weak) through providing guidelines, and by our supportive and encouraging attitude. If the community distrusts and turns against an individual it can be difficult to turn matters around unless the community itself has a change of heart. I'm not clear what ArbCom can do here, other than give the community an opportunity to reflect on the evidence, and listen to opinions. If ArbCom decide not to ban Wikicology, but the community don't have a change of heart, then he will flounder because he needs the support of the community to prosper. I think that really it's only the community who can decide if they are willing to give help to potentially useful but time-consuming individuals such as Wikicology. I think we need to give greater assistance to users from difficult regions, and if the evidence does mount up that he is well meaning but slightly incompetent (rather than deliberately misleading) I do think the community will give him that special assistance. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Wikicology

I will never recreate an article about me

After I joined Wikipedia I saw many people having their biography on Wikipedia, I thought they wrote it themselves, since anyone can edit. I didn’t know that these articles were written by people without a COI with the subject. I didn't know that subject of a Wikipedia articles must meet either WP:GNG or other subject-specific notability guidelines such as WP:MUSICBIO. I didn’t know that WP:RS, WP:V exists. I didn’t even know the difference between a WP:USER PAGE and WP:MAINSPACE.

The reason why I recreated the recently deleted version of my biography is that I felt I could write my biography myself using reliable sources. When I saw Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles, I thought all the articles were created by the Wikipedians and that maybe that's why it was listed there since they meet WP:BIO. I deeply regret my mistake of writing about myself. Now, I have a clear understanding of WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, I won't ever write about myself, anyone I know or other subject I am connected to. I have a connection with the article Chukwuemeka Fred Agbata, but have been deleted.

I stopped stop using sock puppets and that has been dealt with by administrators

The biography I created was deleted per WP:A7. I recreated the bio again. It was deleted and my account was blocked. I kept on registering under different names believing that nobody would detect that the accounts were connected. Unknown to me WP:DUCK exists and all the accounts were blocked. I didn't use any of those accounts for long and I didn't make many edits with them. I didn't understand the warnings I was getting or that they were policy when I used those accounts.

After the last sock account was blocked I decided to read Wikipedia:About to know about Wikipedia. Through that page I was able to read some other pages where I discovered that subject of an article must be notable to be included on Wikipedia.

Then I created my final account Wikicology. After the account was created and before writing anything on my user page, I approached User:RHaworth, one of the blocking admins of my sock accounts. I disclosed my sock account and promised not to engaged in any sock activities and always make good contributions. RHaworth permitted me to continue editing.

After about 3 weeks, I returned to RHaworth to ask his assessments of my contributions here and I got a good feedback from him. I was very happy.

Mentors

I called RHaworth "mentor" then, not because he offers any formal form of mentorship but because I believe I can always go to them for advise. This might be a misunderstanding of the word "mentor" on Wikipedia. I am thankful to User:Cullen328 and User:Irondome who have now offered to mentor me, if ArbCom allows it.

Editing Wikipedia is difficult

Three days after this account was created, I authored Olawoye Theo Ladapo and the article was deleted via AfD. The professor seemed notable to me but I never knew that he wasn't notable according to Wikipedia policy.

After the deletion, I didn't received any help from anyone. I created Taofeek Olakunle Ajiboye it was deleted through the same process.

Two months later I picked up my molecular biology textbook and I wrote Ebola Virus genetics. I copied the contents of the article from the book word-for-word because I was not familiar with WP:CV. The article was marked as patrolled and I received a thanks later. I was very happy. I felt this is the way all articles are created on Wikipedia. I decided to write more using the same method. I wrote Transcription activators in eukaryotes, Molecular tools for gene study, and Microbial growth monitoring techniques. All of these were patrolled with no tag for deletion.

I am trying my best to learn more about the policies as quickly as possible. Wikipedia is very difficult to edit and this is one of the reasons why I decided to engage in outreach works in Nigeria in the last 6 months to help recruit and educate new editors in Nigeria on how not to make the mistakes I made.

My contributions improved after the 2014 AN/I

Soon after I started editing with this account a report was filled against me at AN/I for inappropriate non-admin closure of AfD. In that AN/I thread several concerns were raised including being hostile when dealing with newcomers. All the articles I copied their contents from the textbook were tagged for speedy deletion as copyright violations and deleted. That was how I learned about WP:CV. Since then I have been writing articles without violating copyright and no more of my articles have been deleted due to WP:CV violations.

I have been welcoming to new editors since that AN/I and I have learned to interact using WP:AGF with new and established editors. See this, this and this.

I didn't understand image uploading policy when I read it in August 2014

When I read the policies on image uploading in August 2014 barely 2 months after I joined Wikipedia, I didn't understand it. It appeared very complex and I misunderstood the whole thing. I didn't know back then that I should ask experienced editor to explain to me.

I never thought I was lying when I referred to any image I uploaded as "own work”. I thought "own work" means the uploader of the photo to Wikipedia. I have uploaded images I took myself such as [25],[26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. Now, I have read and understand the image uploading policies and licenses. I will never violate this policy in the future. I apologize for the mistakes I made. I didn't intend to make those mistakes.

Joking about "my office" was a big mistake

The photo I uploaded that captioned me as "Wikicology in his office at Adekunle Ajasin University, Nigeria" was an In-joke involving me and my friend in our lecturers office. My friend took the photograph using my phone while I was discussing with my lecturer. After the discussion he showed me and he said "You look like a lecturer and here seem like your office" and we laughed together and I said "let me put it on my user page on Wikipedia with the caption". He knew I needed a better photo for my user page.

I didn't realize the danger. I didn't read any meaning to it and I didn't see it beyond a joke. I never tried to use the idea I was a lecturer when I wrote any article. I didn't understand the image uploading license and I thought it was okay since it was taken with my camera and I was the subject. Now I understand I was mistaken about the image upload copyright policy.

When I said "my students at Fountain University" in an rangeblock discussion with Mike V diff I was referring to the university students we taught how to edit Wikipedia. I didn’t mean anything else.

I regret saying I was a "university lecturer"

During my request for admin when my nominator called me a university lecturer, I knew he was mistaken but I didn't refute the claim because I was afraid it might result in drama. That is why I admitted to being a university lecturer and subsequently made the claim here during my RfA on my RfA page. This is a great mistake and I regret it. When SilkTork approached me, here on the need to clarify my academic status on the English Wikipedia, I didn't disclaim it at that moment because he came immediately after my failed RfA. I ought to disclaimed it then or during my RfA. This is another mistake that I regret.

I have submitted private evidence to ArbCom intended to support the fact that I have worked as a college teacher. I appreciate no further investigation about my current or previous employers since that is not a requirement for editing Wikipedia.

When User:Peter Damian challenged it later [32], I saw that moment as an opportunity to disclaim it. That's is why I said am not a university lecturer but a biochemist and a lab scientist which are true. I have also gave free lectures at university about Wikipedia but that doesn't make me a university lecturer. I am sorry I said I was.

All information on other Wikimedia projects are correct about me and I have never called myself a university lecturer outside the English Wikipedia. I have never used such claim in any content dispute and I have never presented myself as a lecturer to the WMF or any WMF staff. No media has ever described me as a university lecturer.

