Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kmccoy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kmccoy[edit]

final (48/2/5) ending 22:37 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Kmccoy has been a Wikipedian since June 2004. Since then he's done a great deal of work tracking down and handling copyright violations on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images and I believe he ought to have the delete button to finish the process. All my interactions with him have shown him to be intelligent, trustworthy, and committed to doing the right thing, and therefore suited for adminship. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thanks, Mindspillage. :) kmccoy (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support as nominator, of course. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support without a doubt! -- Joolz 22:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. YUO RABID DELETIONISTS WILL DISTORY WIKIPODIA AND ... er, fine by me - David Gerard 22:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 23:07, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  5. YMHWOA? Support! Kelly Martin 23:54, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support always assumed he was already an admin since he has been an amazing editor and more than deserves and needs the extra tools that come with adminship. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:56, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support "thought $user already was an admin" – ABCD✉ 00:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Support OI! You've been reading RFA Talk, haven't you? You mean you haven't? Oh in that case, um, anyway, you got an automatic pass from me, see if you can detective out why on your own! Have a nice day! :-) Kim Bruning 00:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Yes, absolutely. Func( t, c ) 00:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. We need more admins to Exterminate! the vandals. --Cool Cat My Talk 01:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Evil Monkey∴Hello 01:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, anyone who's involved in wading through copyright mess gets my vote.--nixie 01:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Great editor. --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 02:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Great contributor, especially dealing with Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Snowspinner 02:20, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  16. All glory to the IRC cabal. --Golbez 03:47, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support Falls into the "thought he was already" category. Dan100 (Talk) 17:02, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support. Thunderbrand 00:49, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  19. 'Support per nominator. ∞Who?¿? 05:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support per nominator.-Poli (talk • contribs) 06:17, 2005 July 28 (UTC)
  21. Cool. JuntungWu 12:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. - Gblaz 15:23, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  23. Of course. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 18:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Glorious eggplant support. Without question. An utterly sensible and highly valuable contributor, as well as a sensible and rational mind (an increasing rarity these days). -- Seth Ilys 23:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Extreme lesbian support Until I saw this RFA the other day, i thought he was an admin! Anyway, would make a nice specimen for our collection! --Phroziac (talk) 01:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Thought he was one. --User:Merovingian (t) (c) 04:38, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support I don't really know this guy, but based on the glowing supports others made, I guess, why the fuck not. 69.57.154.67 05:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Sheep voting, eh? Ryan 05:04, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support, for the comment below questions if for nothing else. — David Remahl 06:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Adminship should be no big deal, but even if it was he still more than deserves it. the wub "?/!" 13:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Unconditional support.  Denelson83  15:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Kmccoy is a responsible and sensible participant and Wikipedia would be well served by enabling his participation as much as possible. Gmaxwell 17:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support, excellent contributor. Hall Monitor 21:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support, Has brain. Have interacted. Trust him to respond to mistakes.--Tznkai 18:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC) I am invalidating all of my votes. See my user page for the reasons.--Tznkai 07:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support, responsible, sensible edits. Also, great work in achieving consensus in many articles. --Ragib 19:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support! -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 20:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Frog. Hedley 01:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  37. That's lukewarm...lukewarm enough for me to support. Mike H (Talking is hot) 02:05, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  38. Support wholeheartedly. (and particularly so for ignoring the useless questions template). Ambi 08:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Enthusiastic and helpful. Safe bet that he will be an excellent admin and bring honor to the mop. Fernando Rizo T/C 09:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Strong support. Absolutely! He's done great work at WP:PUI and most of the time