Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/JJMC89

This is an RfA talk page.

While voting and most discussion should occur on the main RfA page, sometimes discussions stray off-topic or otherwise clutter that page. The RfA talk page serves to unclutter the main RfA page by hosting discussions that are not related to the candidacy.

Please remain calm and civil in discussions on both pages, avoiding personal attacks and harassment. Uninvolved administrators can still fully intervene in RfAs.
Discussions should stay on-topic; consider moving or continuing discussions that are going off-topic elsewhere.
Move discussions not germane to the candidacy here, then link them with {{subst:rfan|dm|name of section header}}, indented to the original vote. Be conservative in using the template; obvious trolls and disruptive participants need not be noticed.
Otherwise, avoid starting discussions here if they would be of interest to RfA participants and can fit on the main RfA page; generally, discussions should begin at the "General comments" section or as an indented reply to a vote.

Topicon (Q13)

Hi Dolotta, hovering with the mouse over the icon shows the text "This user is not an admin". This seems to be correct. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JC7V7DC5768's oppose discussion

Oppose Per above and ~~WP:TOOSOON~~ JC7V (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
JJMC89 also is a bit too overzealous at times which further clarifies my oppose. I just don't feel comfortable granting them the bit. And for the people who want to hound me, find something better to do with your time. JC7V (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
JJMC89 is not ready to be an admin based on being overzealous not because they of tenure. Just two months ago, JJMC89 reverted some of Fraeye's AFC accepts back to draft, without disucssing it first and without leaving a note on the talk page of the editors whose drafts they were unaccepting. This is WP:BITE and not something we should see in an admin. I've seen a trend in RFAs where the opposers are badgered, even respected admins get badgered sometimes if they oppose (see Sir Sputnik's rfa). JC7V (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Frayae (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is a sock of the de facto globally banned user and global lock on site LTA. A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). TonyBallioni (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know its good, but JJMC89 didn't tell the user whose articles he was sending back to draft "hey I am UNaccepting your draft because the user who accepted your draft was a banned troll". If JJMC89 left messages like that to the users that would be great. JJMC89 could have left a note on the AFC talk page saying he was going to do this first. That and the stuff above is too much for me to not vote oppose. Nothing personal, and JJMC89 is generally a good editor. JC7V (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, policy allows for reverting socks like that, so there really wasn't much need to discuss. I agree notifying would have been ideal, but I also think that most of the users who submit things to AfC probably wouldn't have noticed the change which is why practically, I don't think it is that big a deal. BITE is great and all, but we have to ask ourselves what the new editors actually thought rather than "what is the worst possible scenario here that an admin candidate might have caused?" To be honest JJMC89 is quite likely the single most qualified person to go through RfA this whole year, and I personally don't like that the opposes (not just yours) are basically "Here is someone who used discretion as allowed by policy to do something different than I would do, so I don't want them to be an admin." I don't think that's healthy for the project. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, in response to your edit summary of "reverting a sock of A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver is a good thing", as I said here, in the specific issue of AfC accepts I don't think it is a good thing to be reverting purely for being a sock (the creator of the draft is affected more than the sock, hence the BITE complaint from JC7V). But I found JJMC89's explanation regarding only reverting poor accepts reasonable (though at the same time reviewers disagree quite a lot on what should be accepted and I believe Frayae's accepts was within the lax end of the range). Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) People can disagree on that in good faith. I'm a bit more familiar with the Dysk MO than most, so I think mass reversions followed by selective restoration is the way to go on him for a few reasons that aren't particularly relevant to this RfA. I think my larger point is that mass reverts of AfC acceptance of an LTA who has been trolling us for over a year and where AfC is one of the areas they focus on is reasonable and within policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do think it would be warranted to at least leave a message on the talk pages of the users whose pages were moved back to draftspace after being accepted by the sock, explaining in a kind way why their pages have been turned back into a draft. Think about it; here you have new users who have no idea how Wikipedia works, make an article and are happy because it is now a "true" article and are notified on their talk page, but then it's suddenly a draft again and they have no idea how/why that happened. However, it's not a huge deal imo and that alone certainly wouldn't be a reason for me personally to oppose.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 19:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I get that point, but per my above comment, given the MO of the LTA involved, I think the return to draft space was more than justifiable. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely think the return to draftspace was justifiable, I never said that was an issue; I just think that it's important to remember that regardless of how malicious this LTA is, we are working with new users here who mostly know very little and are easily bitten, which is why I would think a talk page message would be helpful. Again though, I personally don't find this enough of a reason to oppose.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 19:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Wasn’t hounding, just asking for clarification since I was confused. Thank you for your response. Steel1943 (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean badger. Hounding is a serious accusation about harassment. Mkdw ^talk 18:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m confused: How does WP:TOOSOON apply to this nominee with over 116,000 edits? Steel1943 (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(I think you meant WP:NOTNOW, but I still don’t understand how that applies to the nominee either.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(@JC7V7DC5768: Meant to Ping you somewhere in there, but didn’t until now. Steel1943 (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2018 (UTC))[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) WP:TOOSOON is a notability criteria essay about article development. If you mean WP:NOTNOW or WP:NOTQUITEYET, then I suggest WP:NOTNOTNOW because JJMC89 has 3.5 years experience and 167,412 edits making them the 236 most active Wikipedian. Mkdw ^talk 18:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
JC7V. That is nonsense. The sock Frayae did huge damage to WP, not only by passing reams of Afc's into mainspace without following the rules to check them, but not understanding that the mainspaced articles were cack even when it pointed out to him. There was many folk looking at this, not just JJMC89. So the fact that Frayae was never informed when they were shifted back to draft, is of no consequence, there is no substance to it. It is an entirely fallacious argument, and it makes no sense. scope_creep^Talk 01:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bilorv's support discussion

