email: jorlowitzgmail.com twitter: JakeOrlowitz - WikiLibrary - WikiAdventure - WikiProjectMed I founded The Wikipedia Library but don't manage it anymore! Reach out to wikipedialibrarywikimedia.org or ping User:Samwalton9 (WMF).
Hi Jake, this is to say thank you for thinking of, creating, and building The Wikipedia Library, which we often take for granted, but before we had it, we were regularly lost without it. It was a big idea and a great idea, and we all have reason to be very grateful that you pursued it and made it happen. All the best, SarahSV(talk) 04:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
where did my life go? oh, have to go check my watchlist...
Jake Orlowitz (User:Ocaasi) founded The Wikipedia Library and ran it from 2011-2019. By the time he left the program at the Wikimedia Foundation, TWL had a half-million dollar budget and 6-person team on 4 continents. Through The Wikipedia Library, Jake developed partnerships with 70 leading scholarly publishers to provide free access to 100,000 scholarly journals and reference texts. 25,000 editors now have access to those sources through the Wikipedia Library Card Platform. Jake created the viral #1Lib1Ref and #1Bib1Ref citation campaigns, which now add 10-20 thousand new references each year from librarians around the world to Wikipedia. He started the Wikipedia Visiting scholar program, the Books & Bytes newsletter, the Wikipedia + Libraries facebook group, the Wikimedia and Libraries Usergroup, and the @WikiLibrary Twitter account.
Jake negotiated the collaboration with Turnitin to fix copyright violations on Wikipedia, started collaboration with Internet Archive to rescue 10 million dead citation links, integrated OCLC ISBN citation data into Wikipedia's reference autogeneration interface, and began a project to add Citoid to Wikidata. He developed the OAbot web app, and is a founding member of the Open Scholarship Initiative. He co-released a dataset of Wikipedia's most cited sources and the proportion of free-to-read sources on Wikipedia. Jake created The Wikipedia Adventure interactive guided tutorial and facilitated the first-ever for-credit Wikipedia editing course at Stanford Medical School. He is an English Wikipedia Administrator. 2-time Wikimedia Foundation grantee, former Individual Engagement Grants Committee member, founding board member of Wiki Project Med Foundation, former Organizing Committee member for Wikicite, Linked Data 4 Libraries Program Committee member, and founder of the Wikimedia Foundation's Knowledge Integrity Program.
Jake has presented about Wikipedia, citations, and reliability at five Wikimanias, Stanford University, Internet Librarian, the American Library Association, Coalition for Networked Information, Digital Library Forum, OpenCon, OCLC, and IFLA. He is a primary author of "The Plain and Simple Conflict of Interest Guide", "Conflict of Interest editing on Wikipedia", "Librarypedia: The future of Libraries, and Wikipedia", "The New Media Coalition Horizon Report for Libraries", "The Wikipedia Adventure: Field Evaluation", "Writing an open access encyclopedia in a closed access world", "The Wikipedia Library: The world's largest encyclopedia needs a digital library, and we are building it", "You're a researcher without a library: what do you do?", the Wikipedia "Research Help" portal, "Why Medical Schools Should Embrace Wikipedia", and the forthcoming Wikipedia @20 chapter "How Wikipedia Drove Professors Crazy, Made Me Sane, and Almost Saved the Internet." He has been interviewed by Publishers weekly in "Discovery Happens Here", Tow Journalism School for "Public Record Under Threat", and was featured in the documentary "Paywall: The Business of Scholarship".
"I call this Revolution 2.0. Revolution 2.0 is, is - I say that our revolution is like Wikipedia, OK? Everyone is contributing content. You don't know the names of the people contributing the content ... This is exactly what happened... Everyone was contributing small pieces, bits and pieces. We drew this whole picture. We drew this whole picture of a revolution. And that picture - no one is the hero in that picture."
"I'd like to say out loud that I really liked the atmosphere, that I enjoy more and more the simple fact that when we are together (chapters, WMF, affiliates, user groups, everyone) we feel like a movement, we act like a movement, we work and eat and drink and dance together and we argue much less than when we are online, typing in front of screens. I learned a lot about the ongoing transformation of the Wikimedia Foundation: many things are changing, they are working a lot, and very often we as affiliates do not notice these things. I saw many changes towards a better, more open and more collaborative Foundation, and I don't know many times I heard WMF employees asking for feedback and help."
