This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back. Their input is welcome, and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
I'm shocked at how few people passed the 70% support level. There's a number of those who didn't pass who would make fine admins, in my opinion. Be interested in some retrospective analysis of this new process. — rsjaffe🗣️21:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
congrats! Yeah, the outcome was kind of unexpected, but I'm just glad that my vote didn't go to waste with you. —usernamekiran (talk)22:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! That was my primary goal in becoming an admin, improving responsiveness. I wish all the copyright revdels were so easy. I just punted one revdel request as being way beyond my paygrade: Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#Ruben_I_complex_copyvio_case.
SilverLocust has passed the baton to me and, after a few moments of enjoyment, I am passing it on to you! Congrats on winning your election and make sure to pass a baton on to the next admin once you're done! Sincerely, ThadeusOfNazereth :)
Shiny new tools might be used to mete out justice, mercy or a dose of reality. Let us commit to not losing our cool when using them. Our only armor is the entire community's trust. We wear it for each other, each new contributor, and each new generation to come. May you ever be the community's champion. BusterD (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please in the future don't do such single-handed deletions without notifying the page editors. It was wikilinked, hence there was some purpose. A typo in the title must be handled more cleverly. People make typos all the time.
I didn't delete any content. I should, however, have fixed the spelling on any incoming links to point to the correct one. Was this an incoming link? — rsjaffe🗣️01:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you are deleting a page, you have to fix the links that you have broken. It is good that only one page was affected. But what if you delete a page that links to a dozen of other ones? Now can people possibly know what was correct title? They will probably get rid of the redlink and the information is lost. --Altenmann>talk01:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sophie1043 has reintroduced the copyright violation on Jay Hopson. They seem to be a single-purpose account; there's an entirely separate issue with them edit-warring to reinsert non-neutral language and they're never used a talk page. I'm involved or I'd consider a block. Mackensen(talk)02:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked and rev-del'd. I also think there's some competence issue as they keep on reintroducing the old rev-del request template in their edits. — rsjaffe🗣️02:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
Hi! I noticed that a recently blocked user removed their notice, is that allowed whilst it's still active? I've seen it once or twice before and thought that was a no-no? Blue-Sonnet (talk) 09:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruelsky311 (talk page watcher) I just looked at the page history of the draft, and it looks like Rsjaffe just moved the draft from your userpage to a sandbox. There was no decline involved.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed 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.
Testing the AfC system is not vandalism. Expecting a new user to understand that experimenting in their sandbox is not okay in specific cases is a very high bar, and that bar is still not WP:VANDALISM. CMD (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hello Rsjaffe, I see what you’re doing with the bit. Great job so far and thank you for volunteering. But I am questioning the block on ScifaxEditor for username policy violation. Users like OxervEditor or even WikipediaEditor11 and every other usernames that have WikipediaEditor in them were not blocked for a username policy violation. In my opinion, this is not a violation. Want to discuss? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. The person stated they were from “Scifax Technology and Publishing Private Limited” and wrote a promotional article on the company. I blocked because I interpreted the username to be a role account for the company. Was that incorrect? — rsjaffe🗣️07:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Usernames are not allowed on Wikipedia if they only contain the names of companies, organizations, websites,… blah blah blah Emphasis mine. This username does not contain only the name of the organisation. Hence I’d consider the block incorrect. Actually, I have seen so many of these from the queue and didn’t report. For this case, the user kindly told us that they’re from Scifax, they literally disclosed it. Maybe a deletion of the promotional material they created and a warning would have sufficed, IMO. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I took that from Usernames that are solely the names of posts, positions, roles, or job titles within organizations, such as Secretary of the XYZ Foundation, are not permitted, as such posts or positions may be transferred or held by different persons at different times. is that incorrect in this case? I’ll happily unblock if I interpreted that incorrectly. — rsjaffe🗣️07:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you did honestly, reason being the editors I mentioned above would have been blocked on this basis if that applies to this context. Also being that Editorofthewiki would have been blocked for a username policy violation. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn’t saying they should rather be blocked for promo, I was only saying if they should be blocked at all then it should be when they edit promotionally. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Small thanks
Hey, thanks for doing the deletions on my now-unneeded userspace pages. I know it's a small thing, but wanted to let you know you are appreciated!
