User talk:UninvitedCompany

Mia Art+Feminism edit-a-thon

Mia Art+Feminism Edit-a-Thon

Hello UninvitedCompany. You are invited to attend an Art+Feminism edit-a-thon at the Minneapolis Institute of Art (Mia) on Saturday, March 9, 2019 from noon to 4pm. Art+Feminism is an international campaign where people come together to improve coverage of women and the arts on Wikipedia. During the edit-a-thon we will be updating and creating Wikipedia articles on subjects related to gender, art, and feminism, with a focus on artists represented in Mia's collection Date: Saturday, March 9, 2019 Location: Minneapolis Institute of Art, 2400 Third Avenue South, Minneapolis Please sign up here

RfA 2021 review update

Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:

1. Corrosive RfA atmosphere

   The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.

2. Level of scrutiny

   Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.

3. Standards needed to pass keep rising

   It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.

4. Too few candidates

   There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.

5. "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:

6. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere)
   Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
7. Admin permissions and unbundling
   There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
8. RfA should not be the only road to adminship
   Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.

---

There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun

Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.

There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).

Administrator changes

Clpo13

Brian0918 • JDoorjam • Karanacs • MrDarcy • Mindspillage

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

CheckUser changes

Dreamy Jazz • Ferret • GeneralNotability • Girth Summit • RoySmith

Oversight changes

Dreamy Jazz • LuK3

Guideline and policy news

• Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news

• Toolhub is a catalogue of tools which can be used on Wikimedia wikis. It is at https://toolhub.wikimedia.org/.

Arbitration

• GeneralNotability, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections. Ivanvector and John M Wolfson are reserve commissioners.
• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves to stand in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections from 07 November 2021 until 16 November 2021.

Miscellaneous

• The 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of five new CheckUsers and two new Oversighters.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts on your essay written "prior to my WikiVacation from December 2004 to February 2005"

I read your essay, and its amazing to me to think that far back to what Wikipedia must have been like. I was reading the encyclopedia back then, but have only begun to chip in and do my own part to help more recently. I do think that it can be very scary for a new editor, and lots of senior editors will lash out and make you feel dumb pretty quickly if you don't already seem to understand some things intuitively. That said, I love the place overall, and would like your thoughts on your essay. Have things unfolded as you expected them to? Is there anything you would have liked to see unfold differently? Also, you said that one day there would be "100 times more admins" and 100 times more trolls and everything else. Did that happen? How many admins were there back then? Might the process be too strict today with admitting new admins? Is it too loose?

I am being "bold" in reaching out to a "'Crat"! Never messaged one before. ♥ Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 14:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for reading it, and asking. I would say one of the greatest surprises for me has been the radical increase in use of automation for housekeeping edits between the development of the abuse filter, the many bots the process the recent changes feed, and semi-automated tools that facilitate rapid review (and reversion) of edits, like Huggle. The overall, combined effect of automation has had a profound effect on culture and on perception of the editing experience, and has drastically reduced the need for admins. The other large surprise is the politicization and monetization of the editing experience including the impact of grant money. We do not have 100 times the admins we did in 2004; without checking I believe the number of active admins is about 3x or so what it was then. There are probably 100 times as many trolls in the sense of individuals contributing under false pretenses. As for the adminship process, yes, I believe it is too strict due to predictable sociopolitical factors. As a rule people like to make exclusive groups more exclusive over time since doing so enhances their power. It takes awareness of that and a belief that the goals of the project are more important than personal influence, and while we have admins like that, they are not a majority. But it matters less now, because admins aren't central to the project the way they once were, it's the bot writers and the established contributors in various topic areas who are making decisions that matter. UninvitedCompany 01:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)