— Aubrey, President of Wikimedia Italia, on Wikimedia-l after the 2015 Wikimedia conference in Berlin
"And when people did help they were given a flattering name. They weren’t called “Wikipedia’s little helpers,” they were called “editors.” It was like a giant community leaf-raking project in which everyone was called a groundskeeper. Some brought very fancy professional metal rakes, or even back-mounted leaf-blowing systems, and some were just kids thrashing away with the sides of their feet or stuffing handfuls in the pockets of their sweatshirts, but all the leaves they brought to the pile were appreciated. And the pile grew and everyone jumped up and down in it having a wonderful time. And it grew some more, and it became the biggest leaf pile anyone had ever seen anywhere, a world wonder."
"You see, Wikipedia brings people together. It brought me together. It just takes some time for everyone to get their heads on straight, before they can see that their lives too have a mission, and an  button."
"So, does all this mean Wikipedia is perfect? Heck, no! What I mean is that it’s an excellent place not just to soak up the sum of all human knowledge, but also to learn how to conduct oneself in a society riven with conflict and ambiguity, where might sometimes seems to make right and in the end all one can really be certain about having the power to safeguard is one’s own integrity. Maybe that’s a dim view of the world, but when you consider all the bad things that happen every day, you know, getting into (and out of) an edit war on Wikipedia is a relatively safe and surprisingly practical way to learn some key lessons about life."
"The more radical the person is, the more fully he or she enters into reality so that, knowing it better, he or she can transform it. This individual is not afraid to confront, to listen, to see the world unveiled. This person is not afraid to meet the people or to enter into a dialogue with them. This person does not consider himself or herself the proprietor of history or of all people, or the liberator of the oppressed; but he or she does commit himself or herself, within history, to fight at their side."
"So there was this exhilarating sense of mission—of proving the greatness of the Internet through an unheard-of collaboration. Very smart people dropped other pursuits and spent days and weeks and sometimes years of their lives doing “stub dumps,” writing ancillary software, categorizing and linking topics, making and remaking and smoothing out articles—without getting any recognition except for the occasional congratulatory barnstar on their user page and the satisfaction of secret fame. Wikipedia flourished partly because it was a shrine to altruism—a place for shy, learned people to deposit their trawls."
"It worked and grew because it tapped into the heretofore unmarshaled energies of the uncredentialed. The thesis procrastinators, the history buffs, the passionate fans of the alternate universes of Garth Nix, Robotech, Half-Life, P.G. Wodehouse, Battlestar Galactica, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Charles Dickens, or Ultraman—all those people who hoped that their years of collecting comics or reading novels or staring at TV screens hadn’t been a waste of time—would pour the fruits of their brains into Wikipedia, because Wikipedia added up to something. This wasn’t like writing reviews on Amazon, where you were just one of a million people urging a tiny opinion and a Listmania list onto the world—this was an effort to build something that made sense apart from one’s own opinion, something that helped the whole human cause roll forward."
"In fact what Wikipedia presages is a change in the nature of authority. Prior to Britannica, most encyclopaedias derived their authority from the author. Britannica came along and made the relatively radical assertion that you could vest authority in an institution. You trust Britannica, and then we in turn go out and get the people to write the articles. What Wikipedia suggests is that you can vest authority in a visible process. As long as you can see how Wikipedia's working, and can see that the results are acceptable, you can come over time to trust that. And that is a really profound challenge to our notions of what it means to be an institution, what it means to trust something, what it means to have authority in this society."
— Gauntlett, D. (2009). Case study: Wikipedia.
How to argue well You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way. *You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement). *You should mention anything you have learned from your target. *Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism. -Daniel Dennett
A few thoughts to remember, for online collaborators, or any collaborator, really 1. We are a community of very real people with deep emotions and human complexities.
2. We are deeply invested in our project, so much so it hurts us at times even if it is also a passion or refuge for many.
3. You never know what someone has been through, or is going through.
4. We all need help at some point. There is no shame in needing help, asking for help, or receiving help.
5. If you are ever feeling completely hopeless: Wait. Things really can get better. Talk to someone about it.
6. Mental health carries a powerful stigma. The more we are open about it, the less that weighs all of us down.
7. If we listen, we can learn from each other.
8. We need to be kind. This is a higher calling than civility, and entirely compatible with achieving our goals.
9. Our movement depends on its people. We are our most valuable resource.
10. We are not finished products. With time, space, support, and practice — people can, and do, grow and change. -Ocaasi
Wikipedia works because of how many people participate in creating and checking its pages. All changes go through a virtual filter--a gauntlet--of intelligent computer and human review. Thousands of people are constantly scouring new changes, and millions of readers keep an eye out for anything that seems off.
