The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for your great contributions to improve this project. Maliner (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for blocking the vandal who harassed me! 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 04:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Rsjaffe!

Thank you for doing the speedy deletion of Eric Gilbertson (climber).

Now that the article has been deleted, should the AfD be closed?

Cheers! KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I can close it. It's a snow delete there anyway. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was a fairly strong support for salting it. Can that be done please? Graywalls (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally hesitant to salt unless it's created lots of times. Further, the problematic editor has voluntarily backed away from this subject, so I'll leave it unsalted for now. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not sure why the creator asked for speedy rather than just letting it close naturally. It was already halfway there. It is still considered a full delete, rather than a "soft delete" at this point, right? It says "(G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page – If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND)" and I have reservation about it if it has been left as a softer delete than if it was allowed to close naturally. Graywalls (talk) 06:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've salted it with a note about the parallel AfD so that it'll be clear to an admin that there was a parallel AfD. Next time I'll snow close the AfD without acting on the CSD so that it won't cause such confusion. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RFC, Wikipedia:Notability (species) was adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.

Technical news

• The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

• Following the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: CaptainEek, Daniel, Elli, KrakatoaKatie, Liz, Primefac, ScottishFinnishRadish, Theleekycauldron, Worm That Turned.

Miscellaneous

• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!

---

Hello, can you tell me if the 173.175.200.238 recent user edits are vandalism or not? He has done a lot of reverting in a very short time and I wonder if this is correct, this is not a dispute about the content, I just want to avoid a case of vandalism, I don't know what to think about it SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a dispute in that there is disagreement as to whether their edits are correct or not. I'm not saying you're in an argument with them.

I'm not an expert in that area, so I don't know whose edits are right. The IP editor seems focused on reverting the edits of 2601:14D:4B80:1950:4099:63CD:455C:525A (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and has warned them about violating WP:MOS. I suggest continuing to discuss with them on your user page, and come to a better understanding of what's going on. If you see 173.175.200.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) changing facts to be incorrect, then we may be looking at vandalism. Short of that, it's a dispute. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for giving your perspective on the situation. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding User talk:213.42.6.35, the page-creation is from an IP that is on an extensive vandalism spree and evading several blocks. I could see it G3/G5 (DENY, etc.), and especially to avoid harassment of the IP whose page it is. DMacks (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. Done. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for the quick re-check! The problem is Special:Contributions/37.111.144.0/20 if you're interested. DMacks (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rsjaffe;

[Sorry for the wall of text, I ended up doing a lot of thinking out loud. I hope this is somewhat valuable.]

I’m not sure if I’m doing this right, as I’ve never posted on Wikipedia before. I followed instructions on a Wikipedia help page that said to contact the relevant admin in the case of questions about any specific article deletion… that page was this one, and I then saw you had a banner stating that the best form of contact would be posting on your “talk” page.

I was just curious about the deletion of the article of American climber/highpointer Eric Gilbertson. As of right now, if you Google his name, his Wikipedia article is the top suggested search result. However, clicking on the Wikipedia link redirects to a page on deletion, so it’s a dead link. It says it was deleted by user:Rsjaffe.

I’m not sure what my question is, actually. I’m sure not every interesting or notable outdoorsperson needs their own Wikipedia page, but I was wondering if this means Wikipedia is adopting a new policy of cracking down on articles about notable peakbaggers, highpointers, FKTers, mountaineers, explorers, or endurance athletes. I could see the argument that these forms of outdoor recreation, although increasingly popular, are still too niche for their most prominent figures to have their own Wikipedia pages. It can be very tricky to determine notability in a community that often eschews traditional media attention or mainstream notoriety.

Off the top of my head, most comparable figures seem to have current articles, but some do not. Just considering the relevant reference class, it looks like their are current Wiki pages on Andrew Skurka, Russ Cook, Nimblewill Nomad, Eric Larsen, Nims Purja, Jake Meyer, Francis Tapon, Ray Jardine, Tom Davies, Jeff Browning, Warren Doyle, Ginge Fullen, Karel Sabbe, Dale Shewalter, and Brian Robinson; other prominent individuals in this broad reference class, like Edward Earl, Justin Simoni, Nick Fowler, and John and Alyson Kirk, for instance, do not have their own pages.

