User talk:Kmccoy

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

<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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

I saw what you're talking about. Hopefully that situation will resolve itself. kmccoy (talk) 11:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[1] Viriditas (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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?

Xdamr^talk 18:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now indef blocked by another admin. --Xdamr^talk 18:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

I thought I had explained it pretty clearly. What part did you disagree with? kmccoy (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Hello!

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply] 

Kmccoy

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

Hello

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)[reply]

The WikiProject Stagecraft Newsletter (October 2010)

The WikiProject Stagecraft Newsletter! Issue 1 - July, 2010 Hello and welcome to this, the first ever edition of the WikiProject Stagecraft Newsletter! If you haven't been over to the WikiProject page lately then you're missing out - the whole thing has undergone a complete makeover - see below for more info! On top of this, we have brand spanking new templates (such as this one) and a completely revamped Collaboration of the Month - again, see below for more info on all of this. Finally, a warning - the new-look WikiProject is still having the finishing touches put on it. If you find something that doesn't work, you don't agree with or is just plain missing, please don't hesitate to let us know on the WikiProject's talk page. We'll try our very best to fix ASAP! New Look As mentioned above, the WikiProject has recently undergone a spring-clean and we're excited about it! If you don't mind - we'd like to take this opportunity to explain some of the features and generally show off about it a little. Colour scheme All pages on the WikiProject now use two consistent shades of blue as part of the new streamlined interface (Those techies amongst us may wish to know that the precise names of the colours we use are: "lightblue" for headings and "#c0e0e0" for backgrounds). Navigation Menu Every page on the WikiProject now has the official WikiProject navigation menu so you can easily flick between pages and get back to the main project page. Say goodbye to clicking the back button several times! To Do list/Open Tasks If you're stuck on what to do to help us then a list of the most important tasks is now available on the main page. At the moment, the list is looking a little short so if you have found something that you think ought to be added, then feel free to edit the list and let us know. Please refrain from linking to a specific article that generally needs an overall update. Single articles like this should be nominated for a future Collaboration of The Month - see below. Templates All of the project's templates are now arranged in one handy page. Whilst we were going through we also noticed one was missing. We have now added the new template in the form of: {{WPStagecraftWelcome}} - a welcome tag to be placed on the talk page of a new user. {{WPStagecraft Newsletter}} - the template containing the latest edition of the WikiProject Newsletter (you're looking at it now!) Collaboration of the Month Ok, so this isn't exactly a new feature. It's always been there but has never really been updated on a, ahem, monthly basis. The Collaboration of the Month (COTM) is now in template form to enable it to be streamlined across the Project, without having to be manually updated on each page. Don't worry if we've lost you at this point - the point is, it works! You can now nominate an article for COTM on the COTM page. The more sharp-eyed amongst you may well have noticed that the COTM at the moment is still that old fella, Stage lighting. That's because no-one has nominated a COTM for this month (being a new feature an' all...) so we've decided to leave it as it is for this month until a new one has been democratically voted for. And finally... Thanks very much for reading down this far - hopefully future newsletters won't be this long! Please, if you can, invite new members and drop us a line over at the talk page to let us know what you think of the new look/newsletter and any suggestions you may have. You have received this newsletter because your name is on the list of Participants on the WikiProject page. If (like most of the old WikiProject) this information is out of date and you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name from the Participants list and also click here to stop receiving the newsletter. To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know here. To view previous editions of the newsletter, click here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let us know on the talk page.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Kmccoy

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

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)[reply]

Hi,
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)[reply]

Hello,

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

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.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

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)

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

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13

Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

• A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
• AfDs that receive little participation should now be closed like an expired proposed deletion, following a deletion process RfC.
• Defender, HakanIST, Matiia and Sjoerddebruin are our newest stewards, following the 2017 steward elections.
• The 2017 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Góngora, Krd, Lankiveil, Richwales and Vogone. They will serve for approximately 1 year.

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.

---

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

Administrator changes

TheDJ

Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

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.

