User talk:MER-C/archives/55

__NONEWSECTIONLINK__

SPIRE spam
This one is back under a new account. CUPIDICAE💕 19:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked. MER-C 13:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Jay Feldman
Check this out; after you spotted a couple of socks of the article creator, it looks like there is something fishy going on with the last three delete !votes too...what an all-round mess! Daniel (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's been posted to AN. MER-C 18:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

What is the most obvious way to identify your account as UPE?
This probably takes the cake. CUPIDICAE💕 16:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Dealt with. MER-C 17:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The ironic thing is that one was hired for an entirely different article, it may be worth protecting it for the time being, they've posted 6 adverts now. CUPIDICAE💕  17:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Sock page created by another User
Another Meeanaya sock seems to have created page from another account where her another Socketpuppet group. FitIndia also seems to be a part of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lizeeeb/sandbox

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaliq_Glover — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.7.209 (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This looks more like an independent paid editor than a sock of Lizeeeb to me because their article creation style is way different. I left a paid warning on their talk pages so let's see what they are coming up with. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 04:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:StuDocu
Hey, I came across this article being moved to a draft. Seems like it has a couple of interwikis, would you mind if I move the article to the main space and update a bit? Thanks --Goo3 (talk) 12:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's likely cross-wiki WP:UPE spam, so yes I do. MER-C 18:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah now I see, thx! --Goo3 (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on this?
I’m not sure what I’m dealing with here so I thought I’d ask you, This editor @, after i warned them about undisclosed paid editing initially denied this & stated that they weren’t paid to create the article Juicy ML See here, then they eventually confess to UPE Then shockingly they proceed to what I’d best describe as “trolling me” (by copy-pasting a response from a different editor, from a different conversation & including this to his statements in my tp) & this is all coming from the article creator who claims on their userpage to have been a Sysop?? in their previous account but lost the password to that account. What do you think I’m dealing with here? Note that, they also appear to be a promo only account for Juicy ML of which they have attempted severally now to move to mainspace, in fact, whilst this Articles for deletion/Juicy ML is ongoing, there is a draft in their draft space titled Draft:Arlik Wire which is basically a carbon copy of Juicy ML under a different name. Celestina007 (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked. MER-C 18:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Brad Walls
Hello, Hope my message finds you well and safe. I'm Brad Walls and I was unaware there was a paid editing policy for Wikipedia and take full responsibility for the breach. I would like to apply for permission to edit the draft so that I am able to submit it once again following all the Wikipedia policies set out. Regards. Bradwalls1992 (talk) 06:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You'll need to disclose your conflict of interest, and after you have done so you can edit the draft and submit it. I make no promises as to what the outcome will be. MER-C 18:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello again, Thanks for your help. I did disclose on my user page, added more resources, edited the draft, and submitted it for review. While editing the draft I have removed two maintenance tags which I think will not be fair to keep after adding more reliable and independent resources and my disclosure but tags now reverted again by MrOllie, please advise. Thank you! Bradwalls1992 (talk) 13:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Only people independent of the subject should remove COI or UPE tags. MER-C 13:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I did a full declaration on my user page and the draft talk page, and really I was unaware that Wikipedia has a policy for paid edits and now I'm following the rules, could you help and remove the tags. Thanks! Bradwalls1992 (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

