Jump to content

Stewards/Confirm/2025/JJMC89

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

JJMC89

[edit]

logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

English:
  • Languages: en-N
  • Personal info: I am seeking confirmation for my second term. Since being elected last year, I performed ~9,000 publicly logged Steward actions, performed ~750 checks on loginwiki, closed ~1,200 Steward VRT tickets (excluding a mountain of spam/junk), and closed many global UTRS appeals. I have routinely provided feedback to the WMF on projects that (may) impact Steward tools/work.
    I expect my activity to be similar over the next year. I will continue to be available on IRC and, if really necessary, Discord.
বাংলা:
  • ভাষা:
  • ব্যক্তিগত তথ্যাদি: translation needed
Deutsch:
  • Sprachen:
  • Informationen zur Person: translation needed
español:
  • Idiomas:
  • Información personal: translation needed
magyar:
  • Nyelvek:
  • Személyes információk: translation needed
italiano:
  • Lingue:
  • Informazioni personali: translation needed
Nederlands:
  • Taalvaardigheid:
  • Persoonlijke informatie: translation needed
русский:
  • Языки:
  • Личная информация: translation needed
Tiếng Việt:
  • Ngôn ngữ:
  • Thông tin cá nhân: translation needed
中文（简体）:
  • 可说语言:
  • 个人资料: translation needed
中文（繁體）:
  • 可說語言:
  • 個人資料: translation needed