I have learned more on how to cite sources

I apologize for my mistakes citing sources. I neither forged references nor provided false references. I made mistakes citing the sources I provided at Igogo festival and Ooni of Ife, but the sources were not fake or forgeries.

Thanks to User:EdChem, User:Anthonyhcole, User: Pldx1, and everyone else who looked through my article sources for their comments and investigation. I know how to correctly site sources now. I have learn to cite sources correctly in the course of this discussion. See the latest version of Igogo festival.

During this ArbCom case I learned many things including that content shouldn't be copied from other Wikipedia pages without attribution and close paraphrasing should be totally avoided. Before this case, I didn’t know about the Wayback Machine. I have learned to use it to prevent dead links in the future.

I do not want to contribute to medical related topics, but I am eager to correct any citation mistakes I made in those articles. Those articles are more complex than what I feel comfortable writing about in the future.

During this ArbCom case I discovered I had problems with references particularly with the use of Google books. Before now I often used the entire book as source instead of the specific page that supported article content. Before this ArbCom case I never realized that I was not citing sources correctly and I didn’t know that would make it difficult for other editors to verify the content supported by those sources.

Having realized this in the course of this discussion, I have been fixing the problems. I am checking all the sources one-by-one to fix any problem associated with sources and correct every mistake. See for example, [33], [34], [35], [36].

In the Igogo festival article, these are mistakes I made:

1. Yoruba Art and Language: Seeking the African in African did supported the content, but I didn't cite the exact pages (p. 92 - 96).

2. Benard and Moon’s; Goddesses Who Rule. Supported claim but I didn't cited the correct page (p. 125)

3. Dinner with Demons (Illusion of Rainbows) is a fiction book, authored by a Nigerian Professor. I Never knew that fiction books are not suitable for an article like this. I should have used it as a popular culture reference to the festival and not as a source for the article.

5. Yoruba Religious Textiles: Essays in Honour of Cornelius Oyeleke. This book did support the content but I didn't cite the correct pages (p. 57-83)

6.The Ancestral act of Owo, Nigeria supported the claim but I didn’t know that it is sometimes inappropriate to cite Ph.D thesis (p. 320-321 and 57-83).

7. The source titled "Africa" is also a valid source. I wanted to use it to reference "She insisted that nobody should grind Okra in her presence or pour water into the yard. In addition, anyone arriving from the farm must not lump a load of firewood." But I mistakenly place the source in the wrong place (p. 64 - 70)

8. Yoruba: Nine centuries of African art and thought supported the content but I didn't cite the correct pages (p. 97-101)

9. Character is beauty: redefining Yoruba culture. I used it to support "Epo Eyo" (p. 237) I didn't use it to support alligator pepper and kolanut. (correct p. 273).

10. Tales of Yoruba Gods and Heroes. I used it to support how the Igogo festival began and not to support "Ugbo Laja" per se. Ugbo Laja as a sacred grove has already been covered and supported by reliable source(s).

11. Owo celebrate Igogo festival, The Nation. This is also a valid source but I made a mistake when I used it. I mistakenly used it to support a different statement.

12. Olowo: Custodian of Yoruba –Benin heritage". The Sun News. This is a valid source that supported the claim but is now a dead link. I have now asked how to archive news articles to avoid dead links in the future, here

On Ooni of Ife I made mistakes citing Google books, but I did not provide false references.

For example,

• ref 4. Awofinya says: 1. Oduduwa; 2. Obalufon Ogbogbodirin; 3. Obalufon Alayemore; 4. Oranmiyan. 1. Oduduwa; 2 Osangangan Obamakin; 3. Ogun; 4. Obalufon Ogbogbodirin; 5. Obalufon Alayemore; 6. Oranmiyan (I think the person who wrote about this on the Evidence page is confused.)

• Ref 7 supported the claim.
• ref 9. The ref supported the claim that Luwo was a female ruler and supported every other claim in the article.

• Ref 10 supported the claim

I also have sourcing problems similar to the Igogo festival in Yoruba tribal marks. I have also fixed these. Unless I missed something all the sources supported the content in Yoruba tribal marks.

When the article was created (see: the oldest version)

ref [thenationonlineng.net/obasanjo-why-i-didnt-know-my-father-had-tribal-marks/ 11] supported the claim. It was used to support the "Owu tribal marks" not "Pele".

Ref 12 (now dead link) also supported the claim that Olusegun Obasanjo has the Owu tribal marks inscribed in his cheeks. The story was covered by more than one source and I have replaced the dead link with The Nation Newspaper. See the latest version.

Ref [www.vanguardngr.com/2014/10/marked-life-tribal-marks-attractive-repulsive/ 8] supported "According to the law “No person shall tattoo or make a skin mark or cause any tattoo or skin mark to be made on a child”.”

Ref 13 supported the claims. See the oldest version.

Also, some of the newspaper links I cited when I created articles are now dead. I have started fixing these problems. See for example this, this and [37]. See the latest version of Femi Robinson.

I was still very new and learning how to write articles when I wrote Child sexual abuse in Nigeria in September 2014. I think I confused two different documents with the same abbreviation

One reason I made article mistakes

The errors I made in content creation were a result of the method I used in creating those articles. I stopped using that method. I often created contents off-wiki on my phone with different versions of a single article. After aborting that method, I never realized that I caused a series of problem with that former method. If I had realized this, I would have fixed the problematic articles long ago.

I had 2 versions of Isaac Folorunso Adewole when the article was created offline as draft and the final version is the one I submitted that was listed as a GA, reviewed by User:SilkTork.

The errors I made in "nitrogen dioxide poisoning" is not as a result of lack of understanding of the fundamentals of chemistry but as a result of my method of article creation explained above. Over 80 percent of my articles were created with my phone. I usually write contents offline, then submit my final version to Wikipedia. I sometimes have 3 to 4 version of a single article.

For nitrogen dioxide poisoning I had 3 versions. The first version was a two line sentence. The second version was the one with problems. In that version I wrote nitrogen dioxide as Nitrogen (II) oxide which is often called nitrogen monoxide or nitrogen oxide (NO). This is a different compound entirely with different physical and chemical properties. Nitrogen is not usually capitalized unless it begin a sentence. (II) is the oxidation number of nitrogen in nitrogen (II) oxide and this is not in any way equivalent to the number of oxygen atom in that compound. In nitrogen dioxide, the oxidation number is IV and the compound should be written as nitrogen (IV) oxide just as carbon dioxide is written as carbon (IV) oxide. I have now learned that English Wikipedia doesn't use chemical names with Roman numerals in parentheses though this is how I learned to write chemical names.

In the version I submitted I wanted to compare nitrogen dioxide poisoning with other gas poisoning and some alkaline earth metal (eg. Beryllium) poisoning. I choose Beryllium poisoning as a typical example of alkaline earth metal poisoning and compared with nitrogen dioxide poisoning. During the process of comparison, I left some contents copied from the Beryllium poisoning on nitrogen dioxide poisoning. The final version I planned to submit did not contain these problems. I saved the three version on my phone under the titles "stub", "draft" and "final version". Unknown to me I saved the draft version as "final version" and the final version as "draft". After few days I copied the problematic version stored as "final version" to the main space without any further review. I edited the page thereafter but never realized the errors. I feel remorseful about this.

