User talk:MER-C/archives/58

__NONEWSECTIONLINK__

Explaining lingua
Ive come across this saying can you be so kind as to elaborate on this? Celestina007 (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Unpaid (with money) interns and those receiving payment in kind are considered paid for the purposes of our policy (see WP:PAID). Also one does not have to be paid explicitly to edit Wikipedia, being an employee is enough. MER-C 18:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Copyvio
Hi, you seem to be active in copyright cleanup. This diff introduced a straightforward copyvio (copy-paste) of this page (under the 'Our research' section). I've already deleted the offending text, but I think I cannot use the copyvio-revdel template due to interfering revisions. Could you handle possible rev-deletion? Thank you in advance, RWalen (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. In the future - you can by specifying start and end. The copyvio remained a material part of changes to the article since its insertion. MER-C 18:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, so even if other editors are in the list of revisions since introduction of the copyvio, using the revdel template is okay? RWalen (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. The worst thing that can happen is that the reviewing admin declines to do it. MER-C 19:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Understood, thanks! RWalen (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Possible new Haltim pel sock
I hope all is well. It looks like this new editor's contributions indicate a new sockpuppet of User:Haltim pel. Best, GPL93 (talk) 04:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked. If they're not, then spamming and page hijacking are enough to block indefinitely anyway. MER-C 17:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Please undo delete
Hi, My name is Mohsin. The purpose of the page (Mercans) was to inform a lot of job seekers to approach the company, Mercans is a B2B HR software provider which is in constant need to hire developers. Idea is to keep such pages live to help the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohsin000 (talk • contribs)
 * Blocked for spamming. MER-C 07:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

What does it take to initiate a global block?
I may have the term wrong, but I'm sure you know what I mean. I was looking at Special:CentralAuth/Ddragoner and at c:Special:Contributions/Ddragoner after seeing their block here, and noting that they are sailing forth into Commons and Wikiquote pushing one Hamis Kiggundu (upe?)

This is well above my notional pay grade, yep, zero, like the rest of us! Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 20:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * SRG. It may also be worth mentioning at m:Talk:Wikiproject:Antispam. MER-C 08:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

mail call
Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

CoinDCX
I Sent it into the draft due to paid editing and Coi editing but within no time it is back to mainspace with more promotional content also the sources are not decent enough. I think you should check this. Sonofstar (talk) 12:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Query
Hello, MER-C,

I was looking at a draft that Yaxı Hökmdarz had moved from main space and saw that you had blocked them. Looking over their contributions and they seem like standard gnomish edits, putting notices on articles, CSD tagging and welcoming new editors. Do you have a page in mind which you saw as covert advertising? Because looking through their Contributions and Deleted Contributions, I can't see that they created any articles or drafts at all. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 01:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * See Sockpuppet investigations/Sanketio31. MER-C 08:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA 2021 review update
Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, and.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:
 * 1) Corrosive RfA atmosphere
 * The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
 * 1) Level of scrutiny
 * Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
 * 1) Standards needed to pass keep rising
 * It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
 * 1) Too few candidates
 * There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
 * 1) "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors: 1. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere) Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.

