User talk:MER-C/archives/62

__NONEWSECTIONLINK__ __ARCHIVEDTALK__

Draft:EShipper
Hello, you might be interested in EShipper, and latest sock/meatpuppet. 2A01:4C8:A4:D8F:B8AB:B924:1F2C:72ED (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Zavia345
Hi. Some accounts were blocked under Sockpuppet investigations/Cyrus watson but this is clearly part of Kaleemullah Nowshera, Zavia345 spam mill. They operate multiple profiles, some named NCT Consultants, so G5 date is much older.
 * Leftover spam:

83.110.84.239 (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Elizabeth B. Torres
 * Weam Namou
 * Rebecca Tyson Northen
 * - could be interesting, haven't looked into it myself. MER-C 17:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a connection I found yesterday with "Kaleemullah Nowshera". They were hired to create one of the articles created by a "Cyrus watson" sock, but the dates don't line up - the job I have for Kaleemullah is from late 2021 when it was created, but the "Cyrus watson" sock didn't create the article (the second time - it was deleted in October 2021) until 29 December 2022. So they might be the same person hired again, but if so the client created a new account to hire them. The second concern is that "Kaleemullah Nowshera" is still active on Upwork, and thus they would need to be running two Upwork accounts concurrently, which seems unlikely. That said, it is clear that the G5 date is older, as the "Cyrus watson" editing approach is that of a much more experienced paid editor, and one who has been found out before. I'll leave it as a possibility, and it wouldn't be the first time I've seen someone running multiple accounts on Upwork, but when it has happened before they've left the old account and moved to the new one, rather than using both at the same time. - Bilby (talk) 10:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking over the data again, I can say the following:
 * is confirmed to the Cyrus group.
 * could definitely be them - similar technical fingerprint but no shared IPs.
 * I don't believe the Upwork linked on Kaleemulah Nowshera's user page is the one I was tipped to.
 * GeneralNotability (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I had another look and there is more of a connection than I thought with Kaleemulah Nowshera. Kaleemulah Nowshera was hired to create [|Icecat (company)] between October and December last year. After the sock was blocked, a Cyrus watson sock, User:Sara Ander, took over in January and tried to get the article approved. It could be two different people getting jobs from the same client, but two cases of this is a bit unusual. - Bilby (talk) 05:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There are (technically) three people operating behind NCT Consultants: one person mentioned above, and other two are his siblings (most likely operated by the same person). Another thing, all three accounts geolocate to the same city, Nowshera (specifically "Cantt"), on their profiles. Behavior evidence is also available to connect these three profiles. 2001:8F8:1149:1373:C444:6C85:54B4:E625 (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Review my sandbox?
I don't want to move User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox9 to a GA subpage until I'm sure it's got no errors, misstatements or other foot-in-mouth issues; might you have a look? I'm told at WT:GAN that CCI does not anonymize page names for blocked/banned editors, and that it's OK to use his username in the name of the subpage I will eventually move this to ... is that correct or should I use a date? If you're able to comment, it would help to have everything in one place, which has turned out to be User talk:SandyGeorgia as I've been pleading for others to help. Bst, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Cariuma
Hi. Seems like spammer is back, WP:SPA created Cariuma (shoes), that has a history of UPE spamming, see Cariuma history. 69.165.235.238 (talk) 12:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Already dealt with: Sockpuppet investigations/CharmenderDeol. MER-C 20:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

NEXT Insurance (company)
Hi. Saw that you had moved this to draft for covert advertising. New editor just moved it back after providing more sources.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Blocked and move reverted. Thanks. MER-C 18:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Restoration of John Otto (Politician)
Hello, I have recently come across the article John Otto (politician) through several other pages that concern the 18th District of the Texas House of Representatives. I have found, however, recently that it was deleted by you due to copyright concerns. Although there is no history available to me, I can remember the article being quite detailed. If I may ask, what were the copyright concerns and how could the article be restored? I intend to add information including his recent passing. BurgeoningContracting (talk) 04:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The page was deleted because it was written by a banned copyright violating sockpuppeteer. You need to start the article from scratch. MER-C 10:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Deleted article: Factorum ac dictorum memorabilium libri IX
Hi there! I'm trying to find out more about why this article was deleted, because I had it linked in a bibliographic entry I've added to many, many articles, and the removal of links to it has buried my watchlist! I see that there was some sort of copyright violation investigation involving one of the editors who contributed to the article, but I cannot see any details of what was found with respect to this particular article, or what the problematic text, if any, was, and of course without a record of its context I can't attempt to fix it!

