Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JJMC89

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

JJMC89

Final (183/42/16); ended 17:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC) Maxim_(talk) 17:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination

JJMC89 (talk · contribs) – Please take some time out of this last week of the year to consider granting me access to the administrator tools. Since starting to edit in 2015 as a vandal fighter, I have accumulated over 160,000 edits. I'm an ACC admin nearing 10,000 accounts created (public record), a bot operator, and an OTRS agent.

Some of you may not know me since I don't go out of my way to make myself known. I'm a no fuss, no muss kind of guy who just wants to do the job. I am asking the community for access to the tools because I would like to help, and the recent RfA trend isn't promising.

Disclosures: If granted the tools, I will enable 2FA. I have never edited any Wikimedia projects for pay. My other accounts (bots) are listed on my user page.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I intend to work on copyright policy violation redactions, file discussions, and history merges since these areas don't get enough admin attention. Being able to view deleted content would be very helpful for dealing with OTRS tickets, especially permissions tickets where files have already been deleted. I'd also help out in areas that require frequent admin attention, e.g., AIV, RFPP, and UAA. I'm sure I'll branch out from there when I come across backlogs or other random tasks that catch my interest, but those are the areas that I have the most experience with.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: As a gnomish technical editor, my best contributions are things like fixing commons mistakes and supporting other editors by writing bots, editing templates, and creating accounts. Occasionally, I may expand things like Shadow (minor) or List of rural localities in Amur Oblast.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Who hasn't? Discussion is usually sufficient to resolve most conflicts. For most things I disagree with, I'll move on to something else since there is plenty to do and few things are worth making a big deal over, i.e., BLP, harassment, and legal issues like copyright.

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Reyk

4. What, in your opinion, is the most important of Wikipedia's policies and why?

A: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons – What is written on Wikipedia about living people can have a significant impact on the lives of those people, including significat harm to livelihoods. We have a duty to them to esnure what is writen is right. We're not a gossip rag or a court. While certain policies define what Wikipedia is not, it isn't going to harm someone if an editor created a page with the dictionary definition for bibliopole.

Additional question from Ritchie333

5. An IP with no other edits changes Noel Coward so it has an infobox. Two minutes later, the edit is reverted by a longstanding editor. The IP adds the edit back, but is reverted with an edit summary “fuck off”. The IP re-adds the infobox again and is reverted by another experienced editor with a summary “As the other guy said, FUCK OFF troll”. A third editor reports the IP for vandalism with a comment “obvious trolling sock having a giraffe”. You spot the report at AIV. What actions, if any, would you take?

A: Given the mention of socking, I'd check the IP range for active sock blocks.

• If I found any, I'd do a duck test to see if I should block the IP on that basis.
• If I didn't find any, I'd decline the AIV report since adding an infobox, while it may be disruptive, is not vandalism. I'd ask the third editor about who the sockmaster is since I don't have any background on who it would be. Depending on the response and any evidence, I may block the IP for socking or leave a warning for the IP making sure to point out the RfC.

(I've learned some new UK slang.)

Additional question from Nsk92

6. You have stated in answering Q1 that one of your main intended areas of admin activity will be dealing with copyright violations. Could you please elaborate on your experience in dealing with copyright issues, either here at en-wiki or at other Wikimedia projects (e.g. Commons)?

A: See this search which pulls up some of the instances where I've cleaned an article of copied text and requested it be hidden. I also have a some G12 and F9 requests in my CSD logs, though I don't log those much anymore. It isn't always about removing content though. When an editor copies within Wikipedia without the license required attribution, such edits need to be attributed, e.g. 1 and 2. As OTRS agent, I also deal with copyright issues when processing permissions tickets. Many of my contributions on Commons are reporting copyright issues (see notices to user talk pages) or dealing with OTRS permissions tickets.

Additional question from MrX

7. Have you had any previous user accounts, or have you registered any other user accounts?

A: I don't have any previous accounts, and the only other accounts that I have created for myself are my three bot accounts. I have created almost 10,000 accounts for other users at ACC.

Additional question from Glrx

8. A young Al Capone decides to visit Sicily in 1920, so he needs a passport. He goes down to the Herman J. Photographer Studio and gets his passport photo taken; he comes back the next day and picks up the photo. Herman dies in 1990, but his son carries on the business. While doing research, Martin Scorsese comes across the passport and uses it in his latest gangster film. What is the copyright status of the passport photo?

A: The photograph would be public domain since it was published before 1923.

Since the question doesn't explicitly say when the photo was first published, I'll take a step back and give some possibilities on the the copyright status. A 1920 passport photo would be published in the National Archives as part of the passport application, which would be before Scorsese uses it in a new film. If this would be the first publication, I don't know enough about the archived documents (microfilm) publication to accurately determine copyright.

• Due to passport photo requirements, it may be PD regardless of publication because it is simple / not creative. (I couldn't determine with certainty that this would be the case.)
• If it was first published before 1923 or other options on the Hirtle chart (e.g. without notice before 1978 or before 1964 with notice but not renewed) it would be PD.
• If none of the above apply, then it would likely still be copyright.

Amended 23:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from TheSandDoctor

9. I know that this question is going to be raised by someone at some point, so thought I may as well ask it. Is there any particular reason why this request is taking place over the Christmas/Festive period and therefore more likely to not receive the same attention as others?

A: My RfA is the one thing that I can control the timing of on Wikipedia, and I have the extra time to dedicate to RfA this week.

Additional question from Dolotta

10. What area or areas of the English Wikipedia do you find yourself to be the weakest?

A: There are many things in the MoS that I'm not familiar with. I apply the parts that I know and use common sense for anything else. I'm also not familiar with judging the notability of academics. I defer to other editors who are knowledgeable in this area.

Additional questions from Zingarese

11. Imagine that someone registers an account named User:Matt Damon. Would this be a violation of the username policy? Why or why not?

A: If the account holder's name is not Matt Damon, then yes since it matches the name of a well-known, living person.

12. Picture a scenario where an article has been vandalized extremely frequently by multiple persons for a long period of time, but there have been little to no other substantial edits made to the article before and during the vandalism. Would you apply pending changes protection or semi-protection? Why?

A: Probably semi-protection. If the edits containted BLP violations, then those need to be kept out of the edit history too which PC won't do. Even if they don't, I'm not generally a fan of PC except for things like Main Page articles, e.g. TFA, if some protection is needed or using it as a trial before going to no protection from a long semi.

Additional question from Dolotta

13. Why, according to the version transluded on your user and user talk pages as I write this, do you have a top icon indicating that you do not have a desire to become an admin?

A: The topicon says "This user is not an admin." and has nothing to do with desire to (not) become one.

Additional question from Barkeep49

14. Given the mushroom effect that can strike some new sysops, could you identify ways, if any, where your actions as a sysop might diverge from your track record in areas you plan to work in (e.g. copyright, file discussions, and history merges)?

A: I wouldn't say that my actions would diverge from my track record; however, some would change of course. I'd handle instances that need WP:RD1 and history merges myself. For copyright issues where G12 would apply, I may still tag so that it gets a second set of eyes. This seems to be a common practice that I've noticed among admins active in this area.

Additional questions from Andrew D.

15. You have created thousands of user accounts at WP:ACC. Please could you give some details of how you do this. For example, two recent account creations which stand out are จรัญญู หนูรอด and เกวลี เกตุแก้ว. These user names seem unusual; how were they chosen? They haven't made any contributions and it seems that the majority of accounts created don't go on to do anything. Some observations about your experience would help us understand this specialised work.

A: The process for reviewing account requests is detailed in the ACC Guide. Usernames are chosen by the requestors, not ACC volunteers. Many accounts don't go on to do anything, created at ACC or not.

16. Please explain your own user account name.

A:

Additional questions from Hhkohh

17. On November 24, SporkBot was doing subst templates per TfD outcome, but why did you add them to User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster_force [1]

A: I put the bot that I am familiar with to work on it. I'm not a TfD regular, don't know every bot that runs here, and nothing on the holding cell indicates that any bot is active there, let alone working on those specific substitutions.

18 Which administrative action will you do in WP:AN3#Reporting User talk:Walter Görlitz if you are admin now?

A: That report is closed now closed. Given the history of block evasion, EdJohnston's action seems reasonable.

(To save other users time: the version link that took a few minutes for me to find.) – Athaenara ✉ 15:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Additional questions from Xover

19. In a recent edit you made a minor mistake (accidentally broke an URL), and the edit was reverted with an edit summary explaining the problem and requesting you fix the mistake. You neither fixed the edit nor responded on any talk page (neither of which, of course, were in any way required, and there are a myriad of good reasons for not following up further). It's a very very minor issue in itself, but taking it as the backdrop, can you explain your view of the responsiveness requirements of WP:ADMINACCT? (i.e., if this had been an admin action, would your lack of follow-up have been acceptable?)

A: I have revert notifications disabled (and have for a while), so I did not know that my edit was reverted. (Thanks for reapplying the good parts of the edit. FYI, linking a user page in an edit summary does not send a notification if the edit is an undo.) Admins should respond promptly to queries about admin actions. Had it been an admin action and I been aware of the query, the lack of response would not be acceptable.

20. Expanding on the topic in question #19: I have, a few too many times over the years, come across admins who respond once to questions regarding their actions, to all appearances so they fulfill the formal requirement of WP:ADMINACCT, but ignore followup questions or (good faith) attempts to actually discuss the issue. To a degree this is an entirely healthy and even necessary protection mechanism stemming from having to deal with endless unconstructive and bad-faith actors; but it is incredibly frustrating for good-faith editors with genuine concerns about whatever the issue is. Can you explain your view of how to balance admin sanity with good faith editors' needs to be able to discuss that admin's actions, and, in particular, the minimum requirement in WP:ADMINACCT versus what would be the ideal goal to strive for?

A: Ideally, admins should be willing to actually discuss all of their actions with good-faith editors. I think to strike a balance, one might consider whether the project or the editor would be better off for having had the discussion. In many cases, I think the editor would be better off, whether, for example, it be to know how avoid repeating a mistake or becoming better informed about the application of a specific policy or guideline.

Additional question from Bilorv

21. An unregistered editor with no other edits changes two words in the lead of The Simpsons, from "series" to "programme" and "theater" to "theatre". They are reverted by a user with 30,000 edits. The original editor changes this back and is reverted by the second editor with the summary "dumbass". The IP editor makes the change a third time with the summary "fixing the spelling", is reverted again with the summary "go away", and makes the change a fourth time with the summary "WHY DOESNT THIS WORK". This series of seven edits happens within a 30 minute span and there is no discussion at the IP talk page or the article talk page. The experienced editor requests semi-protection at RFPP (pretend The Simpsons is currently unprotected). What action(s) do you take?

A: I wouldn't protect the article, instead I'd write a note to each – an explanation about English variants and edit warring for the IP and <insert appropriate civility response (see below)> for the editor. The editor should have discussed the issue with the IP.

