User talk:Sir Sputnik/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

SPI page move

Hi Sir Sputnik, could you undo your page move of this SPI? See Special:Contributions/WareMiekal; the username does not start with a space. I don't think that's even possible. I really wish there was a way to prevent these SPI's from being filed with the extra space, I see it happen so often. Sro23 (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Here, eat this. Some energy for clearing those backlogs at SPI. FYI you're doing awesome :) Sro23 (talk) 06:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm no clerk but clearly CUs are not going to connect an account to an IP.)

I had a question regarding this. I assume that no one is going to say "yeah, user name such-and such seems to be on Whositz Street in Anywheresville", yeah. On the other had, I'd also assume that A wider check would be done to see secondary and further connections, although those would not be made public. Is this correct, or not, or can you say? Anmccaff (talk) 03:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I see you've already addressed this e;sewhere. Thanks. Anmccaff (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Anmccaff: (ec) If the use CheckUser evidence is warranted, CU's will be able to see any other accounts with similar technical information as the account being checked. However, a check like is only warranted if there's sufficient evidence to check two known accounts against one another, or if there's good evidence suggest that other undiscovered accounts, called sleepers, actually exist. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think the pattern of adoption of another's words again, and again, and again, and again is suggestive, at the very least, but that's probably better, and already, said elsewhere. Thanks again. Anmccaff (talk) 04:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

This is not the place to argue you case. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 10:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Jburchard1 SPI

With all due respect I beg to differ. The other SPA was trying to salvage the article as it is the subject of an AfD,based in part on its promotional content, I erred in not pointing that out in the SPI (my first in a while). See [1] This appears to be a bad hand/good hand sock situation. A CU might help, but I do believe that two accounts that are created for the purpose of editing an article on an obscure brokerage is a DUCK situation. Coretheapple (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: With one account having made only three edits, two of which is in direct opposition to work of the other account, the evidence doesn't support the hypothesis of sockpuppetry. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Just saw your response here. Not trying to get into a big argument over this, and the article has been deleted so it's a moot point, but I think the larger point is important and I note that you're a trainee so I wanted to point this out. When you have two SPAs that both have virtually no contribs except concerning one subject---one to add puffery, one to rescue the same article in an AfD---that is absolutely a DUCK situation.

One of these accounts was created in 2007, for Pete's sake, and was clearly created for the purpose of promoting this one obscure brokerage. The other was created after an AfD of the article began and its contribs were limited to that brokerage, to correct the issues raised in the AfD, not to "conflict" with the other SPA. It's immaterial that one removed the other's contributions because the AfD indicated that the first editor's contributions were problematic. My point being that your conclusion is clearly in error. These two accounts aren't "opposing" one another. They are complementing one another. You are just flat-out wrong on this. Sorry. Coretheapple (talk) 14:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

There isn't enough evidence to act on here. At the risk of repeating myself, the three edits made by the newer account don't really tell me much of anything about the person operating that account. The only real point of commonality is an overlapping interest. While that obviously can be a sign of sockpuppetry, it's not by itself sufficient to prove that two accounts are the same person. As for the question complementary behaviour, a good hand/bad hand argument has to be supported by something beyond just complementary behaviour to distinguish it from genuine opposition. As an impartial investigator, I'm obliged to err on the side of inaction. It's preferable to apply WP:ROPE and wait for someone to out themselves clearly than to block an inadvertently block an uninvolved editor who just happened to edit the wrong page at the wrong time. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Eeblair22 has not edited since the article on that obscure brokerage was deleted. Does that suggest to you behavior by an ordinary editor? There is not even an attempt by the person behind that account to mimic normal editing behavior. I'm not clairvoyant; I was just applying WP:DUCK in making a report on this obvious sock. Coretheapple (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

For an editor who only made three edits in the four months since they registered their account, extended periods of inactivity are not unusual. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Rubens Fadini

This is the third time that I correct this. Rubens Fadini is born in Jolanda di Savoia, Province of Ferrara. Chioggia is Province of Venice.) It's easy to check, you can do it youself if you don't believe me. Charlie Foxtrot66 (talk) 02:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I see, according to you Transfermarkt is not reliable? How reliable is who says that Chioggia is in the province of Ferrara then?

trainee template use

Keep using the trainee template. The clerks are all aware you're training, but the CUs might not necessarily know. Until we let you know you're a full clerk, plaster that puppy everywhere. And don't be afraid to self-endorse. If we don't want to check it, we'll let you know. ;-) Katie^talk 21:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: Will do. For what it's worth though, I hadn't requested CU evidence in the PShandAllfrey case. I didn't expect there to be sleepers. Rob checked it of his own accord. In the same vein, should I be clerking my own non-CU filings as well? I've got two of them pending at the moment. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I checked it primarily to look for an underlying IP range to block. When we have someone with 5+ accounts and no CU has ever looked at them before, it's usually a good time to do that. I was rather surprised at the sleepers as well. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/185.100.188.15

You closed this saying: "Using a dynamic IP is not sockpuppetry" This user is not using a dynamic IP, as investigation shows:

1. 185.100.188.15 registered to Southwick Focus 4 U Limited, United Kingdom, assigned as a static IP, geolocating to Reading, England, UK
2. 185.36.170.93 registered to Atman ATM S.A., Poland, assigned as a static IP, geolocating to Poland (undefined location)
3. 202.239.38.179 registered to Tokyo Ehost Data Center Inc., Japan, assigned as a static IP, geolocating to Fukuoka, Japan
4. 185.100.84.164 registered to Victoria Flokinet Ltd, Romania, assigned as a static IP, geolocating to Bucharest, Romania
5. 62.210.253.157 registered to Iliad-Entreprises Business Hosting Customers, France, assigned as a static IP, geolocating to France (undefined location)

Given that these are all static IP's, from different hosts, in different countries, spanning two continents, I believe that the conclusion of dynamic IP use should be revised. Further appropriate SPI steps are, of course, also requested. Thank you for your attention. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: The underlying reasoning of why dynamic IP use is not sockpuppetry still applies here. IP hopping is not sockpuppetry either. On a more practical level, blocking individual IP addresses is unlikely to actually accomplish anything here given how quickly they're switching IP's. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Sir Sputnik:, I understand the practicality argument but I'm at a loss to understand the idea that IP hopping is not sockpuppetry. WP:SOCK even says: "Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way that suggests they are multiple people." Hopping from one IP to another is pretty much the definition of using multiple accounts, even if they are unregistered, to evade scrutiny and manipulate an article's edit history. I believe that IP hoppers have frequently been blocked for such bad-faith use of multiple anonymous accounts. If you can point me to a policy or RfC that says otherwise, I'd appreciate it. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Let me preface this by saying this is entirely a semantics argument (and that's not a bad thing). if there were a blocked editor using these IP's to evade their block I'd still be closing the investigation with no action, whereas if the IP's were close enough together to be range blocked, I'd be recommending that.