I also see where a number of articles by the same author (including this one) fall under the purview of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, so I'm a little frustrated by the fact that the project wasn't notified or given a chance to fix any of them before they were deleted—although so far this is the only one that's turned up on my watchlist, and that's only because it was linked in numerous articles I worked on—I never made a significant contribution to the deleted article itself, or I probably would have added it to my watchlist. However, knowing that it was likely to be deleted due to copyright violations, I might have taken the time to work on it to fix this.

Or were these "presumptive" violations? The only thing I could find about it was not very clear about whether actual violations were found, which is even more frustrating. A pretty big chunk of Classics is based on older sources, such as the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica or the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, which are long out of copyright, in which case they may just need clearer attribution or a little rewording (probably both) to fix the issues. Which of course makes it even more frustrating that I can't see the article anymore, and check to see how much of it might have been copied verbatim from some source or other!

Can you tell me any more about the decision to delete this particular article, and is there anything that I can do, as a non-admin, to figure out whether the article, or any part of it, could be salvaged, or at least used to help me rewrite it without beginning from scratch? Fixing something that already exists, even in poor condition, is a lot less time-consuming than building a new article from the ground up—I can see stopping to do the former in order to save an important article, but don't know whether I have the time or patience to divert from other responsibilities in order to do the latter! P Aculeius (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * See Special:Permanentlink/1136377326. MER-C 11:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * That explains why a user who was involved with the article—in a manner and to an extent unknown, and unascertainable by non-admins—was banned from editing Wikipedia, and why his "good articles" were delisted, which is not at issue here. A single paragraph suggests that articles to which he contributed using "offline sources" be listed on a very long, very general page for reports of copyright violations, and then deleted—without it being necessary to verify any of the violations (and of course, it is possible that many of the sources can be reviewed online, but simply were not linked; but again only admins can see what sources there were, or determine how many of them could be verified), without listing the articles at AfD—which guaranteed that editors at WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome were not notified or given an opportunity to review the article and fix potential copyright violations.


 * Which is the problem: this is a pretty important article for the project, (formerly) linked in the bibliography section of hundreds of the project's articles. It probably would only have taken a few hours to rewrite it even if substantially all of the text were suspect—but there's a very good chance some of it could have been saved by attributing it properly to sources that are readily available online.  Creating a new article from scratch without being able to see what the old article said or how it was set up or what sources it cited makes the replacement process much more cumbersome, and could delay it indefinitely.  And then it would have to be manually re-linked to the hundreds of articles from which links were deleted—unless it is possible to do a global search with bots, something I have never attempted and would have no clue how to accomplish.


 * I came here hoping for a clearer explanation about the sourcing of this article, and whether any attempt was made to determine whether it was salvageable, and then whether such an attempt could be made now, given that nobody from CGR knew it was at risk of being deleted (and I see that it isn't the only page we would have wanted to review and try to salvage). I didn't get that—I got linked to a general discussion of other topics that obliquely explains why none of this was or will be done.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The article was written entirely by this banned editor; if it were salvageable it would not have been listed at Copyright problems and if it were I wouldn't have deleted it. There are hundreds of articles like this and the community (and I) want them dealt with as expeditiously as possible. The correct venue for copyright takedowns like this is Copyright problems, not AFD. The correct procedure was followed - the article was replaced with an unmissable copyright takedown notice for seven days before deletion. MER-C 16:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Very unmissable—if you happen to have an article watchlisted, or you've visited it in the week following the posting of the notice. How often do you add articles that you've never edited to your watchlist?  Do you regularly visit every article you've created wikilinks to in the past?  If the banned editor is the only person who ever edited the article, then it's likely that the only person who was actively notified was a banned editor, and other people would only have seen the notice if they happened to visit the article by random chance during that week.  It seems that none of the active editors in CGR needed to refer to it during that time, so none of the editors likely to try to salvage—or rewrite—the article ever knew that it was about to be deleted.  Now that it has, none of them can look at it to find out what it contained.  We're back to square 1: writing a new article as if the old one had never existed.  So you followed a procedure, and that makes everything okay.  But it seems to me that a procedure that leaves most of the potentially-interested parties in the dark isn't a very useful way to run an encyclopedia.  P Aculeius (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, see Lithophane below. I had added to it in the past, and it was certainly on my watchlist, but the first I saw of the deletion was when links to it in other articles were removed as it had been deleted. I understand the DC problem, but I'm getting suspicious of the hastiness of this process, which seems to rely very heavily on Vami. The least you can do when queries are raised by experienced editors is to answer them helpfully, instead of just waving the manual. Johnbod (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I can tell you the same would have happened at AFD if it weren't for the bots that maintain project specific listings or deletion sorting, which is not an obligation on the nominator. MER-C 12:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What is that supposed to mean? If it had come up for Afd, I would have rewritten it for one thing. The same might well be true for Factorum ac dictorum memorabilium libri IX (by PA). I hope you realize that Vami has a long record of abusing our draconian copyright policies, which scuppered his Rfa? Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That might be true, but I believe they were correct to list the DC content for deletion. If wants the skeleton of the article, I can provide it. MER-C 17:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure what that means, but it might help determine whether the article should be rewritten. Looking over Valerius Maximus, the article is mostly about the work, so I was thinking that a merge might have been in order.  That can't really happen without knowing what language was in the article, but the source list should make it easier to add additional description and context for Valerius Maximus, which is heavily dependent on the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica.  Not a bad source, but there ought to be more than one source for some paragraphs that currently have no others, and perhaps some of them could be more recent.  P Aculeius (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I emailed you the content minus the text. MER-C 17:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