Hello Rsjaffe, I would like to appeal for my page back as I aim confused as to how my page has anything to do with advertising or any kind of propaganda all I mention was my artist name a bit about me and my album and some external link. if you check again you would see nothing at any point relating to advertising my music. I do not wish to go back and fourth all im kindly asking for is for you to help me un delete it and approve it please thank you. XRAYNEOFFICIAL (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Promotion" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc.
A Wikipedia article is formed from secondary independent sources, which your article had none of. Not everyone is suitable for including in Wikipedia. A person has to be notable. See WP:GNG for a start to understanding notability.
We also strongly discourage people from writing about themselves. If you are notable enough for inclusion, someone else will know of you and write an article.
I suggest if you think you are notable, you can restart your article in your user sandbox (User:XRAYNEOFFICIAL/sandbox), using secondary sources like newspaper articles. If you are able to get something going like that, I can pick out the userbox from the deleted article and give it to you to add. The rest of the deleted article is not coming back. — rsjaffe🗣️20:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rsjaffe, User Moeletsi24 has added copyrighted content to said page repeatedly even after 2 warnings. Could I ask you to take a look and consider a preventative block until they respond to the talk page messages? Thanks Nobody (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all the bot reports are the issue - things like very long name without spaces picks up problems that we wouldn't have found otherwise. Some of the reports are actually better at identifying vandals! Secretlondon (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I figured. Then, yesterday, someone with a long name was indeffed for the name. I think that name was marginally trollish but not too bad. That's why I posted on this name, as I didn't want this person to get whacked for it. — rsjaffe🗣️00:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following an RFC, the policy on restoration of adminship has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, T5, has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.
Hi Rsjaffe. I hope adminship is suiting you well. We all wind up making a few silly mistakes early on, so please don't take this as that much of a big deal, but FYI you made five G5 deletions last month that would only have been true if I or Ookap were sockpuppets, which I assume is not what you meant to say. [1][2][3][4][5] I see how it happened: After Ookap and I tagged these five users as impostors, the LTA behind them self-tagged other userpages of theirs the same way, and then CFA tagged all of the userpages for G5, presumably not noticing that some had actually been tagged by me and Ookap. An understandable mistake, but still a reminder to be a bit more cautious, so here is a small Trout for the both of you to share. :) Could you please restore the five pages? Thanks. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 23:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pagal Premi, a redirect to Eskay Movies#Released, seems obviously not created in error. The initial edit was mistakenly nowiki'ed, but that had been fixed long before deletion.
Draft:Live From Nashville 1: "we don't need two identical copies" is not a valid basis for speedy deletion. There is a criterion for duplicates of existing articles, WP:A10, but it only applies to recently created articles that are not plausible redirects. Drafts that duplicate an article and are not being used for drafting can just be redirected to the article (if there isn't a need for a history merge for attribution). Additionally, this edit in the article's history indicates that the page history needs to be preserved for attribution.
Tatuus F4-T-421 is an alternative hyphenation that is in use per a Google search, and is not obviously an error. E.g., "T-421" is in two references in the article's lead (2 and 4).
Effects of Hurricane Milton in Florida was an invalid R2. A page is eligible for speedy deletion only if all its history is eligible for speedy deletion. WP:BLARing an article into a redirect to draftspace does not make it eligible for speedy deletion; instead, the republished article should be unblanked (consistent with WP:DRAFTOBJECT) and the draft merged back in for attribution. (It was draftified as "no sources" then the author republished it with a source, albeit in the form of a bare link.)
Thank you for the review. I appreciate getting feedback on my work, particularly as I am new to this.
Pagal Premi was created by a sockpuppet after the master was blocked and deleted on that criterion, not due to the error. I have added it back as a valid redirect.
Draft:Live From Nashville 1 I added back, but we're going to need to talk more about it, or I need to be referred to something that discusses this type of issue, as I'm a bit lost as to what needs to be preserved for attribution.
I deleted Line 4 (Coimbatore Metro) because the sole author blanked the page. The CSD tag was added by a second person after the page was blanked, and I deleted on the basis of the blanking. I've left that deleted, but will undelete if you still disagree.