2. Admin permissions and unbundling There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.

3. RfA should not be the only road to adminship Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1. There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOSORCERY
Some weird crap just got reverted on your talk page. Not sure if the user can be identified with any well-known LTA. Apparently, UPE money actually fuels demand for black magic practitioners in places like Nigeria and Ghana. Spammers and scammers in these parts of the world actually take this kind of stuff seriously, as VICE documentaries show here and here. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 11:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @, see this I don’t know why they keep dragging me into their mess. To make this more interesting, @ set a trap for me by sending me an email and the bait was for me to reply, by doing so, they got “my picture” (In Nigerian sorcery the use of pictures are very common) After they got my picture they clearly stated they would use it as a contact point to inflict me with suffering via Nigerian black magic, I’m not sure what you have heard about Nigeria but the deepest and most dangerous form of sorcery occurs in Nigeria. Don’t take my word for it, look who ranks number 1 here. I reported this incident to AN/I see here and some administrators like my friend @ made light of the matter, took a rather firm stance stating that a threat is a threat. I was even called a loser on Reddit for being “scared” of  Nigerian dark magic threats, but what Admins and editors do not know is that in Nigeria if you are threatened with sorcery it is likened to being threatened with gun violence in cities like Long beach or Inglewood, California, it’s something you actually take seriously. Oh well in the end I don’t think anything bad happened to me, oh wait! I did rupture my knee during a basketball tournament, ah!! I guess their curse worked. Damn you Nigerian sorcery, damn you!!!. Celestina007 (talk) 13:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If it's that serious in your culture, you can rewrite No sorcery threats. To me and probably also MER-C (not sure about his background, but I'm assuming someone like me with a general North American/Anglophone background who has almost never heard of African witchcraft), it's equivalent to seeing something childish coming out of a silly cartoon like Scooby Doo or SpongeBob SquarePants. Sorry if the WP:NOSORCERY essay that I just created might have been culturally insensitive. But I'm pretty sure that this essay is worth keeping, as the Internet is getting increasingly weirder. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @, LoL don’t stress it, Infact i told you that story for you to laugh. Celestina007 (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Definitely a reason to not email anyone you do not know and trust without reservation. I never respond to emails from others. It's the real-life equivalent of giving an enemy a route/connection through which  to attack you. The Dark Arts relevance seems obvious in retrospect. As people actually believe in sorcery, sorceral threats should be treated as any other threat of violence or legal threat-- a means to bully and intimidate. . BTW, I was scoffing at the person making the threat, not the victim.  -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 15:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @, yes I learnt that the hard way, i never respond to emails from editors who aren’t sysops or functionaries. Furthermore yes lmao, I knew you were scoffing at them, even was kind enough to give me a magical amulet😂 so the hex Julie Conteh put on me wouldn’t work. Celestina007 (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @: As I recall, it was a hamsa. No guarantees it would work against voodoo, but since it's used to ward off a different form of dark sorcery, it's at least better than nothing. 😏 Kurtis (talk) 03:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Please unprotect Azamara
Hey, could you unprotect the deleted Azamara Club Cruises page so it can become a redirect to the Azamara page? Angelgreat (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to refuse this, this article was a magnet for promotion and copyright problems - problems which you contributed to. MER-C 17:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That was a long time ago, please get over that. I have changed since then. Also, there others who had recreated the Azamara page and since Azamara Cruises are no longer owned by RCCL, the old name can now become a redirect. Angelgreat (talk) 22:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note, I've just indef blocked Angelgreat for continued unsourced editing, edit warring, copyright violations, unattributed copying, etc. -- ferret (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I was actually considering doing exactly that last night. I agree with the block. I didn't find any more copyvios, but my investigation was superficial. MER-C 16:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah I didn't dig deep at copyright violations, simply that he'd gotten a warning post-unblock. -- ferret (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to add the user to Money's list. Definitely has enough editing history to warrant some kind of review and closer investigation. Sennecaster  ( Chat ) 16:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * They're already there. MER-C 17:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Lauren's Kids
Hi, I filed a proposed deletion for Lauren's Kids, an article that you tagged as spam. Just wanted to give you a heads up so you can provide your input. I'm not sure if the organization is notable enough to warrant an article, but even if it is; I think it's best if the article is deleted so someone not being paid to do it can recreate it. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  23:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Found a DUCK
appears to be the blocked editor. Editing pattern is identical, adding OR with no references. As the blocking admin of TheriusRooney, I bring this to your attention. :] GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And now we have further evidence as compared to . GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked. MER-C 16:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

long time no see
But look what's back, now as Glen R. Serbin. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked for those misleading edit summaries. MER-C 16:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun
Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.

