User talk:Kmccoy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hello! Please place new messages at the bottom of my page. I will generally respond on your page, unless you request that I respond here. Thanks!

Archive 01 -- 2004-06-21 through 2005-08-14

Archive 02 -- 2005-08-14 through 2007-01-05

Archive 03 -- 2007-01-05 through 2007-12-31

Archive 04 -- 2008-01-01 through present

crane (machine)[edit]

Gunpowder Ma has performed the same content deletion 3 times now, twice for the same specious reason (refuted on talk, with refs, but still unanswered) and now by deleting text content and claiming that it's an image related issue, citing an irrelevant talk comment from 2 years ago.

As to my "rollback history" (where rollback was removed for an issue not even involving rollback), then how about looking at Toddst1's wheel-warring over this, and his nose being out of joint because of an edit of his to the Triumph articles having been done some time earlier. Yet for the farce of AGF we have to pretend by, I'm not even supposed to mention this.

I am heartily sick of admins who defend vandals above all else. I am tired of a situation where ignorant fools can make bad edits, and admins then take their sides in this. I am tired of having to pussyfoot around outright vandals and having to pat them on the head four times before they change IP. If you want to remove my almighty rollback permissions, then so be it - you clearly prefer vandals to content authors. How much content has Gunpowder Ma added this week? How much work did I contribute? For that matter, how much did you contribute? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, incidentally, the use of revert on Gunpowder Ma's vandalism was finger-trouble, nothing more. I do actually follow the rules, but I doubt that you care about that. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
PS - Commons too.
Kmccoy, have you even bothered to look at the contributions made by Andy Dingley? Sure, he does not seem to be himself at present, but you have made a very good productive contributor to go away through blind application of bureaucracy. A hope you are pleased with yourself. Globbet (talk) 08:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Globbet, I did in fact look at the contributions made by Andy Dingley. I saw some questionable applications of rollback, and a bunch of good content contributions. Therefore, I removed his rollback. I left him a polite message informing him of this on his talk page, which prompted a string of childish insults and snide comments towards me and others, and then a "retirement"; though he hasn't actually stopped using Wikipedia, so in this case "retirement" just seems to be another example of a user seeking attention by threatening to take his toys and go home. Either way, whether this "retirement" is just attention-seeking or if he actually leaves, I can't make decisions based on someone threatening to retire, nor am I going to apologize for a proper decision and beg someone to return because they said they were retiring. If you had even bothered to look through my history, Globbet, you'd find that I'm not one to make a "blind application of bureaucracy". Using rollback in a content dispute is harmful to the encyclopedia because it eliminates discussion (the edit summary of a rollback gives no information as to the reasoning), and discussion is critical to collaboratively building content. If you're concerned about the loss of Andy being a loss to the project, then go chat with him and encourage him to return, and hopefully with a less volatile temper. But to blame me for his bad temper is inaccurate. Thanks for your concern. kmccoy (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I did not intend to (and don't think I actually did) blame you for his current bad temper. He was already clearly upset, perhaps about something in real life, before your action. Perhaps it would have been more judicious to discuss the issue with him before taking action, even though at the moment it is hard to imagine that it would have gone well. His use of invective is regrettable, as is your characterisation of his motives. I would not have recommended either of the actions you suggest I might think you should take. It should be possible to salvage something positive from this incident, but I am finding hard to express myself without sounding patronising. I think it is about being circumspect and judicious. Editors, as well as admins, are real people with real emotions. He, like you, has been a stalwart volunteer, and I know from real life situations that volunteers can quickly get prickly when they think they see people who don't understand their contribution undermining their efforts. Equally, I have seen, in real life, and without wishing to suggest that it applies in this case, people for whom their volunteering work needs to be nurtured because it provides them with an anchor when they have other difficulties. I hope I am done here. BTW: May I suggest that "Thanks for your concern." can come over as arrogantly dismissive in tone, sounding like "Now *@#! off". I am a sure that is not your intention." Globbet (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I am not stopping him from continuing to volunteer. I have not blocked him. I simply removed rollback. Had he come to me and said "hey, my finger slipped, I didn't mean to do that rollback", I would have been happy to restore it. Instead, he came to my talk page and poured on a pile of abuse. If someone else wants to restore rollback to him, then they're free to do so. Or if he was having a bad day and came and said that he was having a bad day and really didn't mean to be so abusive, it would have been nice. But he's shown no indication that this is unusual behavior for him. So, I'm not interested in being abused by him into giving his rollback userrights back. I have serious concerns for other editors who dare to question him on an edit in the future; volunteers don't deserve to be spoken to this way. kmccoy (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