Effects of Hurricane Milton in Florida was an odd one, and now I see the issue. Instead of moving into draftspace it was blanked and redirected to a draftspace version. This one I now understand.
The hurricane draft still needed to be merged back from draftspace into mainspace, but I've taken care of that (and will warn the user who edit-warred against the draft objection). And SilverLocust is right on Line 4: G7 only applies to a redirect-from-pagemove if the mover [was] the only substantive contributor to the page[ ] before the move. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 03:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As to Draft:Live From Nashville 1 (where the "1" really means "draft 2"), since Myrealnamm copied and pasted a change made by Savingatlasfl from that draft to the other version (saying "see that page's history for attribution"), Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia calls for preserving the page history for attribution. (Though it's a pretty small change.)
Ah - now I see what happened with the undelete. Whew - I was trying to figure out how I might have misclicked a CSD for any reason, I'd forgotten I tagged it yesterday as part of the sock cleanup. Ravensfire (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing that but must have missed one. Could you point me to the one I missed so I can refresh my memory and figure out what happened? Thanks. — rsjaffe🗣️17:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure of whether issues with off-site canvassing should go to the AN or ANI, but there has been active attempts to canvass off-site to the 15.ai AfD. The AfD was posted on 4chan's /mlp/ board the day it went up. I do not know if this is something I should bring to AN or ANI or neither?
You'd only do something more if you believe action needs to be taken against a user.
The problem with reporting a User to AN/I is that it includes off-wiki information (WP:OUTING), so you cannot publicly post that information, which means that any AN/I discussion remains "hypothetical" without specific facts and doesn't normally fix the issue reported. In extraordinary situations you could think about reporting via confidential means (email) to arb committee if you think it is very serious and action needs to be taken against a Wikipedia user, but this sort of thing normally doesn't get raised to that level. — rsjaffe🗣️03:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, I wasn't sure whether it should or shouldn't be brought to the AN/ANI after someone had asked me to notify them if it ended up in AN/ANI over the off-site stuff, so figured I'd just ask an admin. Brocade River Poems (She/They)03:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could also ask another admin if you want. I'm pretty new at this.
But, in general, I'd focus on on-wiki behavior. And recognize that the person closing the AfD will know about the canvassing, given the notice on the page. — rsjaffe🗣️04:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the person being accused by Brocade of being canvassed/sockpuppeted. What's conveniently interesting is that she left out the fact that the alleged 4chan post that started the off-wiki canvassing had a total of two posts on it, neither in support of keeping the article. [6] I certainly never saw this post when I decided to post my opinion, as I don't even use 4chan. I found this very link from her own talk page. Tacotron2 (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're not being accused of anything. I included your name in an active SPI investigation because of the timing of your return. Again, I tagged you as an SPA because a majority of your major edits were 15.ai related and 15.ai adjacent and your name is literally the technology which inspired 15.ai. This conversation has little and else to do with you and more to do with the literal proxy IP Address that commented, as well as other strange activity. Whatever happens with you is wholly up to the SPI Investigation. Secondly, it doesn't matter how many posts the thread had, it shows that someone is attempting to canvass and considering that a known multi-account abuser confessed to the existence of a Discord server filled with individuals whom they have discussed 15.ai with in the past, and who as recently as one or two weeks ago was actively abusing another new account at 15.ai to disrupt consensus building, it is beyond obvious that there is off-site disruption. This is beyond exhausting. Brocade River Poems (She/They)04:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"This conversation has little and else to do with you" You created a literal investigation against me and got an admin to look into it. Your behavior, not just toward me, is concerning, especially with the newfound evidence I posted in that investigation page. Tacotron2 (talk) 04:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To both of you: Do not litigate anything about the sockpuppet investigation here. This is counterproductive. I am only providing advice about managing canvassing during an AfD.
That discussion is already veering away from the merits of the article under review. You both have expressed your views already. That's enough for now. — rsjaffe🗣️04:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The person who solicits other people inappropriately may be subject to administrative review if the behavior is severe enough. The annotation on your !vote is only there to help the closer assess the !vote, and your comments after that annotation should be sufficient to properly inform the closer. — rsjaffe🗣️04:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to the December newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since September. If you no longer want this newsletter, you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. If you'd like to be notified of upcoming drives and blitzes, and other GOCE activities, the best method is to add our announcements box to your watchlist.