I'm late to the party (as usual) but in a nutshell, what you do should depend on context. In general, you should never tell somebody to fuck off - ever. It's rude, uncalled for and there is always a better way of saying it. In particular, anyone saying it at The Teahouse or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red should be given a severe reprimand with a warning of a civility block if it happens again.

However, we're human, we sometimes lose our temper and just because you have told someone to fuck off, it does not mean you need to be sanctioned for it if there is not a clear and obvious need to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. For example, if I was chatting with Serial Number 54129 and he said "hey, I've heard Ritchie333's quite a fan of Donald Trump" (obviously a bit of light ribbing), and I responded with "Er, do the words 'fuck' and 'off' mean anything?" and I was sure the banter would be taken in the spirit given, no action should be taken. Or, if somebody is adding unsourced trivia to an "In Popular Culture" section in an FA, and after reverting four times (and having left a note on the talk page saying that you cannot find a reliable source for the addition anywhere and that's a requirement of FAs), they put "FUCK OFF and read the talk page now", you need to de-escalate the situation, which blocking the exasperated editor trying to preserve quality will not do.

Or when Fram tells me that "Fuck off is not a personal attack"; well in that instance I don't think it was big or clever but ultimately I think we had to agree to disagree on that one. Or, when Iridescent gets template spammed by ShakespeareFan00 yet again despite asking SFan00 nicely to stop and think what he's doing numerous times previously, and snaps in frustration - well, I'd like to see an admin willing to pull a civility block on Iridescent. In the words of Jules Winnfield from Pulp Fiction - I dare you. I double dare you. And then there's the infamous incident where Jimbo Wales said something was "utter fucking bullshit" - who's going to block him for that? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC) Source: Request for comment on the specific term "fuck off" – sanctionable or not!

Now with regard to civility, which is what this is really about. Yes, I know what the Civility policy says, but enforcing it is a difficult task. What should be done in response to uncivil comments depends on the context of the situation. Giving a by the book answer is, in my opinion, not useful if in reality that isn't what's done. These made-up situations in RfA questions lack the full and necessary context to determine an appropriate action (reminder/warning/block). Some unwanted IP edits followed by reverts with uncivil edit summaries from editors protecting the quality of FAs isn't good, but going after the editors for being uncivil isn't going deescalate the situation. Ritchie333 elaborates on this – replace 'fuck off' with the rude/uncivil phrase of your choice.

We're all people, treat each other with respect and civility.

Additional question from Jacona

22. In an edit caption in a mainspace article, an editor calls another "a fucking troll". In what circumstances do you take action? What action(s) do you take?

R: See 21 regarding hypothetical civility-related situations.

Additional question from Crazynas

23. What is your personal view on the necessity, application, and limits of the fourth and fifth pillars?

A: I think both are necessary. 5P4: Civility is important and we, the community, should strive to maintain it as best we can. Avoid incivility as best you can - go do something else to calm down. Apologize if you've slipped up. If you're on the receiving end, don't dish it back out or otherwise exacerbate the situation. Forgive incivility directed at you, remembering that we're all human beings. 5P5: If x will be improved by doing y, then do it. Others agreeing that it is an improvement, is what really matters.

Additional question from Wumbolo

24. Are you going to protect mainspace articles?

A: Yes – I wouldn't be much help at RFPP if I ignored all of the requests to protect articles.

Additional question from Aeonx

25. What are your thoughts on WP:USERG; under what circumstances do you think it might add value to Wikipedia?

A: User generated content (as defined there) is not reliable. Citing unreliable sources does not add value to the project.

Additional question from PaleCloudedWhite

26. Would you ever tolerate bullying in the workplace? If not, how would you square that with your response to question 5?
In my view, the hypothetical editors posited in question 5 are bullying the IP. Your reply to that question suggests that you do not see their conduct in that way - could you clarify your position? (I have adjusted my question in response to concerns expressed in the general comments section)

R: The hypothetical editors made uncivil comments, which they shouldn't have. See 21 regarding hypothetical civility-related situations.

Additional question from George Ho

27. Last year, one of your approved bots received criticism when it was removing images that were supposedly lacking non-free rationale (user talk discussion, ANI discussion). What are your reflections on those events?

A: I didn't realize the scope of the potential issues with non-free use rationales and wasn't prepared for how controversial it turned out to be. The bot request and approval made it seem straightforward and uncontroversial. I learned that the community expects more out of bots working in the area than was in the original bot request or that I had considered when I wrote the script for that task. I found Masem's and Carnildo's comments especially helpful when I rewrote that task last summer.

Additional question from Wumbolo

28. What do you do when a copyright owner exposes personal information about them while filing a complaint to WP:CP?

A: While not a good idea, editors may post personal information about themselves. I'd redact it and, if needed, refer the user to OTRS. If personal information needs to be involved, it is much better to handle it through OTRS. If the user doesn't want the information to remain available, I'd also request suppression.

Additional question from Hydronium Hydroxide

29. Could you please provide some good examples of threads where you have needed to analyse and weigh up competing evidence and arguments

A:

Additional question from Strikerforce

30. As of the time this question was posed, 28% of your edits - in your case, 47,000 and change edits - are marked as being "minor" edits. Could you please explain why you feel that so many of your 167,500ish edits are "minor"? I like your overall number of edits, even taking out those minor edits, but I am a little confused about the high number of minor edits.

A: Many of the minor edits will be from reverting vandalism, spelling/gramar/punctuation corrections, simple formatting changes, etc.

Additional question from Leaderboard

31. We had a case at wikibooks:Wikibooks:Requests_for_permissions/Mathmensch where the user concerned was trying to request adminship. However, he was indefinitely blocked at this wiki, and upon questioning, he companied that it was due to a edit-war on the Master theorem article ("I posted a request for an admin to step down. In essence, this was the only thing I did. I do not know why it lead to a block..."). Suppose you were to mediate between the two users as to who is correct. What would you do, and how would you resolve the conflict using your mathematical knowledge (or otherwise)? Thanks in advance, and please ping me of your answer. Leaderboard (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

A:

Discussion

• Links for JJMC89: JJMC89 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for JJMC89 can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Support

1. Support. Flooded with them hundreds 17:10, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Support While he appears to virtually never appear at AfD, it appears to me that he is quite unlikely to misuse his AfD opinions, and he seems to be aware of policies in general. Collect (talk) 17:20, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
3. Not a jerk, has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:23, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
4. As per TonyBallioni. Nigej (talk) 17:26, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
5. Support Definitely. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
6. Support per TonyB. Cesdeva ^(talk) 17:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
7. Oppose, his 1,048.3 admin score is below my 1,500 threshold Competent editor who has my full trust. GAB^gab 17:29, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
8. Support, immediately if not sooner. JJMC89 is a helpful, knowledgeable editor who will make a great administrator. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:32, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

   Support - Plenty of edits, no notable issues. Misses a couple of the traditional Admin areas, but has some other ones and doesn't show any indication he'll suddenly jump into areas he is ill-equipped for. Clearly a very hard-working individual, and/or crafty, to start his RfA on Christmas Day ;) ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs) 17:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

9. Support - All looks good to me. Orphan Wiki 17:47, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
10. Support though I don't understand the reason for a Christmas RfA. L293D (☎ • ✎) 17:49, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

    wtf does that does matter? 19:59, 25 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewolfchild (talk • contribs) 20:00, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

11. Support- Will be a good addition to the Admin team. FitIndia ^Talk 18:00, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
12. Support. I see no basis for objecting to this request. bd2412 T 18:09, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
13. Support solid candidate. only (talk) 18:18, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
14. Support Polite, knowlegeable, has smarts. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:29, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
15. Strong support I have seen JJMC89 around and worked with them a bit. Competent editor who I feel can be trusted with the tools. The one concern I have is that some may oppose due to the timing of this RfA. That said, I wish you the best. Merry Christmas! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:48, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
16. Obvious support.--v/r - TP 19:06, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
17. Support seen JJ crop up on my watchlist across so many articles, always to the good. Timing for new year, new admin seems corny. Cabayi (talk) 19:11, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
18. Support Trusted editor. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:20, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
19. Support. I see no evidence that they would abuse the tools. Guettarda (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
20. Support No reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 19:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
21. Support, thought he was an admin already. - wolf 19:59, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
22. Support, why not, we need more admins, might as well be him. programmingGeek(talk, contribs) 20:01, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

    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)

    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)

    Bilorv "Fuck off" wasn't the UK slang referred to. Giraffe is rhyming slang for laugh. Cabayi (talk) 12:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

    Bilorv has since moved the rest of the discussion to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/JJMC89#Bilorv's support discussion, Cheers, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 21:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

23. Support As a co-member of the WikiProject to fix Common Mistakes with JJMC89, I am aware of this editor's tireless work behind the scenes helping to maintain the project. Their expertise in various areas - cleanup, templates, vandalism patrol, OTRS, Village Pump, technical requests as well as a strong number of mainspace edits tells me that this editor will make a valuable contribution as sysops.  Spintendo  20:26, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
24. Support No reason to expect this editor would abuse tools. valereee (talk) 20:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
25. Support per all of the above. —DoRD (talk)​ 21:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
26. Support - I do not see anything that would merit concern. JJ clearly has the good judgement and experience needed for adminship. More eyes on RfPP would be appreciated. EclipseDude (talk) 21:13, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

    I hope JJMC takes to heart some of the concerns about handling sensitive situations involving new, good-faith editors conflicting with more experienced editors. I recall having my toes stepped on quite hard a while back before I registered an account, which perhaps permanently altered my editing habits. Despite those concerns, I continue to trust JJMC's judgement and have no reservations about JJMC's potential to be a good administrator who will benefit the project. I reaffirm my support for his candidacy. As a side note, if anyone who is particularly concerned about a particular user's conduct towards new editors feels as though said poor conduct has been regularly overlooked by the administration, there are at least a few venues where such concerns can be presented to the community. I do not think that taking out those concerns on JJMC in the oppose section of an RfA is necessarily going to result in the resolution of those issues. EclipseDude (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

27. Support We need admins who do the small jobs too, and this candidate inspires confidence. Debresser (talk) 21:27, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
28. Support - Absolutely!! ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 21:27, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
29. Support JJMC89 has proven themselves with ACC tool admin rights, and has been an asset to ACC with his dedication and hard work. I have no doubts he'd make a fine admin. stwalkerster (talk) 22:00, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
30. Support About time! 😀 -FASTILY 22:01, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
31. Support, looks like a reasonable request. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
32. Support no issues, would make a great admin --DannyS712 (talk) 22:39, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
33. Support. I believe this editor will use the tools responsibly and make a good contribution to the project. Thanks for stepping forward. 331dot (talk) 23:52, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
34. Support no comment needed; Merry Christmas. IWI (chat) 00:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
35. Support Solid record demonstrating plenty of clue with a desire to help and no red or yellow flags = net positive. What a great Christmas present for the community. Good luck. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
36. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 00:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
37. Support We need more vandal tacklers. - Chandan Guha (talk) 01:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
38. Support. Solid track record of positive contributions. — Newslinger talk 01:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

