This is an archive of past discussions with User:Sir Sputnik. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as Raymond arritt on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.
Hi, I'm sorry to bother you. If you remember this case, there's been a long history of sockpuppetry on Jodie Foster's page. Soon after you blocked the last sock, XYaz.1997 popped up to make similarly hagiographic edits at Foster's page. To be honest, this is getting a bit out of hand with new accounts popping up every time one is blocked. Is there any permanent solution to this? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
@Krimuk2.0: If they're consistently editing the same articles, you can report the RPP. You'll not Jodie Foster is already under pending changes. Preempting edits on the article level is often a good way to discourage sockpuppetry. If there's a strong enough pattern an edit filter might be an option. I don't think that's feasible here, but it's not really my area of expertise. At the the end of the day though, WP:BRI is likely the best option. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
@Krimuk2.0: I don't mind you reporting these here, but please don't use my talk page as alternative to filing a proper SPI report. Documentation and evidence are important, especially since you and I aren't the only ones working this case. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and happy 2019!
Merry Christmas and happy new year! I was happy to see you have a successful RfA during 2018. I hope you will edit more happily in 2019 Hhkohh (talk) 12:40, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
@BethNaught: I have to disagree with that assessment. The new page adds a player profile section that rehashes information already in the infobox, and a brief description of his early life. Neither of these changes are significant; they certainly have no bearing on notability. That being said, it's also entirely moot since the page is also G5 eligible. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I still believe you're wrong. The "early life" and "high school career" sections add new information with new sources (however rubbish they may be). I'd take it to DRV, if it weren't for the G5. 🎄BethNaught🎄 (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.
Members of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.
Technical news
Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
{{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.
Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Hi there! I created the page of a Swiss-born Nigerian goalkeeper that plays for SC Kriens in the second division of Switzerland leagues, Sebastian Osigwe. The page has been deleted twice. I'd like to know the rationale behind this, since the information were thoroughly researched and genuine. And I'd also like to know if it would be re-uploaded very soon. It was last deleted in November, I'd waited till now but it has not been made live. Thanks for your help, Sir Sputnik.
It seems a little odd this one-month old account is making contributions in a manner similar to that of an experienced user. They have been putting out templates such as {{uw-v4}} and using terms like "rvv" that, from my experience, wouldn't typically be used by new users. "Flap" in the username also reminds me of a LTA case, particularly this one. It'd be slightly premature to start an SPI lacking adequate evidence whilst the user has done nothing significant to warrant a check. However, I think there should be some behind-the-scenes effort to determine if this really is a good faith user or a chronic block evader who's masking as a newcomer similar to 1. What do you think? -- Flooded w/them 100s06:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Would you consider blocking the sockmaster indefinitely? It has engaged only in vandalism/disruptive editing and has what could be considered an offensive username. As far as I can tell, the articles in the sanboxes are fake/hoaxes too. Thanks. 72 (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.
Technical news
A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.
A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.
Hi, as a result of Sockpuppet investigations/O oranus which I filed, you have blocked the three named accounts I reported there. I am a bit curious however, that sock users Mamanus & Maman2014352 got blocked indefinitely, while a sockmaster O_Oranus has been blocked for 3 days. That account made only four edits, and all of them on 15 January, so I doubt such short block will even get noticed, let alone make any trouble to the user.