"Retirement" doesn't mean walking away in the middle of a conversation. That would be plain rude.
"some questionable applications of rollback", which are please? The obvious vandalism that Toddst1 claimed was a GF edit? ELs on the Triumph Spitfire article (not even a rollback)? The Heinkel He 177 article where one of the craziest free-association OR editors on WP, changed terminology contrary to a well-established source in the field? Or was it J. A. Chatwin, where a repeat crude vandal then tried something a bit more subtle - I was so careful not to offend anyone here that I even asked for Toddst1's advice beforehand. More fool me: he was happy enough to leave the article as vandalised, with a personal insult to me left on the caption of the lead image and just a dire warning to the vandal not to repeat it - which clearly meant nothing when the vandal went and did just, with impunity as far as Toddst1 is concerned.
If you're throwing allegations, provide the diffs.
Last night's reversion on the crane article was a mistake. I was rushing to go out, I hit the wrong button, I didn't have time to extend my already detailed comment on why this deletion was a bad edit into an explanation. mea culpa. Your point about rollback being inexplicable is a good one: I fully agree with this stuff. I bend over backwards to play by the principles of building an encyclopedia, I'm always ready to discuss content of an edit, even when the editor concerned sees WP:CONSENSUS as "argue endlessly on talk pages, wasting everybody's time" and has a history as long as you like.
Criticize me for edit-warring? Now maybe you'd have a point there. At least it would be a basis for rational debate. I just happen to think that when someone is ignoring our policies (or even better, wikilawyering about how WP:EL need to be WP:RS!) and refusing to even discuss them on the talk: page, then it's a fair target to 3RR: not more, not if there is any discussion going on, not if it's merely a difference of opinion, not if it's against what's set out in WP:3RR.
This isn't about rollback (excuse me, you're asking for help with the mop and I'm expected to grovel for it?) It's about the utter lack of respect that administrators have for content, and people who write it. Waving your all-powerful mop around is so much more important. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
You're right, I guess "retirement" means trying to soak up as much attention as possible, not walking away in the middle of a conversation.
I didn't ask you for help with "the mop" and I don't expect you to "grovel" for it. In fact, based on my short interaction with you, I'd prefer that you not "help" and attack any other editors as vehemently as you have done to me. If you'd like to leave, go ahead. If you'd like to stay, that's fine too. Please try to be more civil in future interactions with users if you do stay. Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Civility? How about some of the other editors' behaviour here. Now I know you're hardly going to jump into a content dispute, but just why do you think that repeat inexplicable deletions like the crane stuff should go uncommented upon, when you'd rather jump on the guy who's trying to discuss it and even putting forth the almighty WP:RS to support it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
None of the other editors came to my talk page with paragraphs of text full of vitriol. I didn't jump on you for trying to discuss it, I "jumped on you" for using rollback improperly, which specifically is not discussing it. kmccoy (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Have you even read the talk: page? (article or Gunpowder Ma's)? Besides, your own view of "discussion" seems to involve a whole 12 minutes between warning an action. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm done with this conversation. Retire or don't retire, but please keep it off my talk page. Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
No. The misuse of rollback is not new and the mis-characterization of my interaction with this editor over the same issue is more than unfortunate. If Mr. Dingley feels compelled to leave Wikipedia if he can't have rollback privileges then it's good he has left. Toddst1 (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah, "misuse". Where you defend the value of this edit as "an unquestionably good faith edit". Please, throw your worthy administrative weight around if that's what makes you feel worthwhile, but don't take me for a fool and pretend that you even thought that was a GF edit, rather than an excuse to hit back for a previous undo on one of yours. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