Because of this process, research studies have shown that Wikipedia is just as accurate as traditional encyclopedias, but its errors get fixed faster. We are living proof of the coders' motto that "With enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow". In other words, many hands make anything possible!
He – or she – has stopped. Quandarie02:53, 2022-08-13
No edits since being warned. Re-report if this user continues vandalising or spamming after sufficient warnings. Suggest you check whether their concerns are well founded. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Not a blatant violation of the username policy. For a username to be blatantly promotional, there must be a link between the username and the user's edits. Consider re-reporting if a connection becomes clear through the user's edits. FWIW, sock senses tingling, but don't know who it'd be. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 09:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Reason: Persistent vandalism by IPs and a newly registered editor adding in false information not supported by sources in the article. My guess is that the IPs and newly registered editor is related as they are the same vandalism. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Reverted the latest few edits. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of two months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Blocked the worse offender who also meddled with another article but there's at least one other. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Unprotection: I am not sure why this page was protected. There appears to be no ongoing edit war or content dispute, and the lock is listed as an indefinite full. I talked to the protector, but I haven’t gotten an explanation yet. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 03:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Hmm, that's unusual. There's an explanation on the article talk page, I’ve suggested a redirect. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
User:Curbon7 has created 81 articles, of which 7 have been deleted. Of these, two were deleted to make way for a page move (G6) and three were G7'd. The other two deserve a bit more of an explanation. Alexander Mamasidikov was deleted per WP:G5, which I would guess is because he lost control of his account around that time. Currently, he has the 2FA tester group, which I assume he makes use of. Finally, there is William J. Meade. He created the page, but later realized that the subject did not meet GNG. He was able to recognize that G7 was not applicable, so he PROD'd his own creation. Someone dePROD'd the page, so he took himself to AfD. In sum, I do not believe he needs new page patrollers to look after his work, because he looks after himself. HouseBlastertalk 21:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
For clarification, the weird G5 thing was because I moved someone's sandbox draft to draftspace (thus me creating a redirect from their sandbox), they removed the redirect and created a new sandbox draft, that got moved to mainspace, and it all got deleted anyways because they were a blocked user. That's why I show up as having that G5; no edits were made during the period my account was compromised, as it was instantly locked. Additionally, the other ones besides Meade were redirects that I G7'd, or G6s. Regardless, thanks for the nom. Curbon7 (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Here again, This is Tulsi, a volunteer actively involved in the creation of articles. Earlier, my request for autopatrolled was declined. I understood what was missing. I've worked on it, fixed maintenance tags and added refs on a bunch of articles. I believe my new creations look promisingly better. I am not fond of creating long article though I tried to make one Nawal Kishor Sah. I have curated Harka Raj Rai to meet WP:GNG criteria and contested deletion of Annapurna Post. Being a volunteer, I wish to get the flag as an appreciation which will eventually help in lower the backlogs of reviewer. Out of 88 creations, 3 were deleted. Thank you for considering my request. — Tulsi24x7 09:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Automated comment This user has had 1 request for autopatrolled declined in the past 90 days (). — MusikBottalk 09:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Not done Partly per the previous decline. Partly because I believe the past concerns about your behavior that led to a previous removal of your enwiki rights (see m:Special:Permalink/20228454#Global_sysop_concerns and user's rights log) constitute a significant breach of community trust. Based on that, I simply do not believe you can ever be trusted with a permission that bypasses third-party reviews of your articles. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
And by the way, Tulsi, "I wish to get the flag as an appreciation" – this would be the last reason for handing out this flag. The flag has never got anything to do with the editor; it is solely for the benefit of new page reviewers. If hat collecting is your thing, Wikipedia is the wrong hobby. Schwede66 00:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
...as an appreciation, I meant is 'vote of confidence' because I have a past (pointed out every time); god damn, who don't have past. Unfortunately, people see only the faults in me than the good things I've ever done. Just one promotional article, created two years ago, stuck with me, ruined all good contributions of mine. All other 80+ articles created goes unnoticed. Its a matter of choice I guess. Pardon me. I am not going to waste community more time in this. Goodbye. — Tulsi24x7 15:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Folks!! I think this editor should be autopatrolled. Please take a look at this article: Lea Niako and this: Domna Visvizi. The editor has only been here two months odd with only 600odd edits and 15 articles already. I'm not sure exactly what the criteria is, so I guess this is a kind of speculative application, but some workload. scope_creepTalk 16:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Automated comment This user has created roughly 15 articles. — MusikBottalk 16:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
There are no outstanding requests for the confirmed flag.
