On 04/05/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote: Kind of like a speedy reject? Or more politely, a "speedy come back later". Sounds good to me. I propose 1000 edits, including 100 outside the article and user namespaces, and at least 500 within the article namespace. Also minimum 3 months active participation. Steve

On Thu, 4 May 2006 14:59:36 +0200, you wrote: If precise minimum criteria was phrased in terms like :Create 1 featured article or N good articles or :Graduate from Erik's "Wikipedia School" (which itself had precise criteria) then I would support it. Sadly I expect any proposal would actually be terms of (virtual meaningless) edit counts, so I wouldn't.

On Thu, 4 May 2006 20:36:57 +0200, you wrote: Indeed. And it will deter those who self-nominate after their third edit. Just as with notability criteria we can, by consensus, de-emphasise those things which some have thought significant but others have sown are not. A low edit count number will make it plain that edit counts are indeed meaningless. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

Ilmari Karonen <nospam(a)vyznev.net> wrote: I believe it says in some guideline (if not policy) or other that admins should be contactable by e-mail. Even if it's not mandatory, it's still a damn good idea for a number of reasons. If you're on RfA and haven't validated your address, go do it. It'll take you less then five minutes. If you're lazy or stubborn enough not to do it after you've been told about it, I'd say that in itself sends a rather strong signal about your suitability for adminship. I agree. It should be policy. Nothing difficult about setting up a separate email for Wiki if you're concerned about acquiring stalkers. I've had admin stalkers, but that doesn't scare me from setting up a contact, mailing this list, or even using IRC. To me, it shows paranoia and ignorance in the admin that needs to be questioned at the very least.~~~Pro-Lick --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.

In message <f1c3529e0605092318k6d56bd74i55eec9dcd5172b85(a)mail.gmail.com>om>, Steve Bennett <stevage-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w(a)public.gmane.org> writes I got a curious email last week letting me know that I hadn't validated my email address on Meta. I was a bit surprised and took a look, and was shown as having validated it two months ago. I wonder if there might not be a technical bug somewhere. Anyway, yes, I agree that all admins /should/ to have a valid email contact address, and really ought to be de-adminned if they don't provide one. -- Arwel Parry http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/

request". +1 g. On 5/10/06, Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- Guillom "Je sers la science et c'est ma joie" - Basile le Disciple http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guillom

Once again assumes that the set of all admins is equal to the set of admins who get involved in contentious actions. We really must stamp out this false assumption. There are many many admins who never do something sufficiently contentious to warrant the use of email. I personally have made admin actions numbering in the hundreds and have _never_ been emailled about them. Only if you are going to go round contentiously banning people do you need your email available.... Pete

Mark wrote: Out of interest, what sort of emails do you get? I get lots of emails because of Wikipedia - normally asking for hi-res versions of my photos - but that's independent of me being an admin. Pete

G'day Pete, Oh, you know. "ADMIN X HAS ABUSED HIS POWER", "You deleted article Y. Could you please explain why?", "YOU THINK YOU CAN BLOCK ME? I'M AT UNIVERSITY, I AM. YOU CAN'T BLOCK SHIT." "Could you please intervene at Z, I'm having trouble with some problem users." It's a mixed bag. <snip/> -- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.5/335 - Release Date: 9/05/2006

In message &lt;20060510143513.43013.qmail(a)web34515.mail.mud.yahoo.com&gt;om>, Pete Bartlett &lt;pcb21-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w(a)public.gmane.org&gt; writes Hmm, no... how about when a user has a run-in with an admin and wants another admin to review the situation? I've had a few people ask me to look at something, even though I usually agree with the other admin. Few of the people I've blocked (anons, usually, or blatant vandals) have complained, though like anybody else I'm human and admit I can make mistakes - only last week I accidentally blocked the wrong anon user in a fast-moving spate of vandalism, but reversed myself in about 5 minutes... -- Arwel Parry http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/

Pete Bartlett wrote: Well, it's an easy way to get an admin's attention when you're blocked. Some blocked users may not be aware of {{unblock}}. John

Pete Bartlett wrote: We currently instruct blocked users to contact the blocking admin by e-mail if they wish to dispute the block or find themselves blocked as "collateral damage". For such people, finding that the admin who blocked them refuses to accept e-mail is adding insult to injury. I agree that, for admins who never block users and never perform any even potentially controversial admin actions, an e-mail address is not absolutely necessary. I do believe that's a rather small minority. -- Ilmari Karonen

On 5/11/06, Steve Bennett &lt;stevage(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: you aren't :) wikipediholism is such a severe disease... I've just discovered http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Hotel_Wikipedia ~~~~ ;) On 5/11/06, Steve Bennett &lt;stevage(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- Guillom "Je sers la science et c'est ma joie" - Basile le Disciple http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guillom

----- Original Message ---- From: Steve Block &lt;steve.block(a)myrealbox.com&gt; The messages yesterday show that most uses of email are unwiki and should be being _discouraged_ not encouraged. The exception to this is blocking, where the blockee needs email as his own user talk page and this mailing list may not sufficient avenues. Thus the proposal must only apply to admins who block /not/ all admins. Pete

----- Original Message ---- From: John Lee The monobook skin is designed by long-established users for long-established users. It'd be great to make it more newbie friendly. Well here yet again is an example of equating "blocking admins" with "all admins". I have been an admin for three years. I've blocked precisely one person (myself, to see what happened), so your assertion just isn't true. The proposal is to retroactively force admins into having an email address and de-admin them if they don't. Admins who've previously prefered to keep their Wikipedia activities on Wikipedia are being told that is not allowed. That is a downside. A further downside is that email fosters - distrust - witness the dis-ease when Raul conducted the discussion about whether to spam-block the Wikitruth website via email. - unilateral behaviour - obviously if one person has the information only one person can act on. I'm not going so far as actively discouraging it, indeed I am comfortable with it being encouraged despite the downsides outlined above. However it is unreasonable to *demand* it. Pete

On 5/11/06, Anthony DiPierro &lt;wikilegal(a)inbox.org&gt; wrote: Sounds like a good compromise! Steve