Of course Beryllium is never a gas. The mistakes I made are what I have explained above.

Now I don't create more than one version of articles. I am now using a laptop for article creation and using phone for minor editing. Also, I triple check articles before submission to main space.

My contributions to Aisha Muhammed Oyebode and Timoyhy Ihemadu

Aisha Muhammed Oyebode was created by User:Ebubay01. They started creating the article here. They moved it to namespace here. I nominated it for deletion, here and the page was deleted. They made an undeletion request here and they left me a message here and I responded here. I later changed my mind to move it to mainspace after some improvement. The editor felt I was bitey when I nominated it for deletion. Thus, I felt moving it to mainspace after some improvement will change their mindset about me. I didn't created the article or recreated it after it was deleted and I don't know anything about the article since I moved it to mainspace after I’d seen the editor had improved it.

For Timothy Ihemadu, I initially participated in the article deletion discussion in favor of delete. I later returned to the page to change my decision in favor of "keep" after I found some sources that demonstrate notability but I discovered the page had been deleted. I decided to recreate the page after informing User:SwisterTwister who previously nominated the page for deletion. The mistake I made is that I ought to gone to deletion review before recreating the page. In the course of this ArbCom case I was advised to nominate those articles whose notability is in doubt for deletion. So when Smartse nominated it for deletion yesterday, I decided to tag it with G7 since I planned to nominate it for deletion before they did.

I don't edit Wikipedia for power, influence, fame or money

Since my failed RfA, I do not want to become an administrator on the English Wikipedia.

I recently got a private loan to buy a computer to contribute to other Wikimedia projects. We pay heavily for data plans in Nigeria and my data plan doesn't make it easy for me to always use the computer for the English Wikipedia. I can fix all mistakes I have made on English Wikipedia and I can use my computer to do some of that and my phone to do the rest.

I have done selfless volunteer work

I focus on Nigeria-related topics because Nigeria and Africa-related topics are under-represented on Wikimedia project. I want to increase the coverage of Nigeria-related topics on Wikipedia. That's is why I wrote over 500 articles on Nigeria related topics and not to gain power or influence. I also became very active in Nigeria related deletion discussion after I familiarized myself with the notability guidelines. See my AfD stat.

I have supported Wikimedia User Group Nigeria in terms of outreach programs, community engagement, and to plan high quality grant projects over the last year but I never had sole access to any WMF funds. The Wikimedia User Group Nigeria reports to the WMF about the outcome of funded grant programs and I am not in charge of those reports.

I voluntarily joined the Individual Engagement Grant Committee to help review grant proposals and to help grantees plan high quality grant projects that will help grantees achieve the best possible result. This role has to do with my personal skills in grant-making and have little or nothing to do with article creation on Wikipedia. That volunteer work also didn’t have anything to do with credentials. I didn’t handle funds in that role and I wasn’t paid for my service. I have withdrawn my membership from that committee.

In January 2016 I helped the Wikimedia User Group Nigeria organize a contest called Wiki Loves Nigeria Writing Contest as part of Wikipedia 15 (see: [38] and this. The contest added 123 articles on Nigeria-related topics to Wikipedia and a featured article was contributed by one of the contest participants. We plan to do more in the future.

My hopes

I ask the community and the Arbitration Committee for leniency considering that the majority of my misconduct happened as a result of poor understanding of how Wikipedia works. The majority of the problems highlighted dated back to 2014 and part of 2015. I have not created any problematic article in the last 6 months and no concerns have been raised about the contributions I made during that time.

If I am allowed to continue editing I think some editing restrictions would be a good idea as I indicated in the recent AN/I discussion and also in my Evidence here. I will fix all problems with articles that I have made as quickly as possible as I've already begun doing.

User:Cullen328 and User:Irondome have been very helpful to me while I worked to fix mistakes. For the next year I won't create any new articles or add content to existing articles, except to clearly improve the article using consensus at the article talk page and advice from User:Cullen328, User:Irondome, and anyone else willing to give me advice.

My behavior has been unacceptable. I hope the community will agree that it is not unforgivable behavior.

Evidence presented by BethNaught

Wikicology has uploaded files not in compliance with copyright policy

Wikicology's deleted file contributions show many deleted files with copyright issues.

1. Unsourced files (F4): File:Taofeek Olakunle Ajiboye.jpg, File:African woman.jpeg
2. Copyright violations and unsubstantiated license claims (F9, F11): File:Olufemi.jpeg, File:Ebola Virus genetics.jpeg, File:Obatse militia group.jpg, File:Ahmed Tijjani.jpeg, File:Prof Isa Unimad.jpg, File:Isaac Adewole2.jpg, File:Omigbodun.jpg
3. On 30 March 2016, Wikicology admitted that he did not previously realise that only the photographer of a photograph can claim it as their own work.

While a user might be forgiven for not properly documenting sources, a long pattern of copyright-related deletions (some of the above were deleted at the time, others more recently) should be something he had learned from. Moreover not understanding the idea of authorship makes me question not only his Wikipedia-competence, but also his logical thought.

Wikicology has made misleading statements about the authorship of files

As an extension of the above, consider the file File:Wikicology.jpg (permalink [39]). His original description reads "I created the file in my office in Nigeria". A year after the upload, he nominates it for deletion saying "The photo was taken by my friend and not me". So his original statement cannot be seen as anything other than a lie. I have no trust whatsoever in Wikicology's honesty, particularly in relation to copyright.

Wikicology has broken promises to learn and abide by the copyright policy

On 7 August 2014, Wikicology created the page Ebola Virus genetics. On the next day, Betafive tagged it as a copyvio, remarking "this looks like a straight up copy with minor obfuscating grammatical errors", and the day after that the page was deleted. Meanwhile, on the 7th, Wikicology had uploaded File:Ebola Virus genetics.jpeg from the same webpage, slapping a free license tag on it with no basis or evidence. This was quickly deleted as a copyvio.

Once these pages had been tagged, Wikicology wrote:

1. To Armbrust: I Will take enough time to read Wp:copyright policy so as not to commit the same blunder next time.
2. To Rsrikanth05: Sir the violation of this policy by me is not intentional sir. Am sure this will reali dent my integrity here. But I know where I got it wrong now and I will never commit the Same blunder again . [sic]

And yet Wikicology went on to upload copyvio files, such as File:Wikicology.jpg, my remarks on which I do not need to repeat. Moreover per the 30 March 2016 diff above, Wikicology was clearly deluded about his understanding of the copyright policy.

Wikicology's copyright problems extend to Commons

Wikicology's Commons upload log shows many red links. For example:

1. commons:File:Adekola Ogunoye II, the Olowo of Owo.jpg (DR): photographing someone else's picture and claiming it as own work
2. commons:File:Olatunde and CFA.jpg (DR): from February 2016, a picture of himself, most likely by another person, claimed as own work just like in the local file I have referred to.
3. commons:File:Isa Marte2.jpg: uploaded in February 2016, deleted as a blatant copyright violation - copy-pasted from a news site.