It appears our dear friend is back with a sleeper. Check out this which is basically another attempt to push Adamo Davide Romano under a different name. Pretty typical of this farm too, given their sleeper usage and moving 1 edit drafts out of mainspace. Also awfully convenient this appeared just a few days after the last set were blocked too. Explains why it would've been missed on a CU. CUPIDICAE💕 14:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked. MER-C 18:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also I can't seem to get through to this user and others have been unsuccessful. Can you block, please. CUPIDICAE💕  18:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also blocked. MER-C 19:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dwaro
Hi, I happen to have their talk page on my watch list and it just came to my attention they're appealing a block. I don't feel proper to comment there, but it seems like what lead to the check in the first place was you detecting UPE activities, which I thought was present too while doing AfDs on some of the articles they've created. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dwaro/Archive So in that request, they said they wouldn't "sock" again but there wasn't any word about COI editing or not engaging in UPE again. Any comment? Graywalls (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is an accurate reading of the situation. As the underlying reason has not been addressed, they should stay blocked. MER-C 20:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Shaw Field (soccer)
Hi. Quick question. As I do some work on AfD and have come across sock !votes, usually they are simply struck, (like happened on another AfD today, see here). When is it appropriate to delete the !vote, as to when you should strike it? Thanks.  Onel 5969  TT me 20:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, just noticed this same editor recently created seven AfD discussions, 5 of which have no participation. The other 2 have one and two !votes.  Should the 5 be speedy closed?  Onel 5969  TT me 20:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I used rollback because it was easier to deal with. The AFDs should be kept open because these spammers have a tendency to nominate other spam articles for deletion. MER-C 09:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks.  Onel 5969  TT me 16:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I forget...
which sock farm this one belongs to but they're back with the Draft:Michele Massari/Michele Casadei Massari/Michele Massari/Michele C. Massari spam. CUPIDICAE💕 10:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked. MER-C 13:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Invoice Bazaar
Hi MER-C (and stalkers), might want to keep an eye out on this one. You blocked the creator a couple days ago and a new editor has popped up. They have also requested undeletion of Draft:PayTabs, which has a long history. S0091 (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Sock editors clearly not here to build an encyclopedia
The editor @, joined the encyclopedia 14 days ago & within this time frame has accumulated 5 warnings pertaining to WP:PAID violation & 2 warnings for using Wikipedia for advertising. Making it 7 in total for COI/UPE related activity. See here by, this, this by this, this by me, Their Userpage really tells the full story. They have for a while now tried in vain to move Draft:Prime 9ja Online to mainspace. Then two hours ago, a new editor @ joins the encyclopedia and his second edit is straight to Draft:Prime 9ja Online see here & coincidentally the 6th edit would be to give @ a Barnstar. Celestina007 (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * They're already blocked. MER-C 18:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * it appears, got to them in time. Celestina007 (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank goodness they are so inept. :-) Deb (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Mail
SamHolt6 (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

What is "appears to be" UPE?
There doesn't appear to be a guidance in establishing what is adequate standard of evidence needed to "suspect" something as UPE. Am I just not aware of or is it too vague? I posted the question here. Do you have any input or knowledge of prior discussion with current consensus on this? Wikipedia_talk:Paid-contribution_disclosure Graywalls (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Any objective criteria will be gamed by spammers. Bamberini8's denial of COI is not credible and I have blocked them. MER-C 12:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Previously banned user back
Hi. After you banned user Brslxyl for what appears a clear conflict of interest in attempting to promote the work of a non-notable director, another account, Clyde1152 has now cropped up and looks to be doing the same thing, with their very first edit adding the name of said director. Just wanted to flag it up to you. Thanks Apologies, to add the edits were on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help_(2021_film) Dexxtrall (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's also plausible that they are spamming filmdaily.co. MER-C 17:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Marscoin
Made a complete wikipediadized entry of Marscoin Draft:Marscoin. Greetings & stay healthy Yearnst (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Discord
Hey there. I was wondering if you would like to join the (unofficial) Wikipedia Discord server where me and Moneytrees are members are at Discord. Besides the two of us, there's also fellow CCI helpers Premediated Chaos and Vami_IV as well. If you'd like to join, I'd love to see you there! If it's not your thing, no worries :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

spam sock returns
This is probably another spam sock of this one. CUPIDICAE💕 20:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Already blocked. MER-C 17:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet editors clearly not here to build an encyclopedia
The editor @ joins the project 11 hours ago with their first two edits being straight to the biographical piece on them(Yoyo Ovi) where they try to promote themselves see here & here. Then barely 3 hours ago a new editor @ join the project with their first edit echoing that of @, see here & their second edit would be to remove the AFD tag on the Yoyo Ovi article. I think they are one and the same person not here to build an encyclopedia but to promote themselves. Celestina007 (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Block
Hi there. I noticed you blocked this editor. They may have reincarnated as this editor. This editor added this photo, but also. They are both the only editors at Draft:Juan Sánchez Albert. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, blocked. MER-C 17:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The never-ending SPIRE saga
Hey MER-C – it looks like StarAthlete04/Champonion96/Thatcontentcreator96 has returned as Greenteaskylab – mind having a look? Best, Blablubbs | talk 00:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked. MER-C 10:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Acromedes
Looks like they have a sleeper or a new upe firm. Check out this user. CUPIDICAE💕 16:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * They've disclosed. MER-C 19:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

like talking to a brick wall
Perhaps someone else can enlighten them as to why our terms of use matter. CUPIDICAE💕 19:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Already blocked. MER-C 11:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