---

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

Administrator changes

Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim

Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
• Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.

Technical news

• You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
• There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
• Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. (discuss, permalink)

Miscellaneous

• 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.

---

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

Administrator changes

Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn

ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
• Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
• An RfC regarding the bot policy has closed with changes to the section describing restrictions on cosmetic changes.

Technical news

• Users will soon be able to blacklist specific users from sending them notifications.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2017 elections, the new members of the Board of Trustees include Raystorm, Pundit and Doc James. They will serve three-year terms.

---

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

Administrator changes

Happyme22 • Dragons flight

Zad68

Guideline and policy news

• The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.

Technical news

• Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
• A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

Miscellaneous

• 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.

---

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

Administrator changes

Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 ^{(first RfA to reach WP:300)}

Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

• Following a series of discussions around new pages patrol, the WMF is helping implement a controlled autoconfirmed article creation trial as a research experiment, similar to the one proposed in 2011. You can learn more about the research plan at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined.
• A new speedy deletion criterion, regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed (permalink).
• An RfC (permalink) is currently open that proposes expanding WP:G13 to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through Articles for Creation.

Technical news

• LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
• The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.

---

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

Administrator changes

Nakon • Scott

Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

• ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
• Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.

Technical news

• You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
• Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
• In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

• Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

---

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

Administrator changes

Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem

Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
• Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.

Technical news

• You can now search for IP ranges at Special:Contributions. Some log pages and Special:DeletedContributions are not yet supported. Wildcards (e.g. 192.168.0.*) are also not supported, but the popular contribsrange gadget will continue to work.

Arbitration

• Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
• A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

---

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

Administrator changes

Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is creating an "Interaction Timeline" tool that intends to assist administrators in resolving user conduct disputes. Feedback on the concept may be posted on the talk page.
• A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
• Following a request for comment, Ritchie333, Yunshui and Ymblanter will serve as the Electoral Commission for the 2017 ArbCom Elections.

Obituaries

• The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.

---

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

Administrator changes

Joe Roe

JzG

Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

• Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
• A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is open until Sunday 23:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC). There are 12 candidates running for 8 vacant seats.

Miscellaneous

• Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
• The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.

---

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

Administrator changes

Muboshgu

Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned

None

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

• The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
• The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.

Arbitration

• Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Alex Shih, BU Rob13, Callanecc, KrakatoaKatie, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
• Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

• A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardized editnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).

Administrator changes

Lourdes†

AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V

† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

• The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
• Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
• A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
• A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

• CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
• The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2018 Steward elections, the following users are our new stewards: -revi, Green Giant, Rxy, There'sNoTime, علاء.

Obituaries

• Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).

Administrator changes

331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG

Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news

• Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
• Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
• The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
• The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news

• There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous

• A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
• The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news

• The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
• A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

• AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
• When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
• The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
• There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee is seeking additional clerks to help with the arbitration process.

Obituaries

• Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
• Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.

Technical news

• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
• There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
• It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

• A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

• In early May, an unusually high level of failed login attempts was observed. The WMF has stated that this was an "external effort to gain unauthorized access to random accounts". Under Wikipedia policy, administrators are required to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018).

Administrator changes

Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor

Gogo Dodo

Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
• A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

• Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
• Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

Miscellaneous

• Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018).

Administrator changes

Sro23

KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
• Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news

• The WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input on the second set of wireframes for the Special:Block redesign that will introduce partial blocks. The new functionality will allow you to block a user from editing a specific set of pages, pages in a category, a namespace, and for specific actions such as moving pages and uploading files.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz

Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux

Guideline and policy news

• Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

• Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
• Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
• Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).

Administrator changes

Justlettersandnumbers • L235

Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter

Interface administrator changes

Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333

Oversight changes

Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the process for appointing interface administrators has been established. Currently only existing admins can request these rights, while a new RfC has begun on whether it should be available to non-admins.
• There is an open request for comment on Meta regarding the creation a new user group for global edit filter management.

Technical news

• Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
• The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
• Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
• The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
• Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Commit