This notion largely comes from the ideas in WP:NOTPEOPLE. For example, we generally don't treat dynamic IP use as sockpuppetry even when it's used for vandalism. But does it become sockpuppetry, because the vandal decided to switch from their laptop to their phone part way through their vandalism. Because IP hopping is a thing that just happens, an IP address is a very poor expression of identity and generally shouldn't be taken as such. Once you remove this notion of identity, sockpuppetry from IP's largely becomes a moot point outside of a few particular cases (block evasion, vote stacking). In the case you filed, it doesn't really matter whether or not the editor was trying to pass themselves off as more than one person. Most cases of IP hopping disruption shake out that way. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Eulalefty SPI

BU Rob13 confirmed what I thought, that The Norm account is definitely  Confirmed to Chanakya Volume 2. Shouldn't it be added to that SPI? Doug Weller talk 17:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: It was. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chanakya Volume 2/Archive#15 November 2017. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, it wasn't on my watchlist and I should have checked your contributions. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Good job!

Good job on Shameel Done. -- Alexf^(talk) 21:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Please check here: User talk:Oshwah#Sock investigation for more sockpuppets of Shameel Done. Resemblence are:

• his birthday 06 Dec 1997
• he uses Pakistani flag
• he uses "For other people" template
• he uses word "photo copier" for himself

I don't know how to make an SPI. Thanks! M. Billoo 01:07, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

A Simple Misunderstanding

You may have thought that I have been using multiple accounts, but this is just a misunderstanding. I am very sorry for making you think this and will tell my acquaintance to use a different description than mine.

From,

Northwestern student charles123 (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Sir Sputnik. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

ANI Experiences survey

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hello, could u please take look at here as for some reason, this research is stalled. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Aydinsalis

Kind regards, --Azerifactory (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZestyLemonz‎‎

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZestyLemonz‎‎. Editing habits of a new user with 4+ days tenure that has very similar editing behavior to other recent sock puppeteers of ZestyLemonz Iggy (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Uroš Poljanec

Could you please restore the page Uroš Poljainec since he has now met the wikipedia criteria (see Soccerway profile, he has made one appearance in the I-League a league considered fully pro which automatically meets criteria). Thanks Das osmnezz (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Das osmnezz: I'm not an administrator, so I can't restore deleted material any more than you can. If you'd like it restored please contact one of the deleting admins. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I already contacted the admin who deleted the page.Das osmnezz (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Sir Sputnik. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppeter.Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Binamra Deb/Archive

My younger brother whose username is Vampirewoods editted and made draft about me after my warning.I warned him to edit wikipedia wisely but he didn't obey.When I was in school he did such edits which violates Sockpuppetry rules.I respect wikipedia rules.So as he is very young I request Sir Sputnik to resolve the case as a child's mistake.Due to the case my name is shown on google as a sockpuppeter and all are insulting me.Please completely delete the case and I promise in future nothing will happen like thus again.Thankyou.

This is the link to the case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Binamra Deb/Archive Binamra Deb (talk) 04:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I Promise that I will use wikipedia wisely but please remove my page.

As I am a youtuber and founder of YOU TUBE OFFICIALS Channel though I have less subscribers,I am very much popular in my city and many people search my name on google then it shows "WIKIPEDIA SOCKPUPPETER BINAMRA DEB"Some people are calling me and throwings slangs on me.Sir please move the page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Binamra_Deb from wikipedia please. Binamra Deb (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Then will the page be shown on google after investigation.Please after investigation remove the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Binamra Deb (talk • contribs) 05:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

SPI

Hi,

Sorry to trouble you , but just wanted to check for this SPI whether any consideration had been given to the diffs I provided for the Project talk page?

I almost didn't bother raising the SPI as I feared it would just reach the same conclusion as previous investigations, but those edits in particular seem like a dead giveaway on top of all the behavioural similarities that I (and others previously) have raised. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@J Mo 101: Yes, course they were considered. It seems to me in those edits Fleets actually misunderstood Theanonymousentry's comments. In my experience, sockpuppeteers don't pretend to misunderstand themselves. If the intent is to create the illusion of support, they're going to make it look like all the account are on the same page 100%. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Why is my table still being deleted?

Vitkauskas

Mbodj

Klimavičius

Vaitkūnas

Slijngard

Blagojević

Ljujić

Kuklys

Antal

Elivelto

Šernas

Starting line-up for the 2017–18 UEFA Champions League qualifying phase and play-off round home match against PFC Ludogorets Razgrad won by FK Žalgiris 2–1.

[old source https://www.transfermarkt.com/spielbericht/index/spielbericht/2866146]

source are updated https://www.eurosport.com/football/champions-league/2017-2018/live-zalgiris-vilnius-ludogorets_mtc948671/live.shtml click teams, you have everything there maybe eurosport not realiable source for you?

Final day appearances of Immordino / Johns / Weissman

Hi Sputnik,

I changed the wording of the aforementioned players' Top 8 appaearances from 'nth Final Day' to 'nth Top 8 Finish'. I know that this looks incoherent, but the other formulation is not correct: Johns, Immordino, and Weissman were amongst the best eight finishers at PT Dallas 1996. However, this tournament was cut to a top 4 instead of a Top 8, and all three did not make the cut to top 4. As the Top 4 was played on another day (Sunday just like today), the formulation 'nth Final Day' is factually incorrect for these three players. Maybe you have a better suggestion of how to deal with this. Maybe the notes should just always say 'nth Top 8 finish'. Otherwise there are also Pro Tour New York 1, which was cut to 16 players and Sean Fleischman and Chris Bishop both made that Round of 16. These are final day appeareances fore sure, but we don't count these.

Oh, and 'nth Top 8 appearance' is troublesome with team Pro Tours, I know.