DC CCI
MER-C, I've been watching how you process my (first batch of) entries at Copyright problems/2023 February 17 so I can better learn how/what/when to list articles at WP:CP versus just cleaning them myself. Any further tips for how I can better help as I move forward on the WP:DCGAR? Per the implementation timeline, we can now start processing the GAs as well, although I'll probably stay focused on the non-GAs until NovemBot has been approved to complete the mass delisting. Thanks for all you do, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) How do you decide when to just redirect vs. when to delete? Is it only a matter of whether there is a good redirect target?
 * 2) Should I just be redirecting myself?
 * 3) If we only redirect and don't revdel, what prevents another editor from just reverting the offending text back in years later when we aren't watching?
 * 4) How do you decide when to stub vs. when to delete, and same question: if we stub without revdel, how do we know someone won't revert the offending text back in years later?  But unless I can document a copyvio, can I request revdel on presumption ??
 * 5) Throttle; is there a sort of realistic number of how many you can handle per day at WP:CP; once I get my bearings, should I just send 'em through as needed, or stick to a certain number per day?


 * 1: Correct.
 * 2: You could do this yourself but it would be a suboptimal outcome for the reasons you give. In circumstances like this, I delete the article first.
 * 3: Moot given above.
 * 4: I stub when the lead is salvageable (not written by the editor in question via Who Wrote That?) or if there are sections or paragraphs written by others. A small number of these articles existed before DC came along, which helps. I agree there is a risk of the bad content being restored, which I attempt to mitigate by placing CCI on the talk page. I don't think revdel based on a presumption can be justified.
 * 5: I'd say about 15-20 a day - not for my sake, but for adequate scrutiny.
 * My advice is to treat this in a similar manner to battlefield medicine - focus on what can be saved with the limited amount of time/effort we have. MER-C 16:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback; soldiering on then :) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hi MER-C,

This is to let you know that File:EHT Saggitarius A black hole.tif, a featured picture you nominated, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for May 12, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-05-12. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! --Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 16:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