I feel I'm the only admin cleaning the thing up. Vive la delete button and I'm sure Kmccoy will put it to good use :-) Craigy (talk) 11:15, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  41. Support Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, absolutely without reservation. An first-class Wikipedian, both on the wiki and on IRC; a friendly and helpful individual, who is prepared to discuss matters of contention amicably and politely (most notably with myself and Snowspinner over IRC channel policies), which is an increasingly rare quality. Has a good, logical mind, which is something that is always desirable for an admin. I look forward to seeing this user in action as an admin. --NicholasTurnbull 17:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Yeah. JFW | T@lk 20:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:22, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  45. Support- Meticulous image copyright checker.--Jondel 01:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support- Reasons as above. Wikipedia needs this sort of attention to our copyright issues. Recall good interactions, also. Schissel : bowl listen 13:49, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  47. Support. Valuable work on copyright issues, no indication admin powers will be abused. Jayjg (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - very friendly, very helpful; excellent admin material. Rob Church 21:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. very weak oppose. I have only recently had any interatcion with Kmccoy, and that isn't enough for me to form a reliable opinion either way, so normally I wouldn't vote. However, the answers to the questions trouble me slightly - not because I disagree that adminship should be a big deal, but because imho a major qualification for being an admin is about how you deal with your mistakes, because everybody makes them. The key things are that you should be prepared to admit to your mistakes, and be prepared to explain them if this would help, but moreso you should be able to learn from your mistakes. While I see from the contribution history that Kmccoy isn't a vandal, the answers don't give me the feeling that they will be prepared to explain and justify their admin actions and to accept they could have handled something in a different way if the situation doesn't work out how they expected. I will consider changing this vote if the response gives me a better feeling. Thryduulf 13:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Seems like a great contributor, but refusal to answer the questions leaves me uncomfortable. Andre (talk) 18:32, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
    Well, he has answered the questions , in a way, hasn't he? I liked his answer very much in fact. :-) Kim Bruning 21:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. I was going to support, but Snowspinner removed his IRC ops, suspecting him of being a Scientologist, and thus I can't in my right mind support. --SPUI (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Explain this further. Everyking 20:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the sequence of events, as I remember them: Someone (possibly Snowspinner, not sure) kickbanned and then unbanned soon after (long enough for the autorejoin to fail) a user who had been lurking and was suspected of being a Scientologist logging the channel, and was apparently in the same IP range as Scientologists. (It turned out to be a newbie who was puzzled at being kicked.) Kmccoy argued that this was rather over the top, and said that he could send the Scientologists logs and nothing could be done about it. Snowspinner then removed his channel op priveleges. --SPUI (talk) 07:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    SPUI, I'm terribly sorry, but I'm afraid you got the whole IRC thing the wrong way round. It was I, not Snowspinner, who kick-ban-unbanned the user; it wasn't particularly that we thought he was a Scientologist, but more that the user had been logged on for something like 75 hours without any activity, and had an auto-rejoin on, so we assumed that the user may have been a logger and kick-ban-unbanned the user just so that the user is no longer on channel (not denying channel access, or performing any kind of disciplinary procedure - after all, it is meant to be a channel for chatting). As you rightly pointed out, the user was a newbie, and I apologised to said user and explained the situation. Kmccoy was upset about the fact that I'd kicked a perfectly innocent user off the channel, and said that he might as well send logs to anyone who might wish to collect them (using the Church of Scientology as an example, as we've been having some trouble with CoS-related personnel lately). Snowspinner only removed Kmccoy's ops for about 15 minutes just to prove his point; he gave them back afterwards, and didn't mean any harm by doing so. The ultimate irony of the scenario is, after all, the fact that I am a Scientologist. --NicholasTurnbull 17:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. That is a silly reason for withdrawing support… — David Remahl 07:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    That is really bizarre. But it only speaks ill of Snowspinner; it doesn't say anything bad about Kmccoy. Even if he is a Scientologist, that's his own business. In fact, that he would argue with Snowspinner actually makes me think he'd be more suitable for adminship, not less, because most people wouldn't have the guts. So I'm not sure whether or not your vote is supposed to be tongue in cheek. Everyking 09:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Good editor, but I find his answer to the questions for the candidate slightly demagogue. --Sn0wflake 15:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral I'm with Sn0wflake on this one. In the question section, you said you had some "bad edits." What exactly is a bad edit? Did you break the 3RR rule? Or does it mean something else? Please clarify. I really don't have much against you, so I will consider changing my vote to Support. Ryan 05:03, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