There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. 16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Early Christmas greeting
You are one of four editors who greatly encouraged me in my early months here and provided heart-warming support both before and during my RfA, which I looked at today for the first time in several years. I don't know if you realize how important that was and is to me. I am very glad, both on my own account and for the good of the encyclopedia as a whole, that you are still around. – Athaenara ✉  21:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Possible SPA PAID
See this, this, this, this, this, this, this (yes they submitted twice on that same day) & to crown it all see this. Celestina007 (talk) 01:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * They've already been blocked. MER-C 19:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response MER-C, nabbed the NOT &  NOTHERE behavior and did the needful as it was becoming disruptive. Celestina007 (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

A question re: RfCs
Hello again! in the Kelli Stavast RfC, an editor who has !voted is now trying to claim that consensus has been reached and is trying to implement their version of the article. Not even 9 days have passed, and, to my knowledge, RfC's run for around 30 days. The editor is trying to cite WP:NOTBURO as their reason for doing this. My question is simple: is this appropriate behaviour and am I wrong to revert it? GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 14:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, and no. If it continues don't revert and report to WP:AN3. MER-C 18:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Chi Beta Phi
Hi - for some reason, the talk page for Chi Beta Phi was deleted, listing you as the editor taking this action. The main article remains viewable. Odd... Anyway, I'm doing some maintenance on that article as part of one of the WP Projects I work on, and noticed it. I'm recreating that talk page, with the appropriate project notes. Over the next hour or so I'll add a To do list. FYI. Jax MN (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Both pages were deleted, it's just the article was recreated first. MER-C 10:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Ievgen Klopotenko
Hi, I just tried to create an article about perhaps the most famous Ukrainian chef, culinary expert, businessman Ievgen Klopotenko d:Q55824793 and saw that someone had already created such an article and that it was deleted on May 19, 2021 (G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban).

Could you please restore the deleted article to a draft so that I can evaluate it and probably work on it? It may take less time than starting a new article from scratch. --Perohanych (talk) 11:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, because it was paid-for spam. MER-C 17:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Purely out of interest. Is there a rule that forbids using text, created by an undisclosed paid editor, for improvements? --Perohanych (talk) 06:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, but it is considered very bad practice. UPE means the content is untrustworthy. MER-C 19:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Add your tools to Toolhub?
I saw a mention of your https://wikipediatools.appspot.com/linksearch.jsp tool on IRC today. Poking around there led me to https://wikipediatools.appspot.com/index.html which is a nice listing of these tools, but also not easily discovered by everyone. The new Toolhub project (https://toolhub.wikimedia.org/) is trying to create a better list of tools made by and for the Wikimedia movement. Your tools could be added to the catalog using one of several methods. For this collection, I would suggest adding a toolinfo.json file to your https://github.com/MER-C/wiki-java repository and then registering the https://raw.githubusercontent.com/MER-C/wiki-java/... URL for that file with Toolhub. If you are interested in doing this but run into troubles I would be glad to help you troubleshoot and answer questions on meta:Talk:Toolhub, here on your talk page, or on IRC (I'm bd808 in ). --BDavis (WMF) (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:CFD backlog
Would you have time to close some CfD discussions, especially some of the older ones of beginning/mid October and the one of September? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Please examine this list of paid projects
I find paid editing difficult. Done well, and creating good articles, well referenced, and not promotional, I accept it. Done poorly, creating adverts, editing in mainspace after acceptance e of drafts, I deprecate it. When I see strange image licencing on Commons I start to wonder, and then ask someone like you to take a look through a forensic lens.

I have just declined one of their drafts ad ADMASQ and BOMBARD, and also warned them for editing in main space. I feel I should stand back, now and allow others to form a judgement. I trust you and your talk page stalkers to have the skill to do so. Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 21:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to say, I much prefer a paid editor doing it this way than through subterfuge. I'll have a peek at some of these. BD2412  T 21:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @BD2412 While I agree with you, I rather expect the work to be done 100% according to the rules, and done well. A good paid editor ought to be able to produce drafts that are an immediate AFC pass, drafts that do not make antennae twitch Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

FYI
Still at it. --Blablubbs (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

RE: World Doctors Alliance
Hello MRC-C,

Could you explain why you have changed the status of this article back to draft after it was approved over a lengthy acceptance period please? MrEarlGray (talk) 14:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Your article was "reviewed" by an abusive sockpuppet belonging to a sophisticated spammer who is writing and probably reviewing articles in return for undisclosed payments. All their reviews have been undone to ensure the integrity of the encyclopedia. I am not accusing you of paying someone to write or accept this draft. MER-C 15:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's unfortunate especially given the number of articles they have been involved with. Thank you for the clarification. MrEarlGray (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Demetrios A. Zamboglou
Hello, MER-C,