As I pointed out on your talk page, you seem to be seriously confused. I'm unaware of you ever reverting an edit of mine. You were edit warring with Biker Biker (talk · contribs) over an EL that I had nothing to do with except having brought it to your attention. Again, the edit that you cite above was not clearly vandalism and you have no business with rollback privileges at this point. Toddst1 (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, I did not revert any of your edits, I undid them. In this context it is highly prejudicial of you to use that wording. Secondly, to refresh your memory Andy Dingley (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
<sarcasm> Yes, you are right. An insignificant reversion that I didn't even notice or respond to from 10 months ago has lead to a material grudge and gross prejudice against you by two different admins </sarcasm>
<reality> Two different admins noticed a rollbacker edit warring and/or inappropriately using rollback with three different editors on three different articles and responded appropriately.</reality>
Toddst1 (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, this is still on my watchlist and I find I cannot leave it alone just yet. I have several concerns:
  • The result of this matter would appear to be the loss to Wikipedia of an editor who enjoyed making genuine, valuable, erudite contributions in fields such as engineering heritage where there is only a very small number of regular good editors and a huge amount of work to do. I do not attach any blame for this, but the result is Wikipedia's loss.
The departure (or not) of this editor is his own choice. If someone who contributes good content but has a poor history of interacting with users wants to be an admin and threatens to leave Wikipedia if he is not made an admin, should he be made an admin to prevent him from leaving? What if other users say that they will leave if that person is made an admin? You cannot make actions on Wikipedia based on threats. It's a form of emotional blackmail.
  • Both admins involved, Kmccoy and Toddst1, have done what they understand their job to be, and could not have been expected to predict the volatility of the reaction, but this has ended up as a triumph of rules, etiquette, and procedure over content generation. Product is surely more important than process. This suggests to me that something non-optimal has happened, and leads me to wonder how a better outcome might have been achieved. Could the protocol, or the manner of its application, be improved? (Why is so much importance attached to demanding contrition on the part of the offender, even when he disputes the offence?)
Neither my contributions as a whole nor my status as an administrator are a job. I choose what I do here, the terms are not dictated to me. In fact, I'm generally more likely to ignore the specific protocol of policies or whatever in favor of more of a common sense approach. In this case, I was concerned that despite having previously encountered this problem, he was more concerned about quickly reverting in a content dispute, and that is too easily facilitated by a willingness to use rollback. Content creation is an important part of Wikipedia, but I would place collaboration on equal footing with it, especially now that much of the framework of most articles is built, and considering the number of contributors on Wikipedia. Misuse of rollback lessens the level of collaboration. A better outcome could have been achieved by Andy keeping his response civil. The protocol was a minor one, at best, since the removal of rollback really does not negatively affect his ability to create content, and is easily reversed if needed. And I have not demanded contrition on his part for his mistaken rollback -- a simple "whoops" would have sufficed, an indication that the misuse was not intentional. Nor do I demand contrition for the response I received (for example, I didn't do something like block him until he apologized.)
  • Neither admin has shown any evidence of any doubt or reflection about their handling of the matter. I am concerned about their manner, or mindset. Their reaction to dissent tends to be defensive rather than open, and that defensiveness sometimes takes on unattractive undertones of the smug or cocky, which they need to take the utmost pain to avoid, even under severe provocation, even with severe constraints on their time. Preparedness to explain, discuss, educate and cajole, with humility, has to be a sign of greater strength than acting first and explaining later, especially if the action seems peremptory or dictatorial. Globbet (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
When confronted with hateful prose such as the stuff you can find in this very thread from Andy, all I see is justification and vindication that my reaction to remove rollback was correct. It is clear to me that he places confrontation and arguments against the person over collaboration. My reaction to legitimate issues is one thing, but my reaction to the attacks and such that I've seen here is another. I'm not willing to allow my openness to legitimate complaint to be tied up by people who abusively and emotionally overreact to the tiniest issue. kmccoy (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Boba Phat[edit]