Support: a trusted user with clear need for the tools and a desire to help out with backlogs. Has held OTRS, template editor and other rights for a while and searching through their talk page, does not abuse the tools and responds well to constructive criticism. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 20:10, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The response to question 5 actually concerns me quite a lot, because there's no mention of repercussions to telling a good faith editor to "fuck off". Presumably this is in fact the point of the question: just because you're "experienced" doesn't mean AGF doesn't apply to you. Unless the editor was reverting a sock who they had dealt with many times before (and even then I wouldn't recommend it), that language is not acceptable. Perhaps the candidate is not aware of how serious an obscenity "fuck off" is (as they call it "UK slang"), but I'd consider it second only to "cunt" in levels of offence (other than bigoted slurs but let's not go off on a tangent).
Stray note: question 9 is nonsensical. I've never heard a Jewish editor complain of an RfA which started during Shabbat or a Muslim editor complain of an RfA which began on Eid al-Fitr. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 23:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bilorv "Fuck off" wasn't the UK slang referred to. Giraffe is rhyming slang for laugh. Cabayi (talk) 12:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or Wiccans on a solstice, or Scientologists on Commodore Hubbard's birthday, or Budhists on the Dalai Lama's birthday, or ... E Eng 04:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand that joke—I hope it's not that Jewish people are as ridiculous as Scientologists. I named two major religions which many editors will fall into the category of, and the most obvious reason why they would not be on Wikipedia. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 12:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's that no matter what day of the year you pick, there's someone somewhere in a position to be either offended or delighted that you picked their special day. E Eng 12:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so precisely the same point as me then. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 13:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great minds thing alike. E Eng 13:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC) P.S. Think alike too.[reply]