Obviously others who have always deliberately sought to stay out of the public eye (Petter Bjørstad, Adam Helman, Steven Song, Bob Packard, Adam Walker) or who are already attracting notoriety but are in the nascent stages of their careers (Will Peterson, Max Jollife, Jackson Marvell, Georgia Porter) are not going to end up on Wikipedia, but it does seem like the line is unclear and the qualities for inclusion in this general area are poorly defined.

I’ve rambled here for a while, but do you have any thoughts on how Wikipedia could contribute to greater clarity around this space?

I hope I’ve done this posting thing correctly.

Thank you very much, Respectfully, FE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:250E:1500:E48A:7AF1:ECA9:4A13 (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That article was deleted at the request of the author and as consensus on a deletion discussion. Whether or not an article is suitable depends mainly upon the objective third-party in-depth sources for the subject. At the time of deletion, the deletion discussion conclusion was based on the lack of good sources. If you are able to properly source an article for Wikipedia, it probably would be fine for inclusion. Sources count more than an individual's accomplishments do, as Wikipedia depends upon verifiable third-party information for articles. So it's less about being deserving of an article and more about being noticed and reported on by others. You can look at WP:GNG if you are interested in gathering information together that would support an article for him. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see you deleted Draft:Text huso3 and User:Vdarveau/huso-topic3-reworked as copyright violations. Those two are not eligible for G12 as the source site is CC-BY 4.0 which is an acceptable license for Wikipedia. Although Vdarveau did not attribute the sources, I did repair the lack of attribution for both. Please reverse the deletion. Thanks, -- Whpq (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. Done. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My browser doesn't allow me to use a real barnstar, but let this act in its place. Thank you for reducing my stress. We've gotten a lot of criticism in social media lately, and you have done fine work in preventing a possible public relations disaster. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, since you seem to have attracted an IP hopping vandal, let me know if you would like your user talk page protected for a few days. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but it’s ok without. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A user you blocked, BUU SKIBIDI, used their talk page in an inappropriate manner after you blocked the user. See Special:Diff/1271834304. Yoshi24517 and I recommend removing this user's ability to edit their own talk page. Z. Patterson (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are allowed to delete block notices. About the only thing they can’t delete are declined unblock requests. See WP:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If they added inappropriate things, I’d block the talk page. But deletions, no. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsjaffe: I understand now. Thank you. Z. Patterson (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just notice this recently created account has a username that might violate Wikipedia:Username policy indicated by their first three letters, apart from being only a vandalism account. Galaxybeing (talk) 03:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. Looks like they're already blocked. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to understand how blocking me would address your concerns. Honestly, I'm disappointed by the personal attacks from other users, which I don't believe are constructive or respectful. I firmly believe that Wikipedia's credibility is compromised by the presence of inaccurate information. I stand by my assertion that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. If you choose to block me, I accept that decision, but I hope in the future, you will take steps to address the issues I've raised. I also hope that users will focus on improving content rather than tracking individual editors' contributions. Mr. Accuracy Specialist (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mr. Accuracy Specialist. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 07:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hesitant to respond to the ANI report as I feel it may lead to further personal attacks. I believe my points are being disregarded, and I'm concerned that engaging with these users will not be productive. They've asked me to explain, but I'm unsure if it's worth investing time when the discussion has become confrontational. I think it's best to focus on improving the content rather than engaging in unnecessary debates. Mr. Accuracy Specialist (talk) 07:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I'll ask to be unblocked, then I'm sorry to disappoint you. I refuse to bow down and compromise my standards to appease individuals with low standards who don't even hold a doctoral degree. I stand by my principles and maintain that Wikipedia's credibility is compromised by the presence of inaccurate information.

WIKIPEDIA is FAKE COMMUNITY.

FULL OF FAKE INFORMATION. HOME OF UNRELIABLE SOURCES. Mr. Accuracy Specialist (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To FACT-CHECKED you and debunked your argument on me.

There are two main issues here. Firstly, regarding personal attacks: I didn't initiate the insults. Every time I made an edit, someone would revert it, even though I explained that I removed unsourced content. Despite this, others continued to edit.

Secondly, regarding disruptive edits: What's wrong with removing uncited claims? Isn't that a necessary step to ensure accuracy? I fail to see the logic in criticizing me for this. It seems that you, like the others, are failing to comprehend the importance of verifying information. Mr. Accuracy Specialist (talk) 07:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Danish flags I can see you have tried to reach out to me, but I have also replied back to you, but yes, there are reason why those flags is here, because some of the flags have been used by Denmark, and some of those flags are still been using buy some minorities in Denmark and regions unofficial flags only too represents peoples of those regions. And removing those flags from this list, those people they are doing this have none respect for Denmark and something like that is more or less considered vandalism.

