User talk:Rsjaffe

Sir, I think you were a little too quick in deleting the draft once AI involvement was mentioned - and for reasons that address the wrong issue. I did not create an article, nor did I need to do so. I have only translated one (took me a week on and off), because the English translation of the Amharic original already posted is faulty in many ways (including content) - which should be a concern for Wikipedia. So, there is no question about AI-creation here - AI only edited format, grammar etc. like a word processor. Besides, I did not know how to submit such work to Wikipedia - an unnecessarily tedious procedure, discouraging, in fact, even if the motive is understandable.

Why do I insist? The people mentioned by the interviewed person are heroes of WW-II, and although they were merely local heroes in the context of the global war, they are among our most respected figures who saved us from colonialism. In fact, Ethiopians some would give them higher esteem than the emperor himself, who returned to take over what they had kept free. These heroes are not mentioned anywhere else (in English) - and that I believe they deserve a place in the historical record - and accurately translating this Amharic interview serves precisely the encyclopedic purpose Wikipedia stands for.

Thank you. Zvebnek (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I'll email you a copy of the deleted text. It is unsuitable to be on Wikipedia for several reasons:

1) copyright: the translation of a published article represents a copyright violation and would be deleted from Wikipedia for that reason alone.

2) primary sources: Wikipedia relies on secondary sources for articles, as primary sources are not reliable to confirm most types of facts. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources for more information on that. Interviews are not suitable sources for most of the information in an article.

3) the article already exists. You cannot write a duplicate article. Instead, you should edit the current article using appropriate secondary sources (e.g., books). With your Amharic knowledge, you could obtain sources that others might not have known about. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:14, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply,

I think I will stop here due to lack of time. You can go ahead and delete it.

Thank you. Zvebnek (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Rsjaffe. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Okashikunai・福・talk 05:54, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Done, thanks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:24, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Rsjaffe. You blocked Interlink Metals for advertising on Igor Raykhelson. A temporary account has added the same information. Not sure if the temporary account should be blocked or the article protected? Thanks for your help. Tacyarg (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Various accounts since Dec 19 have been adding the same stuff, so I protected it for a couple of months. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:48, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I would like to update and re-submit this article for creation with revised citations. What actions would your recommend so I can amend the article and resubmit? {{Talkback|C2014Dale}} C2014Dale (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

The article was deleted as a copyright violation. In short, the article must be in your own words, not the words of the sources. WP:FIXCLOSEPARA has some good advice as to how to use sources to write an article. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:07, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for this advice. Once I have my revisions ready with updated wording to avoid copyright violation, am I able to submit a new article with the same title? C2014Dale (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Probably the most frequently edited recently are

• Caprese salad
• Giorgia Meloni
• Neapolitan ragù -- probably most crucial as it's going for FA
• Panettone
• Parmesan
• Parmigiana
• Spaghetti
• Torta caprese

The problem of course being that there's an entire world of Italian food and drink, and we have technical limitations. I could easily list 50. Valereee (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

A lot of them are getting blocked by checkusers. I'll block a few that are left. I concentrated on the ones that edited the ragu article, though the blocks are broader. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:58, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, rsjaffe. Valereee (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Turns out he's been using a lot of sockpuppets even before the block, and some proxies. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:16, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

sigh Valereee (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

I’m the author of the deleted draft Draft:Comium (The Gambia). Thank you for reviewing it.

I understand the concerns about unreliable/incorrect citations and have since completely rewritten the draft with only verified, manually checked sources.

Before recreating it, I wanted to ask whether it would be appropriate for me to submit a new, cleaned draft for AfC review. I would appreciate any guidance.

Thank you for your time. Lina EM (talk) 09:25, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

If you have written the article yourself, then sure. See Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:55, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi I saw you removed the draft article outlining the OWASP GenAI Security Project https://genai.owasp.org, which is an open source CC licensed community, made up of 20K members globally. I was in the process of developing an entry, which used only text published publicly at https://owasp.genai.org.