I started Operation Breaking Dawn and it got protected for some reason and now I can't edit it. I think I have proven my mettle on the English Wikipedia and have show that I am here to contribute constructively. I have also edited some on the Hebrew Wikipedia. Please grant me this right so I can continue editing the article I started. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. תודה.-----Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 20:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
For sure. You're close enough already; no problem expediting. El_C 20:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
@El C So, am I missing something that just set up a trap? While adding that access overcame the technical hurdle for editing that page, the page still has an ARBCOM control on it that prohibits editors without 500 edits from editing it - so any editor can now drag this editor for violating that, and get them individually sanctioned for violating the remedy under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#500/30. — xaosfluxTalk 21:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I doubt that'll happen. I suppose we can call it a discretionary thingy. But if someone does file anything against her in that regard, I'll take the WP:BURO heat for it. But, if there are actual problems concerning her editing in this area, the PERM can be revoked for the, what, 10 days remaining or whatever. Again, seems unlikely, though (though, I probably just jinxed it). Cheers! El_C 21:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
@El CI won't go complain, mostly because I think that remedy is one of the worst things that have come out of arbcom in a long time. Regarding the "10 days" you mentioned, unless I'm counting wrong it looks like this requester is at 67/90 days (74%) and 416/500 edits (83%) towards getting to the threshold that arbcom has mandated is necessary for any editor to contribute to articles on that subject. In recent practice, it seems fairly loose that everyone can just ignore that sanction when they are productive, but if anyone wants to complain about it - it could be enforced. The WP:PERM part of discretionary early grants of ECP isn't what would be at issue - it would be the ARBPIA violation that would be. Basically: Discretionary ECP grant = no big deal; actually telling a editor that they are free to violate ARBPIA because you said so = could be a big deal to someone who cares about ARBPIA. — xaosfluxTalk 22:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
@Xaosflux maybe I'm missing something, but where are you getting the 90 days from? I thought 500/30 stood for 500 edits/30 days? stwalkerster (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
@Stwalkerster you are 100% right, this is 500edits/30days - they have met their "days" already, they are just short their edits - which could take an indeterminate amount of time; was dealing with something else and mixed those up. — xaosfluxTalk 22:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I can't count either, it seems. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ But, even though WP:ARBPOL is probably the most bureaucratic ruleset on the project, I'm trying to be a problem solver rather than a bureaucrat (Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Xaosflux, I've heard of it!). In this instance we have a user who created a current events ARBPIA article, Operation Breaking Dawn, which she edited constructively and without issues until today, when I ECP'd it (RfPP diff).
BTW, I hardly ever frequent WP:PERM. The only reason I was even here was to provide the WP:PERM/EC shortcut to BerkBerk68 (see request directly below) on my talk page (link). Then I saw this request and was, like, hey, I'm the for-some-reason who ECP'd that page a few hours ago! Anyway, so hopefully, no one else will notice (shhh). BTW, Stwalkerster, speaking of giving Xaosflux a hard time, have you seen Special:UserRights/Xaosflux? Holy shit! And wtf is eponline, anyway? Is it a plane, is it a train? A bus? Mystery! El_C 23:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Oh. Well, that's kind of a let down. I was hoping for something shiny and fast, but I guess education is also pretty cool. El_C 23:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Normally if I WP:IAR someone ECP access early, I warn them to stay away from all those arbcom articles so they don't get in trouble with people that are super picky in those areas - personally I try to avoid all those topics unless I'm making a purely technical edit. — xaosfluxTalk 23:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
That's fair, but when it comes to WP:ACDS, I'm rather in the thicc of it. So I can probably manage a once-in-a-blue-moon exception (hopefully!). El_C 00:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
The article created by this editor was initially a POV nightmare presented as a completely one sided account and still has a non NPOV title, RM in process to remedy. I only found about this just now when reverting for Arbpia after filing awareness and I was advised by the editor that this permission had been granted. Selfstudier (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
We've established that she's been here for 2 months but is only at 420 of 500 edits. While I don't understand what reverting for Arbpia after filing awareness is supposed to mean, as far as I can tell there's a civil discussion over the content dispute, which she is not edit warring over. But if you insist, I'll revoke the perm. Let me know if that's what you want. El_C 10:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Although I agree that the editor is not edit warring as such, the editor is in a minority of one at the RM re the article title. Normally, non ecp editors are not permitted to comment in internal project discussions and I had previously struck the comment which has now been unstruck following the grant of ecp privileges. It seems to me unreasonable that a non ecp editor can create an IP area article with a POV title and then support their own title in an RM designed to remedy that. I suppose that the editor may shortly reach 500 edits but I would ask that you request the editor to strike or remove their RM commentary and if they are unwilling to do so, then to revoke the perm. Selfstudier (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