And the removal of flags from the historical flags is also not in order because Denmark has had a great many areas and countries under it throughout time and that is also why it was divided with times and years for each time Denmark gained some land and lost some land and also flags from the royals with people who choose to remove these flags have absolutely no respect for which from Denmark the Danes or the royal royal family from Denmark

80.208.68.164 (talk) 10:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So yes, you have none reason to do this at all, because you cannot block someone without any reasons that is against Wikipedia and you know that because you have been here for 17 years, you should know that that should always be a reason for that if they are not a reason that means you are actually, you are abusing this thing to block others or so that you cannot edit various things and cases, and because you have no reason to do this, you are actually abusing this thing which is against Wikipedia guidelines and rules and because you have chosen to do this which is not right, you may risk being shut down or prevented from editing things and cases on Wikipedia because you have chosen to abuse this thing, but you should know that because you've been here for 17 years and because you've chosen to abuse this thing, maybe some other administrator chooses to close your profile down, maybe because this just looks like abuse or you have abused this power and you choose to block someone and prevent someone from editing a page but without any reason to do so because you have no reason. 80.208.68.164 (talk) 10:11, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the only thing that you might be left in is that they have to go and talk to you to get this thing opened again so that you can edit on this page again but again you have no reason to do this and that is nothing more than abuse of this power that you have but you have no reason to do it because you always have to leave a message why you choose to do this but you have not done that which is actually an abuse and negotiating people in editing on the page mentioned here, List of Danish flags.

00:39, 2 February 2025

80.208.68.164(talk)

00:39, 2 February 2026

11 months, 30 days, 14 hours and 33 minutes left

Rsjaffe(talk)

editing

pages

List of Danish flags

anon. only

See discussion on this user's talk page. Reverted by multiple editors, ignoring concensus.

I Have not ignored anything at all, but you have to leave a message to how and see why I should be unlocked again/ unblocked again. But again you have none reasons do it anyways. To do this to begin with at all.

you haven't really given either on this website or on this page on Wikipedia I have but you haven't there are many others like me who have but you're just an administrator or something like that but you don't know everything /you don't know about everything that has happened on this website, you would only know that if you had edited this website yourself, but you haven't and I haven't ignored anything at all, I've just added these flags because it is part of Denmark's history and many of these flags represent different peoples who live in Denmark and possibly Greenland and the Faroe Islands, or the Danish minority who live in Schleswig-Holstein in Germany and so on. And I have also added other flags because Denmark has also had many areas and take clothes over time yes they have lost land over time but that was also why the historical flags are also the other and so much else in other colonies and also flags as people have chosen to remove as they have something to do with political flags and parties in Denmark and not other countries. but yes Denmark has had really many like England as an example the other countries in the Nordics and some of India and many other countries that people don't know that Denmark once inherited or had in their possession but that's why you have Wikipedia so people can learn something about other countries and maybe even learn something like them maybe if they already but just in a completely new way. 80.208.68.164 (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	I'm so glad you are an administrator. There can be a tendency among some admins to be a little trigger-happy and I prefer your attitude of letting discussions evolve as sometimes disputes can be resolved without sanctions being imposed. It's nice to the human side of administrating. Liz Read! Talk! 06:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It’s a big contrast between ANI and AIV, where speed is sometimes useful. I’m trying to keep balanced, which is hard when you see so much ill-willed vandalism going on in AIV. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 06:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was genuinely surprised to see that the MarkMeets Wikipedia page was speedily deleted, despite its clear notability and longstanding presence in the media industry. Given that similar outlets such as Popjustice, The Line of Best Fit, Far Out, and even major media brands like Deutsche Welle have their own pages, it seems inconsistent for MarkMeets to be excluded.

MarkMeets has been an influential and widely recognized source for entertainment news, celebrity interviews, film coverage, and industry insights for over 20 years. It has been cited in major publications, collaborated with global media brands, and is a trusted source for industry professionals and audiences alike.