This is part of the OWASP Foundation listed on wikipedia @ OWASP (see the link from the OWASP site "projects" menu @ https://owasp.org/) I had begun a draft for which I was adding additional citations from multiple sources. Everything we publish as a community, like wikipedia is open source and peer reviewed. We are also a non profit.

Let me know if you have suggestions, to avoid deletion in the future, I thought we were following guidelines to be independently sourced, through not all had been added since the publication was in draft from and not meant for public publishing just yet. OWASP is already listed so I am unclear of the concern.

Also we are all volunteers to this project, no one works for the GenAI security project excepth through volunteering their time.

Can you please restore the article - or should I recreate. Owaspsclinton (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

You should recreate it. The article was deleted because there was evidence of LLM use without review, as LLM tags not relevant to the article were retained. WP:NEWLLM says new articles cannot be written using LLMs. There is a reason for it, as the sourcing of information by LLMs and text - reference integrity do not meet encyclopedic standards (e.g., LLMs scrape info that is not considered reliable for Wikipedia use). Also, I note that your website has a license compatible with wikipedia, which means you can copy text from there, but be sure to include a note in the edit summary detailing the license of your source and provide proper attribution to the source.

Please rewrite the article from the beginning, as the LLM usage is otherwise problematic. Thank you. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:14, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

No worries, the LLM portion must have come from copy from the website. I'll make sure its clean, if you are interested industry best practices in LLM security and usage standards/guidelines that is what is exactly what our community addresses and has been adopted by MITRE, NIST, and the EU AI act. Owaspsclinton (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an interesting problem with LLMs. I described a couple of them above. Besides the source restrictions Wikipedia imposes (reliable independent sources--often a single provider (e.g., a newspaper) provides both independent and non-independent stuff (e.g., interviews), so you can't blindly include all data from a particular source), and text-reference integrity, LLMs can be confidently incorrect, which can mislead. The people who reach for an LLM to contribute to Wikipedia are often the ones least-suited to do so: poor English language capabilities and not expert in the subject they're writing on. We are still struggling with how to handle all this--our policies are based on consensus, and community attitudes seem to be evolving as experience with LLM-generated articles increases. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:29, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Could you delete my user talk page and then restore it with all of the edits except edits made today? I want their vandalism to be completely gone. sapphaline (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I can revdel their edits. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:08, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that's enough because their goal was specifically to spam the history. Could you do selective deletion? sapphaline (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Given the policies on user talk page history, I’m hesitant to do so. You can request it of another admin if you wish. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@Sapphaline, do you want your user talk page temporarily protected? I could prevent edits by TAs for a while to reduce the harassment, if you wish. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

It's already protected but I want it to be protected for more time, 6 months would be nice. sapphaline (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

We try not to overprotect user talk pages. I'm going to block some of those ranges from your user talk, and if the abuser comes back after protection ends, we can add longer protection. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Rsjaffe, I think you probably found I did some of that already. user:sapphaline, it looks like you're admin shopping. The vandal's goal was not to "spam" your history: you did that yourself by reverting immediately. Their goal was to irritate you and others. Don't let them succeed. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

You partially blocked User:Harold Foppele from “Creating new pages and uploading new files with an expiration time of indefinite” meanwhile at the Margaret Murnane the user added a covert link to Henry Kapteijn an article that they re-created over there, this appears to be evading the block and Wikipedia:Gaming the system. what are your thoughts? Theroadislong (talk) 08:48, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

The link is problematic but I’m not sure whether it violates policy or not. There can be a discussion held to determine whether the tban should be extended to cover links to articles he has written elsewhere. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:57, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2026).

Administrator changes

Vacant0

• Crisco 1492

• Deepfriedokra
• Hbdragon88
• Karl Dickman
• Worm That Turned

CheckUser changes

Daniel Quinlan

Vanamonde93

Mkdw

Oversight changes

Daniel Quinlan

Arbitration

• Due to the result of a recent motion, a rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard may impose an expanded topic ban on Israel, Israelis, Jews, Judaism, Palestine, Palestinians, Islam, and/or Arabs, if an editor's Arab-Israeli conflict topic ban is determined to be insufficient to prevent disruption. At least one diff per area expanded into should be cited.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2026 Steward elections started on 06 February 2026 at 14:00 (UTC) and will end on 27 February 2026 at 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process for current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.