@CiaPan: Block's against puppet accounts are always indefinite. These blocks are more against the account than the person operating them. The idea being that if we want to prevent someone from using multiple accounts we're going to shut down their secondary accounts permanently. Blocks against master accounts on the other hand are against the person operating it, and so are variable in length depending on circumstance. One to three days is a typical block length in cases like this, where the editor had a clean block log up to that point and there aren't non-sockpuppetry reasons for the block to be longer. I hope that clears things up. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Yup, it does. Despite my quite long presence on Wikipedia I am not very familiar with admistrative rules and practice, so I sometimes ask such obvious questions to learn something. Thank you. --CiaPan (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Sir Sputnik! Hope all is well with you. We're taking on some new SPI clerks, and I was trying to find your training pages in your subpages? I planned to steal them from Katie, who in turn stole them from Bbb23. Thanks :) TonyBallioni (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. You may request at the clerk's noticeboard. We check it from time to time when more clerks are needed, and pull from that list. I don't have the time right now to take on more than one trainee, but other CUs may.Sir Sputnik, the /Clerking one may be what I was looking for, but I thought you may have had a different page. If I'm crazy, you're free to tell me as always . TonyBallioni (talk) 07:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Those are also useful :). I went ahead and deleted your page since all the others are deleted and you said Katie meant to. You're of course free to reverse my deletion if you want. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Older LTA
@Sir Sputnik and DoRD: Hello. I just wanted to let you know that Doingitwellordoingitwrong and those other accounts at that SPI are probably socks of an older LTA, Iniced (also see Iniced's SPI). The behavior and IP sock activity is almost identical to the kind of abuse seen from recent IP socks of Iniced over the past year. (Some of those IP socks also went cross-wiki, usually on Meta.) I didn't comment on the newer SPI because I already have enough LTAs targeting me. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Cross language Wikipedia sock - advice
Hi Sir Sputnik, I was wondering if you could provide some advice. I have today come across an AfD that seemed somewhat opinionated which triggered my curiosity. There seems to be a bit of a cross-language sockpuppetry going on - or at least a suspicion. Naj'entus was part of a sock investigation on ru.wikipedia which resulted in socks Openlydialectic and Niqabu being blocked over there. en.wikipedia had this sock investigation which resulted in Niqabu being blocked by Bbb23. Naj'entus is also blocked over here. Openlydialectic continues being an active user on en.wp, though blocked on ru.wp as part of their investigation. There seems some connection. ru.wp sock investigation Thanks. pseudonymJake Brockmantalk09:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jake Brockman: The main reason Openlydialectic wasn't blocked on enwiki with the others is that the account didn't exist yet. In that context, treat them like any other suspected sock. Report them to SPI with the relevant evidence. An explanation of the evidence from the Russian SPI would be a good place to start, if you're able to translate it. I hope that helps. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I have reached out to see if Ymblanter can help me undertand the Russian SPI. Once I have the facts, I will raise. pseudonymJake Brockmantalk19:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
User:DavidJanet and User:DavidJanet88 appear to be sockpuppets of User:Otto4711
I don't exactly know enough about Wikipedia to know how to formally go about accusing someone of sockpuppetry, but this Reddit post seems to have some convincing evidence of a new case.
Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.
Technical news
A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
paid-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.
The only page (other than the primary topic at the base name) being disambiguated is Magnus Lindberg (Swedish musician) since per WP:2DABS a DAB isn't needed. The previous version of the template was clearer in that if there is a primary topic and there are only a total of 2 topics (meaning only 1 needs disambiguation) the DAB is deleted as unnecessary. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Can you please help me understand why Kunal Kamra was deleted when there was only one SPA tagging it as G4. There are too many sources [1][2][3][4][5] establishing the notability. Should it be deleted because it was deleted once? Accesscrawl (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
@Accesscrawl: Essentially yes. The recreated article was almost identical to the one deleted in June 2018, meaning everything that was said in that AfD still applies. You don't get to unilaterally overturn community decisions like that. To allow for recreation, you have to show that something has meaningfully changed. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
If you review the sources above you will find that they come after the AfD. What about these sources[6][7][8] from 2019? Subject easily pass WP:GNG. Or may be G4 is applied only when the content isn't fresh compared to the deleted one? Let me know how the article can be recreated. Accesscrawl (talk) 08:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
@Accesscrawl: It's not me you need to convince, but rather the editors who voted to delete the page in first place. I probably wouldn't speedy delete a recreation with these sources and corresponding content added, but there's no guarantee that it would survive a second AfD, and I don't know enough about the subject to make that determination. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I thought the same, hence I went through AfC. It was reviewed by Rosguill and he mentioned
I'm honestly really surprised that this was deleted at AfD last time it was in the new page queue.