You're the expert on paid editing so I was wondering what you thought of this bio. It's related this CFI Financial, another recently created article. Thanks, in advance, for looking it over. Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Written by an admin on Commons, no less. Way above my pay grade. MER-C 18:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yikes! Thanks for your honest opinion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Monmouth Coffee
Hi, I see you deleted Monmouth Coffee on 15 August 2020 for G11 and G12. I think the company is probably notable: please could you tell me if the article has been created and deleted before? TSventon (talk) 12:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have now found the Wikipedia deletion log and the article does seem to have only been created once. TSventon (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There are no known versions of this article under different names, either in mainspace or draftspace. MER-C 18:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I have created Draft:Monmouth Coffee Company, as that seems to be the correct name. It is still a stub, but I have written it myself and found more sources. TSventon (talk) 13:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Your deletion of the article on Prasanna Kumar Tagore
Hello. I am new to Wikipedia. I think you deleted an article about a historical figure in colonial India on copyright grounds. I did not write the article so I am not sure what the problem was, but can you please explain how to restore the page? Does a new article have to be written from scratch? I am a researcher on colonial India and I think the subject of the article is quite important. I can write a rudimemtary article if needed. Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prasanna_Coomar_Tagore https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prasanna_Kumar_Tagore&action=history

Anderson1970 (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does need to be rewritten from scratch. Copyright violations cannot be restored. MER-C 18:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Travelpayouts/Travelpayouts
Hi MER-C, you recently G5 deleted the article from mainspace and now a draft has been created by an IP. I declined it due to NPOV issues. I am assuming this is same user but would appreciate you taking a look. To their credit, they did declare their COI on their IP user page. S0091 (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably. The IP looks sketchy, and they're back on Simple Wikipedia. MER-C 11:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

United States Air Force Academy Cadet Wing
Not really sure which notice board to use, so feel free to redirect me.

Trying to figure out if this page has any copyright concerns as the squadron descriptions are word for word from []. I know US Federal work are generally public domain but not sure of the specifics when it comes to the Academies, patches and the text of their websites. Slywriter (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * it's public domain. (Sorry for the late reply.) MER-C 20:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Old Nichol
You were involved in the deletion of the above page for copyvio.

As I copied the material for the equivalent London Wiki page is there some way of checking to see if the problem has been repeated? Jackiespeel (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The Wikia page is a verbatim copy of the lead of the deleted article. It is therefore no bueno unless you can prove it is free of copyvio. MER-C 18:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Have changed it then - can I leave in the remark about the former WP page?
 * The issue is limited wiki members with other priorities so it takes time to check old pages. Jackiespeel (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you rewrote the content from scratch then you can delete the remark. Otherwise you need to include it. MER-C 17:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Marshall G. Jones and Julia Weertman
Hi, I'm reaching out because I have been working diligently to revise the Marshall G. Jones article in order to address copyright issues/close paraphrasing that noted. I have also reached out to about this. After revisions and checks from my recent Wiki Education course instructor I have moved the revised Marshall G. Jones article live (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_G._Jones). Before re-creating the corresponding Talk Page I wanted to contact you first and alert you of these changes.

Also, I notice that you were additionally concerned about edits I made to an existing page for Julia Weertman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Weertman) in November 2021. Is this because they were made by me around the same time period, or was there a specific copyvio bot report that indicated problems on that page? I am new to Wikipedia and just took a Wiki Education course and am sincerely interested in becoming a valuable contributor to this resource, so I would appreciate any advice or guidance you have regarding the Julia Weertman page and revising/restoring appropriate edits that I made. Many thanks in advance, Nat212lupine (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Firefly reported both articles. MER-C 17:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