OdinFK (talk) 07:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@OdinFK: I think the solution here is to stick to one formulation or the other, and use explanatory notes where it doesn't quite fit. We've actually already done this in the one spot where it's really obvious: John Ormerod's 8th place finish at Worlds '01 after David Williams was DQ'ed from the top eight. Incidentally, this is also how Mark Rosewater addressed the same issue in his "On Tour" articles, which is where I assume you got the final day wording when you wrote the Wikipedia articles. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Good advice. And so obvious once you have seen it :D. Thanks! OdinFK (talk) 10:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Note

Could you pop a similar note at the top of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Daniel Kobe Ricks Jr/Archive? We're bound to look in there when CUing, and the more reminders the better -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 22:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@There'sNoTime:  Done. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Bujamin Asani

Azerbaijan Premier League is a fully professional league.[2] European Professional Football Leagues Rhinen

@Rhinen: EPFL membership does not confirm fully pro status. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok...I also found this article [3] and Azerbaijan Football Federation (http://www.affa.az/) and the Professional Football League (http://www.pfl.az/) have different websites. In generally a country where football is organized at amateur or semi-pro level don't need a new organization as a Football Pro League, all the matches are organized by the federation. I'm just saying, maybe I'm wrong. Rhinen

@Rhinen: None of these address the issue of professionalism directly. If you look at the archive at WT:FPL, you'll this league has been discussed several times, and what it comes down is that there's not enough clear sources to draw a meaningful conclusion one way or the other. This means that WP:NFOOTY doesn't provide any meaningful guidance here and notability will come down to the general guideline, which Asani does not appear to meet. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

It's ok ;) Thank you and sorry for my mistake. Rhinen

User:Sir Sputnik/ClerkAtWork

I think you should stop using User:Sir Sputnik/ClerkAtWork any more. I think it is useless, especially when you use it yourself. As I understand, such message is intended to be placed by a Clerk trainer so to allow trainee to freely review the case. I see no sense to use it yourself. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm merely following the instructions I was given here. @KrakatoaKatie: As the one who gave instructions, am I okay to stop or should I keep using it? Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd like you to continue using it, as Sro23 and GAB did while they were trainees. We have new Arbs who may stop by SPI and I want them to be aware you're a trainee. And you're still doing great. :-) Katie^talk 01:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Good job!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thanks for all your hard work at SPI and other areas of the project related to socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Sir Sputnik!

Happy New Year!

Sir Sputnik,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 07:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Newbies need help

Happy Newyear... Dear Mr, I just Newbies who want to write an article about my fav football club I have a fav football club that play in highest level in my country Indonesia, but when I try to write about my club's Super Star (Hari Nur Yulianto) in english version, They deleted my article. even 2 times. you know, in Indonesian version the article about Hari Nur Yulianto keep existing.

How can this article keep existing in wikipedia? as a newbies I need your help Luthfi Waskitojati (talk) 09:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

AfD

Hi! Please help close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Ting (footballer), result is speedy delete, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

transfermarkt

As i wrote there soccerway is wrong.Someone changed apps and goals and it was wrong.At this time transfermarkt is right.I dont know for other footballers but now it is right.Soccerway is wrong.You keep a source which is wrong and delete the one which is right? Also soccerway,i think,is the same way as a web page with transfermarkt.Fon7 (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC) First of all,I dont want to write fake statistics.I want to be correct.Also i dont like to delete a source because someone,somewhere did this (fake statistics).You show me a discussion with 4 persons and you decided that transfermarkt is awful.I am sorry but I am thinking different generally. I have sources about the mistake.It's word and video on youtube.The problem is that it's greek.Fon7 (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Cceobus blocked

As you are evidently training clerks I hope you don't mind offering support to admins as well. I have no previous with WP:SPI and if I did anything clueless (or didn't do something I could have helpfully done) re Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hicablevanz please let me know. Ben MacDui 17:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ben MacDui: I'm actually the one in training here. That being said, this all looks good to me. The only thing I could add here is that usually after blocking, you'll want to close the case. With this case, however, leaving it open is the right call since there's still clerical work to be done. If you have any doubts, WP:SPI/AI has detailed instructions for patrolling admins and don't hesitate to ask any of the clerks or CheckUsers if you need clarification. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Simiprof

Since the closure of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Simiprof has used the sock Pasimi to solicit AfD votes contrary to WP:CANVASS. There's still no disclosure on User:Pasimi and the disclosure on User:Simiprof is restricted to the addition of images on Commons, not to editing this wiki. The AfD has also attracted two votes from WP:SPA IPs, blatantly WP:MEAT. To my eyes Simiprof has crossed the line of WP:ILLEGIT on 2 points:

• Creating an illusion of support; and
• Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts.

Can we re-open the SPI or shall I re-report? Your thoughts please. Thanks. Cabayi (talk) 08:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• I am not that familiar with Wikipedia rules to punctually invoke them. I do however notice an abusive behavior which consisted over the course of 3 days of two deletion requests of an article I started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MeKin2D, and the initiation of the above mentioned Sockpuppet investigation. Please note that Pasimi has not been used in solicit AfD votes, rather Simiprof, and the message left on the Talk page of Prof McCarthy was appropriate (Prof McCarthy has contributed to several articles where MeKin2D simulations have been posted and accepted). Therefore all the allegations brought up by Cabayi are unfounded. A personal note: Wikipedia exists because of additions to articles and uploads to Wikimedia Commons, and not because of deletions. Simiprof (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dasalakshana

Sorry, edit conflict. Do you want me to revert? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: No, don't worry about it. Besides, extra explanations can't hurt. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Michael Obafemi

@Sir Sputnik: Am I allowed to move my page Draft:Michael Obafemi to article space since its confirmed he made his English Premier League debut? See [4] Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Das osmnezz: No. As per your editing restriction, any edit you make to a biography of a living person must be approved by another editor before it goes live. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gyzqzy

Thanks for the block and the instructions. I will know where to go next time! --KNHaw ^(talk) 00:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shameel Done

Hi! Check "User:Raj Shameel" and his edit on Fawad Khan. This I am saying because "User:Shameel Done" also vandalised the page and both have similar names. Can you please report him, because I don't know how to report correctly. Thanks! M. Billoo 15:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Two more socks:

• Shameel Younis
• Shameel Younes

And maybe "Shameel muhammad" too. Thanks! M. Billoo 13:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Something's fishy

Hi! I am linking two usernames, and I think there is something fishy among them (sock smell).

• https://tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/index.php?user=Nawaz2435&project=en.wikipedia (blocked due to uploading a bunch of images without licensing properly)
• https://tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/index.php?user=Hammy2537&project=en.wikipedia (new, doing the same)

Can't say much more. The prev user said on my talk page, "i am working on Pakistani talents and movies to promote them and i am working for welfare of Pakistan". Now, the new user said, "I found u on some page editing by you, currently i am working on some pages related to Pakistani film industry. Nice to talk to you". They used lower-case "i" (I) and no fullstop in the end. You can also check out both user's talk pages, and can they be reported? For TW, I have enabled it recently, but I can't use in my mobile device. Thanks! M. Billoo 19:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@M.Billoo2000: I see what you mean. I've reported them here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi! I can't say very much about https://tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/index.php?user=DavidJoseph3345&project=en.wikipedia but this user too has similar edits; editing Pakistani drama articles and uploading related images. Similar username with 4-digit number. See his messages on his talk page, same lowercase "i" and no full stop before signing. Can he be reported? Thanks! M. Billoo 13:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

promotion to full clerk

After discussion with the functionaries, I'm very pleased to inform you that you've been promoted to full SPI clerk. Yay!