Comments about JJMC89

[edit]
  • Keep Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]
  • Question Question: Your handling of the recent Feeglgeef case on Wikifunctions was quite frankly, poor, including 1 block that you are clearly not permitted to make (Special:Redirect/logid/58453510) as per Meta:Meta–steward relationship and rejecting a resignation (which stewards cannot really do...which in turn resulted in the ex-admin turning abusive). How do you think you'll address such situations going forward without a "my way or the highway" approach? //shb (t • c) 14:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep - XXBlackburnXx (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak keep --V0lkanic (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep On SHB's note I've also noticed similar stuff from JJ which could seem like overriding or reversing other stewards' actions. One of the cases that I am the most disappointed about was the Seckends case. I initially locked the account for lock evasion, but some time later when they appealed their lock JJ unlocked - not because of the appeal but because I had provided "no clarification of lock evasion" in the lock summary. After I responded in the VRT ticket for clarification JJ still refused to re-lock. Granted, I should have provided information in the lock summary about who the "evader" was, but in situations like this I find it better to leave the user in question a note to clarify (such as this), before taking action, because communication is important, especially as a steward. However, I am still leaving a keep comment, as I find them active enough and they've been especially helpful for stuff like VRT/UTRS and as a checkuser-l list owner. EPIC (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep JrandWP (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep Not familiar with the whole situation so may change my !vote later if more comes up. I personally don't have too much of an issue with the partial block because it's exclusively on a steward page, and if someone is being uncivil on a steward page, I don't see why the stewards can't deal with it directly. --Ferien (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --Jan Myšák (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep per Ferien. Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep —Aopou {talk} 20:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep Hey man im josh (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak keep --TenWhile6 22:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep Miniapolis 00:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep. Codename Noreste (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep HouseBlaster (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep Ternera (talk) 03:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep I don't believe that 'things turning abusive' was a result of JJMC89's actions, as the relevant user's behavior around January 9th, both on- and off-wiki, was generally erratic even before the SRP request. Mahir256 (talk) 05:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It was very much a case of an everyone sucks here situation, but the drama could have ended a day earlier had JJMC simply processed the resignation. The only reason why I have such an erratic block log on Wikifunctions is because of JJMC. //shb (t • c) 11:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --Lookruk 💬 (Talk) 09:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few things that cause me concern.
    • Firstly, in November, JJMC89 (who is not an Oversighter on the English Wikipedia) appears to have questioned an enwiki Oversighter on her public user talk page about a suppression action she took on that wiki. Due to the inherently non-public nature of suppressions, it feels iffy at best for a discussion about them to be held in public view; and the English Wikipedia's Oversight policy specifically states that [c]omplaints or inquiries about potential misuse of the oversighter user permissions should be referred to the Arbitration Committee. In addition, JJMC89 mentioned that he looked at the [enwiki suppression] log to know who to ask about reversing the suppression, but I don't understand why he did that instead of emailing the enwiki ArbCom, as the local policy says should be done with misuse enquiries.
    • Secondly, although I had noticed the Feeglgeef case mentioned by SHB2000 above, I was not previously aware of the block made on Meta-Wiki.
    • Thirdly, I have concerns regarding JJMC89's actions in security Phabricator tickets (which, if I understand correctly, he has access to in his role as a Steward). To my memory, I have had direct interactions with him in three security tasks, and all have been (in my opinion) less than ideal at the least:
      • in phab:T381442, he made several comments which (in my opinion) represent a lack of security consideration of the issue at hand;
      • in phab:T223501, he appears to have unilaterally closed as invalid a security issue that had been open for several years & had been reported by at least three separate people (including myself), with a closing summary that again (in my opinion) represents a less than full consideration of the matter at hand; and
      • in phab:T385792, he has made a comment which I believe does not show a full consideration of the situation from a security point of view.
      In my opinion, these comments matter, if for no other reason than because comments such as these in a security task may be some of the first responses that someone reporting a MediaWiki/Wikimedia security issue receives. Speaking personally, I remember it feeling quite exhausting in phab:T381442, when I felt that - in response to his comment - I had to further justify why the issue I'd reported was a valid security matter/one that needed action at all.
      I'm aware that these tasks won't be accessible to a majority of people reading this, for which I apologise; however, I'm raising them here as I feel that they are relevant to JJMC89's stewardship.
    Because of these, I am currently leaning remove, although I note that I am obviously personally involved with the Phabricator tickets I have mentioned above. ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 10:57, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Now to be fair with the Feeglgeef case, I did end up indeffing them based on further disruption, but IMO the nature of the initial block is very much that should be left to admins here as per Meta:Meta–steward relationship. Incivility blocks on steward-specific pages is not listed as an exception. //shb (t • c) 11:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Neutral while I await candidate responses and consider other comments. While I commend JJMC89's dedication to the role, high activity is not a significantly important quality in stewards. Steward is an important role and not everybody is suited to it. I have concerns about JJMC89 as a steward, based on my observations the past year.
    • There is a communication style, a sort of "I'm going to do this, without warning or explanation" approach, that has caused issues.
    • There's also an inflexibility or reluctance to change position, listen, or engage with others.
    • There is also a tone issue: while everyone has their own style, JJMC89 often signals opposition without really explaining why or proposing a solution, which is subtly pernicious in an online community.
    Our steward elections do not effectively detect these kind of behaviours, because they manifest only once the user has the flag and starts interacting with others. But the behaviours have manifested this year and it is important to address them. --arcticocean ■ 12:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding Arcticocean's comments, my feeling is that they're just being direct, and (as I noted when I voted on them in the SE2024 elections) some of their "rude-looking" actions have a sensible reason behind them, such as rejecting SRG requests with little to no context. That being said:
    • the incident that EPIC raised was not good. Even if EPIC technically made a mistake, you (JJMC89) should have checked with them. It's not like EPIC is inactive.
    • regarding the Feelgeef case, I can give slack to you for it. Refusing the resignation is OK, because the OP was making a mess of the whole situation and it's the OP's fault that the situation went out of control. As stewards cannot re-restore the rights once removed, asking them to be certain is reasonable. The block on the other hand was outside MSR but can be condoned in this instance.
    • The en.wiki oversight case was weird to see and while I do not consider JJMC89's explanation unreasonable and they didn't divulge anything that they shouldn't, it was outside of the rules.
    • I don't know what's in the phab tickets, so cannot comment there.
Pinging @JJMC89: to give a response, which I expect from someone being reconfirmed as a steward. Leaderboard (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stewards/Confirm/2025/JJMC89&oldid=28229272"