Hello, Rsjaffe. Nice to meet you sir, I am not really far from having 500 edits. But I have gamed the system last month. Can you please restore my extended-confirmed access after I made my 500th edit? Or, how many more edits do I have to made to become an extended-confirmed users? This talk I made is my 443rd edit. I need a guidance on editing Wikipedia actually. Sifrans1308 (talk) 12:42, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

You can inquire about this after 700 edits total. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:48, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Alright sir, Keep your promise. Sifrans1308 (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

That’s not a promise. I’m only saying that I would review a request only after you’ve achieved at least 700 edits. You can instead make the request then at WP:RFP/EC. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:00, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Should I request edit at WP:RFP/EC when I made my 500th edit? Sifrans1308 (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

No, when you are at 700, because about 200 edits were insignificant gaming and shouldn’t be counted as credit to XC status. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:44, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Alright sir. Sifrans1308 (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I strongly object allowin extended confirmed to this person until they learn WP:RS ad stop using inappropriate sources. So war all major edits of his persons were reverted. The number of edits is just an arbtrary indicator of the maturity of a wikipedian. This one does not demontrate it and their edits are more disruption of Wikipedia than an asset. --Altenmann >talk 17:15, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I've tried my best, I'll try better then. Sifrans1308 (talk) 00:34, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Don't revert my recent edits Sifrans1308 (talk) 10:56, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello Rsjaffe,

I understand that my extended-confirmed status was revoked due to concerns about gaming the system. I take that seriously and acknowledge that some of my previous edits may not have met the expected standard.

Since then, I have focused on making constructive, meaningful contributions outside of extended-confirmed-restricted areas. I have worked to improve article quality through sourcing, copyediting, and substantive content additions.

I respectfully request reconsideration of my extended-confirmed status as I have made more than 500 legitimate edits. I am committed to contributing in good faith and following community standards moving forward.

Thank you for your time and consideration. SLSTSL (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I’m not able to use my computer for a few days, so I can’t do a good review of your edit history. If you don’t want to wait until next week, you can always take your request to WP:RFP/EC. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:31, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I wanted to quickly talk to you about ILoveRichardSimmons, whom you editblocked from articlespace last week for disruption. Thing is, now they're being disruptive in draftspace too — within just the last 90 minutes alone, I've had to pull Draft:Anna Vocino out of categories seven times for WP:DRAFTNOCAT purposes, because every time I disable the categories they come back and reenable them again within minutes.

After the fourth time I had to disable the categories, I posted a warning to their talk page about DRAFTNOCAT rules, advising them that the existing block could be escalated if they failed to follow the rules — but then their behaviour turned into a self-reversion cycle of reenabling, redisabling and re-reenabling the categories all by themself. I've had to put the page under extended-confirmed protection for the moment to prevent it from being readded to categories in the interim, but wanted to consult with you about whether this is enough to entirely lock ILRS out of draftspace as well as mainspace before applying an editblock myself. Bearcat (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I’m not sure whether this is severe lack of competence or intentionally causing problems, but I don’t think it’s going to improve. I’d even see a full block as appropriate, as blocking draftspace would probably just push the disruption to userspace. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:26, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Since you are online, do you know what to make of this?

I may have to force this to arbitration. I truly believe there is an argument to be settled here.
— Special:Diff/1339881916

At first I assumed they meant arbitration as in ArbCom, but I have started wondering if this is a legal threat? This is a relatively low edit count user who is might not be very likely to be all that faniliar with ArbCom. And isn't it somewhat unusual language to say "forcing something to arbitration" (though that would make sense for someone new) when talking about ArbCom? The AGF reading is obviously that they are threatening me with an ArbCom case for some reason, but maybe they are making a legal threat towards Wikipedia?