I have done those things. El_C 10:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
User:לילך5 please note, this may not automatically re-grant when you exceed 500 edits due to the early actions, this is purely a technical matter. You can check your edit count and groups here: Special:Preferences. Once you exceed 500 edits, if it doesn't hit please just drop a new note here and any admin will process the add for you. — xaosfluxTalk 10:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
I was under the impression that since the amendment to Palestine-Israel articles 4 did not mention the the 500/30 requirement, any extended-confirmed editor (regardless of whether they actually fulfilled the threshold) would be free to edit in that area. Maybe this is a case for ARCA? Sdrqaz (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
@Sdrqaz maybe, who knows. Arbcom made a huge mess when they invented that, and if it has been changed they have done a poor job maintaining their documentation such as that at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#500/30. And I don't think they ever touched on how to deal with rouge admins that just make someone EC out of process just to override these rules. — xaosfluxTalk 16:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Sorry I ruffled some feathers here by jumping the queue, I thought this was something to be request. I will re-request when I reach 500 edits if it doesn't grant itself. I am currently at 490 edits (or 432 if just the English Wikipedia), so it should be soon.---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 07:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Automated comment This user has had this permission revoked in the past 180 days (). — MusikBottalk 15:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
@Xaosflux, Sdrqaz, and El C: I just noticed I am over 500 now. I have 582 total edits, or 524 edits if en.wikipedia.org is the one I am supposed to count. The EC flag didn't pop back on by itself. Could you place it back on my account? Thank you! ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 21:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Donehere. Sorry for the hassle (it is only the English Wikipedia edits, for future reference, but in this case it doesn't matter). Sdrqaz (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
The principal problem is not so much the early granting of perms but that a non ecp editor created an AI article and set an obviously POV title for it, still waiting for the RM designed to fix that to be closed. As a sequence of events, I think that's a pretty poor show and an invitation to all the dratted socks out there to repeat the exercise. Perhaps we should be able to auto undo AI articles created by non ecp editors? Selfstudier (talk) 11:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, good luck with that. El_C 12:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I lost my extended confirmed rights around more than a year ago because I gamed the system (WP:GAME) and the administrator that took my rights told me that I have to attain 500 edits again, according to my stats I have passed 500 edits on the last 365 days. I am aware of my mistakes and I request for the permission for my further development to the encyclopedia.
Regards, BerkBerk68 21:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Additionally, revoke happened on 2 July 2021, therefore 500+ edits in past 365 days are done after the role change.
(Non-administrator comment) You can’t just say whether a case is relevant when you’re not an admin, and just because admins haven’t done anything, doesn’t mean that they won’t. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 08:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
to prevent confusions: Let me say that I just expressed my thoughts, not in a definite language. I also didn't mean that Administrators "won't do anything", I was just emphasizing that the case is not active. Regards, BerkBerk68 10:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
On hold I'm generally very receptive to restoring this for editors once it has been "re-earned" following a GAMING removal. A closure request as been put on the ANI discussion - assuming it doesn't find anything related to this, restoration should be in order. Ping to prior revoker for awareness: @El C:. — xaosfluxTalk 10:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Again, Xaosflux, it's the only reason I'm here (link again). El_C 10:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
@El C thanks - we keep running in to each other here! Assuming there is nothing extraordinary on that ANI, this should be able to be done soon. — xaosfluxTalk 16:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you @Xaosflux, do I have to do anything else? Also, would procedure take a long time? BerkBerk68 20:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Please stand by, I expect this will be resolved within a week. — xaosfluxTalk 21:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. BerkBerk68 21:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
BerkBerk68, can you please give my talk page a break? I don't want to discuss this perm revocation, which I no longer recall; I don't want to discuss the current ANI complaint featuring yourself, which I have not read; and I don't want to discuss today's unblock request from a self-described "Turkish nationalist," how it might relate to Armenian genocide denial / whitewashing, and so on. Thank you. El_C 18:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Ofcourse, I didn't know I was bothering you. It would be better if you expressed it already so I'd act according to that.