i was surprised by the g4 filing by SPA. Many AfD votes were skeptical about the topic being TOOSOON, but that is already chalked out by the references I've mentioned above.Accesscrawl (talk) 06:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
@Cabayi: Two reasons. First, I misread the dates. I thought Keeleduck was the older account. Second, it's usually better to not treat accounts blocked under the username policy as sockmasters. This type of block usually a soft block allowing for the creation of new accounts, so evading that block isn't automatically sockpuppetry. We also generally want avoid giving additional exposure to inappropriate usernames. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Shame that nobody bothered to look into this at all and now we have an editor I am 99.9% sure is a sock happily editing away... GiantSnowman14:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Please see meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.
Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account.
What do I need to do?
Only to follow the instructions in this message.
Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites).
Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable).
Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers.
How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)?
Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.
Arbitration
In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.
Hi Sir Sputnik, I wanted to come back to this investigation, specifically the IP editors. Just after my conversation with the main editor yesterday and their admission to be connected to the subject, there has been another IP edit from the same ISP and general location. This may need to be looked at again. Of course I have also posted this on the COI noticeboard, but there's clear, though subtle, puppetry going here, too. Many thanks! pseudonymJake Brockmantalk08:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Jake Brockman: I'm going to guess you mean the IP edits to Draft:Rupert Lee-Browne dated 9 May. When referring to specific edits in a sockpuppetry claim, please clearly identify them, preferably by linking to them. It makes my job so much easier if you do. If there are other edits please let me know. That being said, if there aren't other edits, everything I said in the investigation still applies. For editing while logged out to cross the line into sockpuppetry, it has to be done with clear intent of concealing one's identity or gaming the system, and I don't see that here. Deceptive EWLO tends to be far more systematic. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi there... thanks for the response. I should have been clearer about the edits, I do apologise. I understand that EWLO is often more systematic, though I would argue that there are elements in the making here which - in connection with the COI - should be balanced against each other as preventative admin action. It can be assumed that the user in question has been an undisclosed paid editor for the best part of a decade who only partially self-declared after some pressure, here and here. In the second diff, there is a clear admission how the marketing industry is flouting WP rules, and yes, thanks to him for offering to make our rules more industry friendly and I shall make best efforts to be more forthcoming to paid editors... The user did continue to state that he would not edit any more following the partial disclosure. Those two edits on 9 May I regard as "testing the water" and actually connecting himself by leaving a message on the IP editor's talk page is rubbing it in, knowing the sock investigation was closed at that point. I believe we should show more resolve against this kind of behaviour by economically involved editors, to be honest... pseudonymJake Brockmantalk06:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Addendum: the second user has now become more active on the article, probably preparing it for resubmission from a clean user.diff. pseudonymJake Brockmantalk06:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Great, thanks! I wouldn't be surprised if that comes back negative, though. They may have outsourced the job by now. The IP editors are probably more interesting, but I understand the privacy concerns. pseudonymJake Brockmantalk16:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
@Sir Sputnik: Hello there. I am just enquiring as to the reason you closed the sockpuppet investigation case into WritingPro1234. A new investigation case that I opened, into the user She-Hulka, was merged with the WritingPro1234 case because it is suspected that they are the same person. Although I believe the previous WritingPro1234 case had indeed been concluded, the new She-Hulka case had not yet been deliberated upon. It had only just been merged. Perhaps you closed the case in error? ChocolateTrain (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello Sir Sputnik, I see you closed an investigation against Ozar77 and blocked him. I thank you for that. However, both users you blocked as per that investigation were a part of my own more detailed investigation. Since your investigation cites the exact same finding as one I had listed, I can not tell whether it was an independent investigation and no one has even seen mine yet, or my investigation is getting broken down into simpler parts because I made it too complicated and convoluted or made some other mistakes in the process. I have been active for only 2 months and know well only those parts of wikipedia that I've come across or gotten involved with before. So, any help/ guidance would be appreciated. Thanks! UsedtobecoolTALK03:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
@Usedtobecool: You've done nothing wrong here. I was simply unaware that this was a duplicate report. At any given time there are typically between 50 and 100 open investigations, too many for one person keep straight in their head, so duplication like this will sometimes go unnoticed, unfortunately. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.