spihelper
Hi - I can see you going through blocking those accounts. Are you aware of the SPI helper script? It lets you block multiple accounts at an spi case with just a few mouse clicks, optionally tagging them and/or requesting locks on meta. Very helpful when there ore lots of sox. Girth Summit  (blether) 18:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, installed. MER-C 18:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Lithophane
You deleted this article on the 24th. Whatever the status of that text, the subject is impeccably notable and an article is needed. Please let me see the previous article and its history. Where was it supposed to be copied from, if your investigations got that far? Johnbod (talk) 04:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Notability is not relevant to the decision to delete the article. I can't share the text of the article but I can tell you that DC was the only major contributor. This I verified before I deleted it. Per policy, that is the only condition that needs to be met for deletion. That policy exists for cases like this. MER-C 12:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Well you can share the content of the article, as I understand it. You just don't want to. I repeat, where was it supposed to be copied from? Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The whole point of that policy is that determining a source is not needed - and so I did not determine one. The reason I am not sharing the content is because I am treating it as copyrighted content. You can have a skeleton and references if you want but not the text. MER-C 16:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, that would be a start. I see no reason why something that has supposedly been published elsewhere should be treated as TOP SECRET, ADMIN EYES ONLY nor do I believe there is anything in the rules that suggests this.  Frankly, I think you are making this up. Do you never email anybody copyrighted content, or links to it? Johnbod (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Emailed. To the best of my knowledge, I have never emailed anyone a copy of text deleted for copyright concerns. MER-C 19:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I meant generally, like a newspaper article, outside WP. Johnbod (talk) 04:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Johnbod:
 * Deletion policy, Any user with a genuine reason to view a copy of a deleted page may request a temporary review (or simply ask an administrator to supply a copy of the page). Note that these requests are likely to be denied if the content has been deleted on legal grounds (such as defamation or copyright violation), or if no good reason is given for the request.
 * Requests for undeletion: Copyright violations and attack pages will not be provided at all.
 * Sennecaster ( Chat ) 00:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links. The second is clearly not relevant, as I am not asking for undeletion. I have given my "good reason"; the best MER-C can come up with as a reason not to do it, which he is clearly disinclined to do, is that he has never done it before! He says he can't share the text - but he can. He just doesn't want to. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hi MER-C,

This is to let you know that File:Golden Delicious apples.jpg, a featured picture you nominated, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for March 14, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-03-14. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! --Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 17:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hi MER-C,

This is to let you know that File:PK Hyderabad asv2020-02 img24 Tomb of Mian Ghulam Kalhoro.jpg, a featured picture you nominated, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for March 23, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-03-23. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! --Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 15:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hi MER-C,

This is to let you know that File:Aerial view of Somapura Mahavihara.jpg, a featured picture you nominated, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for March 26, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-03-26. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! --Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 20:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Draft: Om Murti Anil
Greetings sir @MER-C .I am a medical student and joined Wikipedia around 9 months ago with my interest to create and edit medical contents. The subject https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Om_Murti_Anil is popular cardiologist in Nepal and I, being a medical student look after him as an inspiration. So, I searched for his Wikipedia page to know about his medical journey and found it in draft rejected several times and also once kept in sockpuppet category by you. Hence, I thought to cleanup the unnecessary contents, add references and write it from NPOV. I have edited it to a very much extent. So could you please guide me how I can make it better? or what to do next ??

Regards!!!

Gauravs 51 (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This draft has been very persistently pushed onto Wikipedia. I suggest finding something else to edit to avoid accusations of impropriety. MER-C 12:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @MER-C Since I have worked hard to improve this article. It was just my simple expectation. Thank you for your response. Gauravs 51 (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hi MER-C,

This is to let you know that File:Rooftop farm at the Essex (65787p).jpg, a featured picture you nominated, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for April 20, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-04-20. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! --Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 21:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Dante8
Hey sorry that you are having to try and deal with the Dante8 situation. I have found them heavily editing at Timeline of women in religion, Timeline of women in religion in the United States, International Women's Day and Women's boxing. When I have time I might file a long-term abuse report it might help other users find their sock-puppets. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe this is their most active recent account (active a few hours ago) Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * not many people read WP:LTA. The exercise is itself useful - you should gather the same evidence and create the LTA page, but also apply for general sanctions, presumptive deletion, and a community ban (if they aren't already banned) on WP:AN and a WMF Office ban via cawikimedia.org. MER-C 16:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Gerard Verschuuren
Hi. You deleted this on March 13 of this year due to copyright concerns. Not sure how it was returned to mainspace (the editor who removed the copyright issue tag and restored the prose is not an admin), I reinstated the tag, but took a harder look this morning, and reviewed the history. Not sure if that was the right move, since it's already been deleted. Unsure of how to proceed here.  Onel 5969  TT me 09:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The content was cleared by VRT. See the notice on talk page, the editor who unblanked it is a VRT agent (VRT agents can close copyright problem listings). MER-C 09:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Cool. Thank you.  Didn't understand that.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