    I would prefer to see JJMC89 take a more assertive stance on violations of the civility policy than they expressed in their answers to questions #5 and #21. However, this issue is outweighed by the candidate's competence in other areas. — Newslinger talk 07:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

39. We are running short on good admins and JJ looks highly competent and civil. And as an endangered Wiki Gnome we should value JJ's hard work and desire to take on the more technical side of things. Wikipedia is not all about content: we need folks like JJ who can help ensure policy is followed, especially in the contentious and legally critical copyright area. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 01:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
40. Support Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:51, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
41. Support good candidate for the tools. Obviously net positive and seems like they will use the tools where they are needed most. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
42. Support, given that this candidate has proven their utility in practically most non-article aspects of Wikipedia, and we need admins who are willing to do the mundane tasks that article creators are not. Steel1943 (talk) 02:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

    Going neutral, but leaving the rest of my comment since it’s still an opinion I believe in. Steel1943 (talk) 01:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

    ...And back to support. Though I elaborated in my "Neutral" statement that I’m not a big fan of the tagging that could he resolved probably quicker than placing the tag, I’m now having difficulty not seeing how this editor is a net positive to Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

43. Oppose Would improve the general attitude toward the Corps, and we can't have any of that!^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
44. Oppose Piling on with L3X1 here. Absolutely can't have that. Lourdes 02:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
45. Support as candidate is already trusted in important areas of the project, has contributed in consistently useful ways, and shows good judgment about where to spend time and attention. Bakazaka (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
46. Support Strong candidate, good answers to the questions thus far. Best of luck, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
47. Support Desperately need admins working in copyright, contributions appear civil and clueful. OTRS is a thankless task, successful participation there is an excellent indicator that he has disposition for mopping. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
48. Support mostly satisfactory, the only thing that would give me pause is question 5. If its an obvious troll you shouldn't feed them. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 03:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
49. Support. Fully qualified. Impressive edit count for his tenure. -- œ^™ 03:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
50. Support. Doing a brief review of their contribs and looking at what everyone's said, I definitely think they would overall help the encyclopedia were they to become an admin. Although this isn't something I personally care about at all, I would like to point out that they haven't created a single article, of the six articles they created that weren't deleted, five are disambiguation pages and one is a redirect they created which was turned into a stub by another editor. I personally have never thought that users must create content before becoming an admin, but it seems like something like this usually causes a whole bunch of pile-on opposes.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 03:51, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

    Support. Impressive edit count and trusted candidate.Dominick333 (talk) 03:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC) Sock vote struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

51. Support Impressive work and clueful in the ares they concentrated on. –Ammarpad (talk) 03:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
52. Support. Why not? Double sharp (talk) 04:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
53. Support. I've only encountered good things from him. Should make a fine sysop. Airplaneman ✈ 06:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
54. Support - Qualified and experienced.  Swarm  {talk}  06:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
55. Support - Per Swarm. Additionally, based on the confidence of the user, he is definitely ready. Lets give him a chance !! --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 06:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
56. Support - User has experience in some important areas that are in need of more admins. No concerns that they can be trusted with the tools. Kosack (talk) 07:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
57. Support No concerns and greatly exceeds my User:Mkdw/RfA Standards. Mkdw ^talk 07:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
58. Support Good self-nomination. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 07:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
59. Support. Basically what TonyBallioni said. Regards SoWhy 08:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

    Support; no concerns. Jc86035 (talk) 09:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

    Moving to neutral per question 5. Jc86035 (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

60. Support Thanks for volunteering. Gap9551 (talk) 09:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
61. Support A clear net positive. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
62. Support Seems level-headed, competent, and without any outstanding issues of note. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 11:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
63. Support Qualified candidate--Binod Basnet (talk) 11:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
64. I see no basis for objecting to this request. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

    Update: I voted when I didnt have much time. Even though I have not directly worked with JJMC, I have had interaction with them on couple of occasions. I have also often seen them around. I can confidently say that they have clear understandings of policies/guidelines, and they are civil. We are humans after all. Some mishaps are bound to happen. So, like bd2412, and I said previously: I see no basis for objecting to this request. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

65. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:58, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
66. Support - I've seen his contributions, and in my opinion he more than qualifies to be an admin.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

    Support, net positive, but the answer to Q5 is absolutely unacceptable for me. We judge edits on their own merit, not whether the editor has registered an account or not. Those reverting a good edit should receive warnings about civility and incorrect edit summaries instead. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC) Moving to Neutral in view of problems.

67. Support. I did have some issues recently with the candidate, but they are not significant enough for me to oppose the nomination.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
68. Support admins responsibility is administration so happy to support regardless of little content creation Lyndaship (talk) 13:58, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
69. Support. Not usually a participant at RfA but by sheer coincidence the RfA notice coincided with an interaction with the nominee, so I figured I'd chime in. So: on somewhat of a thin basis (a few edits crossing my watchlist, plus what's evident in the RfA), but I see no red flags and the project needs more people doing admin tasks. I note the concerns expressed in the "Neutral" section below, but would assert that lack of content creation experience in an admin is not inherently a problem, unless lack of content creation experience becomes a problem for that admin. And unless their edit history suggests they are unfamiliar with or are confused about content-specific policies or norms, that's not something that can be known in advance. --Xover (talk) 14:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
70. Support Sure. talk to !dave 14:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
71. Support -Experienced, understands the system and dynamics. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
72. Support Experienced candidate. Azkord (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
73. Support. SethWhales ^talk 16:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
74. Support. Easy decision, as per all the above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
75. Support. A lot of unanswered questions (and some should stay unanswered, like "What does your username mean?") but meets my basic criteria. I'll keep looking to see if any of the questions sway me. Ifnord (talk) 16:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
76. Support because this user has experience with bots. Brian Everlasting (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
77. Support. Would be a great addition. No concerns. Loopy30 (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
78. Support JJMC89 seems to have that peculiar ability to be almost everywhere at once, and this will serve him well in his new endeavour. scope_creep^Talk 17:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
79. Support No concerns; trustworthy and willing to deal with the sorely understaffed issue of copyright redaction. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
80. Support and best of luck! I've only had positive interactions with JJMC89. Daß Wölf 19:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
81. Support Experience enough, no problems seen. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
82. Support satisfied with his experience to date. Blythwood (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
83. I have no concerns. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
84. Support Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 21:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
85. support no concern Hhkohh (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
86. Support on balance. Question 5 was a curly one. It required some subtly in answering to avoid the "ip abuse", vs "trolling" concerns. Coward is a poster child of the infobox wars and AGF only goes so far. Some understanding of the issues around this area would have been nice. But at the end of the day we can't expect all editors to know the ins and outs of some of our lamest edit wars. It would actually not be terrible to have some naive eyes on these topics from an administrator point of view. A few other minor concerns that have been brought up already, but nothing that suggests they would not be competent in the role. AIRcorn (talk) 22:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

    Heck, i've been around here for 13 years and I didn't know that! --rogerd (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

    I didn't know either that the Coward page was a poster child for these raging contentions, went hunting, and found August-October 2016 arguments about it taking up more than half the 256,222 byte talk Archive 2. Its current talk page has nothing about it, but anyone editing the first section of the article will see an embedded notice, linking that very long and one might say fevered discussion, which politely asks editors to please review Talk:Noël Coward/Archive 2#RfC: Should an Infobox be added to the page? before considering adding an infobox. – Athaenara ✉ 12:00, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

    An editor attempting to add an infobox is warned to seek consensus at this point. Anyone proceeding heedless should expect an immediate block without further warning. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

87. Support Knows what he is doing. Redalert2fan (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
88. Support: good editor, knows what he's doing. SITH (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
89. Support Seems like a knowledgeable, level-headed editor. - Sdkb (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
90. support--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
91. support. Solid reasons for wanting the mop. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
92. Support good reasons and clear answers, shows good understanding of WP procedures. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
93. Support – A trustworthy editor who will put the tools to good use. Kurtis ^(talk) 01:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
94. Support Experienced, will be a benefit to the project as an admin, has a cool head. No issues here. Spencer^T•C 02:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
95. Support net positive. Vermont (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
96. Support Seems like a no-nonsense low drama type of editor, and I can get behind that. Love the self-nom ~Awilley (talk) 02:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
97. Support - Trusted and competent editor, I disagree with some of the answers (especially #5) but it's not enough to Oppose. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 03:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
98. Support I wish they were willing to take a firmer line on incivility but the line they're taking is completely in consensus with a significant percentage of the project. So that wish does not get in the way of the fact that they have an excellent track record and give every indication that they will handle the areas they work in as an admin responsibly, thoughtfully, and in ways that enhance the project; Wikipedia would be better off with them as an admin than without and so this is an easy support for me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
99. Support. The nomination statement is clear, and Wikipedia does need expert service in the areas JJMC89 specified. Helping out in other areas is always good, but however many hats one admin must wear, no one of us can competently wear all of them. – Athaenara ✉ 06:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
100. Support Of course, clear net positive. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
101. Support, found precious, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
102. Support. Promising Candidate. Except for some related issues, on the Civility policy; JJMC89, shows some great invaluable contributions on Wikipedia, like creation of Accounts, bot management, etc. Would like to see him, as a new Administrator. Rekonedth (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
103. Support Good luck with your RfA, and pass a happy New Year.--Mona.N (talk) 09:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
104. Support I have interacted with the candidate in the past, and I have no concerns. Answer to question #5 is not a concern for me as well; all editors should be treated the same, and long time editors should not really get a pass for being uncivil; but I think the answer was formulated in accordance to how the question was asked. JJMC89 will be fine with adminship. Alex Shih (talk) 10:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
105. Support. It looks like no one is immune to loaded questions at RfA. wumbolo ^^^ 11:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
106. Support - no real concerns. GiantSnowman 12:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
107. Support, You dont have to be good at everything. It is enough to be good at what you choose to do if that is something useful. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 13:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
108. Support - Excellent candidate; seems to be highly experienced, level-headed, and a good addition to the mop corps. There has been much kerfuffle around the answer to Q5, but I see no evidence that the candidate has a pattern of unruly behaviour. So I have no qualms about supporting. Ajpolino (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
109. Support I am not very concerned by the answers to questions 5 and 21. They are not answered to my satisfaction, but the candidate has not given indication, by their candidacy statement or editing history, that these are the types of issues they will seek to deal with (or even be willing to deal with) as an administrator. I am given pause for reflection by Explicit's oppose, because this is an area the candidate will certainly be involved in. It's not enough to cause me to oppose, but I hope the candidate carefully considers this, and I would appreciate if the candidate addressed the concern directly. Otherwise this is a respected, CLUEful editor of good temperament willing to shoulder extra tasks, in areas where more help is needed. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