Thank you very much for the clarification. There certainly are a lot of policies, but when they are explained simply in layman's terms as you have just done for me, it sure helps me understand the process better! Thank you for taking the time to teach me today. Very Best, SheighZam (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked template[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Kmccoy. You have new messages at Singularity42's talk page.
Message added Singularity42 (talk) 03:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Deleted images[edit]

Why did you delete PS3 Profile Screen and PSN Portable ID when there was clear agreement to keep the image? Ffgamera - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 05:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussions are not votes. The arguments for deletion were stronger than the arguments for keeping, especially considering that the burden is on people arguing to keep an unfree image. I saw no compelling reason to keep the images, and you even offered an alternative of linking to external sites as opposed to hosting unfree content, which made the deletion argument stronger. kmccoy (talk) 05:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

PennySeven scared[edit]

Did you see this diff, later removed? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw what you're talking about. Hopefully that situation will resolve itself. kmccoy (talk) 11:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Pennyseven is posting profusely again on the Inflation talk page. As the unblocking admin, could you talk to him about proper talk page etiquette and about keeping wikidrama in his edits to a minimum? It reads like someone trying to intimidate other people away from the debate. At the least, it makes the editing atmosphere unpleasant, and discussions difficult. Thanks, LK (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Sarek has removed the negative personal comments from the Talk page, so you may have to go through Pennyseven's editing history to see some of the more egregious remarks. LK (talk) 16:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


Please be aware that Jrtayloriv is still engaging in edit warring and questionable editing. Since you have dealt with him in the past, I would like you to be aware that the situation has not changed. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 16:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see what you're talking about. Could you be more specific? kmccoy (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
[1] Viriditas (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I mean, I'm not seeing examples of edit warring and questionable editing. The original block was for a simple 3RR violation, and continued discussion with him made me feel quite comfortable with his intentions. What sort of problematic editing are you seeing? kmccoy (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, there was his series of questionable edits on nonviolence, where he reverted twice (in part). I took it to the talk page and requested sources and he failed to come up with any. His edit was eventually reverted by another editor, but he knows how this place works and appears to be playing games. He says Ward Churchill is a reliable source on the subject of nonviolence and we should quote him, but he fails to provide a passage or a page number. Viriditas (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I think he's making honest, good-faith attempts to improve that article, making occasional bold edits and also engaging in discussion on the talk page. I don't want to dismiss your concerns, but I really don't think he's behaving improperly. (I say this without comment on whether I agree with the content of his edits, though.) kmccoy (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
His most recent edits consist of deleting the description of nonviolence as a powerful force for social change and changing it to "commonly used form".[2][3] In regards to the nonviolent philsophy of the African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968), Jrtayloriv attempted to claim and associate Martin Luther King's adoption of Gandhi's nonviolent methods and his peaceful movement with "numerous violent African American groups working for the same goal."[4] On his user talk and article talk page, he seems to be saying tthat the pro-violence, anarchist POV needs to be strongly represented in an article about the philosophy of nonviolence, and that even though some of Jrtayloriv's sources might be old or accused of academic misconduct, they are required to define the topic. Jrtayloriv is essentially engaging in agenda-driven editing which is incompatible with the goals of Wikipedia. Anyway, you know my position. I guess it's wait and see at this point. Viriditas (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

And now, another biased edit implying a conspiracy theory by emphasizing the number of gunshots with italics.[5] Viriditas (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a content issue, nothing that is related to my status as an administrator or as the person who blocked and unblocked jrtayloriv. Perhaps you need to find some outside opinions from uninvolved people on the content of his edits. kmccoy (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token 17168467e39a9c6d99f8724cb110d82f[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

(And I'm a nerd. WIKIPEDIA FOREVER and such.) kmccoy (talk) 00:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


Deletion review for File:Karla foxnews.jpg[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:Karla foxnews.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.