UPE question
Hi. Hate to bug you, but could you take a look at User talk:Onel5969 and tell me what you think? Personally, I'd tend to accept, AGF, their explanation. But I'm not that good at spotting UPE/COI. Thanks in advance.  Onel 5969  TT me 09:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced. I'd request them write another draft or two. MER-C 16:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's why I ask. Pathetic am I.  .  As always, thanks.  Onel 5969  TT me 18:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Amerado vs Amerado (musician)
I can see that you have deleted and protected Amerado due to sockpuppetry. The article creator User:Itspoojkins is blocked for a variety of reasons, but not specifically as a sockpuppet. Probably WP:DUCK but I don't have the tools to check. Thanks Tassedethe (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the history is full of socks at both titles. I'm not a CU so I can't do anything more than you could. And you do have access to Special:Undelete/Draft:Amerado. MER-C 13:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I borrowed something
from your user page here. Please let me know if you want credit. Thanks. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 00:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Radhey8
I've heard down the grape vine that you are quite good with COI editors. Would you be able to look at Radhey8 as they seem to be either the subject of the article, or have volunteered to write the article for him. I accepted the draft to see how it would develop, and guided the user. They have said it will boost their career, but then promptly changed the story and changed 'me' to 'his' on their talk page, in a deliberate attempt to obfuscate history I imagine, which I've reverted. The draft has been draftified again, but if you could take a look at their contributions, that would be nice. NB: there are threads at COI noticeboard and SPI about them. Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 10:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't block them because they are engaging. MER-C 16:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Open Knowledge Association
Okay, so aren't these basically folks getting paid to edit on wikipedia? Such as User:Shellypls, who just created Violence and autism. While they disclose on their page their affiliation with OKA, is anything more needed? Should these articles pass through AfC? This was an organization founded by User:7804j, and works across numerous wikis (see this). This has recently come to my attention through several articles, as well as a disagreement with 7804j on my talk page regarding WP:VERIFY and WP:DRAFTIFY, see User talk:Onel5969.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 12:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Onel5969, IMO, they probably should be disclosed as paid, not a stipend, and the articles probably should pass through AfC. Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 12:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's my thought... perhaps there should be a discussion someplace about it? Not sure exactly where that should take place though.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 12:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Onel5969, NPP or AN most likely. Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 13:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, disclosure is required. The appropriate venue is COIN. MER-C 16:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Not sure how to go about it on COIN, since it focuses on a single article and editor.  This about numerous articles, and numerous editors.  I'm a bit flummoxed.  Sorry to be a bother.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 00:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, AN is also a suitable venue. MER-C 18:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey everyone,
 * We have our activities as paid editing in this list. All of our translators disclose in the user page their affiliation with OKA, and we also put a tag in the talk page of all articles we created.
 * Our translators are mostly free to work on what they want, which is why we call it a stipend -- the list of articles we provide is purely optional, and comes mostly from the list of featured and good articles from other languages as starting point (then expanding based on red links, etc.). The list of articles we are working on is published in oka.wiki/tracker and our process is visible at oka.wiki/overview.
 * We also have some internal workspaces for collaboration within our team. If anyone from the community wants to be added to it or to be involved in the process itself (guidelines for the editors, process for selection of articles, etc.), I'm happy to share accesses and more -- we are trying to be as transparent as possible with the whole project. At the moment, the majority of the funding comes from myself. Also, we are tax-exempt in Switzerland and officially recognized as a charity.
 * I am open to making any changes to the process that the community feels is best 7804j (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Tamaz Somkhishvili
I ask you to look into the situation around the Tamaz Somkhishvili page. Because I have strong suspicions about the promotion of a persona, undeclared payment, as well as the use of socks. The author of the English-language page is contributor User:JeILoenita, most of the contribution is Tamaz Somkhishvili's page. He published the page on March 28, 2023. The author of the Ukrainian-language page is another contributor, User:Kolburor, whose entire contribution is the Somkhishvili page. The author of the Russian-language version is a third contributor, User:Baker Pumpkin, who published the page on March, 28 2023. The Russian-language page was removed due to lack of Notability. The text of the article was taken over by User:CesarNS1980 and moved to the open space, bypassing the procedure of restoring the page. All three versions note that he is a co-founder of Lukoil, although there is no confirmation of this and in all authoritative sources the only founder of Lukoil is Vagit Alekperov. Non-encyclopaedic text is used, as well as non-authoritative sources. Please do a background check on the participants. I ask to make Sockpuppet investigations. AlexanderVolkov123 (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed and filed: Sockpuppet investigations/Kolburor. MER-C 17:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Fire Department Coffee
Recently, you deleted the article Fire Department Coffee on G5 grounds. A new editor has created Draft:Fire Department Coffee, which I believe meets the standards necessary for approval as a draft despite some NPOV concerns. I wanted to ensure you had a chance to check if this is a sock job before I do anything. Please let me know if I should raise the matter elsewhere. Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's paid-for spam - which means you should decline on NPOV grounds. I can't exclude sockpuppetry since this is a purportedly new editor who knows exactly what to do and I have seen spam socks that have disclosed before. MER-C 18:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @MER-C I have recently been employed to work on this page and I must clarify that I have no knowledge of any previous issues the company may have had. It seems unjust to reject the page solely based on past problems, especially considering my adherence to Wikipedia's policies and my disclosure of my paid affiliation. By suggesting the use of NPOV (Neutral Point of View) as a reason for declining the page, it appears as though you are indirectly rejecting the page due to previous undisclosed issues. If NPOV is indeed the concern, I kindly request that you specify the problematic sentences so that I can promptly modify or remove them, and subsequently resubmit the revised version for your reconsideration. @Pbritti has indicated that "I believe meets the standards necessary for approval as a draft despite some NPOV concerns." so it appears NPOV was the reason for decline, in which case I would be happy to correct and resubmit. Xmanxmanx (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This doesn't address the fact that you're not here to improve Wikipedia. The draft is problematic at a macro level, not at the individual sentence level. Advertisements can be neutrally written. Would Wikipedia have covered this topic without you being paid to create it? MER-C 17:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @MER-C & @Pbritti My personal contributions should not be a determining factor in evaluating the notability of the company I have submitted. The company should not be rejected solely due to my involvement. I am actually here to improve Wikipedia, because I am making a page for a company that is notable. The admins should assess it strictly based on its content and adherence to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Previous issues should not influence the outcome of the review, as I, as a distinct editor, am committed to complying with all relevant rules and regulations. To address any potential concerns of promotional language, I will proceed to revise the content accordingly and resubmit it. Xmanxmanx (talk) 01:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Wulfenite - Red Cloud mine, La Paz Co., Arizona, USA.jpg
I think you usually grab Ivar's photos from Commons. You nominating this one? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.4% of all FPs. 06:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think so, yes. MER-C 18:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Right. I'll just leave this over here for when you're ready to post it. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.4% of all FPs. 22:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia: protection on Z/Yen page
Hi there, I'm keen to update and improve the company information and history of the Z/Yen, and further improve the page to remove promotional material (hagiographic as one user described). I realise the page has in part been protected due to its discussion of blockchain technology in a marketing manner, but I would like to update the page just to highlight that they conduct research in this field. Please let me know what you think!