The only thing that came up, and it's minor, was this SPI interaction with Magog. If you aren't aware, Magog is a CU on Commons and he's quite familiar with many of the enwiki sockmasters, including Wikinger. As you're aware, a subsequent check came up with this list of Wikinger socks. It's good, really good, that you're cautious with endorsing, but you can let the reins loose just a little bit. :-)

At any rate, we're all very happy with your work, and that's a tough group to make happy. I'll give you a few days to get what you need off our training page; when you've got it, let me know with a ping there and I'll delete it under CSD#U1 per BEANS. You obviously don't need to tag the case pages with 'clerk at work' anymore.

Congratulations, and when you're ready for RfA, let me know. :-) Katie^talk 22:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Congrats - we're all glad to have you on the team GAB^gab 00:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: First of all, thank you. The vote of confidence means a lot to me. I've gone ahead and backed up the training page off wiki, so you can delete it at your convenience.

With respect to RfA, I guess my main question is what are my chances? I ran an optional poll a few months ago and was met with a fair amount of resistance. I know that an RfA is something I probably should do sooner or later, but I also know its going to be stressful for me, and I don't particularly want to go through that only to be shot down.

One last thing that I'll mention here, knowing full well I'm not ready for it yet, is that I'd like to at some point get involved in the training of new clerks. If there's anything in particular I should be doing in that regard, please let me know. Thank you again. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent MFDP sock puppet investigation

These accounts are all different people. Each of them was making a separate edit, just unfortunately timed. They are students in my class, and I am introducing them to the editing process for Wikipedia. We've been discussing POV and neutrality, following your response to their edits. Please unblock them so that they can continue to develop editing skills. All of them are new to Wikipedia, and this has been a useful experience for discussion. Ihiyotl (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Does this fit with your CU findings in this case? Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ihiyotl: Please be more specific. First, where do you teach? Second, please provide the usernames (not their real names) of each of the students. Third, what are you doing to monitor their edits? Did you contact Wiki Education before beginning this exercise? If not, would you be willing to do so before continuing? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Certainly. I teach at the University of Oregon. The classroom wireless router is the cause of the identical IP addresses. The users are Sleepycollegekid, Necesitamosaire, and Browneyedgirl9. I have asked them to use their sandboxes to work on edits. They are required to make an edit every two weeks and I review them and make suggestions. However, I think in this case they were identified pretty much instantly as likely puppets and I haven't gotten a chance to intervene until yesterday. I haven't contacted Wiki Education. To be honest, I did this assignment two years ago, but hadn't heard of Wiki Education until now. I will certain explore what options it offers. Thanks. Ihiyotl (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Ihiyotl. If you did this assignment two years ago, why did the three students not start editing until last month?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

LOL Bbb23! I did an identical version of the same assignment two years ago when I last taught this class. These students were not in the class that I two years ago. They are in the version of the class that I am teaching this year. :) Ihiyotl (talk) 02:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ihiyotl: You should be aware of what I've done because I pinged you from each of the three students' Talk pages. Still to recap: I've unblocked the two blocked accounts, cleared the tag from their userpages, and gave them instructions. Sleepycollegekid wasn't blocked, so I just left them similar instructions. Your assignment is as follows. First, please make sure your students understand and follow my instructions. Second, please monitor their edits. Third, if you haven't already done so, please leave a notice at WP:ENB about what's going on with your assignment. The people who are in charge of Wiki Ed are a very nice bunch of people and always helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Thanks for your help and patience. I saw the pings. I also turned my notifications back on. I turned them off sometime last year and hadn't turned them back on. That was causing some delays. I am presently in the middle of the Wiki Education Dashboard Orientation. Very exciting. Ihiyotl (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Is this reliable?

Hey,

Sorry about using a non-reliable source at Paschalis Kassos, I usually edit hockey articles but I came across this while patrolling recent changes. The editor changed the birthday (correctly) however there was no source to explain change and I felt I should add one. Is superleaguegreece.net reliable? [5] Thanks, HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: It's a primary source, so I'd be careful using it, but for something uncontroversial like a date of birth it's fine. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:SPI Soulspinr

In re: WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Soulspinr#06_February_2018

You comment: blocking it is unlikely to accomplish anything. What matters is not so much blocking but acknowledging that the edit is a sock. That will accomplish plenty. I can then get the page protected again, this time for longer, and then I can revert the edit, and readers will get to see a better article. An article this editor has been disrupting since Aug.2015. He probably wont do anything else, he has what he wants. --BalCoder (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@BalCoder: There's no reason why you can't undo the IP's edit if you think it's inappropriate. To block the IP at the SPI requires a behavioral finding, and Sir Sputnik is right: one edit by an IP from two days ago does not trigger a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: OK, we need a pattern of behaviour, the behaviour as manifested by the one edit is clear and as I described in the SPI post. If Sir Sputnik had just said "looks like a sock but we need a pattern" I would have understood and might have been able to go to WP:RFP with that. Of course I can revert it myself, but Ontario would just revert back with the comment "Vandalism" (plenty of examples of that in the Ontario oeuvre) and I am not playing that game. I withdrew from editing exhausted by warring with Ontario and have not the slightest intention of returning until there is effective help/protection from his ilk. --BalCoder (talk) 11:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@BalCoder: There is more than enough documentation of this editor's behaviour to get the page protected if the problem persists. A single edit almost never requires administrative action. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

IP at SPI

Re Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/144.82.9.5, you declined a CU and wrote: "We cannot publicly connect an IP address to a registered account".

• Q1 - does that apply to behavioural investigations too? I had a look through various archives and the lack of examples suggest that the answer is that it may do where the 'master' is an IP (although not vice-versa, which would be odd).
• Q2 In which case - what? Case closed?
• Q3 If that is not the case and behavioural evidence is positive I notice that WP:SPI/AI does not seem to offer specific guidance for an IP master, so what to do?