another one
just for you. CUPIDICAE💕 20:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Already blocked. MER-C 11:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Phoenix Books
Hi, I noticed that you have cleared the Phoenix Books page and redirected it due to having copyrighted text. However, as per my correspondence with a previous admin, I actually made sure that non of the text was a copyright infringement, after he told me which text was the problem, but I was not sure if if it was ok to remove the Tag so left it. Can this not therefore be restored ? QuintusPetillius (talk) 11:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The rewrite still had substantial overlap with the source. The tag clearly states "Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent."
 * By the way, are you aware of any other close paraphrasing or copying that you may have performed in the past? If so, please describe. MER-C 11:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

who?
You blocked a spam farm last week that was ironically not creating content but repeatedly nominating random articles at AFD. Who is the master? Curious if they belong. VAXIDICAE💉 13:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/SpareSeiko. Certainly seems like it, yes, although not enough evidence to block yet. They'll probably vote keep at Articles for deletion/Mauricio Ramos (businessman) next. MER-C 17:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

== Please feel free to respond on the RfC on whether to say in the UPE template that the payer isn't necessarily the subject of the article ==

The idea is add the words, "The payer for the editing is not necessarily the subject of the article." to what is already there in the template.

Before:

After:

I think your perspective could be particularly relevant and helpful because you've been involved not only in the sockpuppet investigation that led to this proposal, but also in the application of the tag and reversions that resulted from it.

My view is that this is just one additional sentence and provides helpful information to readers about what the situation is (based on how editors are using that template, say for example in sockpuppet investigations).

Praxidicae has said that it's silly and unnecessary, and may elaborate further on that.

As of this writing nobody else has responded.

Please feel free to offer any thoughts on it at the RfC.

Also, if you aren't inclined to respond there, just feel free to offer any thoughts at all here on this talk page.

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft:August 08 (musician)
Hi How goes it? I came across this draft, this afternoon while going through User:Bri/COIbox101. I noticed you had moved it out of mainspace. It has been written by Issingness and the version history is a complete mess. The guy is notable, one track has been played 220million times. The refs are too bad. I am wondering if I can copy the article out, to create a new article. That would give it a nice clean history and leave the old stuff behind to be G13'd in 6 months' time. What do you think?  scope_creep Talk  15:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you're saying it's that bad, you should forget about the Isingness version completely and start from a clean slate. MER-C 18:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Coolio. It will be three lines or something, with two refs. I've no doubt that some paid outfit will be in to try and expand it, i the following weeks or months, if it's not already been done right now. It seems to be the way of it now.   scope_creep Talk  22:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Deletion discussion of Paid, UPE and COI templates
Please see Templates for discussion/Log/2021 March 19. I do not seek to influence any opinion you may wish to offer in this discussion. What concerns me is the rationale for the nomination coupled with the discussion on the nom's talk page about their perceived track record in removing these templates. Fiddle  Faddle  08:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Can't seem to get a paid editor to listen
Draft:Endeavor Business Media is a particularly poor piece of paid writing with a self identified paid editor who has been told by severl editors and AFC revoewers that thir draft is an advert for their eomployer and that thir chosen references are PR, regurgitated PR of press releases. One organ - the Nashville Post, was owned by her employer until relatively recently. Go figure!

I wonder if you would use your powers of persuasion to make them start to understand that their draft, certauly as it stands, can not pass. I have tried, on my talk page and may be in danger of being about to be less civil than I ought to be, with the poor justification that I am losing my calm ability to interact wuth them. I'm sure I'll recover it. Fiddle  Faddle  20:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If submitted again, the draft should be rejected. If that doesn't work, then take it to WP:MFD. MER-C 20:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Long term UPE editing account now editing on behalf of a government agency
. After checking their talk page activities and contribution, I'm quite certain that they're doing corporate advocacy and reputation management editing. While I recognize their activity in 2013 is not relevant for the edits, it did help narrow down the editor. Their contribution on Zalul Environmental Association in May 2007, Arava Power Company September 2012, Energiya Global Capital in August 2013, Portland Bureau of Transportation May 2020 whitewashing and Jo Ann Hardesty (Portland Bureau of Transportation commissioner) December 2020 whitewashing leads to a WP:DUCK conclusion that their latest edits are made on behalf of the City of Portland, Oregon. I already submitted the private evidence (not that it's not difficult to Google with the information already here) by email. To be safe on WP:OUTING, I understand I can't post that on COI/N. So what do you recommend? It is a big deal that local government agencies are white washing things. Graywalls (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