Hello there. I've just noticed the 3h block you've placed on the above user for vandalism. I was on the verge of blocking him myself for the same reason but you beat me to it! I was going to make my block an indef as this is clearly a vandalism-only account. At any rate I think 3h is perhaps assuming a little too much good faith on the part of this particular editor. Thoughts?

Xdamrtalk 18:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Now indef blocked by another admin. --Xdamrtalk 18:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
When I see vandalism like that, I place a quick ban to stop the vandalism, and then I go checking the history and the context. An indef ban is appropriate in this case, but I'd rather place a quick block that expires and then figure things out before placing a block that does not expire. Thanks for the heads up. kmccoy (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

HIV dissent[edit]

This is not a content fork. The information contained is NOT HIV/AIDS denialism, nor does it fit into the main HIV article. Try reading the info before deleting it. Neuromancer (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion should be held at Talk:HIV dissent, not here. Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 08:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, reverts, and claims of vandalism[edit]

Hello. I've made a complaint about Arthur Rubin on the administrator notice page regarding practices that are similar to a large extent to what you complained about to him on his talk page. You can read that complete here Thank-you. MeSoStupid (talk) 01:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

How do you make a decision without evidence ?[edit]

How could you delete the file File:Carl A Larsen JASON Stamp.jpg

The people who proposed the deletion gave no supporting evidence for their case that the file had in fact infringed on copyrights and the when the defendant shows clearly the laws to support his case that an exception does exists. You simply ignore it. It's this kind arbitrary and micky mouse decisions that give Wikipedia such a bad name and drives people away in droves. (Ice Explorer (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

I thought I had explained it pretty clearly. What part did you disagree with? kmccoy (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to town for several hours. When I return in the evening (UTC-6) I'll be happy to respond. I don't want you to think I'm ignoring any responses. kmccoy (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

File:WW2 Online He111 bombing mission.jpg[edit]

Hello. I am still trying to grasp the reasons for deleting this image. It is unique and informational to the article. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You might be interested in WP:NFCC. The idea is that we really shouldn't be using unfree images (which this one is) to decorate articles on Wikipedia (notice that it's called "The Free Encyclopedia" in the logo.) They should be used only in exceptional situations. Let me know if you have any questions. kmccoy (talk) 06:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I do grasp the idea of *limiting* unfree images, since there are many instances where there is no choice toward illustrating the concept. CRS has openly allowed the use of that image, and the image clearly illustrates a few key features in the game not done so in other images. I also, with permissions from CRS, want to include it in other sections.
Let me ask this, what would CRS have to agree with or risk to allow a free image to be posted for use on Wiki? Could they grant me full authority/copyright on the image? I suppose it is yes, just want some insight. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The zen of warnings[edit]

You left this note for a user on October 24: "Other editors are not required to make edits that you say they must. Enough commenting on other editors. Make edits or don't. If people disagree with the edits, they are free to revert them. Do not continue making edits if they're being reverted..." Either it is Zen, or possibly Yoda. Hope you don't mind if I steal your idea. EdJohnston (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Haha! I'm flattered. :) kmccoy (talk) 05:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:In the news image[edit]


Firstly, I want to stress that I would not have placed the image back on the main page if these protests had been expressed at that point. (I attempted to provide a sufficient opportunity, but the users in question must not have been aware of the discussion until they saw the image.) I would have self-reverted (as I did in the first place) if I had seen those posts prior to your removal of the image.

Secondly, please keep in mind that one always should verify that an image file still exists and remains protected before reverting to a revision of a main page template that includes it. (Temporarily cropped images are routinely deleted when they leave the main page, and all images are routinely unprotected at that point.)

If you want to revert to a previous image and find that it no longer exists (provided that it wasn't deleted because of a copyright violation), please simply restore and protect it (as I did) instead of removing it completely.

