This isFoCuSandLeArN'stalk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text.Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome!Learn to edit;get help. Assume good faith Be polite andavoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seekdispute resolution if needed

Archives:1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34Auto-archiving period:1 day

Please note that FoCuSandLeArN has been banned due to undisclosed paid editing

SeeWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive943#Proposal to ban FoCuSandLeArN due to undisclosed paid editing. --Guy Macon (talk)18:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user also plagiarized what's seemingly going to become an absolute ton of the articles they created on crabs. So far I've foundChaceon atopus,Chaceon bicolor, andChaceon crosnieri. Let's see how many more articles will need to be deleted and rewritten because this awful editor couldn't write a single original word (probably including when they secretly got paid to do so).TheTechnician27(Talk page)23:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTechnician27 Hope you don't mind this comment, just saw a bunch of species articles in the RD1 category and was wondering what CCI they could be from. It looks like you've found violations onPalpada suprarufa,Palpada lindneri,Tillandsia excelsa, andLasiodiplodia iraniensis. So that's, what, seven blatant violations? That's more than enough needed to request a CCI on Focusandlearn's contributions. How's the cleanup going? Do you think a CCI would be something worth opening? I can't promise anybody would be of much help (we're stretched pretty thin over there in terms of editors), but if the problem is as pervasive as it looks from the outside, an organised place to do cleanup would be beneficial. Plus, given the nature of the user's ban, a CCI would allow you topresumptively delete content they'd sourced to paywalled or offline sources. I don't know if that's been an issue so far, however.

Pinging copyright clerks @Sennecaster and @The4lines for their perspectives. Or to give you guys a heads up, if this goes the way I think it might.GreenLipstickLesbian (talk)09:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a quick spotcheck through his articles, I found 2 copyvios already. Looking at the amount of copyvios already found, I'm afraid that a CCI may have to be opened. Unfortunately, this editor has 77k+ edits and if opened, the CCI will more than likely sit around and collect dust like ourlast species CCI. I would love to hearSennecaster's opinion on this.The4lines ||||^{(Talk) (Contributions)}15:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've found another one just now too atLycinus caldera (edit: andNeptosternus sinharajaicus).@GreenLipstickLesbian: I actually didn't know CCIs were a thing. Mercifully, it seems to me at a glance like the editor's copyvios were restricted to taxonomy articles they created, but I definitely don't know how to tackle this. It's a mess, and I agree with both you and The4lines that I don't know what would happen if a CCI were opened. I feel like I've opened a whole can of worms here while I was just minding my own business editing stub tags. 😅 Also pingingSignifica liberdade not to drag her into the depths of CCI hell along with us but because she's helped me copyvio-revdel several of these and may want to weigh in.TheTechnician27(Talk page)16:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTechnician27 Trust me, I didn't know CCIs were a thing until I accidentally stumbled face first into a similar level of disaster last year. Thank you for your work on the stub tags, and I'm so sorry you ended up discovering this monstrosity.😭 CCI can be a bit quiet, but opening one does have the advantage that you can mark any articles you do now, so when you eventually have to move on, the next person to discover the issue doesn't end up having to re-check articles you've already cleared.

And SL, if you're reading this- this hell is friendlier than others I've helped subject you to in the past few weeks, I promise! If you've been processing the revdels, then your input would be useful.GreenLipstickLesbian (talk)04:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenLipstickLesbian: I've created an informal page atUser talk:FoCuSandLeArN/copyvios to keep track of these. The basic structure that I outlined there doesn't necessarily need to be followed; this is just temporary.TheTechnician27(Talk page)19:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck over every year this user's contributed, IMO. We have to figure out if this is only on their species articles or on everything else they've edited. I'd say if this gets opened, you can probably flat out PDEL every single one of their non-basic species contributions based on non-free sources, but I don't know about their other topics. Once that's figured out, the CCI can maybe be narrowed in scope or even timerange if we're not finding anything in their early contribs. I wouldn't open just yet.Sennecaster (Chat)16:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retired Wikipedians