Wikicology's attempts to fix his copyright mistakes have been insufficient

Wikicology recently nominated some of his files for deletion on the grounds that he had lied about their authorship (eg File:Wikicology.jpg, commons:File:Tim Ihemadu.jpg (DR). However he did not do the same for commons:File:Olatunde and CFA.jpg mentioned above. Just like NinjaRobotPirate's evidence below about fixing articles, this shows Wikicology can't be trusted to fix his images nor not to uploads copyvios in the future.

My overall thoughts

As other editors have noted above, Wikicology has a pattern of making mistakes, and once they are pointed out, claiming they were accidental or inconsequential, or making demonstrably false replies (cf. Peter Damian). His approach to creating articles is at best slapdash and at worst plagiarism. He originally started editing as a sockpuppet to promote himself; once he felt he had gained sufficient cachet, and indeed generated some fame for himself via his subpar Wikipedia activies, created another one. I can only concur with Robert McClenon that Wikicology is playing a long game here to further his own goals and doing so at a significant angle to Wikipedia's goals, doing the project harm in the process.

Evidence presented by I JethroBT (WMF)

Actions taken by Community Resources

Our team recognizes that Wikicology has contributed extensively to the Nigerian User Group, and has made good-faith efforts to plan grant proposals supporting their community. That said, Community Resources requires that grantees and committee members remain in good community standing while participating in our programs. Recent AN/I discussions ([40], [41]) highlight several concerns about Wikicology’s contributions, including copyright infringement, contributing content unsupported by citations, providing false citations, and repeated creation of autobiographical content. Persistent inappropriate editing behavior, in spite of community warnings, is inconsistent with good ambassadorship for the projects in outreach and off-wiki work. In light of these concerns, we have communicated to Wikicology that the following conditions will remain in place until these issues have been resolved:

• Status changed to inactive on the Individual Engagement Grants Committee,
• Removal from accounts for WMF-funded activities, and
• Removal from primary leadership, coordination, and training roles in WMF-funded activities.

We continue to welcome Wikicology’s participation in our programs through support roles not dependent on those skills called into question by the current discussions. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Smartse

Wikicology adds unverifiable content

There's plenty mentioned here already, but some which haven't come up:

I had previously had problems with Wikicology's edits at Bashiru Ademola Raji where large parts were unverifiable [42], closely paraphrased the subject's website or just copied the titles of scientific papers [43].

There are multiple incidences where WC added dates of birth that,so far as I can tell, are unverifiable: [44] [45] [46] [47]

Note I have submitted much more serious concerns about these articles and strange actions by WC at Aisha Muhammed Oyebode and Timothy Ihemadu to Arbcom in private upon their advice.

Since the ANI thread began, Wikicology has continued to make mistakes

These make me seriously doubt whether mentorship can work. It will require more effort to guide WC through correcting his errors and inspecting the corrections than it would take for us to deal with them:

• As I noted at ANI he added unverifiable content copied from another article and an irrelevant source.

• This week he inexplicably changed a founding date from 1960 > 1967 [48] and at Mal regulon after supposedly cleaning it up he left a source with no mention of the subject, an irrelevant image and didn't realise that it is mal (as in maltose) and not maI (a capital i). In fairness, he did send me a copy of a textbook from which I could verify the rest [49] but the article is basically lightly paraphrasing the source (not so bad to be a copyvio).

Wikicology cannot be trusted

I already made my views clear at ANI that WC was creating many problems and that I was very uncomfortable with such an editor presenting themselves as the "face of Wikipedia". As Peter Damian has noted WC has appealed to good faith many times for his actions but I am unconvinced that he understands how he has been causing these problems and that he is truly HERE. I don't trust WC to create verifiable content and from the evidence presented here realise that my hopes 3 weeks ago that the Nigerian articles were ok was incorrect. The evidence I've submitted in private is even more worrying than any of this and adds further weight to the conclusion I reached at ANI and if credible would make it impossible for mentoring to be an acceptable outcome. SmartSE (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Evidence presented by MPS1992

Wikicology used the volume of his enwiki article creation as justification for WMF funds to be used to buy him a laptop

In this grant proposal for a project, made less than six months ago, Wikicology requested 805 US dollars, of which the majority was to be used to buy “A good laptop for the project”, with justification “I currently do not have a personal laptop. Having this will enhance my work since I will continue the project/work after this particular one with higher target without the need to request for a laptop again”.

The first and largest of the four points under “Activities” for this project grant began with Wikicology writing, “I'm a prolific contents creation [sic] on the English language Wikipedia and I focus my contents creation on Nigeria-related topics of encyclopedic importance. As at 14th November, 2015 I had created 532 articles (on average of [sic] 35 articles per month)...”

Wikicology repeated this on the talk page of the grant proposal when questions were raised, “... I'm a prolific content creator who had created over 500 articles on the English Wikipedia ...”

These English Wikipedia articles which he was using as a justification for a WMF-funded laptop purchase include many of the numerous ones cited on this page as instances of plagiarism or copyright violation, misuse of sources, careless use of sources, and misrepresentation of sources. Wikicology's slapdash use of sources and lack of proper encyclopedic paraphrasing will have assisted him in being able to create English Wikipedia articles at the rate he mentions in the grant proposal.

(The grant proposal was not successful, though Wikicology has been involved in several others.)

Wikicology reacts uncivilly regarding his public assertions about WMF financial sponsorship for himself and other members of his Wikimedia chapter

Around six weeks ago, Wikicology objected on the Wikimania-l mailing list that “No scholarship was awarded to any member of the Wikimedia User Group Nigeria. This is worrisome as Nigeria will not be represented at Wikimania. I don't think this is a good idea and I wonder why American and European countries have more representative than Africa. This is demoralizing and the community is not happy about it.”

When another editor replied not unreasonably that there are many applications and not all can be met, regardless of the specific country involved, Wikicology replied,

“I have no idea of why you directed such a non-sequitur comment to me. Regrettably, your tone is condescending with lack of empathy. Everyone have the right to voice their concerns and you're not in the best position to criticize them. That being said, Nobody begged for Wikimania scholarship but we have the right as a community to raise concern on certain issues and that is none of your business. You're neither a chair of the scholarship committee nor the Wikimedia Foundation Events Manager. You are not in the best position to respond to this. It is always a good idea to learn to be reserved.

I don't like to say you're crude and rude but kindly have the decency to be polite when addressing your fellow Wikipedians.”

Although these latter comments were not made on or specifically about enwiki, I believe that this incident, together with the grant request (preceding subsection) where Wikicology does specifically involve his enwiki contributions, speaks to some of the motivations for the problematic editing that has occurred. I leave it up to the committee to assess whether future editing on enwiki from Wikicology would be free of any such motivations.

Evidence presented by Tradedia

“If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining your personal status, ignore it.”

Wikicology has the following banner: across the bottom right corner of his talk page. This is a perfect illustration of Wikicology’s attitude. WP:IAR says: “If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.” However, Wikicology seems to have interpreted it as saying: “If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining your personal status, ignore it.” And this is exactly what he did! His objective was to become the top Nigerian Wikipedian in as little time and with as little effort as possible. And he succeeded! So how do you create 500+ articles in a record amount of time? You make up stuff, you copy/paste fake refs, etc… This is a user who seems to present two faces to other users. In normal cases, he acts like a veteran editor and seems to know the rules quite well. On the other hand, when he gets caught with unethical behavior, he acts like he is a newbie. It was quite odd to read him talking about a “learning curve” at ANI when he had created over 500 articles!