Best wishes, Ben1we (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What is your relationship with the company, if any? MER-C 17:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm an acquaintance of a director there, and I said I'd take a look at their page, but I'm more interested improving the article towards the standards of wikipedia than to the interests of the company. Ben1we (talk) 09:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * My advice is to build up your experience in editing Wikipedia. At some point the protection will be moot. MER-C 18:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

denies PAID editing. Can you offer guidance? Me. Not them. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * They should stay blocked. In addition to not addressing the block problems, this user has received two copyright violation warnings. MER-C 14:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

More Expertwikiguy spam
These accounts appear to be part of Expertwikiguy's sock farm. They show obvious patterns, including specific editing behaviors, pile-on votes on AfDs, and usage of the visual editor, among other things. Could you please check whether these patterns are sufficient for blocking them and then removing the spam pages? Thank you. 88.23.115.177 (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * (pile-on votes on AfDs)
 * The Free Press (publication) (spam)
 * Howard K Grossman, previously created multiple times by Expertwikiguy socks under Howard K. Grossman
 * Edited James Kicklighter to remove COI tag, along with below sock, Threevian. Previously edited by User:Elliswiki7
 * Bryan Rabin
 * (Edit style very similar)
 * Bryan Rabin
 * (Edit style very similar)
 * (Edit style very similar)
 * Blocked and tagged Pershkoviski, Dastaballa, and Threevian. There isn't enough evidence for the rest. Thanks for reporting. MER-C 09:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Found another:, created Simon J Costa (previously deleted under Simon J. Costa, and edited spam like Jared Madere. 2.139.117.111 (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Blocked. MER-C 18:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hi MER-C,