Miscellaneous
The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
Hello,
I've noticed that you regularly remove citations and references that are sourced from transfermarkt. Would it be possible for you to replace these citations with a citation needed so one can go through and find a new source for information. I now understand that transfermarkt isn't considered to be a reliable source, but I think it would be helpful for newer editors, such as myself, if the citations are replaced with a citation needed instead of being outright removed and the information being left un-sourced.
Thank you, The Neon Narwhal (talk) 03:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Hisham Hendi
Hello Sir, Sputnik. Please move the earlier page on Hisham Hendi to a draft and Ill'll add references from there, and ask for review, before moving it to main article. I believe the deletion was unfair on the basis that the update was inferior than the previous version and that can be fixed by adding different references and ask for review before moving it. Thank you. Kiambiroiro (talk) 07:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
In fairness to the creator
of Daniele Di Bari, I'd assumed they were the one added the one reference. But I now see that in this edit you swapped Transfermarkt—which is the one place I can find this player mentioned, and see my PROD statement regarding its looking there as if he never got beyond the youth team—for Soccerway, which is Daniela Di Bari [it], a female player whom I suspect is notable, only I'm not sure whether the women's leagues are treated with exact parity? (I'd create it but I'm not creating articles here these days in view of the Fram situation.) Different person (and different teams). Yngvadottir (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
@Yngvadottir: Close, but not quite. The line breaks in the diff certainly make it look like I added the soccerway reference, but it was there since the beginning (see this.) As for the notability of Daniela Di Bari, it looks to me, at a glance, as though she doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LizRead!Talk!04:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.
The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
The scope of CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.
Miscellaneous
In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop Fram. This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration (permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.
Also, the statistics are important to show to the audience, once agents and football club members can check his database in Wikipedia without having to search for it. Why remove it?
@Isa Marcante: Transfermarkt is considered unreliable for the same reason Wikipedia itself is: Most of the information in the site's database can be edited by its users. To quote the site's login pageWhether player, manager, club, or match sheet – as a Transfermarkt user you can edit and complete almost all data yourself. Simply click the gear, fill in the form, and click submit. As for the statistics, they are important, but there comes a point where it becomes to much. If we take Lionel Messi#Career statistics, for example, you'll see the norm is to break down the stats by season. A match by match break, is excessive. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, after all. I hope that clears things up. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
i got the wrong order when lodigng the spi case - it should have been manda 1993 - the IP is one of million that the sock has been using... JarrahTree13:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
@Pareshjain09876: Substantially similar articles about this person have been deleted in the past. Previous versions have cited enough of these sources that it looks to me as if the consensus is that they do not amount sufficient coverage to meet the general notability guideline. If you think enough has changed since the first deletion December, please take the matter to deletion review. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I had uncovered other issues I wanted to raise then, that I didn't because they were blocked. Since, they're back:
Based on their bad faith canvassing here, here, here, here and here, as well as misleading beefing up here, and a lack of understanding of AfD processes demonstrated in those diffs as well as additionally, over here and here, particularly with this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this edit,
I would like to ask that they receive an AfD topic ban (or whatever it is called), and their AfD !votes since June 5 be struck, particularly in my articles, for example here, as they have a bias against me, as evidenced by the diffs presented above.
My question to you is: Do I have a sufficient case to make against them? If so, can you take such an action, or is this enough evidence to take it to ANI? I have never gone to ANI, so I don't know what else I ought to try before I register a report there?
There is also a log entry of a deletion of their contribution to ANI on the same date, but I don't know what's in that.