upe returned
see the new editor who just moved it. It appears they've returned and now know what WP:SIGCOV is. VAXIDICAE💉 13:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Deletion
Among the following timeline pages; You deleted 1950-1999, (apparently after some page moves and/or redirecting, I'm not sure), but can you look to see if there is anything that can be retrieved? Thanks - wolf  00:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Timeline of women in warfare in the United States before 1900
 * Timeline of women in warfare in the United States from 1900 to 1949
 * Timeline of women in warfare in the United States from 1950 to 1999
 * Timeline of women in warfare in the United States since 2000
 * The article has already been salvaged at Timeline of American women in war and the U.S. military from 1945 to 1999. MER-C 18:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks - wolf  20:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Spire institute returns
. Grazie. VAXIDICAE💉 17:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked. MER-C 18:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Mail Notice
Celestina007 (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Avelon PR
I've been looking into List_of_paid_editing_companies and noticed that you had draftified articles for quite a few of their clients in 2019 and blocked the editors e.g., and. Strangely the website doesn't seem to have existed back then though:. Just curious whether you remember if you thought there was a connection between them back then or not? Email if you prefer. SmartSE (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no connection that I can recall. MER-C 16:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Toren film page deletion
Hello dear I have noticed that you deleted the page/article of Toren film can I know the reason because it is not violating rules of Wikipedia and Wikipedia needs pages like this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amir-Jundi (talk • contribs) 09:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Read this and this, then try again. MER-C 12:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

You deleted an article I created about Toren film actually I don't no why, could you please reconsider the deletion you can see that it is rich of sources, I have some independent sources about the subject: [1] [2] [3]. Are these sufficient to demonstrate notability? Please reconsider the deletion.
 * If you had bothered to look up the page in the deletion log, as mentioned in the second link and which is presented in the pink box at the link you provided, you would have learned that the page was deleted as a copyright problem. If you followed the link to Copyright problems/2021 March 23 in the deletion log, you would have found out the source text was a very promotional blurb on the director's website. You were very fortunate that your editing privileges weren't removed for either creating the article, your utter cluelessness or your contempt for the purpose of Wikipedia when you stated that "Wikipedia needs pages like this". I anticipate your next move is to try to get this promotional garbage copyright cleared, wasting even more of our time. Accordingly, I have removed your editing privileges. MER-C 12:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Island Home
Why did you mark Island Home (anthem) as unreviewed? It's existed since 2019 and run as a DYK so there doesn't seem to be any real need to do that?  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 12:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It was patrolled by, who was blocked for corruptly reviewing articles for undisclosed payments. Everything that they patrolled needs to be looked at again. MER-C 12:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Mass Created Problematic Articles
Hi MER-C, I've been looking into the careers of the top article creators on Wiki and came across the block notice against Ruigeroeland, and see the work that you and others are having to do to deal with their massive copyvio. I and some other editors have been trying to deal with mass-created notability-failing Geostubs, primarily by Carlossuarez46. For me this (and the problems with Dr. Blofeld, and the problems with Lugnuts, and...) has highlighted that mass-creation itself seems to often be simply a bad thing when it is done without any consensus in favour. There are rules that are supposed to address it, but these just don't seem to be enforced. Maybe you folks have some insight from your experience in this case? I think there needs to be some general solution but I'm not sure what. FOARP (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Copyright problems are a special case where indiscriminate deletion is policy. The stubs aren't a problem, and I was able to skip many of them programmatically. MER-C 17:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Removal of the allegedly copyrighted content from the Wingtip vortices article
Hi MER-C, thank you for notifying me of the removal of material from the Wingtip vortices article.