Election news: The Guild's coordinators play an important role in the WikiProject, making sure nearly everything runs smoothly and on time. Editors in good standing (unblocked and without sanctions) are invited to nominate themselves or another editor to be a Guild coordinator (with their permission, of course) until 23:59 on 15 December (UTC). The voting phase begins at 00:01 on 16 December and runs until 23:59 on 31 December. Questions may be asked of candidates at any stage in the process. Elected coordinators will serve a six-month term from 1 January through 30 June.
Drive: In our September Backlog Elimination Drive, 67 editors signed up, 39 completed at least one copy edit, and between them they edited 682,696 words comprising 507 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.
Blitz: The October Copy Editing Blitz saw 16 editors sign-up, 15 of whom completed at least one copy edit. They edited 76,776 words comprising 35 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.
Drive: In our November Backlog Elimination Drive, 432,320 words in 151 articles were copy edited. Of the 54 users who signed up, 33 copy edited at least one article. Barnstars awarded are posted here.
Blitz: The December Blitz will begin at 00:00 on 15 December (UTC) and will end on 21 December at 23:59. Sign up here. Barnstars awarded will be posted here.
Progress report: As of 22:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC), GOCE copy editors have completed 333 requests since 1 January, and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,401 articles.
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Mox Eden and Wracking.
To stop receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
Please don't delete move redirects as WP:G7 without checking that the moved page (the target of the redirect) was never edited by anyone else – nor without checking for incoming redirects that need to be fixed. Same issue as here. This caused every redirect to the article now at ITA Award for Best Actress Popular Drama to become broken (at which point the broken redirects tend to get deleted by another admin not checking whether they should be fixed). SilverLocust💬04:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aargh! Thanks. Thought I had figured that issue out. I had been going very slowly on the redirects, but obviously didn’t internalize the whole message. Looks like you reverted the move that left the redirect. Is that what you did? — rsjaffe🗣️04:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you have revoked my edit to a soccer player’s page. The statement I added is a widely accepted idea in the game at the minute, with lots of sources which I can attest to. Could I kindly ask why this was noted as vandalism? Swagmaster547 (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that discussion, but I don’t see where the author responded to your question. Leaving the sandbox as is would make it easier for a novice editor to find it, so I’m reluctant to delete it (as were you) without clear instructions from them, in which case it’d be a U1 CSD. — rsjaffe🗣️21:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The author changed their name (Taymallah Belkadri ---> Salah Talah).I asked whether they wanted their two pages to be deleted (Can you please elaborate on what you're asking for? Do you wish to delete these two pages you've created (this and that) or are you asking for something else?),and they responded saying they would want them deleted (The first one is correct @TheWikiToby. I wanna delete those pages.) TheWikiToby (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I came across thisseries of edits where you removed a red link following R2 deletion of a redirect to an article that had been draftified. I'd like to offer a reminder that such red links should only be removed when they point to non-notable topics for which proper articles are unlikely to ever be created. Also, in navboxes, it's extremely rare, if at all, that a red linked item should simply be unlinked. Either the inclusion is appropriate, in which case it should be left as a link, or it is not, in which case the entire entry should be removed.
In this specific case, the link would have needed updating anyway, as it was later re-created as a redirect to a different topic. But I'm also raising the issue more generally. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because an account has been compromised does not mean you should be linking to the page that posted their password in the block summary. Primefac (talk) 09:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I figured that, since the account would be globally locked, that the password would no longer be of any use and only show evidence for my actions. Will omit next time. Thanks. — rsjaffe🗣️15:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Rsjaffe: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, user-Rsjaffe
Hi--you just beat me to blocking it. With such user names, I don't block from the talk page but I go directly to the block function and revoke TPA, so we won't have a user talk page with that awful name (I'm going to delete that page right now). Similar with the actual edit--if you roll it back, the user name shows up in the edit summary (I'm going to revdelete that, and their user name). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The history of Chodes shows they've been at it before, and that revdelete has been used a number of times. I semi-protected the article. Right now I'm running some other checks--this is a returning customer. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
.jpg)