     @78.26: this is not correct. The candidate says in question 1 that they intend to work in areas such as AIV and RFPP, and intends to "branch out from there". — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 15:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

     Fair enough, and thank you for bringing to my attention. I shall remain in "support" because these two questions are very, very difficult, and while the answers are incomplete, I can understand why they are incomplete. Admins make mistakes and must learn on the fly as well, I know of numerous areas where I still "need input." 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

110. Support I see no reason not to support. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
111. I see no reason not to, as this is fairly clearly someone who knows their limits and won't try to handle complicated situations until they're competent to handle them. I find the opposes, most of which are based on some variant or another of "refused to say swearing is always wrong!", totally unconvincing; a recognition that on a multicultural project there can't be hard-and-fast rules and that when investigating potential incivility or bullying the admins need to examine the context in which the offending remarks were made is surely a positive, not a negative. ‑ Iridescent 16:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
112. Support Moving from neutral. Despite the bad answer to question 5, I think JJMC89 will ultimately be a net positive, though I encourage them if this RFA passes to practice caution and care in admin actions, especially when they first start using the tools. ceranthor 17:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
113. Happy to support Zingarese talk · contribs 17:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
114. Support. Excellent candidate who will be an asset to the mop. It really fucks me off when editors focus on one questionable issue over all the other really good issues about a candidate. Such objections should just bugger off! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  18:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
115. Support. Good record of gnome work, sensible answers to questions. Merry Christmas and Happy New Mop (hopefully)! Deryck C. 19:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
116. Support. Foxnpichu (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
117. Support. Definitely the kind of person who should have the mop added to their toolset. —C.Fred (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
118. Support Unconvinced by the opposes. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
119. Support – I consider JJMC89 to be well-qualified, and he will be a positive asset for the admin corps. I believe some of the concerns expressed by the opposers are valid, though (but not enough to make me oppose), and hope he will take the feedback into consideration. As an aside, I particularly agree with the way questions 15-16 were handled. –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
120. Support JJMC89 is competent and temperamentally suited to adminship. Vexations (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
121. Support. Just the type of editor who should have the tools. He will make a good admin. Bduke (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
122. Support No obvious problems. SemiHypercube 23:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
123. Support per Pbsouthwood above as a net positive. The candidate's willing to do what needs doing, and the opposes don't outweigh the positives. Miniapolis 00:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
124. Worthy of Support just for the answer to Q.21. The single most useful attribute for an admin is "clue". --RexxS (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
125. Support Anyone who survived 160K edits without major scarring is OK in my books.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
126. Support Clueful editor where the net positives outweigh any concerns. Schwede66 02:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
127. Support Not a absolutely perfect candidate, but can be trusted to use the toolkit with reasonable care and respond to feedback. Passes the "has held advanced permissions and nothing has caught fire yet" test. TheDragonFire (talk) 03:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
128. Support: thank you for volunteering. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

     Support The type of editor who should get the tools. While the answer to Q5 falls well short of the comprehensive answer we'd like to see on the Wiki-law exam, it errs on the side of not making a bad situation worse. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

129. Support. I’ve never seen this editor do anything stupid. Candidate, please remember that admin tools must be used carefully. Do not do any mass actions without careful, thoughtful consideration of each one, and try to minimize the use of blocks. Blocks generally should be avoided unless the behavior is so bad that it warrants an indef. Jehochman ^Talk 05:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

     Support. While this editor lacks experience in some key admin areas (AfD most notably), I trust that they will use their powers judiciously, and their demeanor and responses support that. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 06:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

130. More level headed than some admins. Not impressed by the opposes based on stupid Q5. We need more admins. Legacypac (talk) 07:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
131. Support as a strong candidate with no disqualifying faults. Ralbegen (talk) 11:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
132. Support No concerns. Shellwood (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
133. Support from reading all the above comments. Eschoryii (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
134. Support: I technically support this user for us in Wikpedia to have more support and effort to the editors especially younger Wikipedians who are just starting out and also to defend against vandalism. VictorTorres2002 (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
135. Support per answer to Q16 (which as of this post is blank; see WP:BAIT, a fine skill for a prospective admin in this era of Wikipedia). To those opposing based on Q5: you should have a read of WP:AGF and WP:BRICKS, and probably WP:DTTR. If several experienced editors are climbing over themselves to revert what they think is a troll, they probably know what they're on about, even if they're being assholes about it. And if any of you think tinkering with infoboxes is a minor uncontroversial edit, you haven't been around long enough (see WP:ARBINFOBOX and WP:ARBINFOBOX2). An admin going in swinging a blockhammer isn't going to help things. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

     @Ivanvector: your assumption that the IP is socking is not really the point, as the candidate provides in their answer to Q5 a description of what they would do if the IP isn't socking. They say that if there are no active sock blocks then they ask the experienced editors, and depending on the context "I may block the IP for socking or leave a warning for the IP making sure to point out the RfC." So presumably the latter case is what happens when there's no sockpuppetry, and there's no mention of "deal with the fact that experienced editors have sworn at a good faith editor and made personal attacks in their edit summaries". But as this answer was a bit vague, I posed Q21, which has no mention of sockpuppetry or the editor acting in bad faith. I was unsatisfied with the answer but of course YMMV. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 18:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

136. Support as a net positive. I will also note that questions about previous accounts go against the spirit of the clean start policy as I understand it. Airbornemihir (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
137. Support Don't see any issues here Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 16:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
138. I don't see any evidence that JJMC89 would abuse the tools. SQL^{Query me!} 16:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
139. Support. Candidate has broad experience and thoughtfully handles complex issues. AGK ■ 17:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
140. Support - enough clue to press the buttons at the right times. As usual, I care more about past actions than question answers, and don't look at arbitrary unrelated edit statistics. Biggest point of concern here is the sheer amount of time that the candidate spends on Wikipedia, but that alone isn't a reason to oppose. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
141. Support has a clue. Meets my RfA criteria. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
142. Support More admins, particularly admins wanting to work in copyright, is always a good thing. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
143. Support Like others, slightly troubled by the response to question 5 (assuming the sockpuppet accusation is untrue). "Editors are expected to avoid personal attacks and harassment of other Wikipedians." I appreciate the concern for context--especially in hypothetical situations--but here the nominee acknowledges that these hypothetical editors unquestionably violated WP:UNCIVIL (not to mention WP:BITE). While it is true that "going after the editors for being uncivil isn't going [to] deescalate the situation," it is equally true that ignoring rudeness and personal attacks will neither discourage further incivility from those editors nor assist this (or any other) new user. Greatly prefer something more like the response to question 21: "I'd write a note to each ... <insert appropriate civility response (see below)> for the editor." All that being said, however, to me this issue does not outweigh JJMC89's other qualifications. --Shadow (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
144. Support - responsible responses to questions. Sysop is not a big deal -- Tawker (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
145. Support Explicit raises a cautionary flag in the oppose section, which I hope that JJMC89 would heed. However, there is no doubt that JJCM89 is qualified to serve as an admin. Enos733 (talk) 02:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
146. Support fails to meet standards of perfection, but otherwise acceptable. Find bruce (talk) 02:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
147. Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 03:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
148. Support A very weak support as I am concerned a lot about essentially zero efforts in article creation or enhancement, the basis of our existence here. The discussion below regarding a hypothetical incivility issue are being taken too far.--MONGO (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
149. Support, despite the legit concerns raised over Q5 & 21. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 06:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
150. Apoio.—Pórokhov ^Порох 06:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
151. Strong Support - I have worked closely with JJMC89 at ACC and in other areas of the encyclopedia. I fully trust and support him and I believe he will make a great admin. -- Dane ^talk 07:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
152. Support I'll be honest, I feel like there's a little bit of mixed messaging in the answers to queries above regarding civility, and this is a major concern for me whenever I !vote in an RfA these days, as I feel that community (including administrative) action to shore up this pillar principle of the project has been slipping in recent years. That caveat made, looking at a random selection of this editors contributions and taking their responses to the questions above (laconic as they can be in places) in the aggregate, I can support the nomination. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
153. Support I’m not overjoyed by the answer to #5, but better a learning curve here rather than ‘at the coal face (and I hope JJMC89 ‘’does’’ learn from this), but an overall plus I think. - SchroCat (talk) 11:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
154. Support Competent and polite editor with logical approach. AhmadLX (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
155. Support, after having taken a lot of time to think about it. I think the editors who oppose do indeed raise some significant issues that require scrutiny. Before I can support someone for adminship, I need to be satisfied that I can trust them to intelligently navigate a complicated content dispute, and it is difficult to evaluate that when the candidate has so little content experience. So I've been weighing how much I feel I can trust this candidate to recognize their own limitations, not overreach, and to admit mistakes and learn from experience. Here, I see a candidate who has had a very significant amount of activity, enough to determine whether or not they get into conflicts, and I'm seeing multiple trusted users saying that they have worked well with the candidate. Yes, the answer to Q5 strikes me as flawed – primarily for the reason identified by Spinningspark in the oppose section: administrative decisions should not be made mechanically. But I'm seeing the candidate's demeanor in the course of this RfA, with respect to the BITE issue, differently than some of the opposing editors have. I think I'm seeing someone who learns from their mistakes. The rationale for using the tools sounds appropriate to me, and I think I can trust this user. (And in the spirit of learning from mistakes, and hoping that I won't trigger a new round of nitpicking, I'll point out another error in the Q&A that has not been pointed out so far. The answer to Q8 is wrong. The fact that the photo was taken in 1920 does not mean that it was published then. If it was held privately, it was not published until it was used much later in the film, so it is not in the public domain. There is, however, another aspect to it: whether or not the passport photo is public domain because the passport is the work of the US government, which would automatically make it PD (discussed at Wikipedia talk:Public domain#Passport photos. According to the US State Dept, it depends who took the photo. Since in the example given, the photo was taken by a professional photographer not working for the government, it is not a government work, even if the rest of the passport is. So it is still not PD. Class dismissed.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

     I certainly had noticed that the answer to Q8 was wrong, but I've made so many mistakes on image copyright that I didn't think I had the right to criticise anyone else. That area is particularly complicated, so basically, if you don't know what you're doing, you shouldn't do admin work there. SpinningSpark 23:30, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

     Thanks for the reply, although I did not mean that you needed to, more like an acknowledgment of a good argument. And I'll similarly acknowledge in regard to Q8, that Glrx makes some valid points in the opposition section as well. On the other hand, I also agree with Opabinia regalis about assessing hypotheticals in an RfA. Some things just aren't absolute, and this RfA is one of those. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

156. Support as a net positive. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 23:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
157. Support - No concerns and issues and support stays in place. Carl Tristan Orense (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
158. Support - As per his answers to the "Questions for the candidate". Sounds like the mindset good admins are equipped with. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 04:37, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
159. Support - I find that the concerns brought up but several in the oppose will ultimately not prevent this user from becoming an effective admin.Neovu79 (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