If nothing can be done about my concerns above, I ask that, at the very least, any request for additional permissions from them such as this one be evaluated in light of these issues.
@Usedtobecool: There's no basis for further sanctions here. They've already been blocked for the behaviour you've documented. That block has since expired, so they are welcome to continue editing, provided they conduct themselves properly, and I see evidence that they haven't. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I thought they'd only been made aware of the inappropriateness of socking, and may not know that disruption and canvassing are taken (by admins too) as serious issues as well, since it's clear from their edits that they think non-admins need not be listened to. Since this doesn't require action, I am glad I brought this up with you before going to the ANI. Thanks for your time and the timely response! Usedtobecool✉️✨08:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Iraqi Premier League topic
Hi Sir Sputnik. I would like to ask if you could help with an issue we're facing now in the Iraqi Premier League topic.
Basically there are contradicting sources about the league winners in 2002/03 and 2013/14. The sources at the moment are very shaky to say the least and I think an admin should have a look at it.
@Steel Dogg: I know precious little of Iraqi football, so I'm not really in a position to provide much help here. If can't reach an agreement, I would suggest soliciting input from the broader editorship. WT:FOOTY would be a good venue for this. That being said, if the source you've cited here, is the only basis for your position, you might want to reconsider. The source appears to be self-published, and therefore not reliable. We also generally need to be very careful when using that reference Wikipedia. Circular reporting can be a real problem. I hope that helps. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Sputnik, thanks for answering! No, there are way more sources available to strenghten my argument. The link I sent was to clarify the situation here. I'll check out WT:FOOTY.
Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.
Hi Sir Sputnik,
The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Donegan says "The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it."
I have heedlessly gone ahead and modified it. I think that might be a good little application of WP:IAR. (I don't like "Ignore all rules". I think it should be "Ignore one rule")
@Shirt58: Honestly, I think there probably should be some standardized way of denoting this sort of thing, since the problem isn't unique to this AfD, but in the absence of this, your approach seems perfectly reasonable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Why deleting
Hi Sir Sputnik
About the topics that I edited, namely Jihad Madlool, Ismail Hashim, Nawaf Sallal, Sajjad Abdul Kadhim, Hussam Malek and Ahmed Muhsin Ashour. They belong to sports figures, some of them former players and have become professional coaches in recognized leagues, and some of them have played for their national teams, and some have played in the AFC Champions League. I do not understand why are you trying to delete them after I made a great effort in editing them. I hope you step back from this step. ميناء (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
@ميناء: We've been over this before. Per WP:NFOOTBALL, in order to have an article on Wikipedia, a footballer must have played in one of the fully professional leagues listed here, or for their country's senior national team. None of them have verifiably done either. Now you claim in the article on Nawaf Sallal that he has played for Iraq. I can find no sources to confirm that he has. If you can provide such sources, I'll gladly withdraw the nomination. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I do not understand what you mean, what do you mean (you claim). You mean I intentionally write wrong information. But what do I benefit from that. It seems that you have a personal reason with me for this talk. Thanks anyway. ميناء (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
@ميناء:You mean I intentionally write wrong information. No, I don't. What I mean is that you have written that Sallal has played for Iraq without any sources that say that he has. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
There are sources for all these sports figures. Which I wrote about them is widely known locally. But the search for these sources requires a great effort, because they are lost during the war against Iraq. It may have taken a long time to find those sources. A few days are not enough in exchange for the loss of all my efforts in editing these subjects. This is illogical. ميناء (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
In that case, you've published these articles too early. If you'd like to keep them as drafts in you userspace, so you can keep working on them, I'll happily move them there for you, but in their current form these articles do not belong in the mainspace. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Maybe it's early for you. But this information may be lost after a while, especially when I am an old man and I suffer from cancer and I may die at any moment. Overall I liked to add utility, worked hard, spent a great effort, and did what I could.ميناء (talk) 00:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
No, no, I didn't mention my position in order to you feel pity on me, or you sympathize with me. I mentioned it just to show the truth. Damn to edit. Delete everything you like. ميناء (talk) 00:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
As I've explained to you above, in order to have an article on Wikipedia a footballer must satisfy the criteria laid out at WP:NFOOTBALL. These criteria are having played in one of the fully professional league listed at WP:FPL or for a senior national team. None of them have played in any of the listed leagues. You say that some of them have played for Iraq, but I can find no sources to actually confirm this. If you can provide sources showing that these players have played for the Iraqi national football team, I will gladly withdraw the nominations. If not, the articles should be deleted. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
For notability purposes played means having appeared in a match, either in the starting 11 or coming off the substitutes bench. Sorry if this wasn't clear. The source shows only that he was called up. According to this match report he did not actually play the match against Korea Republic. I've not been able to locate a complete report for the match against Saudi Arabia, so he may have played that match, but it remains unconfirmed. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
There is no recorded report on the two matches, but the two matches were broadcast and the player appeared in the squad, the two matches are friendly, and all players participated, and this is clear to anyone who understands football. Nawaf Sallal was in the team as in the report. ميناء (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.