This is to let you know that File:Cerussite - Nakhlak mine, Anarak, Esfahan, Iran.jpg, a featured picture you nominated, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for June 23, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-06-23. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.4% of all FPs. 21:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikibusiness
Hello. I saw your request Sockpuppet_investigations/Kolburor and I would like to report new possible Wikibusiness accounts. In particular, the previous version of Tamaz Somkhishvili's page had a WP:NPOV violation and used non-authoritative Ukrainian media as sources. However, the person in question is not from Ukraine, this person from Georgia. I rewrote the text to comply with WP:NPOV, adding Georgian sources. After that a war of edits started on the part of user Tsans2, he returned the version written by editor JeILoenita, who is also listed in the request for verification. Both added these edits, in blatant violation of Wikipedia rules. User Tsans2 has already been blocked, but I would still like to have that account checked for involvement with Wikibusiness. Furthermore, I'd like to talk about another interesting pattern of behaviour. After I rewrote the text of Tamaz Somkhishvili's page, user CesarNS1980 returned in Russian Wikipedia a similar text with non-authoritative Ukrainian media that had been previously rejected by the Russian Wikipedia community. User CesarNS1980 created a Russian page bypassing Requests for undeletion. In the end, the page was retained because the person was a sports functionary, but with the condition of removing most of the text that had nothing to do with Somkhishvili's sporting activities. This was done but now this text is back. All this shows that all the accounts listed are socks that are run by one person and therefore a global verification is needed. Mykytal (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not a global checkuser, just someone who is persistent and with good attention to detail. It's probably them but I am not confident enough to block. Anntinomy came to me with a bunch of socks on Commons, please coordinate with her. MER-C 19:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * MER-C you are doing an excellent job, thank you! I would like to draw your attention. After Tsans2 account was blocked on June 22nd the user JeILoenita who is mentioned in the Sockpuppet investigations/Kolburor and who created Tamaz Somkhishvili's page returned on June 23rd after a two-month absence . Tamaz Somkhishvili's page has been secured and it can be edited by users who have 500 edits. From 23 to 28 June user JeILoenita actively edits the pages to reach 500 edits and on 28 June he edits the Somkhishvili page again . Mykytal (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There is something more interesting; after Mykytal's sockpuppet AlexanderVolkov123 was blocked by@Q-bit array (by the way this sockpuppet made the same accusations on this Talk page - look here: User talk:MER-C), Mykytal started deleting the inconvenient information from the page of Somkhishvili on English wiki and was also trying to delete Somkhishvili page on Ukrainian wiki. And possibly another sock of Mykytal appeared recently (User:Alex Oleksienko ) who recreated on Simple wiki a multiple times deleted page on English wiki about Gennadiy Gufman https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gennady_Gufman and uploaded the suspicious photo https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%D0%93%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%93%D1%83%D1%84%D1%84%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD.jpg. This page about Gufman was previously uploaded to English wiki by blocked AlexanderVolkov123, and after its deletion Mykytal recreated it on Russian wiki and yesterday a new user created it on Simple wiki, as well as another deleted spam page of Mykytal on Ukrainian wiki - https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladyslav_Vlasiuk. 78.154.173.193 (talk) 06:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Alex Oleksienko's account has nothing to do with me. The whole contribution was created within a single day. Moreover, all this text is written from an anonymous IP address. And it looks like an attempt to frame and block me by Wikibusiness, after I noticed the paid work and socks on Tamaz Somkhishvili's page. Mykytal (talk) 07:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Disappointed
I want to submit an official investigation into what happened today regarding the two articles Draft:Khaled Al Saif, Draft:Sultan Bin Abdulaziz Humanitarian City and either the result of the investigation is that I am guilty and I am banned from editing on Wikipedia, or that the editors who treated me disrespectfully apologize to me and take back the article and a clear and frank apology on my talk page.

What happened was the clear disregard of the editors for people's minds and the use of their absolute power and acting as if Wikipedia belonged to them after fulfilling the conditions for the articles and talking to the help section in Wikipedia, and in the end they agreed with me on the note of the two articles. The editors come here and their words and their dealings differ. '''After advising the user @DoubleGrazing to apply for a revision of the draft to become an article, he deletes the draft and recklessly thinks about it. Is this a trap or what?''' After adding all the sources they want, he says that this is a paid article. As for the second article, he did not find anything that says except that this article was written by me in a publicity way. Deleting it from the beginning of the post I will not be sad, but I am saddened by the lack of respect he found here. I don't care about the two articles as much as I care about a clear and frank apology. John.GGVV (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Here the answer from the User and the advice from him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.GGVV (talk • contribs) 19:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)