    My contributions are there for you to peruse, if you'd like. My point in saying what I said is just that I'm not interested in trying to justify why I should be an admin by listing specific edits, nor am I suggesting that all of my edits are what everyone would consider "good". But being an admin shouldn't be such a big deal as it's become, and it shouldn't matter if I've broken the 3RR rule or if some of my edits have been "bad", like reverting in an edit war or something. What should matter is A) if I am here on Wikipedia to improve it or to vandalize it, and B) if I am likely to abuse the admin commands. That's a judgement you have to make for yourself. Thanks. :) kmccoy (talk) 06:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I will stick with Neutral. It's not like one vote will change much. You appear to have this in the bag. I hate to say this, but you didn't answer my question at all. Ryan 07:55, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Refusal to answer the standard questions rubs me quite the wrong way. I'm sure you're a good user, but I think that some respect for the traditions/standards is needed, even if you think it's silly. I won't oppose, but I can't support, either. humblefool® 15:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just as edit counting wasn't always the primary basis for adminship judgements, there was a time when there were no "standard questions". Sometimes a user would ask a question that was needed to clarify something. Then one day (probably about a year ago) someone thought to copy the list of questions from the last adminship nomination. All of a sudden they were the "standard" questions that everyone "had" to answer, even though they very seldom produced anything actionable. — David Remahl 05:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the questions did not benefit the process, they would have not become the standard, I think. And at one point or another, nothing was a standard, everything has to come from somewhere. If I remember well, all users had sysop rights in the beginning, but that changed when RfA was introduced. So, should users just be promoted arbitrarily from now on? Because RfA was an idea which was clearly "imposed" upon us, wasn't it. I'm not criticising, but I find the basis for your defence a little shaky. --Sn0wflake 15:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're free to base your decision on whatever. And Kmccoy is free to what sie likes. I vote in support because he apparently has a pragmatic wiki-outlook and dares to challenge "established" "standards". The wiki's tendency to get more and more caught-up into bureaucracy, formal policies and "standards" frightens me personally. RfA is a long-standing institution contributing to this. — David Remahl 16:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • A pseudo-anarchical structure couldn't possibly work well when applied to the modern Wikipedia, which is much, much larger than it was on the "ignore all rules" days. If we don't stick firmly to some rules, the project is likely to start falling apart. I am speaking on a broader scope, of course. By no means I am implying that this is an attempt at making a point experimentally or anyhting, hence I still stand on neutrality. I'm merely commenting. --Sn0wflake 16:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Despite your claims, wikipedia still exists and works fine. :-) Kim Bruning 16:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • I do not truly understand to which of my comments you are opposing... --Sn0wflake 17:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • The part where you said it couldn't possibly work ;-) Kim Bruning 17:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Ah, indeed. Excuse my pessimism regarding the subject, but I simply don't believe on the existence of the concept of society, as we know it, without rules. Not that I like most of them, but they are needed, at times. --Sn0wflake 17:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • You stick to your rules and I'll stick to mine. As pointed out, Wikipedia works pretty well on largely-anarchical principles (or, a balance or terror, whichever you prefer :-)). Sorry, we have hijacked this RfA enough now. — David Remahl 19:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think discussions like this are great. :) kmccoy (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 1300 edits in one year's time doesn't sound a little low to anyone? -- BRIAN0918  22:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If an article you have edited gets deleted, your contributions get deleted along with it. According to the statement at the top Kmccoy does a lot of tagging of copyvios; most of which will get deleted, similarly for those tagging speedy deletes on RC patrol. I doubt if this would add 1000 extra edits to the total, but over a year I suppose it is possible (I know of no way to check). Thryduulf 22:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I do believe this user is more than qualified to be an admin. --Cool Cat My Talk 01:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
I don't think adminship should be as big of a deal as it sometimes seems to have become. Candidates shouldn't need to submit a resume/CV in order to get a few extra commands, nor should they need to campaign. I think anyone who's been here a while who hasn't vandalized should be given the commands we call "admin powers". Of course, there should also be a better system for removing them in case of abuse. Anyway, I am who I am and I've had good edits and bad edits. But what's important is that I'm obviously a contributor -- not a vandal.  :) kmccoy (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kmccoy&oldid=1138650905"