A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.
But the source says he played for Vålerenga and Vålerenga 2, but does not mean that he played for the first team as well. ميناء (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
If you click on the number of appearances for a particular team, it'll expand a table showing the details of the matches played, including which competition the match was in. All of Alkanany's appearances for Valerenga were at the under 19 level. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Then let me explain it once more in a little more detail. In the table on club statistics (Klubbstastikk), in the column on total number of matches (Total antall kamper), if you click on any of the numbers, a table showing details of the matches played appears. One of the columns identifies the tournament (Turnering) that the match belongs to. Alkanany 4 appearances in 2014 of Valerenga were all in G19 Interkrets. 4 of the 7 appearnces in 2015 were in G19 Interkrets, the other three in NM G19 Telenor Cup. None of them were in Tippeligaen (the name of the Norwegian top flight at the time). Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.
Technical news
As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.
Thank you for your tireless work as a clerk and patrolling admin at SPI. It is noticed and deeply appreciated by all of us :) TonyBallioni (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a bit confused by your CSD denial reason. Based on the SPI the 2 users are CU confirmed to each other and no issues have been raised? Based on the block logs as well they're blocked as CU-confirmed socks. Also, the 2 users that were confirmed were ABTHEBOSS and Sid505, the user raised in the comments has no bearing on the validity of the blocks as it's a matter of finding the master. Thanks, Kb03 (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@Kb03: Based on the information we have right now ABTHEBOSS is the master account. Unless a connection to a previously blocked account is established, their edits are not block evasion, and therefore not G5 eligible. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi there. I see you deleted AAFT University of Media and Arts, I presume this was because someone recreated it over the redirect. You did not recreate the original redirect though, so I went ahead and did that. Perhaps protection of the redirect so the article cannot be recreated is in place? Just an idea. --Muhandes (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
@Muhandes: I have no objection to the redirect, but page protection would be premature. Protection serves primarily to deal with persistent problems. This page has been recreated just once. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello Sir Sputnik, can you block this IP range, 210.187.0.0/16 indefinitely because this IP doing long-term abuse here by changing birth dates. I have reverted some of edits by this IP recently.––Fandi89 (talk) 03:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
@Fandi89: There are a number of reasons I can't accept your request. First /16 IP ranges are very wide. Blocking ranges this wide would almost always cause significant collateral damage. This range is no exception. Second, due to the changing nature of IP addresses, most home internet connections get a new one on a fairly regular basis, blocks against IP's may not be indefinite. An indefinite block would also be grossly disproportionate the level of disruption caused. Finally, the editor in question has been inadequately warned. Only after an editor has been asked to stop their disruptive behaviour may they blocked. That has not happened here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!