     Support - I think he will improve wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KAGfan2018 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC) Sock vote struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

160. Support, this user has long been a capable, reliable and responsible contributor to copyright clean-up, and will surely make a good admin. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
161. Support - A self nominated candidate with “Clue” is worthy of my support. CV9933 (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
162. Support - Seems well considered, perspective on civility fairly relaxed but well explained in 21. !vote morganlh (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
163. Support Seems competent and I do not believe this editor will misuse the tools. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
164. Support - good, calm answers to the questions. Apparent interest to deliver a good service. Thank you.Lean Anael (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
165. Support - Fine candidate. The gaff in #5 is because not everyone is familiar with the Noel Coward infobox battle, the Bosworth Field of the Wars of the Infoboxes. -- GreenC 22:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
166. Support - Will make a good admin . Kpgjhpjm 01:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
167. Support - Net positive. Pratyush (talk) 03:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
168. Support - What I have seen of the user's work is good. Good demeanor and despite the conclusions of some opposers based on the difficult question 5 appears to be able to handle matters knowledgeably and with civil interactions. User:Tryptofish's analysis is balanced and comes to a good conclusion. User:TonyBallioni's comments are more than adequate explanations and analysis. Trustworthy, net positive. Donner60 (talk) 09:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
169. Support seems to be intelligent and thoughtful. Perhaps not the best at producing politically palatable responses to convoluted hypotheticals, but last I checked that wasn't a skill often called upon around here. In any event, I don't see much wrong with the much-maligned Q5 other than the implication that a 2.5-year-old RfC must still be so relevant that someone should be warned for not obeying it, and Q21 is perfectly reasonable as a response to an out-of-context hypothetical. Opabinia regalis (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
170. Support. I've been mulling this over for a few days. In researching this candidate I found some things that were genuinely concerning, in addition to other legitimate concerns brought up by those opposing. In particular, I am concerned by the lack of content work, and a resulting under-appreciation of the subtleties of disputes that are have their basis in disagreements about content. I'm also bothered by the answer to question 5, and the lack of acknowledgement that such behavior on the experienced editors parts would be inappropriate. Ultimately I end up here because I think that first, the candidate has areas of admin work in which they have demonstrated an ability to work constructively; second, that they are capable of taking feedback constructively; and third, that we're in danger of exacerbating our admin shortage by rejecting candidates that are good but not perfect. JJMC89, I would encourage you to take the negative feedback you've gotten here seriously, take it very slow when dealing with complex content disputes, and put in more time working on content, so that you have a greater appreciation of the issues involved. There's no shortage of content to be written: this is a good place to start. Vanamonde (talk) 11:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
171. Support. User seems to be thoughtful and intelligent for the tasks he says he will help with. I am not a strong supporter of the position that admins must have a lot of content creations, many admin tasks are mundane and simplish and don't require experiance of content creation, just editing experiance and this editor is ticking all my boxs to contribute with the admin tools without breaking anything. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
172. One I can fully trust. — regards, Revi 14:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
173. Support. Model editor, net positive.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
174. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
175. Support. However, I strongly hope that JJMC takes on board the concerns raised about his answers to question 5 (and followups), and stands up for new editors, especially when they're faced with incivility or discrimination. ‑‑Yodin^T 21:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
176. Support per Iridescent.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
177. Support Gog the Mild (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
178. Support Nakon 06:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
179. Support I think the candidate will be an excellent technical behind-the-scenes admin based on their bot experience. However, the lack of content writing experience and lack of experience dealing with editors in a content dispute, together with the answers to questions 5 and 21, suggest to me that the candidate will not be nearly so good when it comes to dealing with editors. My concerns aren't enough for me to oppose, though, and as I've written this I find myself supporting rather than staying neutral. I think this RfA will pass so I urge candidate to take it slowly and carefully when expanding their admin tasks and take to heart the concerns that have been raised in this RfA. Ca2james (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
180. Supportseems competent enough and as for the question 5 concerns it would take a brave admin to get involved with an issue that involves civility, infoboxes and sockpupets.©Geni (talk) 08:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
181. Support as I see no reason to oppose. VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 12:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
182. Support Denisarona (talk) 15:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
183. Competent candidate, working with them at ACC from almost a year and never saw any incivility issue with newcomers. I believe they will make a good use of new tools. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose due to the answer to question 5, as explained by Jacona in the second Neutral !vote. This discriminatory attitude, favouring established users over those less so, is in direct opposition to WP:EQUALITY. That page may be an essay, but the principle is to me a cornerstone of this project, and the fact that it is often not upheld has given Wikipedia a bad reputation and is damaging to the project and especially recruitment of new editors. From a pragmatic point of view, if one is to 'pick one's battles', as TonyBallioni suggests, surely one should pick those involving editors who are going to make thousands of edits in the future and be involved in other disputes rather than IP's which are likely going to leave anyway (especially if a bunch of established editors and an admin pile on them). This is probably a general culture more than a conscious personal opinion on the candidate's part, but for the health of the project, we should not trivialize this tendency. Kranix (talk | contribs) 16:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

   Replying since pinged: In terms of pick one's battles, established editors who are acting inappropriately in general, but especially with IPs, are some of the most difficult situations to deal with as an administrator. Administrators are volunteers and getting yelled at and told how incompetent you are by an editor who sees themselves as a great Defender of the Wiki® by protecting Wikipedia from the IP hordes isn't a pleasurable experience and in all likelihood will result in more disruption and hurt feelings that isn't conducive to building up the project. The situation Ritchie333 described isn't appropriate by any means, but if it is a one-off, I'm likely going to ignore it unless I'm feeling like fighting a battle I know I'm not going to win that day. If it becomes a pattern and I can link to multiple diffs, then a conversation is more likely to happen on my end.

   This also has nothing to do JJMC89 of course, but I'm just explaining the thought process that goes through my head as one of the more "IPs are people too"-friendly users on en.wiki (see my user box on the issue...). There are people who are much less IP friendly than I am and I consider them to be reasonable admins and users, so it doesn't really bother me that JJMC89 read the question like I think most people would read it and focus on how tools were being asked to be used, and gave a completely reasonable answer there, not on the user reporting them. ​ TonyBallioni (talk) 16:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

   Hi Kranix, so just to be clear; you don't feel that the candidate can be trusted with the sysop right? That they would either be so intentionally abusive or just so incompetent that they can not be trusted to administer this project with any degree of confidence? And this is because their answer to one of the questions may or may not be in conflict with an essay? - wolf 19:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

   There are many people who are neither intentionally abusive nor incompetent who would not be trusted with adminship. What exactly do you feel your rhetorical strawmans are contributing to the discussion? — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 19:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

   Bilorv... wow, I knew I should' taken dat left toin at Albuquerque. 🥕 - wolf

   I think in this case it's more important what one says they will do versus what one actually does, and in this case he said he will do nothing to to editor who said fuck off in the edit summary and then fuck off troll in the summary. While TonyBallioni is right that there are unblockables, that wasn't the question, it was just an experienced editor and an IP editor. Ignoring a FU or FU troll is never the right answer, and certainly never the right book answer. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

   The essay describes a point I support and believe follows from more fundamental principles of WP well, that's all. Adminship is not something we simply give to anyone we don't have strong reasons to believe would abuse it. Kranix (talk | contribs) 21:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

   Although the candidate got the wrong answer on question 5, I think he is still qualified because of other good edits he made. Brian Everlasting (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

2. Oppose due to question 5, and see my answer above where I qualify it, and please don't hound me. I understand that there is a reality of admins not getting involved with certain editors, but the question did not say the editor was an unblockable, this was a theoretical, and a book response could have been given, regardless of what we do in reality. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Although JJMC89 has done a lot of great work, I can't help but feel that he would be incredibly careless with the tools. He went through a spree of tagging literally hundreds of non-free files with {{Di-fails NFCC}} over a span of several weeks seemingly without examining each case. For example, File:Warriors of virtue.jpg is a film poster being used in the infobox of Warriors of Virtue, an article about the film. It had a proper fair use rationale and licensing information, but it did not directly link the article in question. This is an easy fix: add the link to the file's description page. Instead, JJMC89 tagged it for deletion. Had an equally careless administrator reviewed this file, it would have been deleted, very well to the detriment of the encyclopedia. He also does not appear to recognize at times, as with File:WLSW logo.png which was licensed under fair use and he tagged for deletion, that files tagged as non-free are far too simple to meet the threshold of originality and should be converted to a free license. These are not singles instances, as one can see here and here as various examples. This type of approach to files is incredibly destructive, and admins who specialize in media files already have enough of a bad rep. WP:NFCC is an incredibly divisive policy and would understand differences in interpretation, but JJMC89's editing history is well outside the bounds of inclusionism and deletionism, and leans more "not my problemism". ℯxplicit 00:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

   Did you raise this issue with the candidate anywhere? I'd be interested to see links to discussions about this. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 01:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

   @Explicit: Now that's an issue that might merit some concern. If you formulate this as a question up above, it would give JJMC89 a chance to respond (and I would be very interested in seeing that response). NFCC and Copyvio are areas that require tact, humility, and a thick skin; and where hasty admin action can do a lot of damage (by causing conflicts; the purely technical can usually be fixed). And for RfA, in terms of support or oppose, the important thing isn't whether the candidate has made mistakes in the past (we all have) but whether they double down on their previous mistakes or indicate a willingness to show greater care for whatever the concern is in the future. For example, a regular editor tagging something (like NFCC file) for CSD or PROD can reasonably do so based solely on their subjective view; but the admin processing it must be a lot more conservative, objective, and consider other viewpoints. Just because JJMC89 the editor was, from your perspective, sloppy with NFCC tagging, it doesn't follow that JJMC89 the admin will be so in acting on such tags. Give them a chance to lay out their stance on this issue in the questions section (it's a really bad idea for RfA candidates to wade into the discussions in the support/oppose/neutral sections). --Xover (talk) 09:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

4. Oppose I can't agree with the answers to #5, #21, and I suspect #22 (which is unanswered as of time of writing). Even if we accept that in #21, these made up situations lack context, I would still hope JJMC89 has the guts to say that these editors who are "protecting the quality of FAs" are crossing the line, especially since the edits mentioned in #21 are likely made in good faith. Even if JJMC89 does not think a block is warranted, he should still have the courage to warn. Tolerating this kind of behavior make our civility policies look kind of ridiculous. If the policies are not to be enforced, why even have them? Banedon (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
5. Oppose The idea of an experienced editor repeatedly telling a confused Newbie to “fuck off” is both disgusting and horrifying. There is no nuance to these scenarios and I’m quite frankly alarmed that the candidate seems so nonchalant about the issue. I’m aware that the decision to intervene may be difficult and controversial, but this is the very type of decision that admins are expected to make. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
6. I do not oppose RfAs often. I think we need way more admins than we have. However, the answer to question 5 is utterly tone-deaf and we really do not need to continue to feed this toxic atmosphere. I really do hope that, should this pass (as it looks like it will), JJMC89 learns from the reaction and re-evaluates how to handle civility concerns. The last thing we need is to excerbate bullying culture. Edit: I feel like I should clarify that I do otherwise appreciate the work that JJMC89 has done onwiki. I don't think I would be devastated if he passed, I just think we need to address the issues in our community rather than overlook them for (let's face it) much less important issues like infoboxes. — 🦊 10:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

