Welcome to my talk page. Brickto (talk) 03:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I saw ur comment on the nyc tenant history taskforce and just thought id let u know that we actually set up a broader WikiProject not too long ago! and I thought id let u know in case u were interested :) WikiProject Housing and Tenant Rights

It's been actually quite surprisingly active which has been a really nice surprise, and i would love for you to join if u have an interest in doing so!

Thanks! LoomCreek (talk) 02:23, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LoomCreek Hello! It’s nice to meet you! That’s fantastic. I am so happy that there is an effort to make the information surrounding tenant rights accessible to the public. It’s so important.

I would absolutely love to join! How would I go about doing that?

I hope you had a nice weekend, and enjoy the start of your week! Brickto (talk) 11:12, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! and thank u, i actually had quite a surprisingly nice weekend that I hadn't had in quite a while.

I think there's a lot of important notable (if somewhat forgotten) history around tenant movements, hence the reason for setting it up. If you'd like to join, u can click the link above (or this one: Wikipedia:WikiProject Housing and Tenant Rights). And there is a list on there to add ur name. on our WikiProject page we also have a bunch of listed sources to get u started on research alongside many wanted articles/article request ur welcome to work on.

Theres many wonderful people in the group, that ive had the pleasure of working with in the past (including taskforce nyc tenant history) and ur more than welcome, to introduce urself in the WikiProject talk page, im sure theyd love to meet u!

Thanks again! LoomCreek (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just joined & already see requested articles I would love to participate in developing! Excited to work together with you guys and meet you all (: Brickto (talk) 09:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brickto, I saw your query on the talkpage of an RFA from years ago. Can I suggest you move it to a currently active page such as WT:RFA? Most people stop watchlisting old RFAs after their 7 days is over. ϢereSpielChequers 10:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WereSpielChequers Hello! I don’t know if it would be appropriate for me to start the discussion. I am truthfully not knowledgeable enough on the topic to do that. At least I feel. I was reviewing old RfAs to try and understand how they work, and that particular one had a lot of opposition so I was curious to see if anything had changed since the user was made admin. I was pretty taken back by what I had seen. I just wanted to make a note of it on the talk page. I appreciate you taking the time to let me know the proper venue to have such a discussion, and it is duly noted! Brickto (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brickto, that particular admin is still around, made over a thousand edits in just the last month and is an elected member of WP:ARBCOM. So I suspect most now think the community called that one correctly. But it was one of the closest RFAs of recent years, most successful ones are more like uncontentious inaugurations with over 95% support. Generally becoming an admin is one of the things that correlates with staying a long while as a member of this community. There was a myth that a significant proportion of admins did little or nothing with the tools. That mainly stemmed from a cursory glance at WP:Adminstats where about half the editors with an admin action have barely a handful. But a more serious analysis of those stats shows that:

1. They only contain data from December 2004, so there are admins who were very active in our earliest days whose actions are mostly missing from those stats.
2. The adminstats don't count actions such as rollback, template editing and file moving which were once only possible for admins to do, and some of the early admins got adminship specifically to use part of the toolset that we have since unbundled and no longer count as an admin only activity
3. A bunch of "admin" accounts are staff members who have made very few admin actions on what is for them the live system which they shouldn't ordinarily touch.
4. There are a couple of odd anomalies about the way the stats are compiled that assigns a few thousand of our 47 million admin actions to a couple of thousand accounts that have never been admins. Maybe 1 in 10,000 admin actions, but close to 1 in 2 of the accounts that have supposedly ever done an admin action.

So if we ignore the 0.01% anomalies the stats are reckoned to be quite accurate. Most of all the accounts that have ever been admins are now inactive, but almost all went through an active phase.ϢereSpielChequers 21:59, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Will Ganss, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC News. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]