Always excuses

While I was on his talk page, I couldn’t help but notice a conversation he was having a few days ago with an admin confronting him with some of his fake refs. He responded to the admin: “The article is the third article I created in my first month of joining Wikipedia. No doubt that majority of the sources will not support claim.” Huh?! “No doubt”? I didn’t realize there was a rule that allowed editors in their “first month on Wikipedia” to make up sources. What about all the other articles he created with fake sources? Were they in his “first month on Wikipedia”? Off course not.

Mentorship is for newbies

I read the word “mentorship” thrown around the discussion. If you look up the definition, it says: “Mentorship is a relationship in which a more experienced or more knowledgeable person helps to guide a less experienced or less knowledgeable person.” In our case, the user is not “less experienced or less knowledgeable” He knows the rules. He just decided to ignore them. His problem is not lack of experience, but rather lack of ethics. Mentorship cannot make a dishonest user become honest.

Evidence presented by Tribe of Tiger

False references

One of the first articles I read was Fulani herdsmen. The citations are incorrect because they were copied from the WP article, Fula people. This was also the origin of portions of the text. See here User:Tribe of Tiger/subpage

References added at random

In Abel Idowu Olayinka there are 15 citations, only four of which have been properly placed with the sentences they support. See User:Tribe of Tiger/AIO notes. However, the information required (to support the facts in the article) is present, (except for some info lost to 404 web pages, etc).This is the case with other academic and medical biographies I have read.

Does the editor read (all) of the source material?

In the articles I have reviewed, there are an unusually high number of citations, in relation to the amount of text. Many of the citations appear to be placed at random. I had reached the conclusion that Wikicology did not actually read all of the sources. Per the communication that he sent to Robert McClenon (see above):

Wikicology writes- Firstly, the problem with me about contents creation is that I'm always too impatient to read through the contents and sources before inclusion. Meanwhile I often create a lots of articles. I think I'm just too overzealous!

This impatience and desire for speed may be the source of the content problems. How does one write an article without reading the sources?

Isaac Folorunso Adewole

This is a long and complex article, with 50 citations. I believe this article illustrates that the editor knows how to cite properly, when he takes the time to be careful. Citations 13-18, 32-34 and 40-47 seem to be spot on. Citations 6-7, 23-26 and 49-50 just need a bit of tweaking…move up or down by one sentence, etc. Very few citations are totally mismatched. There are problems with 404 and page not found websites, but there is enough information here to cover the problems.

Oooni of Ife

Ooni of Ife This article was created on 30 July, 2015. See evidence presented by Pldx 1 above. On the same date, Wikicology created articles for most of the fifty rulers listed in Ooni of Ife, titling 36 of them as Oooni xyz. The word Ooni is an honorific, similar to King. It seems to me that the articles should be titled xyz, Ooni of Ife. One problem with creating (most of) these stub articles, is that they are based on oral history. Prior to @1700 CE, there was no written history in the area. In addition, in the article Ooni of Ife, there are actual dates given for some of the Ooni ( Oooni Akinmoyero through the present Ooni Adeyeye Ogunwusi) which have not been included in the individual articles. The stub articles comprise the following text: Ooni xyz was the __ Ooni of Ife, a paramount traditional ruler of Ile Ife, the ancestral home of the Yorubas. He succeeded Ooni xyz and was succeeded by Ooni xyz. See Ooni Okiti as an example.

Auto patrol rights-follow-up

I followed the link that User:Softlavender gave, below. When I clicked on "newer diff", I saw that the original auto patrol Admin reversed his decision several hours later, citing problems, which are discussed with Wikicology, on this Admin's talk page. here

Wikicology states: I've demonstrated an urgent need for it with my huge number of valid articles and am tired of receiving patrol notification days after my articles was created and some was still pending given much burden to NPP. My familiarity with the tool and Neutral point of view, Verifiability, Original Research, WP:What Wikipedia is not, Biographies of living persons and other policies and guidelines simply suggested that I can't submit inappropriate pages or inclusion of inappropriate content to valid articles. I can be trusted with the tool. 

Back on the WP:PERM/A talk page, a different Admin vouches for Wikicology and re-instates the auto patrol [50]

Evidence presented by Nsk92

The issue of Wikicology's credentials/academic qualifications is the least serious among the other issues raised above, but it still deserves comment, for several reasons: Wikicology chose, at least in the past, to be a public ambassador for Wikipedia; in such cases his on-wiki persona becomes relevant and, IMO, a greater degree of accuracy and transparency is required. Wikicology tried repeatedly to create auto-biographical articles about himself on Wikipedia. Wikicology's academic status was brought up by Wikicology's nominator and Wikicology himself in his RfA, while seeking a position of authority here on en-wiki. Finally, Wikicology regularly edits in the area of biochemical and biomedical sciences; thus any direct or implicit assertions of being a professional or credentialed subject-matter expert in these areas on his part become relevant.

As Lankiveil mentions above, Wikicology has submitted several items to OTRS to verify his credentials. The first two of these items simply confirm that he has an undergraduate B.Sc. degree. Having a Bachelor's degree, in whatever subject, does not make one a "scientist", an "academic" or "lecturer", which are the points of contentions raised in the ANI thread. The last item is just a postgraduate application form and does not really confirm anything.

Thus the only substantive items are 3 and 4, "Current employment appointment letter" and "employment identity card". Wikicology stated at ANI [51] that he is currently employed at "Dynamics medical laboratory and diagnostics service" in in Lagos, Nigeria as "a medical lab scientist". According to the admin Lankiveil, who reviewed the OTRS documents personally, the employment letter does give the position title as something like a "laboratory scientist", although the letter does not explain in detail the actual job responsibilities [52]. Still, the letter at least partially verifies Wikicology's description of himself as an "academic" and a "medical laboratory scientist" that first appeared on his user-page on Oct 31, 2015[53].

In Oct 2015 in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikicology, in the nominating statement the nominator, David Cannon, introduced Wikicology as a "a lecturer at Adekunle Ajasin University in Nigeria". Wikicology did not contradict this characterization and in fact conformed it later in the RfA by saying[54]: "I'm not a lexicologist or a lexicographer but a Biochemist and a university lecturer". Later, the nominator again brought up Wikicology's status as a "university lecturer" specifically as a reason to support his RfA, with no follow-up objections by Wikicology: Please remember that Wikicology is not your run-of-the-mill candidate. He is a university lecturer. Wikipedia needs a lot more qualified people like him on board, in order to counter the (unfair) criticism that gets thrown at it from some members of the public. Recognizing him as an administrator sends a message that Wikipedia appreciates and values people of his academic calibre. Failing to recognize him sends a very different — and disappointing — message, in my opinion". At the time of the RfA Wikicology's user-page included a photo, originally added to the page on May 8, 2015 and deleted on April 20, 2016, with caption "Wikicology in his office at Adekunle Ajasin University, Nigeria". The photo, present at his user page during the RfA with this caption (the caption was changed on Oct 31, 2015[55], after the RfA was closed), reinforced the impression that Wikicology had some sort of an academic appointment at the Adekunle Ajasin University.