   Those expressing concern about "fuck-off" should read the RfC Wikipedia Talk:Civility#Request for comment on the specific term "fuck off" – sanctionable or not! if you haven't already. It's a rather enlightening discussion. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 10:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

   That RfC is about an absolutism, not about whether we can tell all the newbies to fuck off and get a pat on the back for it. Saying it to a good faith editor making her first edit is quite different from saying it to (for example) an LTA trying to push a pro-child molestation POV. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 12:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

7. Oppose. I'm moving to oppose because the nominee hasn't bothered to address in any way my concerns about civility. And those who are obsessed with the "fuck off" portion of this are ignoring that there was also kindergarten-level name calling, "fuck off troll". If this editor has no response to concerns about editors calling other editors names, they have no business being an admin. Jacona (talk) 12:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
8. Oppose. The answer to question five is troubling to say the least. Biting the newcomers is a well-known problem on WP and the answer utterly fails to consider that. Calidum 17:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
9. Oppose Per above and WP:TOOSOON JC7V (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

   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)

   Moved discussion to talk. Mkdw ^talk 20:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

10. Provisional Oppose Weak Oppose Concerns above put me here (From questions 5 and 21), however I'm still waiting on an answer to my question. Someone with such a history of creating accounts for people should be sensitive to those who choose to go without (for whatever reason). In particular the quoted section in 21 bothers me (even though I agree with the spirit of what Richie said): these are not two established editors working in talk space, this is saying Fuck Off to the brand new guy that walked in to help ladle the soup out. Put it this way: telling an established editor to Fuck Off in a particular situation can be seen with some sympathy (even if it's still not a good idea). Saying Fuck Off to a new editor is about the same as saying FUCK OFF to the third pillar: and that is quite a problem. Do you see why? Crazynas ^t 19:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

    This is pretty important. Editor retention is one of the most important aspects of the issues this project is dealing with. Overly mechanistic pro-forma action is not the way to maintain the health of this project. Like it or not administrators are the face of the project. While the Ingroups and outgroups tendency is strong and human and in many ways very important to the health of the encyclopedia it is not healthy for the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. To those who say that the candidate is merely following the herd; I would ask them to consider that change here (as everywhere) has to start at the top, not the bottom. I do hope that the candidate has learned and will take to heart what has been said here, as this is likely to pass and I wish them the best in their new role. Crazynas ^t 19:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

11. Oppose. I think the answer to question 5 is clearly inadequate, but for different reasons than those already given. The candidate has taken a mechanical, bureaucratic view of an AIV report and analysed (and potentially declined) it purely in terms of AIV criteria. That's not what needed doing here. The IP is not only engaged in an edit war with multiple editors, but is on the verge of breadking 3RR. That warrants an immediate final warning at least, not a careful investigation into whether or not socking is involved. The candidate has given no indication, as they should have done in answer to this question, that they understand that the presence/absence of infoboxes is frequently a controversial issue, or what policy has to say on the matter, or that they are aware of the arbitration committee ruling on "retaining existing styles", an important decision with wide-ranging effects, or that they understand policy on edit warring—all things an administrator is expected to know. And yes, as others have said, the highly offensive language of editors should attract a warning regardless of any provocation by the IP, not be entirely ignored by the servicing admin. SpinningSpark 19:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
12. Oppose per Explicit. The recent file tagging as recent as October is troubling, the candidate seems to have rushed through files without proper care and attention to detail. This in itself creates a mess for reviewing admins/editors, as it necessitates more review/clean-up as seen in the contribution history linked in Explicit's oppose. If JJMC were the reviewing admin, I doubt the proper diligence would have been done and we would have needlessly lost valuable content. Jon Kolbert (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
13. Oppose per Kranix and SpinningSpark. I'm not a fan of the not-enough-context "gotcha"-style question by Ritchie, but the answer is frankly just as bad. I don't think anyone expects every editor to know every policy and every arbcom case - but the same applies to the people in the hypotheticals. What I see is JJMC coming across massive WP:BITE violations and, in classic anti-vandal-warrior fashion, making them worse, basically encouraging the continuing bad behavior by others. That's simply not what anyone, let alone someone experienced enough to be running for admin, should be doing. ansh666 08:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

    Oppose. I do not like nominee’s answers to how he or she deals with misbehavior from long standing editors. JLaw220 (talk) 08:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC) Sock vote struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

14. Oppose per WP:BITE. Yes, we may well, as the mantra tells us, need more admins; but we also need more editors generally, and our replacement editors come from the pool of noobs. WP:RETENTION applies. ——SerialNumber54129 08:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
15. Oppose because of his problematic approach to content. I've seen that in his habit of tagging drafts (even quality ones) for G13 deletion without always notifying the creator and in his approach to duplicate articles, which I've last seen an example of here. In this case, a student editor had apparently accidentally moved their userspace draft to a new article title (instead of merging it into our existing article on the topic). Of all courses of action (pointing out the issue to the student, performing the merge himself (it would have been straighforward), doing nothing, etc.), he chose the worst one (discarding the new content by turning the article into a redirect). Add to this his attitude when a question was asked about it on his talk page (his response was basically saying: not my problem, it was your fault), and you've got a big red flag for any admin candidate. – Uanfala (talk) 11:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
16. Oppose Always suspicious when an RfA gets to 76-0 before any effective scrutiny - which is why questions should be answered fully before voting begins. For all the valid reasons above but in particular the completely and utterly blind, mechanical response to Q5 which basically considers process and completely ignores the person at the end of the IP. This IS the way many Admins behave - it is NOT the way that they should behave. Leaky Caldron 11:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
17. Oppose The image tagging issues are a problem for a non-admin - for an admin they are extremely undesirable. I do a lot of image related editing and concur with Explicit that the last thing needed in that area is poorly judged actions such as those discussed above. Additionally the civility concerns and answer to Q5 are both factors for me, as are the points raised by Uanfala. -- Begoon 13:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
18. Oppose: I can understand the candidate's dismissive attitude to question #22, #23 and #26, as these are essentially questions they've answered before, but I was hoping they might provide something extra to redeem their answers to #5 and #21. (See my stricken neutral rationale.) Both show an incredible amount of WP:BITE and lack of understanding of how IP users are interacting with the Wikipedia interface. Uanfala's concern seems to be a similar thing, and importantly it's evidence of the candidate already making edits which violate BITE, rather than just words written about hypotheticals. Whenever you tag anything for deletion or redirect any newbies' article, the most important part is discussion (or at least leaving a quick template) with the newbie so that they don't think it's a technical glitch or a big "go away" message from a powerful bully. If you're expecting a new editor to perform a merge, you need to bloody well tell them that, not just redirect an article with no edit summary. I'm reluctant to put myself in the oppose section as... well... many admins and editors wilfully dismiss BITE in a much more egregious manner than the candidate is proposing. But that does not make it right. The final straw is serious concerns about image tagging raised by explicit and Begoon. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 16:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
19. Oppose per Begoon and Bilorv. --MarchOrDie (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
20. Oppose. We need more admins, but from the writing side of the fence. Only 10 pages created in the main space: one stub and 9 redirects. AfD participation: over the last 500, only 1 is to take a side, 499 are gnoming. The only way to guess how a potential admin will behave once the bit is granted is to examine the present behavior while participating to contentious main space articles. This is not taking side against gnoming. This is only saying that admin authority is not required for that activity. Pldx1 (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
21. Oppose. See the answers to questions 5, 21, 22, and 26. It is clear that the candidate is not yet able to answer questions of this nature effectively, and I believe the candidate is not yet ready to be an administrator until they can reconcile their own ideas about situations of this nature. MPS1992 (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
22. Oppose I'm uncomfortable with, though not entirely opposed to, editors who do not have a track record with developing high quality articles gaining the admin tools. While these editors, such as JJMC89, may have a good track record on Wikipedia and are qualified to handle most admin roles, there's a risk that they will struggle when asked to intervene in an article, including to stop established editors (such as myself, from time to time) doing dumb things or to stop editors breaking long-standing consensuses. The answer to question 5 suggests that JJMC89 is not currently well placed to handle this part of the admin role - aside from favouring established editors and misunderstanding the scope of the admin tools (a minor issue for non-admins), I agree with SpinningSpark's assessment that this also indicates a lack of awareness around the kinds of disputes which affect articles and the sometimes unusual or even unsatisfactory ways in which they're resolved (the conduct described in the question is suggestive of a local consensus policed by overzealous jerks). Their answer to question 10 suggests that this may be a blind spot - MOS and the notability standards for academics seem minor things to feel weak on when you've only created a handful of articles and haven't developed any to GA or higher. Nick-D (talk) 05:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
23. Although I'm not concerned at all about content creation, I am reluctantly opposing due to poor answers of the questions and concerns about civility issues, as well as appearing to favor established users over new ones. Catrìona (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
24. Reluctant oppose. The candidate seems like a nice person and I have no doubt they are sincere and here for the right reasons. On the other hand, I feel they need more experience. Adminship is not just purely technical button-mashing and processing of reports according to criteria. There's a lot more nuance than many people think (a lot more than most people realise until they wield the mop), and approaching complex situations (like the scenario in Q5, for example) with lots of grey areas the same way one would approach a request to move an article over a redirect can cause a lot of damage. The candidate's brusque answers to the questions, and mechanical answers to questions like 5, 10, 11, 12 don't show this understanding. I'm not one of those editors who dismisses any RfA candidate out of hand if they don't have an arbitrary number of featured or good articles under their belt, but the longer I've been an admin, the more strongly I feel that nothing quite prepares you for these "grey area" scenarios like writing an article and navigating it through FAC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
25. Oppose at this time. I had some concerns about lack of experience with content creation, especially in light of planned areas of adminning (e.g. AIV and RFPP); I'm afraid the questions haven't assuaged those concerns; and the practical reality is that writing new material for the encyclopedia is about the last thing one can expect an editor to increase their time on once they get the mop. So as much distaste as I have for this option, I resort to saying I'd like to see some time spent on content creation (Ritchie's essay pretty much covers what I see as the value of it) and then I do hope, a return to RfA. Clearly JMMC is a strong candidate and valuable contributor. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

    @Innisfree987: Out of curiosity, how exactly does content creation correlate with handling AIV reports? It is not my intention to badger you; I just do not understand the connection or correlation between the two. EclipseDude (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