I am guessing that the answer to Q3 may involve either some procedure I haven't come across yet or that no distinction is to be made between IP and registered accounts but it isn't very clear to me - any guidance gratefully received. Ben MacDui 10:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ben MacDui: What I mean there is that we cannot connect a registered account to an IP address using CheckUser evidence. Doing so would violate the privacy policy. Connections based on behavioural evidence are perfectly fine. In terms of how to process IP cases, treat them like any other case most of the time. The only real difference is that you need to consider whether or not the IP address is still active. Most home internet connections get assigned a new IP fairly frequently, so often by the time the investigation is done, the sockpuppeteer will be on a different IP already so blocking the old one doesn't accomplish anything. If this is the case, and you're comfortable with it, evaluate whether or not a range block is feasible without collateral damage. I hope that clears things up. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks and understood. I will get on with this asap. Ben MacDui 14:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Traveltheworld100 was indef blocked as a sock of the master IP. Do you want me to amend that? It's rather harsh for a first offence as master. Ben MacDui 09:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ben MacDui: That's your call to make, but I think a reduction wouldn't be unreasonable. If you do decide to reduce the block, please also delete the editor's user page, since we only tag sockmasters if they are blocked indefinitely. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thejohnmonday

Hi. Don't come across many SPI instances, so unsure of what to do. In the above case, a new puppet has arisen: user:Aliburgeden124928. Another SPA account (see contributions), with very similar activity, see: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Monday&diff=prev&oldid=827399534 this diff. But I don't know if I should add him to open SPI investigation. Also, you mention not taking action against the original account, but I fear that he will figure it out that he can use that as well. Thanks.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Onel5969: As a general rule of thumb, start a separate report when reporting a new sockpuppet if clerical on the previous report has already started. With respect to the oldest account, I can tell you from experience that what you're describing is unlikely to happen. Sockpuppetry usually is about the perceived path of least resistance. Most sockpuppeteers will view block evasion as easier than going through the proper channels to get unblocked. In the same vein, recovering an account that's been inactive for two years is usually more work than just registering a new one, so I would be very surprised if Thejohnmonday started editing again. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Will do. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

About transfermarkt as an unreliable source

Hello, I noticed you recently edited 2002–03 Club Atlético River Plate season erasing a transfer fee, explaining that transfermarkt is not a reliable source. My question is if you can send me the link to a page in wikipedia where I can see that admins decided that transfermarkt was unreliable. I also went to Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources but I didn't find transfermarkt. I have no problem searching for other sources, the question here is that I had no idea that I was citing an unreliable source. Regards FerchuJenson (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@FerchuJenson: The matter was discussed here some years ago. The issue is that much of Transfermarkt's content is user-generated, making it no more reliable than Wikipedia itself. Quote the site's login page: Whether 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. I hope that clears things up. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Fine, thanks for responding. I will take this into account for future edits.FerchuJenson (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Soccer article

BTW, you are absolutely right on the g5 issue. It was my bad.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jyothiz

This guy seems to be at it again. Can I reopen the archived case or should I create a new one? Deb (talk) 14:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Deb: What you'll want to do here is file a new report on the existing case page. Please don't pull anything out of the archive. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, fine. Deb (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Krajoyn by any other name

Hello Sir. Looks like you have labeled the next-to-most-recent batch of Krajoyn socks as being knitted by Conific – himself a Krajoyn sock. Just saying. :) Favonian (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Andrei Rauta

He played for Romania U-19. He was an international youth player. Why youy deleted the page? (Rhinen)

It seems however not to be notable enough, my apologies (Rhinen)

SPI WeWuzPhoenicians

Hi, i opened a SPI about the user WeWuzPhoenicians, but i missed an important information : it seems that this user is not only a sock of the IP 151.236.179.140, but also a sock of two blocked users. If it does not bother you, i would like to close the current SPI about WeWuzPhoenicians and reopen another SPI that involves this time the presumed sockmaster. Is this possible ? I'm truly sorry to give you more work than necessary.---Wikaviani (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: Thanks for letting me know. I'll have another look. In the mean time, please leave the case where it is. If the evidence supports a connection to Ehsan iq, I'll have it merged into the other investigation. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Sir Sputnik: Thank you very much, i already added (yesterday) the evidence number 9 to the case. It was this evidence that made me understand the possible connection with ehsan iq and Arabos.---Wikaviani (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Aggiefan47 sockpuppet investigation

Hello Sir Sputnik - in mid-December, you recommended a range block in a sockpuppetry investigation for User:Aggiefan47, and I'll thank you for it now if I didn't say it before. That block was renewed for three months in February as the range was being abused by Aggiefan47 again. I would really appreciate it if you would offer your opinion on the new Aggiefan47 investigation I have opened, as I'm seeking further range blocking in the case. I believe it's warranted, though I'm unsure of whether the extent of the range blocking I have requested is appropriate. Thanks again. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 02:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Re

The articles are the creation of User:Qifahs17, the block log shows whose sock this is. Thank you for pointing out the talkpages, I haven't used the MassDelete script in years (Special:Nuke only handles recent creations, and these were too far back for said tool) so I'll get on zapping those now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Yep, that guy is a sock of User talk:Shafiqabu, I wouldn't be surprised if another account turned up doing the same edits as the previous two. Govvy (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG - Ante Bakmaz

Hi Sir Sputnik,

I would like to confirm the nature of your concern regarding this particular article. I understand there are questions regarding the professional status of the Maltese Premier League and Lithuanian A Lyga? Both these leagues function in the same manner as many smaller professional leagues (such as Australia's A-League) in that the vast majority of players are signed to fully professional contracts, while occasionally a youth player may play in the league while on a 'youth contract'.

In any case, I have edited the article to remove any mention of these leagues being specifically professional. The only mention of the word is in the first sentence, in reference to the particular player who is signed to a professional contract.

Are there any other concerns with the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stankovic10 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Re: Ante Bakmaz

Thank you for clearing that up. The contracts were definitely professional, but if the categorisation of those leagues doesn't meet wikipedia's criteria, then that's understandable.

I'm sure there will be relevant articles on the player in the media in each country he has played. Unfortunately my grasp of those languages is limited, but I will look over the coming days for some sources to meet that criteria.

Thanks again for your clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stankovic10 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BedrockPerson

When you have a moment, would you please fix the structure of this report and then close it. Both reported accounts have been blocked and tagged. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Eswar1992000/sandbox

You might know this, but I was looking at Category:NA-Class biography articles , and there is the sandbox page above tagged to the category, yet it also says User:Eswar1992000 doesn't exist. Should that be speedy deleted? Govvy (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: Eswar1992000 (talk · contribs) does exist, but their only edit was to create that sandbox. None of the general or user page criteria for speedy deletion apply. If the bio tag is causing problems, feel free to remove it, but I see no need to delete the page entirely. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

k, I decided to remove the project template so to clear from category, cheers. Govvy (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

sock puppet of User:Qifahs17?