More spam
Hi MER-C. Merry Christmas and thanks for cleaning up some spam related to Packistani. There is more, maybe you can quarantine if you deem fit? Here are the remaining ones all related to same UPE (checkuser blocked): Best, Maged El Sadat (talk) 02:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Robert M. Love
 * Simulate (company)
 * Varda Shalev
 * Shirley M. Mueller
 * Catherine Corcoran
 * Kayla Compton
 * Sara Thompson (Canadian actress)
 * Lindsey Gort
 * I quarantined five of these, the remainder are too old. MER-C 11:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello MER-C: Enjoy the holiday season&#32;and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC) Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Happy Holidays!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello MER-C: Enjoy the holiday season&#32;and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC) Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Bring in attention ...
Just wanted to bring in your attention a spam (Avoof) Marlow Bevan (musician) based on this job post. 75.100.205.86 (talk) 01:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you really thing it's appropriate
To delete articles that are undergoing AfD? What is the point of doing G5 when the articles are already undergoing discussion? Silver seren C 18:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @, because they are articles in mainspace which are not or  that are suitable for merging, G5's apply to pages or articles created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block that have no substantial edits by others, so if or not the affected articles are in an AFD is immaterial. Celestina007 (talk) 18:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

ANI NOTICE
" There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Celestina007 (talk) 03:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have reported them for the Incivility they have shown you and many others. Celestina007 (talk) 03:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

History of bisexuality
Hi, in january 2021 you deleted this article History of bisexuality for copyvio concerns. Could I please know exactly what part and what percentage of the content was copyright violation ? Kind regards, Nattes à chat (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * All of it. MER-C 10:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Where is the original text that is supposed to have been violated ? Could you please send me by mail the whole texts so that I can compare ? I also want to make sure you see there is no copyvio on the francophone side. Nattes à chat (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In addition to the explicit source cited at Copyright problems/2021 January 12, the author of the article is a serial copyright violator and sockpuppeteer. The presumption in WP:CVREPEAT applies and therefore none of the content is trustworthy. MER-C 16:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict - what I was about to say was: ":Hi MER-C. I am just looking at the most recent version of the article and comparing it to the material it is stated to violate the copyright of. I agree there is clearly some common material between the two (though I haven't looked to see whether Wikipedia's material was copied by binetusa or the other way around). There is also significant material that isn't an apparent copyright violation; would it not be better to remove the copyright violations rather than delete the article entirely?"
 * However I see your post about the author of the article - to whom are you referring? There seem to have been a number of contributors to the page over the years. The Land (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi MER-C would it be possible for you to move the deleted article to my sandbox so I can remove the problematic part before republishing it ? I am sure other people contributed to the article also and their content has also been deleted in the process, although I do understand serial copyvio is indeed a problem that needs to be addressed. Nattes à chat (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Copyright violations cannot be restored. MER-C 17:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The Land: Sockpuppet investigations/Dante8, Contributor copyright investigations/Dante8. It is highly likely most, if not all, of the IPs are this user too. MER-C 17:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * So is it possible to restore the content that is not copyright since not all the content was copyvio? Nattes à chat (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No. "If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed that all of their major contributions are likely to be copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately." MER-C 18:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That said, it's an extensive article with many contributors - much of it is not a copyright violation, and many of the editors over the years are not anyone's sockpuppets. I don't really see why there would be an objection to someone carefully reviewing the contents and restoring what can be salvaged? The Land (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. MER-C 19:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, can you please check what I have done there User:Nattes à chat/Sandbox/History of bisexuality work in progress and tell me if it can be published ? I tried to get rid of the elements where there was an obvious copyvio. Nattes à chat (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

RFA 2021 Completed
The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular, , and for closing the most difficult conversations and for  for closing the review of one of the closes.

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:
 * 1) Revision of standard question 1 to Special thanks to  for help with implementation.
 * 2) A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
 * 3) Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to and  for their help with implementation.

The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:
 * 1) An option for people to run for temporary adminship ( proposal, discussion, & close )
 * 2) An optional election process ( proposal & discussion and close review & re-close )

Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.

A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months. This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned. 01:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

FPC image quality criteria
Greetings,

seeing as you are apparently a regular participant in the WP:FPC process, I wanted to ask if File:Miller Range, Antarctica - Meteorite (2).jpg would stand a chance there. The main concern is that the snow and sky in the background look a little washed out to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

FYI
Dear MER-C,

See here.

Yours sincerely,

MrOakTree96 (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)