Thank you, and sorry about the confusion! —David Levy 00:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop[edit]

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for topic "List of SIP development tools"[edit]

12:44, 23 October 2009 Kmccoy (talk | contribs) deleted "List of SIP development tools" ‎ (A3: Article that has no meaningful, substantive content: Simply a collection of external links.)

Mr. Kmccoy, this article (List of SIP development tools) you deleted is extremely useful to me. I know others use is as a reference for the most common protocol used in the Voice-over-IP industry for Internet phones and the like. This page was probably the most useful link in the SIP article for programmers such as me. Please consider adding it back to Wikipedia. If you cannot, then I would appreciate if you could send me a copy (which I currently do not have) so I can post it to a another web site. I had no idea it would suddenly disappear. I would be glad to pay for any expense in relaying it to me. I am not the author nor a contributor to the topic.

 Best Regards,  Telecommuser1 (talk) 09:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)



Kwsn (Ni!) 01:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Nintendo DS homebrew[edit]


I'm coming from Wikipedia FR. I seen that List of Nintendo DS homebrew has been deleted. Probably it was because its a bunch of links redirecting to softwares websites, but it was not only that and very usefull. I was working on it in my wikipedia's laboratory couple times ago for Wikipedia FR and found it interesting. Did you think we can made a book in Wikibooks of that article previously deleted ?

Thanks ! Vortesteur (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Stagecraft Newsletter[edit]

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Stagecraft at 13:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC).

Your OTRS activities on Wikimedia Commons[edit]

Just wanted to let you know that I mention you in this thread on WP:BLPN. I'm not very familiar with how OTRS works, but it appears that you verified the OTRS permission for a couple of videos uploaded by User:Cirt in 2009 yet you weren't given OTRS rights until August 2010. I'm sure there is nothing untoward, but it is confusing. Can you explain? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not in OTRS anymore, my real life duties prevent me from really participating in Wikipedia at all. I don't remember specifically my actions there, but I don't see that as being a conflict, as once you get OTRS permission you can view previous OTRS correspondence, I would imagine that I simply was clearing out a queue somewhere. kmccoy (talk) 07:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

This message is being sent to you because you have previously edited the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) page. There is currently a discussion that may result in a significant change to Wikipedia policy. Specifically, a consensus is being sought on if the policies of WP:UCN and WP:EN continues to be working policies for naming biographical articles, or if such policies have been replaced by a new status quo. This discussion is on-going at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), and your comments would be appreciated. Dolovis (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)



Kwsn (Ni!) 21:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, Kmccoy. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins[edit]


Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers[edit]

Hi Kmccoy.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Kmccoy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Kmccoy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Admin mop.PNG Administrator changes

Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirateSchwede66K6kaEaldgythFerretCyberpower678Mz7PrimefacDodger67
Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg BriangottsJeremyABU Rob13

Green check.svg Guideline and policy news

Octicons-tools.svg Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Scale of justice 2.svg Arbitration

Nuvola apps knewsticker.png Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Admin mop.PNG Administrator changes

Gnome-colors-list-add.svg AmortiasDeckillerBU Rob13
Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg RonnotelIslanderChamal NIsomorphicKeeper76Lord VoldemortSherethBdeshamPjacobi

Green check.svg Guideline and policy news

Octicons-tools.svg Technical news

  • A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
  • Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
  • A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

added TheDJ
removed XnualaCJOldelpasoBerean HunterJimbo WalesAndrew cKaranacsModemacScott

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
  • The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
  • An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
  • After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

  • After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
  • Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).


Administrator changes

added KaranacsBerean HunterGoldenRingDlohcierekim
removed GdrTyreniusJYolkowskiLonghairMaster Thief GarrettAaron BrennemanLaser brainJzGDragons flight

Guideline and policy news

Technical news


  • Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017[edit]


News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes

added Doug BellDennis BrownClpo13ONUnicorn
removed ThaddeusBYandmanBjarki SOldakQuillShyamJondelWorm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017[edit]


News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

added Happyme22Dragons flight
removed Zad68

Guideline and policy news

Technical news


  • A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
  • A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
  • Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)