Can you please have a look at 2018 Kelantan FA season: Revision history and tell me if Rosemary7404 is an evasion ban of User:Qifahs17? Govvy (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: My gut instinct here is maybe. Their edits are not inconsistent with Shafiqabu's work on that article, but their editing is also at the level I'd expect from someone whose been editing anonymously for a while and has finally decided to register an account. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Registered an account exactly seven days are the previous one was banned, it was just a hunch, I was wondering if it is the same IP or not, but I don't know how to check that. Can I even do an IP check on usernames? Govvy (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: No. Access to IP information of registered accounts is very tightly controlled under the privacy policy. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Zhang Jingzhe‎

Hi, I'm not sure if it applies (as it were) but the edit that added transfermkt also removed a previous prod. I was undecided as to whether it could be restored in these circs. and have 'run it past' Snowman. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Ah, you've restored it... Eagleash (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Eagleash: This should answer most of your questions. BLPPROD does not preclude a regular PROD, and a BLPPROD tag may be restored if an unreliable source is added. Though with Transfermarkt, I usually don't bother since alternative sources are usually quite easy to find and it's not immediately obvious that Transfermarkt isn't reliable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'd forgotten that. Eagleash (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soaksliter1 is actually H1bcrapola99 (talk · contribs). I randomly found a suspicious account and ran a checkuser on him, which uncovered a substantial sock farm. I can probably do range blocks without too much trouble if he shows up again; tag it for CU or ping me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thanks for the heads up. I've moved the casepage accordingly. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Fb rbr t pos Germany11/c 2

Template:Fb rbr t pos Germany11/c 2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Fb rbr t pos Germany11 2

Template:Fb rbr t pos Germany11 2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 12:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Question

You seem to be a trustworthy user on here, and I was curious, is Whoscored.com considered a reliable source? Thanks in advance. SmackJam. {talk) 22:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@SmackJam: I don't this site, but at a glance it looks okay. I'd avoid using it to source anything that isn't officially tracked like aerials won, dribbles per game or assists (for some leagues). Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

User:TanahTumpuhnyaDarahku

Just wanted to check with you that this isn't related to or another sock of User:Shafiqabu , User:Qifahs17. Cheers, Govvy (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: It's unlikely. The CU check on 30 April would have picked up this account it were connected to Shafiqabu. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

K, no probs. Govvy (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Peiman Eliassi

Hello. Just realised I messed up when I removed the prod from the above this morning. For some reason I'd convinced myself that the Superettan was the top flight, heaven only knows why. Did think at the time it was a bit odd that you'd prod someone so "obviously" notable... I'm not here for the rest of the day, so feel free to AfD him, or I'll do it tomorrow when I'm back. Sorry to be a nuisance. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Struway2: Thanks for letting me know, and don't worry about the mistake. It happens to the best of us. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Cabit

No problem. Didn’t realise that site was user generated as such. Thanks for letting me know. LUFCEDIT (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Accusing me of being a sockpuppet

Hello, I noticed that you have blanked my user page and claimed that I'm a confirmed sockpuppet. I'm not a sockpuppet and my account was not suspended. My old username was Hessa94 which I changed more than a year ago, and some one else claimed the username about a mouth or so and was the sockpuppet using the name of my old account. I'm not the same person. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you!

enjoy Stewbak (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Fupa

Hey, if Transfermarkt is unreliable (as it should), i think fupa.net should be aswell. Everyone can register and add stats (I did it myself). Not sure if there was any discussion about that already but i saw it at some articles. Kante4 (talk) 12:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kante4: I don't know this website, but if you can easily show that the site's content user generated, you don't need anyone else's permission to start removing it. For comparison, Transfermarkt has a statement on the login page that says that as a registered user you can edit things. If not, I'd recommend starting a discussion at WP:RSN on the matter. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Here it shows what login "gives" you. Kante4 (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Nilton Terroso

Hello. I'm surprised to notice you didn't seem aware of the portuguese sports newspapers before listing him at AfD, so I've updated Wikiproject Football's links. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 11:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amirul Ikmal Hafiz

I noticed you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amirul Ikmal Hafiz as a speedy delete by another user, but you not only nominated the article, the fact the article had four keeps at an AfD shows a speedy deletion was not proper in this instance. I'm also going to mention this to the user that speedy deleted the article, but I intend to bring this up at deletion review if the speedy delete isn't reverted and the AfD allowed to run its course. Thanks! SportingFlyer talk 20:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: All four keep !votes were only evaluations of the notability of the subject, which has no bearing on whether WP:G5 applies or not, and all four predate the finding of sockpuppetry. Deleting articles created by sockpuppets is about as uncontroversial as mass deletion gets, which puts this firmly into point 4 of WP:NOTBADNAC. I have no objection to legitimate recreation here, but the decision to delete was definitely the correct one. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I understand G5 qualifies here since none of us knew the article was created by a banned user, but the article has now been restored. Would you please void your close and allow the AfD to play out? SportingFlyer talk 20:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I just saw your keep vote in the AfD - would you also consider changing the close to a withdrawn? SportingFlyer talk 20:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: Since there are still unstruck delete votes, a withdrawal wouldn't be appropriate, so I've reopened the case to essentially return everything to the state before the WP:G5 deletion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, of course. Thanks again. SportingFlyer talk 21:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

RE:Transfermarkt again

Thank you for the message. Well noted. I will restrain from that. Thank you.

Dear Sir Sputnik

I know that Wikipedia rule about football player is he must play in professional match but why User:Phongsapak Sonserm He can do it and do anytime with no Block. He make Thai Footballer page no refernce and some player doesn't play in professional match. You can block him? 124.121.184.119 (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@124.121.184.119: No, I am not an administrator. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

about deletion of Pablo Morgado blanco article

I want to tell u that this article which i created is posted with genuine links. U may check urself & please sir dont delete this article. i am apologising for my mistakes that i make. Abhishe78 (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Pablo Morgado Blanco

Hello Sir Sputnik. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Pablo Morgado Blanco, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Rationale for previous deletion appears to have been corrected. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging Royroydeb who nominated the article for speedy deletion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector:. Absolutely not. The article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY as the player has not played in a fuly pro league. (A list of fully pro league can be accessed at WP:FPL). RRD (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@All: see where I have already commented on this at Talk:Pablo Morgado Blanco. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Sir Sputnik. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 03:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

GAB^gab 03:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sir Sputnik. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/123Aristotle.
Message added 22:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GAB^gab 22:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Transfermarkt

Hi, just curious on your opinion on Transfermarkt (ie, re. comment in Jonathan David page). For current men's players, I believe they have the most in-depth source for player/club information. As a writer, it is my first source for any soccer info on current Canadian players' club information. (No worries about re-adding it, just thought I would pick your brain). Of course, federation pages will have precise national team information while leagues/teams will have precise information related to their league/team.... but Transfermarkt outweighs all other third-party sites for player information. (Albeit, I am not a fan of their pop-up videos!), Cheers, Rich — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rscott187 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Rscott187: Thank you kindly, much appreciated and excellent with the explanation. User:Rscott187

Help on editing article

(2nd & 3rd) , (5th, 6th & 7th) goals are scored by player in same maches. How to fix them in one row ? Link is here... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nirajan_Rayamajhi&action=edit&section=5 Can you help ? Also he has scored other 3 goals of his career in international friendly matches whose history is not available anywhere but i know he has tally of 13 goals in international career because i've watched that match. How to write about it ? Omnathpokh1 (talk) 11:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prab Toor

Hi. Is it possible to re-open this? I've just speedied Zee Bollywood as G11 and there are numerous apparent socks involved in the recent edit history. Deb (talk) 07:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@Deb: Of course. Just follow the instructions at WP:SPI on how to open an investigation. The procedure is the exact same whether there's an existing case page for the suspected sockmaster or not. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Sock?

