User talk:Scerri

Ha, I wrote much of that article...and specifically the stuff on Scerri. Are you one and the same? Best. icut4u

Welcome

Hi Scerri, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for joining the coolest online encyclopedia I know of. I hope you stick around. You'll probably find it easiest to start with a tutorial of how the wikipedia works, and you can test stuff for yourself in the sandbox. Check out the simplified ruleset. When you're contributing, you'll probably find the manual of style to be helpful, and you'll also want to remember a couple important guidelines.

Those are probably the most important ones, and you can take a look at some others at the policies and guidelines page. You might also be interested in how to write a great article and possibly adding some images to your articles.

Be sure to get involved in the community – you can contact me on my talk page if you have any questions, and you can check out the village pump, where lots of wikipedians hang out and discuss things. If you're looking for something to do, check out the community portal. And whenever you ask a question or post something on a talk page, be sure to sign your name by typing 4 tildes like ~~~~. Always sign the talk page, never the articles.

Again, welcome! It's great to have you. Happy editing!

--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 14:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Please read WP:COI. We don't promote our own stuff here. Vsmith (talk) 01:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continuing to add spam links. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

—slakr^\ talk / 01:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unblock. I am very disappointed to have been blocked from making edits on Wikipedia. I don't believe that I have ever been guilty of spamming. I believe that the edits that I have made and any citations to my own work are entirely relevant to the pages in question. Please consider unblocking me.

Eric Scerri PhD Scerri (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Eric Scerri is a world authority on the periodic table, and it's quite helpful to other readers, for him to be able to update his publication details. Sandbh (talk) 10:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eric, please post a formal unblock request, using {{Unblock}} (see the documentation page for that template for technical details of using it). Be sure to reveal any other accounts you have used (and if you have edited anonymounsly, without creating an account), and briefly address how you see your past and planned-future edits as compatible with Wikipedia guidelines. DMacks (talk) 12:00, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Scerri (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am requesting an unblock of my account, Eric Scerri.

I understand Wikipedia’s concern with conflict of interest, especially when individuals edit articles about themselves. However, I respectfully submit that my edits—limited to updating and correcting my own publication details including on the Eric Scerri article—are factual, verifiable, and contribute to the accuracy and reliability of Wikipedia as a public resource.

As a professional academic and historian of chemistry, I take care to ensure the information I add is correct and properly set out. I recognize the general preference for using talk pages or formal edit requests in autobiographical articles, but I must be candid: given my professional commitments, I simply do not have the time to engage in back-and-forths on talk pages or through formal edit request channels. My intent has never been promotional, but simply to keep my record of peer-reviewed contributions to the literature accurate and up to date for the benefit of Wikipedia readers.

I have only used this one account. Before creating it, I occasionally edited anonymously as an IP user. I believe that my relatively small number of factual edits can easily be reviewed and, if necessary, amended or reverted by others. In that light, I hope they can be seen as constructive contributions to the accuracy and timeliness of Wikipedia rather than violations. I respectfully ask that the block be lifted, or reconsidered, so I can continue making these occasional factual corrections and updates.

Sincerely, Eric Scerri PhD

2603:8001:6E00:D569:ED2E:9E74:770E:398D (talk) 05:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This request was made with an IP. If this was you, please remember to log in when posting. You don't need to post a copy of your above statement again, just make a request while logged in. I would also suggest editing this page by clicking "edit" and not "reply"; the reply function is imperfect and does not work well in all situations(it especially does not accomodate unblock requests well). 331dot (talk) 11:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Could I please be unblocked? I have posted my reasons for requesting an unblock above. Thank you for your consideration. eric scerri — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Scerri (talk • contribs) 12:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Will Eric’s request now suffice for considering his unblock request? Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are not blocked for sock puppetry as far as I can tell, so any logged out editing you may have done isn't pertinent to this. I had to blink when I saw that this block was issued in 2008(though Slakr is still an admin).

Reviewing your request on the merits, I am concerned by your comments that you "do not have the time" to participate in community processes, especially when a severe conflict of interest is involved(i.e. you posting your own book as a reference). There might be very legitimate reasons to use your book as a reference, but- and I assume you still want to- you shouldn't be adding it yourself, at least not without a discussion. That discussion would not necessarily need to be article-by-article, but there needs to be some kind of community consensus developed around using it as a reference/citation by yourself. I can appreciate that your professional life that has led to you being an expert figure probably doesn't leave you much time for Wikipedia editing, but we don't give experts a free pass here, they are treated like any other Wikipedia contributor(see WP:EXPERT). To be frank, if you don't have time to abide by our policies and processes, we'll have to leave this block in place. I don't like saying that, but you need to meet us part of the way here if you want to contribute. You may make a new request for someone else to review, any decision will be up to them, not me. 331dot (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also see WP:ENGAGE. 331dot (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request by Sandbh on behalf of Eric Scerri

@331dot and DMacks: Thank you for your earlier responses and for the opportunity to revisit this request. I have pinged 331dot as a courtesy and DMacks as an admin.