Oh, come on. Can we not pretend that this RfA wasn't filed on what is the biggest holiday of the year for substantial percentage of English Wikipedia contributors? Even if you're not celebrating Christmas, for whatever reason, any self-identified White American is going to damn-well know what they're doing, and whether you're attempting to exploit holiday cheer is a perfectly legitimate question. I myself considered delaying my RfA until the holidays, thinking that maybe people would be more favorable during that time. The response to the question is perfectly reasonable, but don't act like these things don't even exist. Swarm  {talk} 06:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
36 editors managed to !vote on 25 December so there is no shortage of active editors. I know that white Americans often like to pretend that they're the only group that exists, but they really are full of themselves if they think the RfA is going to succeed because of some sort of "holiday cheer". If starting an RfA on Christmas day means we're disadvantaging Christians then the logical conclusion is that one shouldn't start RfAs during other periods that would disadvantage other major religious groups, but obviously you don't care about those situations, so I don't care about this one. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 11:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm , playing the Americentrism card, really? I hate to rain on your performative wokeness, but first of all, the RfA self-nominator is a self-identified White American, meaning it's quite simply common sense to point out that he knew what he was doing, not some ethnocentrists projecting their worldview out of ignorance, assuming someone's nationality and culture. The person who asked the damn question isn't even American. Second of all, can you not pretend that Christmas is some white American thing? I mean, jfc, we get it, there are other religions in the world. That's really enlightened of you to point out. But, seriously, acknowledging the existence of Christmas, the biggest religious holiday of the biggest religion in the world, is not ignorant ethnocentrism. You may not see the need to ask the question, but quit acting like it's this offensive, ignorant thing that you have to stand up for. Swarm  {talk} 20:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is really getting weird. And since you bring it up, thinking that Christmas is the most important Christian holiday ranks pretty high on the ignorance scale. The most important Christian holiday is Easter, far and away. E Eng 06:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you're not wrong in suggesting that Easter is the most important Christian holy day, and I don't think, according to the religion, Christmas is even the second or third most important day in terms of religiosity. However, that doesn't change the fact that Christmas is unambiguously the biggest in terms of cultural and societal impact and popularity, with extra-religious implications that both pre- and post-date Christian influence around the world. :) Swarm  {talk} 08:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm still trying to wrap my head around "performative wokeness". Here I was considering some of my real life Jewish and Muslim friends and thinking for no more than 15 seconds about common reasons why they—as substantial a cross-section of the population as Christians—wouldn't be active online at certain times. But apparently I'm doing some sort of entertainment to impress people. I can't imagine anybody who would be impressed by the comment I wrote, as if it required some sort of mental agility to write, or enjoy it as some sort of performance, but apparently that was my intention. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 16:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the use of slang, but I'm not implying that you're trying to be entertaining, the implication being quite the opposite. Swarm  {talk} 07:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, surely there's a Law to be made somewhere in this exchange. Godwin & Tarage are feeling lonely. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 23:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even my powers of satire are inadequate to this task. E Eng 04:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shut Up! Paine  22:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I went "hmm" when I saw the Christmas self-nom too, but JJMC89's explanation (availability this week) makes sense. Miniapolis 23:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been better if they'd said it was the only week off they've got between now, Yom Kippur and Eid al-Fitr... :) ——SerialNumber54129 16:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

General question about layout

I've got a general question about the layout of an RfA and since it something I noticed in this particular one I thought it would be OK to ask here. It appears that there are separate sections for "Support", "Oppose" and "Neutral" votes/comments. I noticed that Nos. 43 and 44 in the "Support" section are actually oppose votes. Does it matter or should they be moved? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marchjuly, L3X1 and Lourdes are sarcastically using a bolded "oppose" but they definitely mean to be in support. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I see that now, and not sure why I didn't before.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 08:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I didn't see that before too :D Lourdes 05:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck

Hope no one minds but I've struck part of my comment[1] - I ended up edit-conflicting with someone and seeing as I was busy I was meant to have revisited it later but completely forgot,
I never like to edit my comments after RFAs (and I never do) but I felt that specific answer was problematic (and me being me I didn't read the question properly when !voting either).
Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]