During the ANI discussion in April 2016, it came out that Wikicology never actually had any official teaching appointment at the Adekunle Ajasin University, and that the photo in question was taken in somebody else's office. His explanation regarding the "lecturer" issue was: "I once lectured at "Adekunle Ajasin University Annex" but not directly employed by the University (not a formal employment). I did this for few months before my current employment. ... The fact that my former work at the annex is informal is why you can't find my name on the university staff list and no media have ever described me as ACADEMIC neither have I stated it anywhere outside Wikipedia that I'm an academic. Wikipedia is informal, thus I can include informal information/activities on my userpage. If the WMF had formally requested for my personal information/credentials, there is no way I can include my work at the annex. " Personally, I do not find this explanation to be satisfactory. E.g. if I exchange currency at an airport during several trips abroad, that does not make me a "currency trader". Similarly, having delivered some sort of informal lectures on the premises of a university does not make one a "university lecturer".

Regarding the "office" photo, his explanation was: "... In fact, that wasn't really my personal office, I have no personal office there. When I took the photo, someone told me it was fine. He said "Isaac, this photo is fine, it looks as if you're in your personal office" that's why I used the caption." I have never thought it would misinformed other editors, afterall Wikipedia Userpage is an informal place for volunteers. I apologize if you are misinformed with the caption."

Again, I don't buy this explanation. Regardless of what somebody else told him, Wikicology himself knew that it was not his office and he should have known that it was not OK to post a photo at his userpage saying that it was.

Finally, concerning self-descriptions as an "academic" and a "medical laboratory scientist" that first appeared on Wikicology's userpage on Oct 31, 2015[56]. Vague general terms of this kind can be problematic: it is not clear what they mean exactly, and they can be easily perceived by those reading the userpage as implying a claim to being a credentialed subject matter expert. The term "academic" can include anyone engaged in scholarly pursuits. However, most people, when hearing the term "academic", assume that it means somebody holding a faculty appointment at a college or a university and engaged in research, and probably holding an advanced degree. Personally, I would not consider somebody an "academic" until that person produces some research publications. Nsk92 (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

SDK Olobe

Wow! I came across this case few minutes ago when I visited Wikicology's talk page to help review an article I wrote, Idiroko. I never knew he has a case. Well, my experience with Wikicology has been very good. I don't think his contributions to Wikipedia is done in bad faith as most people tried to shape it. He introduced me to Wikipedia and prior to meeting Wikicology, I never knew that people can edit Wikipedia freely. However, I am not surprise that this happen to an editor from Nigeria. I am a Nigerian and I can tell you how difficult it is for us to edit or create contents on the English Wikipedia. I don't see a site ban as a possible solution and I don't see how this will be helpful. I agree that Wikicology has done some horrible things based on the evidence on this page but he has done some good works as well. See for example, the Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Nigeria/Writing Contest organized by Wikicology to help promote collaboration among editors and to help increase the coverages of Nigeria related contents on Wikipedia. The contest added over 100 articles and one featured image to Wikipedia. This is productive but one bad deed is focused and all good deeds take back seat. I urge ArbCom and the community to take the cultural background into consideration and treat this case with sympathy. SDK Olobe (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Evidence presented by NinjaRobotPirate

Competence in fixing articles

Iyabo Ojo is an article created by Wikicology. In the edit that created the article, he added biographical information about the subject: permalink. A year later, during the ANI discussion, he "fixed" the page by removing a little bit of content: diff. Seeing this, I clicked on every link in the article and found archived versions of the dead links. Most of the article failed verification, and I stubbed it: diff. Specifically, Ojo's birth date was sourced to an article about her failed marriage that mentions nothing about her early life: archived version. Further biographical details, such as education, were sourced to another article about her failed marriage: archived version. Wikicology left these false citations in the article after his cleanup. In Friday Okonofua, his cleanup (permalink) left this citation to back up the fact that Okonofua is a "Takemi fellow", which does not appear in the source. I do not think he is competent enough to clean up the articles he created, and if someone else has to go through all his edits to make sure the articles are properly fixed, what's the point in having him fix them? If he's this lackadaisical about verifying the sourcing in BLPs, I don't trust him to edit any article.

Hat collection

Wikicology seems overly concerned with prestige and hat collection on Wikipedia. He has a history of requesting permissions and having them denied (PC, PC, Autopatrolled). His user page previously described him as an "academic" (permalink), and he explicitly identified himself in his RfA as a "university lecturer" (diff). He also referred to "my students at Fountain University" in an rangeblock discussion with Mike V (diff). And, of course, there's the deleted image of his office at a university. In the prior 2014 ANI, he said that he has always wanted to be an administrator and begged the respondents not to sanction him, because it could affect a future RfA (diff). He has also asserted his right to describe himself on Wikipedia in way he desires, including as a dog or human as his mood fancies (diff). While it's true that we can construct any persona we wish (in the past, I have spoken in my official capacity as a ninja), there is a line that is crossed when it is used to gain prestige on Wikipedia or through acquiring Wikimedia roles.

Recidivism

Wikicology has repeatedly recreated his own promotional autobiography; some of those times were hidden behind a fresh start. When challenged on his latest recreation, he reacted indignantly to various accusations and made a legal threat (diff). This initiated the 2016 ANI case. Wikicology had previously dismissed the criticism in his RfA as "some irrelevant issues", though he deigned to "take them as constructive criticisms" (diff). In both the 2014 ANI and 2016 ANI threads, he make nearly the same apology/promise: 2014, 2016. At the time of the 2016 ANI, he was already on his best behavior and had previously promised to strictly adhere to every policy.

Evidence presented by Claudia 20201

I think pretty much has been said and I totally agree with the above evidences presented. However, my approach is practical. I have concerns about Wikicology's disruptive edits and other issues raised but for me, what's more worrisome is the fact that he can't properly manipulate the English language. This is the English Wikipedia, so people expect that the editors here are able to communicate flawlessly in English. I don't know if this counts but I find it hard to comprehend what he's implying sometimes. And I don't know if this could be the underlying reason he just prefers to copy and paste rather than read through thoroughly before including links, citations, etcetera. The English Wikipedia should be a place where articles are written to perfection by experienced people, who have a good command of the English language.

Wikicology seems to lack the capacity to accept corrections (even subtle corrections) in good faith; rather, he views every correction as a personal attack. Whatever advices that are offered are for the good and advancement of Wikipedia. His choice of words, tone and language when corrected are very disturbing. He comes off as territorial, like he's fiercely guarding something (in this case, his race to be an admin) I wouldn't trust someone with such temper to handle the tools of an admin. Claudia 20201 (talk) 07:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Softlavender

By the way, had to trim this way down from my original draft.

Longterm patterns of:

Deception/dishonesty

Newyorkbrad says on his talkpage: "the allegation that he has inserted falsehoods into hundreds of articles, in my mind, dwarfs the importance of everything else." 4 April 2016

This is amply covered in the recent ANI, with examples.

But not only did he add fake references to his own articles, he added numerous non-substantiating references to random existing articles (usually previously tagged "refimprove" or "unreferenced") that he did not even create. [57] (more here). He's done this as late as a month ago: [58]. Thus far in every random article that he added references to that I checked (I checked over a dozen; and there are many more I didn't check), his added references failed to substantiate, even via Wayback. Reminder: He did the same nonsense as a sock back in 2013: [59].