to prevent confusions: check  and . Regards, BerkBerk68 18:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm bothered by tacit defense of extremism and will not entertain these on my talk page. Your other comments there —like asking me why is my case on ANI not being interested by Administrators?— are not a big deal and I would not have commented about these further otherwise. El_C 18:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Please, I am not being extremist or something. I just thought every opinion can be expressed in Wikipedia with the condition of doing it in a non-disruptive manner even if its extremely unpopular (I didn't even express anything, I just mentioned what I think, the subject is not even related to me). But I see that I am unwanted by the owner of the talk page, and since you have told me that, I am not going to write anything on your talk page from now unless its necessary. BerkBerk68 19:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I didn't say you were being extremist — if you're unable to comprehend the nuance of tacit defense of extremism, then I'm sorry to say, but that's on you. But it's still a misrepresentation of what I said. Also, RE: the subject is not even related to me — I disagree. I highly doubt that had this user not be espousing Turkish ethno-nationalist talking points, you'd have come to their defense. El_C 20:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) None of this has anything to do with the request for XC restoral. I'd highly, highly recommend that neither of you interact in the future. casualdejekyll 21:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I am the uninvolved admin who revoked the perm, Casualdejekyll, so maybe don't. El_C 21:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I see you reverted that comment back (diff). What can I say? ++Helpful?El_C 21:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I am well aware of that and in fact was well aware of that when I wrote that comment. Dropping out of this discussion because clearly I'm not wanted. Have a nice day lads, keep on improving the encyclopedia casualdejekyll 21:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Tell me if I'm wrong, but the user we are talking about is banned because he expressed that several users are Anti-Turkist in a vandal way (which is ofcourse inappropriate and I absolutely do not support that), but how do we assume that he is a genocide denier ethnic nationalist? Accusing, or slandering other users with racism and/or its kinds is not racist or ethnonationalist, I guess?
I also expressed that my comment was just because I was confused about the situation and I was not intervening your decision. I am not supporting anyone because of their "ethnic nationalism/racism". I don't know if it is notable but, since our topic is that subject, Deepfriedokra was also positive to the unblock request. I don't think that he was positive because the blocked person is some kind of "ethno-nationalist".
Again, I am not an Administrator, I do not intervene on your decisions. I am just explaining the reason of my acts. BerkBerk68 21:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
BerkBerk68, you are free to advocate for this user's unblock in any forum you see fit, just not my talk page. I'm done here. El_C 21:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Ofcourse, as you wish, I have already told that I am not going to write anything on your talk page unless its a necessity. Thanks, BerkBerk68 21:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
One more thing, BerkBerk68: if I had engaged in defamation against this user, as you seem to suggest (again, a stark lack of nuance on your part), it would be libel not "slander" (libel is written, slander is spoken). Also, of course is two words. El_C 21:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
One one more thing RE: slandering other users with racism — I have used the word "racism" zero times, nor have I even implied it. El_C 21:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Ofcourse you didn't, you got me straightly wrong. Beyoglou accused other users with racism in a vandal way, therefore blocked. I didn't mean you. BerkBerk68 21:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough, BerkBerk68, let's end it there. El_C 22:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Alright. Thanks for the compromise. BerkBerk68 22:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Done. Perm reinstated. See my closing summary at the ANI thread (permalink). El_C 19:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I have been writing the NPP newsletter for several months now and it would be more convenient to be able to sent it myself. MB 18:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) MB is a lead coordinator of NPP. He fulfills the criteria for this perm. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
@MB you've been around enough and contributed enough that I'm not going to ask you the usual questions. Strong suggestion make a MMS list of just yourself (move one from here and use it to test anything you send out first. Make sure the resultant page isn't broken (e.g. that new sections can still be added, etc) and that it always has a timestamp on it for archive bots. — xaosfluxTalk 20:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Reason for requesting mass message sender rights
I am currently working on a project that involves updating/reaching out to editors or volunteers in West Africa.