    Experience with article creation builds intuitive instincts about what is, and is not, actual vandalism - say, as opposed to someone just learning WP editing, or whether it is anything else but vandalism. Editors (sometimes long-time editors) toss all kinds of scenarios on AIV, wanting a seeming disruptive situation to be stopped. I used to do that myself when I was a new editor, feeling frustrated that the admins at AIV didn't see one thing or another as vandalism. A dozen years of content creation later, and becoming an admin myself, I totally understand why my early AIV reports were not actually vandalism. Also, users that get reported at AIV who might be engaged in other problem patterns, often should be reported at other boards. Content creation, the care you have to put in building an article, in contrast to general editing on existing articles, is key to building a good eye for what really is vandalism. Ditto for RFPP. Not every request for page protection warrants what is being requested. — Maile (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

    To add my two cents to that, it is not so much the creation of articles per se, but having enough content creation that you have had a few redirected, deleted, edited out of all recognition, or declined at a DYK/GA etc review. In other words, having your own work destroyed now and then gives you much more sympathy to content creators and helps you make good decisions. SpinningSpark 23:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

    BINGO! Spinningspark You described it accurately. — Maile (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

    Thank you for taking the time to provide explanations Maile66 and Spinningspark. I have spent a few hours mulling over those ideas. Though I can see how content creation can contribute to one's ability to properly recognize what is/is not vandalism, I still do not think content creation is the only way (or even the best way) to demonstrate those abilities. In terms of actioning AIV reports, I would view years of solid recent changes patrolling (which should provide evidence of properly classifying edits as either vandalism or good-faith but disruptive/inappropriate, the latter of which should not be taken to AIV unless if severely damaging and therefore warranting quick action) and submitting actionable AIV reports as a better indicator of one's ability to properly action AIV reports than any amount of content creation, featured or not. Meh, I'm probably just projecting many of my own experiences into my thought process. It may take a while yet before I can truly understand the correlation between the two. EclipseDude (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

    Well, Maile and SpinningSpark have basically covered it for me! The only thing I have to add is something you mentioned EclipseDude, namely that when not handled with the relevant perspective they describe, the ensuing misjudgments can have the effect of seriously discouraging a party to the incident--or, I'd add, perhaps many onlookers. Whether or not an admin has stepped up to uphold a functioning working volunteering environment has definitely affected which areas of the encyclopedia I contribute to. Now, as a result I'm highly sympathetic to others who also don't want to deal with gross hostility and I would have taken, "I won't be the kind of admin who gets into those cases, so I'll leave it for someone who does" as a perfectly suitable answer to Q5. It's the responding to the AIV request but not, it seems, realizing how much you can cause contributors to give up even trying to work on a subject if you closed out the matter with the civility issues unaddressed, that I think is an example of something more skin in the content game would give a useful perspective on. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

26. Reluctant Oppose. I'll second SpinningSpark and HJ Mitchell. Q1 gives me some trouble; it is not a limited request for copyright/OTRS but rather one that looks for expansion. For a special, limited, request, conventional admin qualities are less important. Yes, an OTRS agent would want to view deleted content and possibly restore it. If AIV and RFPP are thrown into the mix, the request is not so limited. The candidate has plenty of AIV reports, so that may be OK, too. But now we are in territory that requires broader skill and some assurance that newbie editors won't be labeled vandals. I'm not sure the candidate can do that. A broader adminship also makes me want to see significant content from the candidate, but that is not there. The career arc and edit distribution are also unusual. All of that left me wavering. If I do not read so much between the lines, I could still go for a narrow-field adminship. I posed Q8 for copyright skill; I did that with an earlier candidate and ended up supporting; I expected a repeat. While writing the question I changed 1927 to 1920 to make the question easier. I have a lot of trouble with the candidate's first answer: it made a publication claim without providing the details to persuade (see HJ Mitchell's general comment about brusque, mechanical, answers). It gave a good answer, but the reason for that answer might be wrong and thus make the answer unreasonable. What acts constitute publication of the photo? I debated a follow up question, but I never converged. Now the candidate has changed the answer to Q8, and it pushes me to oppose. The candidate is no longer sure the image was published in 1920, so the new answer is a reversal of the original answer. Why the change? The new answer is poor. Publication is a basic element in copyright, but the candidate wants to be spoon-fed with that information: "the question doesn't explicitly say when the photo was first published". I'm not looking for someone who must have explicit predicates to make a conclusion. Experts need to look at the circumstances and come to a reasonable conclusion. In addition, I'm horrified by the notion that "it may be PD regardless of publication because it is simple / not creative." A professional photographer is not going to exercise his art? Are all of my grade school photos outside of copyright because the requirements for school photos are set? Is the Zapruder film PD because Abraham Zapruder merely aimed his camera and had no control over the lighting or the movement of the motorcade or his position within the crowd? Also troublesome is the answer now asks us to examine the Hirtle chart and make our own conclusions. The question sought opinion rather than options. The National Archives argument has many problems. Consequently, I do not see skill in copyright, so the request for a narrow adminship is not ripe right now. The answer reinforces doubt about the candidate's ability to evaluate circumstances. Q3 is also a misfire; someone with content skills would provide meat. I'm not sure what conflict is raised; another editor deleting my contributions cuts much more than a vandal claiming he's legit or someone claiming a third's submission is a copyvio. Glrx (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
27. Oppose a terrible answer to question 5, a severe failure to observe WP:AGF. It's natural for an inexperienced editor to want to add an infobox to an article after seeing that other articles have one. I had a similar experience in the past, but fortunately I wasn't treated as badly. feminist (talk) 08:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
28. Oppose. Like others, I find the answer to Q5 quite troubling and that leads to to oppose this nomination. Looks like this may well pass though, so I'd urge the candidate to heed some of the wise words given in this RfA. Good luck! — sparklism ^hey! 14:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
29. Oppose Based on my interactions with you. You're the one who randomly chose to tag my image for deletion behind my back without showing consensus for the same [ping me if you need further input on this]. That being said, I'm rarely active on Wikipedia, so I'm unfamiliar with other good things you might have done. Leaderboard (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

    Leaderboard, I’m assuming you’re referencing Special:Undelete/File:Mixed-mode_scaling.png, where you edit warred to remove a valid deletion tag in violation of policy and where you were informed of the existence of the deletion tag by the bot that exists to do so. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

    I admit (and apologise) that I did edit-war briefly as he was raising invalid reasons until I decided to take this to the talk page. Even after that there was no consensus by other edits]ors, and I disputed the deletion tag in good faith. Maybe I'm missing something, but I did not see any bot informing me about any deletion (the one issue raised by a bot was immediately dealt with and had no relevance with the editor concerned). Leaderboard (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

    Leaderboard, the bot notified you here. The file was correctly nominated for deletion under the F7 criterion. You then edit warred against our local en.wiki policy that prohibits the creator of pages from removing the tag. You then engaged in discussion on File talk:Mixed-mode scaling.png, where JJMC89 calmly explained to you the situation and where you made claims that another administrator reviewed (as evidenced by their placing a G8 exempt tag on the page) and determined not to be sufficient to prevent speedy deletion. No consensus was needed as a part of this process as the file you uploaded was determined by an uninvolved administrator to fall within the speedy deletion policy. So nothing at all like you have portrayed it here ever happened. Rather JJMC89 acted in accordance with en.wiki policy while an editor who had no clue what was going on edit warred with them in violation of policy and got angry because JJMC89 was doing what they should have done. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

30. Oppose. Not admin material. No understanding or recognition of blatant incivility, biting, and abuse, not to mention edit-warring and OWN, apparent lack of understanding what vandalism actually is; tag-happy; no content-creation experience to speak of; and various other problems. JJMC89 is a valued Wikipedian, but I must oppose. Softlavender (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
31. Oppose After a careful review of behavior and prior interactions with others, I must agree that I see a history of incivility. I also am not a fan of the way that questions, particularly number 5 was answered by JJMC. Snowycats (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
32. Oppose I'd like to post some comments about Q21 for the record. The question is not about civility at all; rather it asks the candidate to discuss the circumstances under which we use blocks and lock pages. Of course these are contingent upon many factors before you can determine what is the correct course of action; that's the whole point of the question, and a really good answer would list at least some of them. I'd expect any passing grade answer to address the critical policies and procedures in play here, particularly Wikipedia:Protection policy, Wikipedia:Blocking policy, WP:BITE, WP:3RR and WP:ENGVAR. I'd expect every admin to know all of these by heart. As with most of these sort of questions, there's a kernel that addresses attitude as well as knowledge. In this scenario, there is a clueless editor who has trangressed WP:3RR and WP:ENGVAR, two of our brightest lines for an immediate block. Some empathy would suggest that the editor may not know about edit histories or talk pages, and is likely frustrated at edits that do not appear. On the other hand, we have an experienced editor who should expect unconditional support from the admin corps, and that a reasonable recommendation for page protection will be promptly acted upon. I would expect all admins to understand this too. It is a simple question, and it tests the basics of the admin role. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
33. Oppose per HJMitchell, growing concerns about Q5, and a complete lack of content creation. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 07:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
34. Oppose per lack of content creation, see User:GregJackP/Admin criteria. GregJackP Boomer! 08:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
35. Oppose- lack of content creation wouldn't bother me normally but, together with the spectacularly poor answer to Q5, I can't really support this time. Reyk _YO! 09:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
36. Oppose per answer to Q5, which fails to address the incivility. Lepricavark (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
37. Oppose. The answer to Q5 is so ignorant of what an admin is here for as to be enough on its own to oppose this candidacy, whatever other reasons there may be to support or oppose. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
38. Oppose The candidate seems thoughtful and desiring to do the right thing, but I have decided to oppose primarily due to their answer to Q5. The candidate's answer to Q21 indicates a pragmatic approach to civility issues, but in Q5 this approach translates into an answer that to me is rather head-in-sand. Some editors may adhere to the view that if Q5's IP editor proved to be a troublesome sock, this would provide ameliorating context for the conduct of the regular editors. However, the regular editors would never have had 100% certainty of the identity of the IP at the time they made their comments. (And even if they had, that wouldn't make their conduct OK - it would just be less bad, or rather, more forgiveable). The IP could be a new editor, a child, a relation of the article subject - and "fuck off troll" would be how they are greeted? Then there is what I regard as the bullying aspect - it isn't just one regular editor being abusive/supercilious, it is three. Of course this is a hypothetical situation, but it is a serious one, and I find the candidate's apparent nonchalance toward it to be enough reason to oppose. As it looks likely that the candidate's RfA will pass, I hope they are able to reflect on comments made. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
39. Oppose - per HJ Mitchell. Since it appears the mop will be granted, I’ll second PaleCloudedWhite’s comments just above. I strongly urge the newly-minted admin to think carefully about why dozens of editors, some admins, are !voting oppose at this time, and to weigh the objections carefully. Best wishes for a wise use of the tools and influence in the year ahead. Jusdafax (talk) 07:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
40. Oppose per the chorus of reasons listed above. Nihlus 09:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
41. Oppose Not because of Q5, which was adequately explained later, but from Explicit's oppose and Q27 dealing with problematic bots. Unfortunately the opposition about the former has drowned out concern about the latter, which hasn't been commented as much as I would have hoped. However, we have had problems with people taking too much of a heavy handed approach to files and not explaining themselves very well. I realise copyright is one of the most important policies we have as there are legal reasons behind it, but as I wrote here, doing this can be particularly bitey, so good communication is incredibly important. And I just can't see that level of communication here at this time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
42. Oppose (switched from Neutral): Between a number of answers, Uanfala's example, and the resistance to exploring the bounds of the hypotheticals, there's a bit of a pattern of over-focussing and rigidity, with neither an AFD record nor examples provided to counter. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral, somewhat leaning to oppose. I appreciate the candidate's answer to my question, and I would have very much liked to support. We do need more admins experienced in copyright questions, and the candidate's experience with these issues (here at en-wiki, at OTRS and at Commons) is a significant asset. However, the candidate's record in content creation is far too limited. The Articles created tool shows only 10 mainspace pages created, of which 4 are deleted pages, 5 are disambiguation pages, and only one (!) actual article, Aaron Jakubenko, which is a rather short stub. I don't necessarily need to see any featured content creation experience (such as GA or DYK). But the main purpose of Wikipedia is creating new content. I believe that anyone who wants to be an admin and to exercise the power of enforcing Wikipedia policies over other Wikipedia editors needs to demonstrate substantive experience and proficiency in content creation. The candidate's record in this regard is far far too limited. Nsk92 (talk) 23:13, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