Creating unambiguous wholesale copyvios: [60], [61], + several on 2014 ANI

In September 2014 was called out for false information and fake references [62] (and copyvio [63]), but continued the pattern.

Credentials/identity: Photo and caption: Uploaded File:Wikicology.jpg March 2015 with the description "Wikicology in his office at Adekunle Ajasin University". Posted it on his userpage May 2015 [64] (5 months prior to his RfA bid) with that same caption. Used that as cachet to gain RfA nom; continued to insist he is a university lecturer throughout RfA [65]. 20 hours after he withdrew his failed RfA, he changed the caption on the photo on his userpage to "Olatunde Isaac": [66]. When confronted on recent ANI, he backpedaled "I once lectured at 'Adekunle Ajasin University Annex' but not directly employed by the University (not a formal employment) [for a few months]". [67]. Later admitted he never had an office there. CSDed the photo a week ago.

Hypocrisy

Userpage: "My mission is to maintain wikipedia profile as the world most reliable information source." June 2014

Accused CorporateM of creating an article that included false claims (underscoring his): [68], [69].

"Wikipedia takes copyright issues very seriously for legal reasons": [70] 18 March 2015

On 6 April 2015 panicked and removed copyvios from 20+ of his own articles: [71] + later [72] earlier [73]

Then went on a spree of CSD copyvio tagging: [74], [75], [76]

• WikiProject Accuracy: [77], [78]

Self-aggrandizement/Self-promotion

Created Wikipedia articles on himself 14 times: [79]

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olatunde olalekan
• Olatunde Isaac

"The then, new editor is now a major contributor of Nigeria related articles to Wikipedia. In addition to creating over 500 articles on the English wikipedia with GA and bunch of DYK, he has recruited several Wikimedians for the Wikimedia Foundation through series of workshops/training organized by him in Nigeria, a country where there are low number of people contributing to Wikimedia Project. He served as member of the Individual Engagement Grant Committee as a volunteer and was twice a grantee of the WMF. The then, non-notable 'Olatunde Isaac' is now notable. I achieve this notability as a result of my tireless contributions to Wikipedia." March 2016

• [80]
• [81]
• [82]

Power-seeking (including aggressive hat-collecting)

"I had been very active ever since I joined the project with the desire to become an administrator someday." Sept 2014

Began editing as Wikicology 5 June 2014.

First day CSDed two perfectly good 5+-year-old articles [83], [84]

First month:

Uselessly and unnecessary meddled in counseling Teahouse querants [85]. Welcoming users [86]. "Reviewing" numerous new articles, beginning with [87], [88]. Claiming completely faux "Mentor(s)" [89].

Tagged articles for copypaste vio [90], [91].

Created second article, a biochemical one, without a single clickable/viewable reference (even though they are readily available on the web), and 1/3 of the refs are only author and year: [92]. Attempted to cover his tracks just now by truncating the article and also removing two of the putative refs, still leaving the remaining ones unviewable [93].

Months 2–3:

22 July 2014 made a distorted request for Pending changes reviewer, which turned up the fact he claimed user-rights he did not possess (which templates he then claimed were "test" edits): [94]. Requested again three weeks later and was again declined: [95].

In retaliation for someone merely !voting in one of his article's AfDs that the article should be speedy deleted, prodded an article by that editor [96] and then edit-warred to maintain the prod tag [97], [98]. Inappropriately and unnecessarily tag-bombed another of the editor's articles [99], repeatedly argued for its deletion [100], [101], falsely reported him to an admin for COI: [102], and immediately AfDed two more of his articles: [103], [104], again falsely accusing of COI: [105].

Requested AWB 5 August 2014 (declined): [106].

Requested rollback 16 August 2014: [107].

Making authoritative and unhelpful replies to querants on admins' talkpages e.g.: [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117] (five separate threads at end, beginning with CleanLife Energy), and inanely bullying others on unrelated-users' talkpages: [118], [119], [120] (note subsequent CIR removals by the page owner [121], [122]), [123].

Began closing AfDs 4 September 2014, usually too early (after 5 to 6 days): [124], [125].

Began reviewing Articles for Creation 3 September 2014. Declined several clearly notable, properly written, well-referenced articles, e.g.: [126]. [127], [128]. Accepted an article that was AfDed less than an hour later: [129].

First ANI opened 12 September 2014 [130]. It ran for over two weeks and to 70,000 bytes, and unearthed numerous major issues, and in fact someone put forth suggestion of site ban/indef at that time.

Following Sept 2014 ANI, began creating hundreds of articles. Created an average of at least 40 articles per month from Oct 2014 through December 2015: [131]; e.g. sample article full of misinformation and 35 non-substantiating citations: [132], [133].

Creating non-notable articles and wikilawyering for their preservation: [134].

Argumentative (and repeatedly declined) request for autopatrol December 2014: [135]. Requested auto-patrol directly from an admin 8 February 2015, "having created over 100 articles": [136]; deleted that and tried another admin and was directed to WP:PERM/A: [137]. Began commenting on other users' requests at WP:PERM/A, apparently figuring that that would make him more likely to receive it himself: [138], [139]. Requested it 25 February having "created over 140 valid articles" [140]. This bizarre "clerking" at WP:PERM/A lasted from 10 December 2014 to 21 September 2015 when he was criticized for it at his RfA: [141].

Requested Mass Message Sender permission 3 February 2015 and was warned about hat-collecting: [142].

Self-promotion: [143]

Still creating articles with misinformation and citations that fail to substantiate. Random spotcheck: [144]

Odd RfA !vote, considering: [145].

Wikipedia Library Coordinator: [146] Sep 2015

WIKICOLOGY'S RFA: In late October 2015, he approached, incongruously, an admin he had never interacted with and who knew nothing about him, Davidcannon, with a request to nominate him for RfA: [147]. Odd that he did not approach one of the various admins he had consistently curried favor with and talk-page posted on (RHaworth, FreeRangeFrog, Deb, etc.). RfA, very instructional: [148]

Teahouse Host: [149] Nov 2015

GA Reviewer: [150] Nov 2015

SPI clerk trainee: [151] Nov 2015

Still lecturing about copyvio and COI: [152], [153] Oct 2015

Decided to review Tom Hanks for GA: [154] Jan 2016

Adopting users: [155] Jan 2016

Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Nigeria/Writing Contest 18 January 2016

TAFI member: [156] March 2016

WMF page: [157] March 2016

Manager of Wikipedia Education Program in Nigeria, etc.

• Recent ANI: SV's !vote count was slightly off; Control+F finds 22 supporting site ban, 6 Arbcom, 5 mentoring, and 1 neutral. That proposal section was closed 3.5 days after opening.

Evidence presented by Mendaliv

I want to open with the statement that my evidence package primarily addresses the promotional and credentials issues, rather than the content creation problems. Everyone else has covered that issue, among others, so well that anything I could say would be redundant and a waste of time. However, I do want to say a few things about some specific aspects of this case.