This tool will be of great help to our project and aid our time management. Thanks —Sunkanmi12✉️ 16:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Automated comment An extraneous header or other inappropriate text was removed from this request — MusikBottalk 16:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Not done @Sunkanmi12 when you have a message ready to go you can post a request for distribution at WT:MMS. If you find yourself doing this often, and that your messages are being processed without issue, stop back by here again so you can self-service. — xaosfluxTalk 20:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I think I would make a good new page reviewer. I have a lot of experience in content creation, AfD, a light CSD log, and I've also dedicated a lot of time to content improvement (see Hot Pink and "WAP"). I could carry this over to NPR and I'd love to help make a dent in the backlog. Thanks :) —VersaceSpace🌃 15:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure about your request. I've been mulling it over for a good while now. My concern comes in the CSD A7 form about whether you know what should be immediately deleted or not. I can't put my finger on why specifically at the moment, but I'm looking for any contributions that show your A7 knowledgeable, as it's a primary category of CSDs for NPRers. Anything like that that you can show me? -- Amanda (she/her) 18:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
@AmandaNP: I am aware of A7, and keep it in mind while editing. I would use it on any article that does not say why the subject of the article is notable. Exceptions are described at WP:CSD#A7; primarily as a music editor I've known that this can't be used on articles about albums or other creative works. I understand that this exception extends to other products. As an example, this criteria would apply to a store but not to a product in the store. If there's any other way I could display that I understand A7 or any other CSD to you, please let me know. —VersaceSpace🌃 18:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment)@AmandaNP So I've been watching this for awhile and if you're still on the fence about granting @VersaceSpace NPR privileges I might have a solution. If you're leaning towards not granting NPR privileges maybe send @VersaceSpace to WP:NPRSCHOOL (if they're interested and have the time). I graduated from NPP School and I learned a LOT and I can't say enough good things about the experience. If this is improper, rude, or if I'm overstepping please let me know and it won't happen again. Dr vulpes(💬 • 📝) 09:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) I would agree with that - I think that NPP School is underused and therefore this is a good solution. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 10:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) It's one of the reasons why I created the NPP school. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
I would love to have the New Page Reviewer right. I have 1000+ edits to the mainspace. I am a reviewer at AfC, and thus already have experience reviewing articles. I am also a member of WikiProject Short descriptions, and am part of the effort to help make all articles have a short description. Thanks, UrbanVersis32KB ⚡ (talk / contribs) 20:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
After creating several articles I asked for and was given the NPP perm temporarily. I didn't use it very much and allowed it to expire. I recently heard there was a very high backlog and wanted to give it another go. Spudlace (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
I want to review new pages and will try my best to clear the backlog to the best of my capacity. I was granted a temporary right. After that, I reviewed many articles. Now I want to again get the right so that I can start the process of clearing the backlog. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 01:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Backlog is massive - wanting to assist, looking for more ways I can assist with tasks that can benefit the wiki as a whole since being back on the wiki in a more meaningful way as of late. Mr.weedle (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Automated comment This user has had 1 request for new page reviewer declined in the past 90 days (). — MusikBottalk 18:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm a little bothered that most of his 1700 edits (almost 1000) have been made this month. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
That's a fair call - I'm not bothered either way, just looking for additional way to contribute to these administrative backlogs. Would a temporary trial run make you more comfortable? Mr.weedle (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not going to make the final call here, but I would say take the next two or three months, reviewing new pages, tagging as needed, categorizing as needed, putting CSD tags where needing, but not having them marked at "patrolled" and see how it goes. It still helps, obviously, and it gives a history that is searchable to see how you handled it. It's not about quantity, it's about quality. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Sounds good - thanks! Mr.weedle (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, but Not done for now. I appreciate the willingness to help out, but I find it hard to assess your knowledge of our notability guidelines because you haven't done much deletion-related work (two total AfDs, a handful of PRODs, and two CSDs from 2012). --Blablubbs (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
I already have some RM participation experience, especially with closing them. If I were to have this right, I would then be able to participate in the RMTR area (where page movers are needed to execute some moves) or with editnotices. Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 07:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Edited request to reflect my new username. Separately, I would also like to note that I also have experiences starting RMs, including a current one. Thanks. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
@NotReallyMoniak: Hello. You forgot fix the redirects in your user/talk page. You are currently not contactable. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
