Stewards/Confirm/2025/JJMC89: Difference between revisions

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

• 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 ]

  Given the lack of a response and JJMC having been active on-wiki since 14:06, Feb 6 (see w:en:Special:Diff/1274363337, made on 23:00 UTC the same day), I am voting a Remove strong remove. JJMC's unwillingness to handle criticism, poor attempts of collaboration, poor communication, the enwiki OS issue, the Feeglgeef case, and going by a smart kitten's comment, the phab cases, the number of controversies is far too many for someone's first year as a steward. //shb (t • c) 22:40, 8 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 ]
• (削除) {{k}} (削除ここまで) 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 ]

  Neutral Neutral For now pending response to questions and the criticism here. As a fellow steward myself, I can confirm I've experienced similar stuff from my side, both the "my way or the highway" approach and their communication style, even with other stewards. With all that combined with the stuff that's come up here as well which I was previously unaware of, I would want to see an explanation. However, this is more of a conditional neutral pending a response - I'm willing to switch to keep should they explain this well. EPIC (talk) 13:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep Keep JrandWP (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• (削除) Keep Keep Not familiar with the whole situation (削除ここまで) 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 ]

  Yeah, I've just familiarised myself with the situation. Remove Remove, and a strong one at that. No thanks. The discussion is at Steward requests/Permissions/2025-01#Feeglgeef@wikifunctionswiki 3 for those interested in it. On this discussion, JJMC89 is virtually unresponsive to all criticism, while an admin is literally vandalising the site. JJMC89 then says that their resignation is conditional, even though he had been repeatedly reverting the admin's attempt to make the resignation unconditional! The logic of "let's not process this resignation even though they're being uncivil to me" is broken and the behaviour is appalling for a steward. The prying through oversight logs in enwiki and the following open criticism of an oversight action when he is not even an oversighter (linked below by A smart kitten) is very poor too. I don't want to endorse this sort of behaviour for a second term. --Ferien (talk) 13:40, 8 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 Mini apolis 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 ]

  Comment Comment: Based on my experience, in practice questions about individual suppressions are just sent to the Oversight team or individual Oversighters instead of escalating to the Arbitration Committee immediately. The Oversight team generally has strong internal checks and balances, so queries sent to the Arbitration Committee are usually complaints of systematic abuse by an Oversighter instead of "can this suppression be undone?". Sdrqaz (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  I reviewed the linked Phabricator tasks and they seem to be reasonable technical disagreement to me. I understand you have a different perspective than JJMC89, and given all three tasks are interrelated, it's spread out across multiple tickets, but if this were just a discussion about access to security bugs, I wouldn't be advocating for removal based on those three links. Legoktm (talk) 05:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  @Legoktm: Thanks for taking a look at them -- I appreciate your reply & hearing your perspective.
  Like I say, I appreciate that I am personally involved with the tickets; however (for one of the examples), as my reply in T381442 may indicate, I think I felt quite shocked reading the comment JJMC89 left in that task saying that nothing should happen. To probably put it somewhat bluntly, I just couldn't really imagine how something that allows you to do what's described in that task's title & description could be thought to be an acceptable situation security-wise. That being said, I do note what you have said & I take it on board.
  In addition, the way in which T223501 was closed as invalid (without, e.g., a comment suggesting the action and asking for other opinions beforehand, in a ticket with the characteristics this one has) strikes me as a potential example of the inflexibility mentioned by arcticocean below.
  In terms of interrelatedness, I view the first and third as being more related than the second, which (trying here to intentionally word things as vaguely as possible!) I suppose could be said to be related in that it relates to the same underlying component, but to be honest I wouldn't have previously said that the second task was related to the others if I'd been asked.
  Thank you again for taking a look at the tickets - I appreciate you taking the time to do so. /gen ‍—‍a smart kitten _[meow] 14:05, 8 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 ■しかく 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 ]

  @Ferien's comment made me investigate this case a bit further. This revert is very weird and inappropriate to see, because you're reverting a steward? Why? It's not particularly uncommon for another steward to "take over" a pending case, even when you've previously declined it. I didn't also realise that Feelgeef was changing his own comment (he did make a mistake by not striking, but you could have checked with him). This needs a response from you or I'll oppose confirmation. Leaderboard (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun} 16:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• I didn't support the candidacy in the first place mostly because of a gut feeling and would rather Remove Remove based on the concerns others have voiced. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep- Hasan (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• On the enwiki OS thing, I was aware of this at the time it was happening and was mildly surprised to discover that I don't think JJMC did anything wrong. The global oversight policy says ""Stewards can see oversighted revisions on all wikis and can grant themselves active oversight rights in emergency cases or on wikis without local oversighters when there’s a valid request."" (emphasis added) so I think the global oversight policy does allow him to have viewed the information he viewed. I also don't think the homewiki Steward policy applies (there was no action or user right granting involved). I think enwiki could amend our local policy in a way that would suggest Stewards should not use this outside of their actions as stewards (language along the lines of use "only while acting as a steward") but that would be about the future and not what JJMC did which I think followed the policy (and not for nothing was substantively correct about). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Steward confirmation statements 2025