The deletion appears to be a premature decision that may not have fully considered the brand’s extensive contributions to the entertainment industry and they have many mentions on wiki. Maybe thet wiki editors do not specialize in this area of media / organization (my friend did not know the BEE GEES, they does not mean they are not KNOWN).

The page was written with neutral, verifiable, and well-sourced content, adhering to Wikipedia’s guidelines. I kindly request a thorough review of this decision and ask that MarkMeets be granted a rightful place on Wikipedia, just like its comparable counterparts.

I would appreciate any clarification on specific concerns that led to its deletion and would be happy to address any issues necessary to ensure compliance with Wikipedia’s standards.

SO many other similar pages are live, it's odd that this one was over-looked with a retired medical person making a decision? NigelJong (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the article to Draft:MarkMeets, where you can work on it. I strongly warn you not to publish it on your own. It has been deleted five times, of which this was only the latest. Recurrent creation of non-notable articles can make it much harder to publish the article in the future if you can show notability.

Wikipedia is not a business directory, so a company is not entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists. All topics must be notable by Wikipedia's definition to merit inclusion. For this to happen, the company must have already received significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources.

As to your arguments about why the article should exist:

1. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a relevant argument. See the link for reasons.
2. Wikipedia:GNG explains what is needed to make an article eligible for inclusion. Please read that and see that you find independent in-depth reliable sources discussing MarkMeets. What is there now are not independent sources.

Yes, I am not a subject matter expert. I am one of about 400 active administrators on English Wikipedia. We were chosen by the community because they trust us to interpret and enact Wikipedia's rules. The article was deleted because there was no credible claim of notability.

Again, read the notability requirements listed above and ensure that you have satisfactorily satisfied those requirements before submitting the article for consideration. If you do submit the article, use the button at the top of the article Submit the draft for review! This will notify the people who review articles for creation, and they will either move the article to mainspace or give you valuable feedback as to how to improve the article. This way, the article is much less likely to be deleted again.

I wish you well with your editing and feel free to ask me or others if you need more advice. You may also seek help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You blocked @Wigglebuy579579 inter alia for creating incorrect references and articles. I think this has happened again at Demographics of Lebanon. They first inserted a table with an incomplete reference (to the Lebanese government’s statistics authorities’ homepage rather than any specific page), and then later made 26 rather weird edits that radically changed the content of the table (again with no link). A full explanation is at Talk:Demographics of Lebanon § Table of ethnic groups. Would you mind stepping in? Thanks. Docentation (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Docentation This case of editing on "Demographics of Lebanon" happened way before I was blocked for creating new pages with incorrect references and adding data from questionable sources. What do you mean by this happened again? Wigglebuy579579 (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can check for yourself. Respectfully. Wigglebuy579579 (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean here. Obviously other users have edited the page. The edits I’ve attributed to you were made by you—that can be seen in the diffs linked. Presumably there’s no guarantee you were caught immediately after you started adding incorrect references and you could have been adding edits with false data long before. Indeed, in the last month you’ve had two drafts deleted for that reason—probably independent reason to resume the block. If you can clarify the precise place on the CAS’s website you found the table, go ahead and reinsert it (correctly). Docentation (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Docentation as rsjaffe mentioned, the last edit that I made on "Demographics of Lebanon" was on the 19th of December, 2024. And on the 10th of January 2025, everything regarding my pre-block behaviour was sorted out as all of my activities on the various articles that I edit are visible, Including the edits that I made on "Demographics of Lebanon". I was unblocked with a clear set of conditions that I have to follow otherwise I'd be ousted again with even less odds of being unblocked again. you can check my activity to see whether I have broken any of those conditions since then. Regards Wigglebuy579579‬. Wigglebuy579579 (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Docentation You removed that data? great. Wigglebuy579579 (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The last edit I see there by @Wigglebuy579579 is 19 Dec 2024, and the block was 10 Jan 2025, so this does not concern behavior post-block. We've addressed the pre-block behavior and @Wigglebuy579579 has agreed to conditions, and our concern now is that @Wigglebuy579579 prospectively follows those conditions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fair enough, I failed to check the dates. I'm slightly confused as to this approach; until I checked, nobody determined whether the edits @Wigglebuy579579 made to Demographics of Lebanon were accurate. We still don't have a clear answer as to which if any of the versions of Wigglebuy’s table was actually published by the Lebanese Central Administration of Statistics, and, if so, what the original link is. Even if Wigglebuy is perfectly inoffensive from now on one might expect some help in cleaning up. If the unblock really doesn’t require any help to others in cleaning up the earlier mess, I suppose this admittedly isn’t administrator business. Docentation (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2025).