I am not sure, but I think this could be UK nomenclature for "bringing something to court"? But I am neither British nor American myself, so I really don't know. I have asked them for a clarification but have not heard back yet. Maybe I am just overthinking this and in that case, I apologize for bothering you. But this has been bothering me for a day now. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

That sounds like they want to resolve a Wikipedia policy dispute, not a legal dispute. They're trying to argue about the Wikipedia policies, and using a legal framework to support their claim that BLP doesn't apply. I wouldn't see this as a legal threat, just words by someone who isn't facile in English or uses a dialect I'm not used to (e.g., I don't know how this would be worded in Indian English). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:18, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

The TERFyness of it was what made me think about British English (though that is obviously a very broad assumption) but you have a very good point - no idea how this would be worded in Indian English either. But thanks for giving it a read, don't think I will need to think about this any more now that someone else has also weighed in with their interpretation of this. It just started bothering me when I realised that I wasn't actually sure what they had meant. Cheers, --Gurkubondinn (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

You turned out to be completely correct:

• Talk:2026 Tumbler Ridge shooting § I want to change the pronouns being used to address the assailant in wikipedia.

--Gurkubondinn (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Now that Khamenei has been confirmed dead, this article can probably be unprotected. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:08, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2026).

Administrator changes

• Brendanconway
• Calmer Waters
• Hut 8.5
• Joe Roe
• VersedFenrir

CheckUser changes

Ks0stm

Oversight changes

Ks0stm

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the web archival service archive.today has been deprecated; links to the site should be removed.
• A request for comment is open to discuss retiring CSD criterion R3 in favour of handling such redirects through RfD.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, remedy 9.1 of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been amended to limit TenPoundHammer to one XfD nomination or PROD per 24-hour period.
• Following a motion, the Iskandar323 further POV pushing motion has been rescinded.
• The Arbitration Committee has passed a housekeeping motion rescinding a number of outdated remedies and enforcement provisions across multiple legacy cases. In most instances, existing sanctions remain in force and continue to be appealable through the usual processes, while some case-specific remedies were amended or clarified.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2026 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: A09, AmandaNP, Barras, Count Count, M7, SHB2000, Teles and VIGNERON.
• An Unreferenced articles backlog drive is taking place in March 2026 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

I've started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harold Foppele; letting you know since you were the blocking admin on the active partial block. Best, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:31, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

On a discussion which I attended on ANI, you indef blocked Cooliglazeddonutzer as "compromised". Why is it that instead of disruptive editing (like forum-shopping)? What was that even from? Was it the "little brother found out I had a Wikipedia account" bit? VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 02:28, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

In the block note I identified both the compromised account and not here behavior. Unfortunately, when choosing a template to place on the page, I could only choose one of the two. I chose the compromised account because I wanted to force them to acknowledge that their claim of "little brother did it" was blockable on its own. We block accounts that aren't controlled properly, and if the little brother could use it, it wasn't controlled properly. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:54, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Some edit summaries at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel%E2%80%93Spain_relations&action=history might be worth a look Placeholderer (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello rsjaffe,

Hope you are doing well. I appreciate that you reviewed my content and decided to delete the Briand and Dayna Lee page for the LLM reason, and I admit 100% that I used the AI to fact check my codings before posting the content.

As for the content itself, it was not created by AI. In the previous version which was also declined, the reason was due to lack of citations, not due to LLM. Hopefully that's a good indicator for authentic, human-manually created content.

My apologies if there was a careless mistake leaving a trace of AI comment in the content.

If it's okay with you. I would like to resubmit the content carefully again.

Sincerely,

Olivia Oliva.OHF (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead. Note we have a policy against using AI to create a page. And LLMs don't do the best job of finding references. You have to read each one found to confirm it supports the text. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:44, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much. All the references were sources manually by me since the beginning. I just needed help for coding refs and links.....that was hard for me. Long story short, I really appreciate your understanding and support. This is my first time, and I will learn from it.

Sincerely,

Olivia. Oliva.OHF (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2026 (UTC)