@NotReallySoroka: Hello. This is your new account. This one should be in the header, and rfplinks template, not the older one. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I just changed my username. Thanks for reminding me to change my username here. NotReallySoroka (talk) 01:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I am an active editor of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) articles and have been working on several redirects related to them, and have worked on a few disambiguation pages. I frequently encounter the need to move some MCU articles for title changes (sometimes to revert vandalism), with many drafts necessitating moves from their initial Untitled states to officially titled ones (though many have beaten me to them in the past), moving to a more acceptable titling format (history example), and the drafts having to be moved to mainspace once filming starts per WP:NFTV. I comply with the guidelines at WP:AT, and have an understanding of when to use WP:NATURALDAB, which prefers natural disambiguations over parenthetical disambiguations, for Rogue One or Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery (which I made Glass onion (disambiguation) to help with navigation for). In the past I did make an erroneous undiscussed move at Draft:Blade (2023 film) but I learned from that mistake as it was a poor jumping of the gun on a minor italics formatting choice. I also was among those who suggested in the WP:MCU task force (before it was anything official) the naming conventions for the Phase articles such as Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Four being the title for that article over others discussed such as the more unambiguous and yet still helpful titles Phase Four (Marvel Cinematic Universe) and Phase Four of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which were natural disambiguations but not decent disambiguations in their own right as the former's format is generally used for in-universe characters or elements, while the latter's read more as a sentence, so a compromise in the titling format I helped suggest was agreed upon. I also did recently move Secret Wars (film) to Secret Wars (2014 film) given Avengers: Secret Wars was just recently announced and that 2014 film needed to have further specification as the common name for the Avengers film would lie at Secret Wars (2025 film), even though that would not be the main article title. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I am reapplying for this role. I did it some time ago. I am applying at this time as I believe that my extensive experience editing Wikipedia makes me qualified for this role. I am much familiar with Wikipedia BLP, Neutral Point of View, and other policies this time. Thanks Endrabcwizart (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Most of my wiki activity is related to counter-vandalism and improving needy edits, so I'm requesting the user right in order to review pending changes that I come across while patrolling recent changes and to generally help out with the pending changes queue when I have time. I have read WP:RPC in its entirety and understand the pending changes review process, as well as the basics of the policies linked in that guideline. Thanks for your consideration. PlanetJuice(talk • contribs) 01:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I am a regular contributor to Wikipedia and familiar with the policies related to reviewer rights. I would like to review pending changes to entries related the projects I am active in, including WikiProject Indiana and WikiProject Women in Religion. Jaireeodell (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Team, been loving being back on Wikipedia and protecting our Wiki from vandals. I've noted the high backlog of pending changes, and would like to extend my hand to assist reviewing (when not busy hunting vandals!). I believe I have largely used my rollback permissions with good care, and would like to assist further. Poped in before but previous admin wanted a bit more track record since being back on. Thanks! Mr.weedle (talk) 04:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Automated comment This user has had 1 request for pending changes reviewer declined in the past 90 days (). — MusikBottalk 04:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
I work a lot in the field of vandalism, and I see some vandalism happening in the pending changes section of articles and I would like to correct the vandalism. I also feel that a lot of pending changes happen and that they are not checked fast enough. 𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝 👋❤️ (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔🤔) 01:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I've been editing Wikipedia for multiple years now and have over 2,000 edits. I also frequent Special:RecentChanges and have a good understanding of what constitutes constructive and unconstructive editing. Having pending changes reviewer rights would allow me to make a more positive contribution to the community. Partofthemachine (talk) 06:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I was not willing to make this request. After being promoted to a rollbacker on a project, I have been encouraged to do this. I have been doing anti-vandalism work here since February 2022, but I have not been able to get advanced permissions due to a block at my home wiki. Maybe Fastily and/or other administrators would like to promote me as a rollbacker to make my reverts easier.
Note that I am still blocked at my home wiki.
Unsuccessful requests can be found on these (1, 2, 3) pages.
Since we last conversed, have you made any attempts to get unblocked at your homewiki? -FASTILY 20:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
In February 2022, with a 20,000-byte statement, yes. Two months ago, to VRT-info, yes. A few days ago, yes. No procedure, no ArbCom, and no appeals process over there. --Victor Trevor (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Not done and will not be done, per private evidence shared with me via email. -FASTILY 21:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
@Fastily: I'm thinking about it for a few minutes. And yes, rollback rights include blocking, protecting, and viewing private logs. That is why I am not a trusted user to get all of these. That was a great decision that has ever been posted on Wikipedia. Best, --Victor Trevor (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Ability to fix vandalism and remove honoraries. Riddleme (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Not done I reviewed your contributions and found little to no recent anti-vandalism work. If you're still interested in this tool then please spend at least a month actively patrolling RecentChanges (Twinkle & RedWarn can help with that) before reapplying. Also, please start warning editors when you revert their edits. Thanks, FASTILY 08:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Committed identity: 3DF3393CDAF58461E94FD0FED84629B8E7A4AA3BE112BFCF2411BD3EA77C62874504BE9567BBB3BD08C793DB5B41E8EC3380A761A95DD95D93A363EA0DC7EBED is a SHA 512commitment to this user's real-life identity.