Hi, are these edits edited by 089baby socks? Hhkohh (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Hhkohh: Probably. It's an IP range they've used in the past. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

RFA

GAB^gab 18:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Can RfA start? Hhkohh (talk) 01:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Good luck from a stranger Eschoryii (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Woohoo!

I'm glad you're running an RfA (finally)! Congrats on making it through the first day – I'm sure you're gonna do great. I know how stressful these things can be, even when they're going well. One piece of advice I received from TNT but didn't have the wisdom to take: Don't spend the week constantly watching the RfA! In fact, if you find the temptation to do so, I strongly recommend setting aside a couple designated times a day to look over how it's going and respond to questions, and don't look at Wikipedia outside of those times. You'll save yourself quite a lot of hassle and stress that way, and believe me, the RfA will still be there when you get back . Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 08:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm guessing you don't mean "venerability" (commanding respect because of great age) here. (Though if you did, that might be even more interesting!) --GRuban (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations on your successful RFA! In a self-proclaimed RFA tradition, allow me to impart the words of wisdom I received from KrakatoaKatie after my RFA passed two years ago:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version. (I got nothing here. It's inevitable.) Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. Without exception, you will pick the wrong one to do. (See #5.) Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. (You'll attract many more of those now, because mop. They must like to drink the dirty water in the bucket.) Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block, because really, what else is there to live for? Remember that when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. It will not be a personal attack because we are admins and, therefore, we are all rouge anyway. Finally, remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, input, or advice. My user talk page is always open to you and I'll be more than happy to help you any time you need it. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales, because if it did, it would be much, much better. All rights released under GFDL.

@Oshwah: You were 34 minutes earlier to send this Hhkohh (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I was in the neighborhood... figured I'd just do it while I was here :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah must have magical, psychic abilities! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations, you are now an administrator!

Hello Sir Sputnik. I am pleased to report that I have closed your RFA as successful. Good luck with the added tools and feel free to stop by my talk page if you have any questions. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for running for adminship and congratulations on your successful RfA. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• Nice work, Sir Sputnik! Another worthy addition to the admin corps, the SPI clerk team... and to WP:RFX200 Don't hesitate to ask Katie or myself for anything. GAB^gab 16:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• Congratulations! Another admin SPI clerk will make SPI smoother than before! ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 16:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• +1 Hhkohh (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• Well deserved promotion. Good luck and carry on. Legacypac (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• Congratulations Sir Sputnik :). –Davey2010^Talk 17:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• Felicitations on your successful RfA. Please take a minute to savor your triumph... Done? Great. The CSD backlog is this way. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• Congratulations for adminship !! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Congrats..The admins' T-shirt for you. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Hear, hear:) Coolabahapple (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Well done! Orphan Wiki 13:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

With 200 supporters, Sir Sputnik's RFA is the ninth to pass in 2018 (image courtesy of Linguist111).

• Congrats and best of luck!! Linguist^unEins^uno (Linguist111) 15:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Congratulations —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Congrats, had I known of the RfA, I would definitely have supported it. Fenix down (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Congrats

• You definitely earned this. With all the work you've put into this project so far, and all the support you were given, especially from respected and experienced editors and admins, I am certain you will do a great job. Good luck to you. Cheers - wolf 03:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• Whoa. Bravo! And if you EVER need ANYTHING, don't hesitate to ask Kelapstick. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• Congratulations and best wishes in your admin work. Donner60 (talk) 04:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
• Congratulations, Sir Sputnik! You received a lot of community support. Do not hesitate to check in with other admins as you learn the ropes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Precious

Fußball

Thank you for quality article related to German football beginning in 2009 with List of German football transfers winter 2008–09, Template:SV Wehen Wiesbaden squad and Thomas Tuchel, for gnomish talk page creations and fighting vandalism, for dealing with sockpuppet investigations, for being willing to do the cleaning jobs as admin, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Merging two SPI cases

I opened a SPI case a couple weeks ago that you helped clerk. I realized today that there was already an existing SPI case for what is almost certainly the same vandal. Do these cases need to be merged? If so, do I need to do anything? PS, congrats on your successful RfA! Alex Cohn (let's chat!) 18:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Cohn: Thanks for letting me know. Usually cases should be merged, though it's sometimes it's better not to in long-term abuse cases like this. I'll take a closer look when I get a minute. The only thing you'd need to do here is report it to an SPI clerk, which you've already done by telling me. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for handling this! Alex Cohn (let's chat!) 19:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Active?

I believe you're active at the moment. Chance to swing by AIV and UAA? Backlogged. Home Lander (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Mohammad Tiregar (Actor)

I am curious about why you salt this article indef so that only admins can create it? Because this article is only created once, I suggest we should reduce protection or remove protection. Hhkohh (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Hhkohh: The article was previously created several times under Mohammad Tiregar and salted as a result. My salting was an extension of that previous protection since this title was used to bypass it. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Sock again

User:Guineapig2500 sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/X027. Govvy (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: Thanks for letting me know. I've endorsed this for CU. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Cheers, not sure what you mean by CU know. Govvy (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: CU refers to CheckUser, a tool granted to members of the Arbitration Committee and a number of other trusted editors allowing them to review certain technical information of registered accounts, like the IP address. This is occasionally used in sockpuppet investigations when there is reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry, but behavioural evidence alone is not enough to reach a conclusion one way or the other, or in cases where there's good reason to think there are more sockpuppets out there that haven't been found yet. I hope that clears thing up. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, cheers, I just had a look at the SPI and dam, a lot more accounts that I thought. I suspected something fishy was going on know!! Govvy (talk) 22:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).