I am submitting this note on behalf of Dr. Eric Scerri, whose account has been blocked since 2008. Dr. Scerri fully understands that Wikipedia discourages editing where there is a conflict of interest, including editing one’s own biography. At the same time, Wikipedia's own guidelines acknowledge that being the subject of an article does not prevent someone from editing it — only that such edits must be approached with care, neutrality, and verifiability.

Dr. Scerri’s past contributions have been few, narrowly focused, and aimed solely at correcting or updating factual details — primarily concerning his publication history and academic appointments. These edits have been supported by reliable sources and, I believe, have enhanced the accuracy of Wikipedia’s coverage of his work and field. In the event that Dr. Scerri finds himself in a position to contribute more generally to Wikipedia, then I feel that would be to the benefit of the community.

He recognizes the importance of avoiding promotion or self-serving edits. Going forward, he is committed to limiting any direct edits to uncontroversial, factual updates with proper sourcing.

While conflict of interest editing is discouraged, it is not prohibited — and Wikipedia’s policies leave room for careful, constructive contributions by subject experts. I hope a pragmatic view can be taken here, per WP:PRAGMATIC.

As a widely recognized authority in the history and philosophy of chemistry and the periodic table, Dr. Scerri is well placed to ensure the accuracy of relevant academic details. Many Wikipedians acknowledge that, when handled with discretion and transparency, such contributions can directly support Wikipedia’s mission of reliability and public value.

I respectfully request that his account be unblocked so that he may resume occasional factual updates in a way that aligns with Wikipedia’s standards and benefits its readers.

Thank you again for your time and consideration.

Conflict of interest declaration: Dr Scerri is the editor of Foundations of Chemistry; three of my articles have appeared in that journal. In 2018 I participated in a debate on the periodic table, with Eric Scerri, and Philip Stewart, a then chemistry professor at the University of Oxford. Sandbh (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator will have to weigh in, as I am only an uninvolved editor, but even assuming this is a formal unblock request there are some huge, obvious problems.

Looking at the edit history when Dr. Scerri contributed here, he didn't do anything to improve the content except adding cites to his own work in already existing articles. As far as I can tell, at no time did he add a fact or fix an inaccurate one. An expert editor who can add content to articles about these topics under Wikipedia's rules is, in my opinion, usually a good thing, but if he doesn't have the time to participate in discussions or the inclination to make updates beyond citing his own work, I don't see how his expertise actually aids Wikipedia.

But again, any decision won't be mine. After more than 16 years, I imagine an administrator will have a good case for extending some WP:ROPE to Dr. Scerri should he give any indication that he'll contribute constructively to Wikipedia. But I would personally hope any administrator accepting an unblock request consider doing so on the condition that Dr. Scerri not add cites to his own work. As the editor-in-chief of a respected academic journal, he is extremely well-positioned to be familiar with scholarly works in the field that aren't written by himself. ToffeeThumbs (talk) 05:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem with this request is that we don't usually accept third party requests, though they aren't categorically prohibited. If this is going to be done, you should bring it to WP:AN.

I considered giving a WP:ROPE chance due to how much time has passed but his lack of interest in participating in community processes concerned me deeply. As I said, he doesn't necessarily need to start a discussion with every single edit he wants to make, but if he's editing to link to his own work(which inherently comes off as promotional to the rest of us) that needs to, in general, be discussed with the community, or he needs to do as ToffeeThumbs suggests and agree to not cite his own personal work. 331dot (talk) 08:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the edits I'm seeing are just loose dumps of refs to his own work. I'm concerned with loose language here, where despite editing many different articles on chemical topics, the majority (nearly exclusive, with the exception of his own article) just add a loose bibliographic entry are not improving our article prose (what "content" often implies). Be precise to avoid any appearance of WP:WEASEL/WP:Wikilawyering (this is both for Scerri and for Sandbh). WP is not a bibliographic database sorted by topic, but is designed as pages of prose with footnote references to verify it. It's totally fine if an article does not have list of general "additional reading" items beyond the footnotes. I do value having biographical pages kept up-to-date, but again we need to avoid CV style dumps of publication lists and instead focus on using third-party sources to give WP:DUE weight to the a top few. I am also troubled by "I don't have time to discuss on wiki". The fact that Sandbh is running proxy for him in this very discussion amplifies that concern about whether Scerri is willing to WP:ENGAGE, given the level of direct relevance of this discussion. Should I be concerned that Sandbh might not be an independent participant in this discussion (not overcoming their declared COI)? The only way I would consider an unblock is if it included a restriction against self-citing without prior discussion in which they participated on-wiki (could be centralized rather than per-article) and a general requirement to respond in a reasonable timeframe when edits are questioned. DMacks (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]