RfA

Wikicology sought a nomination for adminship beginning around 28 October 2015, asking administrator User:Davidcannon for his support. M1 Davidcannon agreed to look over Wikicology's contribs on 29 October 2015, M2 and agreed to nominate him later that same day. M3

David Cannon's nominating statement described Wikicology as a "lecturer at Adekunle Ajasin University in Nigeria". M4 Interestingly, Wikicology's userpage at that time made no such statement—though it did include a picture of Wikicology in his "office". M5 His meta userpage at that time, however, did describe him as a "college teacher". M6 Wikicology accepted Davidcannon's nomination without qualification or clarification. M7

Regardless of where the term "lecturer" came from, Wikicology appears to have latched onto it, and used it to rebut an oppose vote. M8 Other editors made comments with their votes indicating they took the lecturer claim at face value—as an indication that Wikicology was a highly educated expert, M9 M10 or even a "fellow teacher/professor" M11 Davidcannon also gave a passioned statement in response to oppose voters, hoping to gain support for Wikicology:

Wikicology is not your run-of-the-mill candidate. He is a university lecturer. Wikipedia needs a lot more qualified people like him on board. ... Wikipedia appreciates and values people of his academic calibre.

M12 At no point before, during, or in the wake of the failed RfA did Wikicology correct, clarify, or qualify any of these statements that described him as an expert, a university lecturer, or a college professor.

In the recent ANI thread, it was revealed that Wikicology is not a college professor, nor a lecturer at Adekunle Ajasin University, nor did he ever have an office at Adekunle Ajasin University. M13 M14 Wikicology has since revealed that he possesses a bachelor's degree, and has applied for a program of advanced study. He steadfastly states that he was employed as a teacher by Adekunle Ajasin University Annex—a separate entity from the university proper. As Davidcannon himself said a couple days ago, he took Wikicology's claimed credentials at face value. M15

Sockpuppetry and self-promotion

Beginning no later than August 2013, a variety of accounts began creating articles about Olatunde Isaac, described as a Nigerian academic and biologist. To date, articles on this person have been deleted no fewer than 14 times. M16 M17 M18 M19 M20 M21 M22 M23 (SPI for Isaacatm)

Wikicology admitted to being Isaacatm—the sockmaster responsible for the repeatedly recreated Isaac articles—with his first edit on 3 June 2014. M24 That same day Wikicology self-identified as Olatunde Isaac. M25 Wikicology has not disputed these facts more recently.

Wikicology is unsuitable for mentorship

My general evidence package, when considered alongside the issues pertaining to Wikicology's legal threat, concerns regarding honesty, self-aggrandizing behavior, competence problems, to name the worst problems, paint a picture of an editor who will not successfully complete a program of mentorship. Some editors have volunteered to oversee Wikicology in a "cleanup" of his own errors. With no disrespect intended towards those volunteering, the evidence indicates that mentorship will not be effective. Wikicology simply has not shown the ability to grow in the time that he's been here. While this is his first time before ArbCom, I doubt it will be the last if he retains the ability to edit here. ArbCom need not undertake futile actions.

General conduct issues

While much has been said in other evidence packages about Wikicology's problematic articlespace contributions, his conduct problems extend elsewhere.

For instance, if we look back to the ANI thread from the end of March, the entire incident was triggered by Wikicology making a blatant legal threat against Peter Damian. M26 I say "blatant" because Wikicology's statement boils down to "You are doing X. By doing X you are harming my Y rights. Harming someone's Y rights is grounds for a lawsuit." When confronted, Wikicology quibbled, arguing that he was incapable of filing suit, that what he said was not a legal threat. M27 After being confronted further, Wikicology formally disavowed any intent to make a legal threat. As an aside, Peter Damian did not out Wikicology in any way, as Andreas demonstrated during the ANI thread. M28

This is not an isolated incident of conduct problems, as has been shown with the sockpuppetry issues (see above), and moreover during the September 2014 ANI thread. M29 Admittedly, Wikicology is not repeating some of the problems mentioned in that thread (e.g., M30, M31, M32), but his problematic conduct has just moved on to other fields, as has been demonstrated thoroughly by the other submitters. Amorphous competence issues really aren't problems that mentorship will adequately resolve, and this is just what we've discovered so far.

I will wrap up with an analogy to the hidden costs of incivility—the new editors driven away who had the potential to become established editors, the loss of whom is difficult to discover and even harder to quantify. As Wikicology continues participating in this project, whether by editing articles, participating in deletion discussions, and doing new page patrolling, he does damage that we may eventually find and rectify, though the cost in editor-hours will be great. But what we can't detect, and can't quantify, is the bad editing habits and editor conduct he surely has been passing on to prospective editors.

These are the hidden costs of Wikicology. They are costs we should mitigate. ArbCom is in a position to mitigate them. I urge action. Thank you for your time.

Evidence presented by Jayen466

Note this edit and the statement made in the article (only edited by Wikicology up until that point) that "The National Demographic Health Survey (NDHS) report in 2008 suggested that over 25% of adolescent in Nigeria often experience the first sexual abuse at the age of 15".

None of the sources you see in that diff contains such a statement.

1. The source Wikicology deleted in that edit is a summary of key findings from the 2008 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey ("NDHS"). It says: "One in five women were sexually active by age 15" (p. 4) and "Seven percent of women age 15–49 have ever experienced sexual violence" (p. 13). Both of these statements are at odds with what Wikicology wrote in the article.
2. The first source Wikicology added has nothing to do with Nigeria. It is a National Demographic and Health Survey overview page for the Philippines. Its presence here is completely mystifying. The only explanation that comes to mind is that the Philippine Statistics Authority uses the same acronym, "NDHS", for its "National Demographic and Health Surveys".
3. The second source Wikicology added is a download page for the complete 2008 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey.

For further comments see the sourcing discussion at Talk:Child_sexual_abuse_in_Nigeria. Note that, as described there, the unsourced sentence Wikicology wrote found its way into an article published in the British Journal of Education – which Wikicology then proposed citing as a source for his statement. If it hadn't been for SlimVirgin's vigilance, that is exactly what would have happened. This kind of WP:CIRCULAR reference loop is a prime example of how Wikipedia, in concert with lazy or rushed authors and inattentive peer review/fact checking, can destroy knowledge. --Andreas JN466 16:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Gereon K.

Sock puppetry

The case of his sock puppets is mentioned here again. It looks like they were discovered until 2013, they were banned, he got warnings and there is no evidence of sock puppets since then. So sock puppetry should not be a subject in a new assessment about his account since he seems to have learned from his mistakes.

Conflict of interest

After many attemps to write articles about himself that were always deleted in the end I think he learned the message.

Credentials

The Signpost article about this case mentions twice a falsification of his occupation. As I understand he has sent all his credentials to OTRS, so his claims of standing and profession should be seen as exaggerations, not as outright lies. This case is not comparable to the Essjay case.

Editing

With all the copy-pasting and bad quality referencing it is essential that all of his 9,130 edits have to be reviewed. He wrote that he is willing to do so. He should refrain from doing a single new edit before all his prior work has been evaluated and corrected. There even have been editors who stated that they are willing to help him in that. The task of any ban is to protect Wikipedia from damage. This would be a solution not only to stop further damage but to heal damage that has been done. A block would be counterproductive considering the positive work he does for promoting Wiki awareness in Nigeria. --Gereon K. (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}

*****Before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person*****

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.