Administrator changes

• Arcticocean
• Wugapodes

Euryalus

CheckUser changes

• Firefly
• L235

Oversighter changes

• Firefly
• Guerillero
• L235
• Moneytrees

Technical news

• Administrators can now nuke pages created by a user or IP address from the last 90 days, up from the initial 30 days. T380846
• A 'Recreated' tag will now be added to pages that were created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted and it can be used as a filter in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. T56145

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been closed.

---

FYI, the relevant range you need to be blocking is not the /64, but actually the /45 (2601:586:D030:0:0:0:0:0/45 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))). This range belongs to Xfinity Wifi (a public Wi-Fi service) in the Savannah metropolitan area. It's been especially used by the blocked sockpuppeteer Juantheman96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) lately (most recently in December 2024), but I'm not sure if that user is him or another unrelated troll (politics are one of Juan's special interests). I had luck getting one admin, Graham87, to block his IP socks when they pop up, but he got desysopped for his excessive blocks. wizzito | say hello! 06:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I only blocked for a brief period and the other edits in this range are old now. There’s also other activity in this /45 that would be collateral damage. For now, I won’t extend the block; rather playing whack-a-mole as each /64 shows up. I’d reconsider after some experience with this, or you can talk it to SPI or ANI for further analysis. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 06:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will do so when possible. Best to just wait this out. wizzito | say hello! 06:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

just didn't know also sorry Ererer333 (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was the first author of this article and I want to remove this whole page and I want to remove content as soon as possible and that is why I have been trying to delete the article please unblock me and help me deleting this article Rohitbisht1985 (talk) 06:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being the first author does not give you any rights over the article. I have been deleting some of the negative information, as it was about her father, not her. Come back to the topic you started Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Page deletion which I have made to discuss further. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 06:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Theory of multiple intelligences on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I changed the block duration for this editor to indefinite; a closer look at the filter log shows multiple edits with racial slurs in all caps included in the edits. Clearly NOTHERE in my opinion. Best, Spencer^T•C 02:01, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to revision delete these diffs (1 2 3 4 5 6) by [[Special:Contributions/2409:408C:1CB5:9E01:DADA:B152:CFC1:7C0F]? Cheers, Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 18:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for notifying me. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work in blocking vandals FarmerUpbeat (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi rsjaffe,

I saw that you were able to quickly revert most of the damage, presumably with some tool? but there are still a score or so of hits for the link -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=20&offset=0&profile=all&search=3f8Vokx&title=Special:Search&ns0=1&ns9=1&ns12=1. Do you have a quick way to fix these as well? --Trovatore (talk) 05:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and do the ones that don't need admin tools. --Trovatore (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah, I looked at some of those, and they may need manual editing. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:59, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they're all gone now. The search must have found them in a stale cache. Thanks, rsjaffe, nice work. --Trovatore (talk) 06:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors Annual Report Our 2024 Annual Report is now ready for review. Highlights: Introduction Membership news and election results Summary of Drives, Blitzes and the Requests page Closing words – Your Guild coordinators To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2025).

Administrator changes

• Jarry1250
• Lethe

CheckUser changes

• AmandaNP
• Drmies

Oversighter changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is open to discuss whether AI-generated images (meaning those wholly created by generative AI, not human-created images modified with AI tools) should be banned from use in articles.
• A series of 22 mini-RFCs that double-checked consensus on some aspects and improved certain parts of the administrator elections process has been closed (see the summary of the changes).
• A request for comment is open to gain consensus on whether future administrator elections should be held.

Technical news

• A new filter has been added to the Special:Nuke tool, which allows administrators to filter for pages in a range of page sizes (in bytes). This allows, for example, deleting pages only of a certain size or below. T378488
• Non-administrators can now check which pages are able to be deleted using the Special:Nuke tool. T376378

Miscellaneous

• The 2025 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, Arcticocean, Ameisenigel, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, Galahad, Nehaoua, Renvoy, Revi C., RoySmith, Teles and Zafer as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
• Following the 2025 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: 1234qwer1234qwer4, AramilFeraxa, Daniuu, KonstantinaG07, MdsShakil and XXBlackburnXx.

---