Administrator changes

Sir Sputnik

Kudpung • Liz • Lourdes

Everyking • Jackmcbarn

Interface administrator changes

Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes

AGK • Ivanvector • Stwalkerster • TonyBallioni

Oversight changes

Amorymeltzer • Oshwah • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Keilana

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment determined that non-administrators will not be able to request interface admin access.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the Mediation Committee should be closed and marked as historical.
• A village pump discussion has been ongoing about whether the proposed deletion policy (PROD) should be clarified or amended.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether pending changes protection should be applied automatically to today's featured article (TFA) in order to mitigate a recent trend of severe image vandalism.

Technical news

• Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
• A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
• The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
• The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Merge help

Hi Sir Sputnik! Hope having the bit is treating you well :) I have a favour to ask if you wouldn't mind. Could you possibly merge Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThilsaTest and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Knightrises10? They're a duck, and another CheckUser connected the two cases technically after UTRS flagged similar appeals ([6]). Thanks for your help on this, I'd do it myself but the whole merging and renaming thing is a bit much for me to figure out. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Will do. If you're interested, WP:SPI/PROC actually has some detailed instructions in the Advanced Clerking section on how to do this. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Benzon Fazili

Hi There! I just wanted to know, is his league not notable enough for him to have a page? I thought the rules on soccer players was for them to be playing in at least a professional league, which I believe the Latvian league is. If the rules changed that's alright, I just thought he met the "notable" qualifications to have a page.

@Vince193: To meet WP:NSOCCER, a soccer player must have played in one of the fully professional leagues listed here. You'll note the Latvian Higher League is listed in the section titled Top level leagues which are not fully professional. Based on the source in the list, the league semi-pro. While there is undoubtedly some degree of professionalism in the Latvian Higher League, it is not enough to satisfy the notability guidelines. I hope that clears things up. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Saturn 5 apollo

Hiya, I was wondering if this user is related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anuchak.. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 13:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: I think it's possible, but that there isn't enough evidence to reach a definite conclusion one way or the other, unless you're seeing something I'm not. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, account was created today, went to Erik Lamela's talk page and put forth the article for GA, I mean, a new user to wikipedia would have no idea how to do that for sure! That and the fact the account specifically targeted the article just like the previous accounts. Govvy (talk) 14:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Making sure I filled out Sockpuppet investigation correctly

Hey Sir Sputnik, can you double-check to make sure I formatted everything correctly with an update on an existing sockpuppet investigation? I've been on the site for so long but have never really had to participate a lot with those investigations. Bkissin (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bkissin: There were some formatting issues here. Unfortunately one of these made it so that the bot that maintains the list of open cases didn't recognize it as open. I'm guessing that's why no one has looked at it yet. You might want to look into using WP:Twinkle, a tool for semi-automating common tasks. It deals with formatting issues like this for you, and just generally makes life easier. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

for your help here. I hope there are no hard feelings over my !vote at your RfA, and I appreciate you clarifying that HUngryhippo17 was the actual master account. Best, ceranthor 00:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations!

(IS THIS SPAM?)

No it isn't. We all see that "Congratulations" word on a phishing site that we got redirected to now an again, don't we :)

Sir Sputnik, I just wanted to congratulate you for becoming an administrator. Oshwah's done that already, and it's a while since you became admin; I don't care. I've heard that RfAs are very grueling, and I've also heard that these days, it's almost like a presidential run. You were the first (and only) person that was requesting for administrator I ever saw on my watchlist--hey, I've only been here for just under 100 days.

One day I would like to be a broom... no. I'm happy making minor edits and correcting typos. I'm not part of Typo Team.

I completely agree with how the RfA preparation page says, "Don't think for a second that everyone lives in the UK or USA". I'm from New Zealand. In other words, the middle of nowhere.

Congrats again, Rebestalic^{[dubious—discuss]} 04:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Cerro Coposa

Recently, I nominated this article for deletion under CSD A1, saying that the article gives no context. You declined the deletion, saying that "declined, this article clearly identifies its subject". Given that the list of mountains mentioned at the bottom of the article does not list this specific mountain, and that the article includes no references or other ways to determine which of the many mountains in the range it is, I believe that it should be deleted. Is there another CSD criteria that this would fall under? Or, alternatively, should I "PROD" this article, or even nominate it for deletion?

--DannyS712 (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Before you put this up for deletion, the you'll first need to do a bit of research to see if you can't find sources that might show that the subject meets one of the relevant notability guidelines. For mountains, these are WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND. If at this point you still think the article needs to be deleted, use WP:PROD if you think the deletion is likely to be uncontested, otherwise use WP:AfD. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I will do so. Also, on the topic of deletion, can you look at my non-admin closure of an Afd debate? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harlem Children Society Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@DannyS712: The decision looks reasonable, but you missed a few procedural steps. After closing the discussion, you should remove the AfD tag from the article and log the result on the article's talk page. I've gone ahead done that for you here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. If I ever close an Afd debate in the future, I'll remember that. I have also PRODed Cerro Coposa after being unable to find any sources for notability and reviewing the relevant guidelines. Thanks for all of the help! --DannyS712 (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

SPI vandal a sock?

Just from watching Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AdnanAliAfzal I've seen 4 SPI vandals in just over a week, some of which had been sleepers before their SPI spree. They've all been blocked but not tagged. They look to be socks of the same vandal. Has there been a CU for sleepers? Is it worth raising an SPI to tie them together?

• Special:Contributions/Hedhem14
• Special:Contributions/Gomber117
• Special:Contributions/Mubitshyzu
• Special:Contributions/Rollong22

--Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cabayi: This is a fairly well known long term abuse case. Since it's not exactly hard to identify socks in this case, documentation is deliberately kept to a minimum to deny recognition, so a formal investigation isn't necessary. The CU's are well aware of it, so it get's checked as needed. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Sir Sputnik. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Disheartened

Hi there. I noticed you declined the CheckUser at due to "Stale" at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jan_Blanicky I don't accept that. The main account in question is User:Heptapolein, who is recently active, and I named the other accounts due to their relationship with that account and the similarity of their edits. Heptapolein needs to be checkusered against all other Blanicky socks for sure. We have a chance to stop a serial sockpuppeter and a CheckUser is paramount to this. Is there anyone other way this is going to be properly investigated? - R9tgokunks ⭕ 05:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@R9tgokunks: The technical details that can be viewed with CheckUser tools are only stored for 90 days. All previous Blanicky socks have been inactive for longer, a check won't tell us anything. That's what I mean by stale in this context. The behavioural evidence you've presented will still be evaluated in due course. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 08:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 UEFA Europa League first qualifying round

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 UEFA Europa League first qualifying round. This discussion is focused on whether we should merge content or not. Hhkohh (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)