As I explain on that article's talk page, here, this is, at least partly, a case of "Wikipedia had it first". Therefore, I hope this removal of content will be reverted soon. --Reuqr (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is indeed a backwards copy - one of the very few cases where the date on the source is misleading and the tone of the inserted text is suspicious. Maybe next time, don't write like a journal article? MER-C 16:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you, MER-C. --Reuqr (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

SPA only for self promotion
The editor @ is only here to promote themselves. See here, here, they were warned thrice about using Wikipedia for self promotion see here but continued the same behavior, see here & here. Celestina007 (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * they have now been blocked by . Celestina007 (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

regarding the deletion of Helena Łazarska
Due to copvio (Copyright problems/2021 March 30). Since the subject is notable, can you restore the one-sentence long lead I still see in Google and categories, which should not be affected by any issues? Plus infobox / external links and so on. TIA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. MER-C 18:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

SPA here to promote "self"
This SPA editor has been trying to push drafts in various forms on one Randall Lee Goodden. At one point he said he was Goodden, at another he has denied it. His file uploads here and on commons are all suspect, and his drafts are also deficient. The style is either that of a paid editor or of an autobiographer. It is posisble this this might be a biographer, but biographers tend to be more amenable to collegial working. I'd appreciate you or a friendly tallk page stalker running eyes over this, please. I'm starting to feel that I am too close to the topic, and that I ought to stand aside. I always find you and your TPS folk have useful opinions on moving with difficult editors. Fiddle  Faddle  08:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This falls just short of being blockable. MER-C 18:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * After detailed conversations with him, which I am sure you have found tl;dr, I incline to your opinion earlier the afternoon. Thank you for looking. Fiddle   Faddle  18:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

UPE returns...part 901251
has returned here. TAXIDICAE💰 13:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked. MER-C 18:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Alice Greenough Orr
Hi, MER-C, thanks for dealing with Alice Greenough Orr. I'm afraid, though, that the rewrite may not be as clean as we would hope – unfortunately the editor copied the Hathorn version into the rewrite page, rendering that pretty useless. I'm seeing an unacceptable level of overlap with the NYT obituary; I haven't checked the other sources. I fear that what it now needs is to be rewritten. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Paid editing issue in 2017
Hi MER-C, I'm a new Wikipedian and graduate researcher in global health. As you'll know given your expertise, global health articles can fall prey to PR-based and promotional editing. In 2017 you blocked a user, [|riceissa], for this reason.

Can you share with me what they were doing that tipped you off? Thanks!! --Whiskiz (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Whiskiz
 * See Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive948. MER-C 12:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Spire returns
they're persistent, I'll give them that TAXIDICAE💰  17:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked. MER-C 18:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Countess Markiewicz House
Hi, I noticed that you deleted the above article. I discussed the matter with another editor and rewrote the section in question. Were there still copyright concerns or should I have commented on this page? This is, as far as I can recall, the first time I had an issue with copyright and it was due to me focussing so narrowly on the terminology used in describing architecture and accidentally reproduced part of the text - my apologies. Autarch (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I forgot to uncheck this article when batch deleting the BH items above it. Sorry. MER-C 13:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks - much appreciated! Autarch (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail
I'd be grateful for your input. Best, Blablubbs&#124;talk 10:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Julia Hanzl
Hello, I notice that you deleted the article Julia Hanzl as created "by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban". Should I understand that Draft:Julia Hanzl was created by the same person? The draft seems problematic in other ways as well, but I think that the subject teeters on the edge of Wikipedia-defined notability: perhaps you might deal with the draft, in one way or another; or suggest how I might do so. -- Hoary (talk) 07:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's more likely a meatpuppet than a sockpuppet. The blocked user was a freelance spammer sockpuppet. I'd decline the draft for now, and if they get pushy then block the author. MER-C 18:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Done. Now let's see. -- Hoary (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

ygm
you too please take a look. Thank you, GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 09:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Beaxy Article Editing
Hi there,

I am hoping you can help me understand the message I received from you regarding promotional editing on the Beaxy article (now a draft article). The article is fairly objective, but maybe you can provide some further guidelines. I understand Wikipedia can be fairly stringent when it comes to anything cryptocurrency related, but there is a difference between stringency in application of the rules and general antipathy. Is it the case that because I have a declared conflict of interest I cannot edit anything? I do understand those edits would likely face increased scrutiny, but an outright prohibition of any factual contributions seems amiss.

Second, because you placed the article in draft, can you help me understand what improvements would be necessary for it to pass review?

Thanks!

james — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc beaxy (talk • contribs) 14:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Our readers expect independent, encyclopedic coverage written by volunteers. It is a betrayal of their trust to allow paid-for native advertising. You should consider whether the article meets legal disclosure requirements (irrespective of what Wikipedia policy says). The article cannot be fixed because a paid spammer wrote it.
 * Separately, I have personally seen and headed off attempts to promote cryptocurrency frauds on Wikipedia. MER-C 18:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

"The article cannot be fixed because a paid spammer wrote it." >> This is factually incorrect. Please state the basis for this claim. A volunteer wrote the article and an expert in Wikipedia formatting was engaged to format.