Having looked more into the deletion policies, I have only become more and more doubtful of your revert of the G3 speedy deletion template, that I put on the May 2016 Dürümlü bombing article. Every single word in the article, is based on biased unreliable sources. Aside from the bit that is completely contradicted by its source. (which is also biased, but in the other way) Every part of the article, without exception, is unverified and biased, and purely meant to libel. How does that not qualify as "blatant and obvious misinformation, blatant hoaxes"? (to quote WP:G3) Or maybe WP:G10?--85.228.52.251 (talk) 08:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Simmerdon3448
Simmerdon3448 is apparently going through his usual routine of shifting the blame onto other users while refusing to acknowledge his own behavior while blocked. Do you think it would be wise to revoke his talk page access? TheGrandDelusion(Send a message)00:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
@The Grand Delusion: Absolutely not. TPA revocation is a tool to be used very sparingly. Unless they are doing what you're describing in formal, frivolous unblock requests, or there's a more serious problem (personal attacks, legal threats etc.), it's use not warranted. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Infinity Train
I was busy doing an edit on the page because we all know the show will return as a full series on HBO Max, but was interrupted by you protecting it. Can you please add the notice on the main page? We all know that the full series will be like this. BaldiBasicsFan (talk)
@Pkbwcgs: I did notice that. However, the page was created on 22 January 2011; Dwlr wasn't blocked until 4 February. Creating the page may have been sockpuppetry, but wasn't block evasion, which is the requirement for WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I have seen that you have removed transfermarkt external links on many pages. Can you please elaborate the statement "transfermark is not reliable"?--AirWolftalk17:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
@AirWolf: Much of the site's content is user edited. To quote the site's login page: Whether player info, coach info, club info, or match report – as a Transfermarkt user, you can edit and add to almost all data by yourself. Simply click the gear, fill in the form and click submit.Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Block query
Back on 25 October you blocked the IP Special:Contributions/85.228.51.229 citing block evasion, but I can't figure out which block was being evaded. I extended a block on that IP's CIDR range for 3 months not long after, and they've ended up on IP 213.113.121.42 complaining that they were blocked inappropriately. Do you have any more info you can share on your block of that IP? Feel free to email me if you prefer. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 04:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I was looking though some archived SPI cases, and I found one where after a center point, the cu template stops working as of most of the other templates. Do you have any idea of what should be done about this? Page is This SPI, it breaks at around 22 March 2018. Thank you. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me!16:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Interesting, the page seems to be hitting a transclusion limit on calls to {{checkuser}} - past the point where the renderer hits the limit, no more templates are transcluded on the rest of the page. I'm not sure what to do about it but we may need to simplify the template code. For Krajoyn it's safe to ignore for now, that's already an archive of an archive. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
editToken
Hello Sir Sputnik,
Your script User:Sir Sputnik/spihelper update.js is no longer functional because it attempts to get an editToken from mw.user.tokens. The script should instead get a csrfToken. editTokens were removed from mw.user.tokens on October 3, 2019 at Phabricator during this edit as they were redundant to csrfTokens.– BrandonXLF (talk)00:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
Ok. Go ahead. It's your call. Not too happy about it due to username and website, but if they stick to the rules it is ok. -- Alexf(talk)00:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Transfermarkt
But as StretfordEnd.co.uk is a privately owned website and currently up for sale, it is also user-edited. They may declare themselves as the "official statistics website" but they aren't actually officially endorsed in any capacity. I would argue transfermarkt is just as reliable (and clearly more so in this case as the statistics on StretfordEnd.co.uk are simply inaccurate). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Th998 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
That's very fair, I may indeed do that. Cheers.