"You should consider whether the article meets legal disclosure requirements (irrespective of what Wikipedia policy says)." >> Both our attorneys at Goldstein and McClintock LLP in Chicago and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have considered the relevant U.S. laws applicable to cryptocurrency exchanges as they pertain to Beaxy.

In all sincerity, I congratulate you for having headed off past attempts to promote cryptocurrency frauds on Wikipedia, as it improves the reputation of the industry for legitimate actors in the space. Now please explain how a US-regulated start-up in Chicago with coverage in major news outlets fits the definition of "cryptocurrency fraud," keeping in mind that the precedent from the standing page for Binance is shining on this discussion.

Jc beaxy (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Imissako1 wrote the article and it says on that they have paid work at Beaxy. "An expert in Wikipedia formatting was engaged"... Looks like a freelancer who posts stuff on behalf of organisations. 99.9% of those who offer paid Wikipedia editing services are parasitic spammers.
 * I'm also not seeing anywhere on the article where it was disclosed that this was written by the company. Again, there is an expectation from our readers that are written by people with no connection to the subject.
 * You cannot edit Wikipedia for promotional purposes. The article was undeniably promotional - if the company puts it there it is promotion irrespective of the content. The frauds are the reason why we have zero tolerance for promotion and require strict adherence to Conflict of interest. I make no claim as to whether Beaxy is a fraud. We do have articles on cryptocurrency frauds that clearly state that they are frauds (e.g. OneCoin). MER-C 17:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Imissako1 wrote the article and it says on that they have paid work at Beaxy. "An expert in Wikipedia formatting was engaged"... Looks like a freelancer who posts stuff on behalf of organisations. 99.9% of those who offer paid Wikipedia editing services are parasitic spammers. >> It says on that they have paid work at Beaxy because a Beaxy user worked with Imissako1 to format their article. The relevant user was not familiar with how to code a Wikipedia article. To verify, why don't we ask Imissako1 if he wrote the article? Seems like a good way to clear that up.

I'm also not seeing anywhere on the article where it was disclosed that this was written by the company. Again, there is an expectation from our readers that are written by people with no connection to the subject. >> It doesn't say this on the article because it was not written by the company. All necessary disclosures were made including Lmissako1's disclosure and my COI disclosure. The expectation that an author has no connection at all to the subject seems incorrect. If a fan of a TV show helped edit an article on that TV show, that would be some degree of connection. A person who has used Beaxy and wants to see an article about the company on Wikipedia would be permitted to write that article under the current guidelines.

You cannot edit Wikipedia for promotional purposes. The article was undeniably promotional - if the company puts it there it is promotion irrespective of the content. >> The company did not place the article there. Please reference here to verify :Lmissako1 placed the article. If the problem is that Lmissako1 placed the article, then we will communicate that to the relevant volunteer and he can submit the article; however, it doesn't seem clear that Lmissako1 is categorically prevented from submitting this article, especially after making the proper disclosures. Jc beaxy (talk) 06:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Conflict of interest says that if you have one, you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly and you should not post articles directly in mainspace. What I saw was someone claiming to be paid by Beaxy posting an article on said company in mainspace.
 * If the article gets posted again in similar form, whoever does so risks being blocked for breaching the Sock puppetry policy. MER-C 18:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Should the article appear again, it wouldn't be a violation of the Sock puppetry policy in all cases. You cannot categorically ban objective content because based on your personal prejudices. Your bias is crystal clear in this conversation (which has been saved). I think we will probably have to raise the issue higher since you insist on being unreasonable. thanks!

Jc beaxy (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20110727
While starting a new draft on Noreen Corcoran I saw that you have previously deleted it. May I enquire as to why before I continue writing it? Thanks for the help. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The author of the article,, is banned for serial copyright infringement. Presumptive deletion applies. MER-C 16:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Crypto
Having blocked JohnyGuy a few days ago, you may be interested in Happybunny1844's exact recreation which bypassed watchlists with the title IOTEX. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Deleted and blocked. MER-C 18:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Definitely NOTHERE
Despite warnings by other editors, they still aren’t taking correction. Take a look at their talk page. They may be engaging in covert upe and definitely aren’t here to build an encyclopedia Celestina007 (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked. MER-C 18:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Great job on dealing with that swiftly. Celestina007 (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)