Kamerfer Kadın
Hi, Sir Sputnik! Are you sure about this? Did you read my note at Talk:Kamerfer Kadın, I wonder? My take is that the subsequent histmerge of an earlier version of the page does not disqualify it for G5 – this page was created ex novo by a sock. I'm interested to know how others see this. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
(Talk page stalker of Justlettersandnumbers) I was about to drop you a note but see I've been beaten to the mark. But given the comment I'm interested to know how others see this above I shall post anyway - my non-definitive conclusion was that: the current article was created by Internetexpert41 on 14 October [15]; Internetexpert41 is a sock of Physo172; Physo172 was blocked on 30 September - ergo, it appears to me that the article was created by a blocked user. Dorsetonian (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Sir Sputnik, and indeed to Dorsetonian too! I should have made clear that there was no kind of criticism implied in my question. Anyway, the page has been draftified so it's all a bit moot at this point. Since no-one seemed too sure of how our policy applies in this sort of situation, I've started a discussion about the general case here. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Good luck
豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s
Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはSir Sputnikたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！ フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE! ミラP02:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Transfermarkt Substitute
Hey there, thanks for your recent pass through the new HFX Wanderers chronicle I put up. Would you have a recommendation for a Transfermarkt alternative to note total senior caps for players? I originally had in mind the FIFA match reports, but if one player gets a lot of caps, it'd make too many references and it would be untidy.Lucky Strike (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
@Lckystrke: I usually try to find a database site that is local to the relevant country, though I don't know of one specifically for Canada. Failing that, Soccerway is usually my go to source for Soccer stats. As for FIFA, I know they used to maintain player profiles, but haven't been able to find them since they last restructured their website, not that I've tried terribly hard. I hope that helps. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
A request for comment asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.
Technical news
Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [16]
Arbitration
Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.
You have removed from the article the date of the player's death. It's quite possible you are formally right and the source does not meet WP standards of reliability. However, the fact is that Lotfi Baccouche is dead. You can also see it here, on FB page of the fans of his club Étoile du Sahel, which is formally not a reliable source for wiki as well but I would argue it's hardly believable that such a post of mourning is factually incorrect. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. The first time I saw a partially blocked account in the popups I thought the dotted underline to the username looked cool and wondered how to get that effect on my username. Now I know what it means, not so much. Cabayi (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
transfermarkt
Hi, can you tell me more about transfermarkt.com being not reliable source, I'm not disagreeing, just I always considered it to be reliable and found it correct most of the times. What would you recommend as an alternative for values, and contract start / end dates? Wolfmartyn (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
@Wolfmartyn: Transfermarkt's stats database is user edited. To quote its login page: Whether player info, coach info, club info, or match report – as a Transfermarkt user, you can edit and add to almost all data by yourself. For contract dates, your best bet will probably be transfer announcements for the player in question, either from their club's website or from sporting news outlets (i.e. BBC Sports for England, kicker for Germany). Market valuations are not something we should be reporting on in the vast majority of cases, as they are inherently speculative and not widely covered in reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Transfermarkt.com not being a reliable source
Dear Sir Sputnik,
You are stating that www.transfermarkt.com is not a reliable source, because it is user-edited. Can you please tell me which website you do consider reliable? In the world of football transfermarkt.com is considered one of the most reliable (free) websites. This of course does not mean that all data is correct, also in this case the height mentioned (183cm) at transfermarkt.com was (just like at all websites I know) incorrect. The problem is that all websites that I know and that you probably consider 'reliable' (for example FIFA.com) are providing this incorrect height of 183cm of this football player. I can only speculate why this is, it looks like many website are copying (in this case incorrect) data from other websites without investigating thoroughly themselves, or maybe they are still using the height of this football player when he as a teenager played at U17 and U20 World Cups. Either way I was not able to edit his height in Transfermarkt.com myself. Therefore I sent transfermarkt.com an email to investigate this and have it corrected. They told me their data-scout was going to contact his current football club to re-check the data. A few days later I saw his height was corrected to 187cm in Transfermarkt.com. So can you please advise me what to do so that Wikipedia does no longer show an incorrect height of this football player?
Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.
Technical news
Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.
Hello administrator! Please check the contributions of user:Murgh Krahi, without having any page remover he had converted so many pages with only have 200-300 edit showing from his edit. I had noticed that user for stop this activity without permission to changing the page names. tuxr 16:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuxr (talk • contribs)