   This has come up before and it is something that will need to addressed with the RfA process in general. Article creation is not a mandatory pre-requisite for adminship. You wrote; "the main purpose of Wikipedia is creating new content." No. That is just one of the "main purposes" here. Another one is the equally important article maintenance. Ensuring that the almost 5.8 million articles already created have been properly written, and formatted, and sourced, and are copy-vio free, etc., etc., along with keeping them vandal free and neutral during disputes. And that's just a few of the many myriad tasks limited to admins. Even if this editor never creates another article, do you really beleive he can't perform many of the the other admin-only tasks, to the benefit of the project? Or, let's keep this short and simple, if made an admin, do you think he will abuse, neglect or be incompetent with the tools as require having them revoked? (and therefore necessitate an 'oppose' !vote?) Please give all this some consideration before you lean all the way to oppose. Thanks - wolf 04:43, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

   Well, this is a Request for Adminiship, not a Creative Writing Contest. What is expected from WP admins is to be knowledgeable of the project's policies and be able to enforce them with tact and class. It doesn't take a writer to make for an excellent editor-in-chief. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

   That's one reason why, unfortunately, some of the erstwhile leading media publications have businessmen who have entrenched themselves as titular editor-in-chiefs, with no sense of what direction to take the publication in. Lourdes 03:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

   @Nsk92: Not trying to sway your opinion, but I don't think any of the four deleted pages should be held against the candidate. Jigsaw Records was a disambiguation page, but was deleted after one of the target pages was deleted (which wasn't created by JJMC89). The other three weren't actually created by JJMC89, but it appears as if they were in the database apparently due to history merges and/or other oddities. You of course had no way of knowing this since you can't see the deletion revisions, hence why I'm letting you know. Best, — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

   Neutral, leaning towards oppose due to the answer to question 5. When editors act towards an IP with incredible incivility, and the only actions (which in and of themselves are reasonable) are toward the IP? That answer is outrageous.Jacona (talk) 02:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

   Picking one's battles is an important skill to learn. While I'm certainly no fan of registered users who don't treat IPs with respect, depending on the day, I'd just make a mental note of it and mention it if it happened again. Also, the way that RfA is structured tends to make one look at the question in regards to IPs/things being reported at AIV. I'm glad that looking out for IPs is becoming something people care about at RfA, but I also don't think JJMC89 is one we have to worry about on this. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

   The more I think of it, the more appalling it becomes that editors would say "fuck off" and "fuck off you troll" (and to a possible noob) and an admin would ignore that. That is uncivil, inappropriate behavior and it should not be tolerated. If I encounter such behavior, I'm not going to leave it alone, and I'm not an administrator. The hypothetical editors involved should at the very least be warned even if it turns out the IP was a sock. It is outrageous and unacceptable behavior to ignore this and only direct attention to the civil editor. The only reason I'm not opposing this nom is that I'm unwilling to invest the time on the Christmas holidays to do due diligence and determine if this is typical behavior for the editor. If this is characteristic of this editors actions, they should not be an admin.Jacona (talk) 15:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

   I'm not defending the hypothetical editor. I'm saying that admins are not required to ever use their tools or to make any edit and if someone doesn't want to get into a fight with a clearly angry person who is unlikely to take constructive feedback, I can hardly blame them. Dealing with that end of the admin spectrum is very taxing work and some people don't want to do it at all.

   We see admins get pilloried for taking a tough stance on civility when two established editors are fighting. Do you really think the community as a whole would react kindly if an unblockable were blocked for being rude to an IP? It's completely understandable why someone wouldn't even touch that in an RfA response, because if they responded like you seem to want them to respond, it's very possible that you'd have opposes for them being the civility police. Most of the time RfA questions aren't useful and we need to go off of their track record. JJMC89 is a sane, level-headed, contributor who spends a ton of time making it so people who edit on blocked IPs can edit Wikipedia (WP:ACC) and who is one of the best technical contributors we have. The whole of their record speaks to them being a great administrator, and while I have no problem with opposes or neutrals (the content issues are fair) "They won't play the civility police when an unblockable is fighting with an IP" is hardly a fair critique. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

   @TonyBallioni, but when one proceeds to take action on one side and ignore the other, that is imo a grievous error. Rather than being the civility police, they are rewarding incivility, even encouraging it. Taking a side to attack possible bad behavior while ignoring unquestionable bad behavior is not good administrationJacona (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

   Jacona, if someone is evading a block, we block them regardless of who reports them. Even if the reporter is a sock themselves or is acting uncivilly. Typically, though not always, established editors get angry and revert for a reason, so looking at what the IP was doing that caused this anger makes sense: it could be nothing and the IP is completely innocent, but figuring out what was going on is important.

   This is a hypothetical here, so you can't really look into the details too much, but there are circumstances where I will see someone who has reported something to AIV or SPI and shake my head at the way they handled it but still action a report. Sometimes I raise the issue with the reporter (more likely at SPI), but other times I don't because I realize the disruption that having the discussion at that time will cause outweigh the benefits. Figuring out when to speak about issues as an admin is very much a balancing act and everyone has a different approach to it. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

   TonyBallioniYes it is a balancing act. And imo, if an admin encourages uncivil behavior in this manner, he's being unbalanced, and by doing so is going to encourage more incivility. If you think that's great, fine. I don't.Jacona (talk) 18:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

   The question is a hypothetical one about what one should do if one takes the interest to do so. So we're assuming the admin has noticed this at AIV and has the time and energy to investigate properly and deal with the consequences. If even in this abstract situation, someone can't be bothered to even address the unambiguous violation of a pillar, then I don't want them being an admin (who works in these areas). Wikipedia is filled with assholes because of this "experienced editor" apologism, and it contributes to our most major issues—editor retention and systematic bias. Having said all this, I think by this point we're reading too much into a quickly written response, and the candidate seems to have focused mainly on it being a socking issue. We need further clarity, and I hope my question will shed some more light on their perspective. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 18:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

   TonyBallioni, the uncivil edit captions were not on some noticeboard, they were on the article, for everyone to see. Any new editor who sees that is going to think this is perfectly acceptable etiquette to call other editors fucking trolls. I don't care if they've got 4 edits or 4 million, we should not accept profane name calling of that nature.Jacona (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

   Jacona, I agree, but I also don’t expect a brand new admin to pick a fight with an unblockable over this and think not doing anything and leaving it to someone else to handle when you don’t have hours to devote to defending your actions on a volunteer website is perfectly acceptable. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

   Jacona, I started the original "fuck off" RfC and mirror most of your sentiments. Any project that accepts Western presumptions about "fuck off" being friendly banter should stop pretending to be an inclusive, global project. If we really want to be known as the global encyclopedia, we need to stop accepting rubbish like "fuck off" under stupid reasonings. To that extent, JJMC89's responses are absolutely wrong. To that extent, then again, he would be a great Western-oriented administrator; and the project needs people like them as much as it needs opposing voices like yours and probably like mine. If there are editors for whom "fuck off" is a common parlance that their dads and mums use on each on each other and on their children, good for them; but this is a developing project, and there's no reason JJMC89's RfA should be rejected simply because he doesn't hold the so-called "global" viewpoint. I am reiterating my support for them because they are honest about their stand. Lourdes 03:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

   Lourdes, "Fuck off" is one thing, but even those who defend "fuck off" should find the addition of "Fuck off, Troll" a gross violation of our principles. Name calling should not be tolerated, but apparently it's OK now, we should start calling editors we don't like "you fucking asswipe" and such, then we'll be made unblockables. I'm saddened that so few editors care about civility. The next step is to try "win" every discussion by insulting everyone who disagrees with our point. We can pretty much rule out participation by anyone who doesn't include phrases like "fuck off shithead" in their daily vernacular.Jacona (talk) 12:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

2. Neutral--Total dearth of substantial content creation coupled with the accompanying lack of non-gnome-edits in main-space worries me and does not give me enough confidence in his abilities to correctly wield the block-hammer. But, at the same time, he is the typical no-fuss-guy and is picture-perfect in his areas of competency; as claimed. Also, I'm happy to see a self-nomination after such a long span and believe that he has the right demeanor to pull off the task.∯WBG^converse 09:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

   Moved to support. ceranthor 17:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)On the fence here. Clearly has CLUE and seems savvy, but I'm underwhelmed with content work. Will hopefully settle on one side or the other in the next few days or so. ceranthor 16:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

3. Neutral leaning toward oppose based on lack of content creation. I was also concerned by the answers to the questions referenced by other editors. Intothatdarkness 16:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

   Neutral. (Moved from "Support".) Explicit’s comment in the "Oppose" section has resulted in me taking a double-take on my stance, and withdraw my support for now. A few years back, I was a bit involved with a chain of events that led to how files are dealt with now, so I totally understand where Explicit is coming from with their comment. I’m not a fan of actions being taken that are essentially erroneous and could result in either damage done by careless admins or rework needing to be done that utilizes the community to fix, and Explicit’s comment shows instances where the nominee has caused such issues. At the present time, I’m having issues with seeing a net positive if it is somewhat shadowed by such actions. Steel1943 (talk) 01:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

   (After giving this some thought, moving back to "Support". Steel1943 (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC))

   Reluctantly moving to neutral per dissatisfaction with questions 5 and 21. In question 21, the candidate did not note that the summary "WHY DOESNT THIS WORK" indicates a person who is unaware of page histories; the person is noticing that their changes didn't remain there but they think it is the result of a technical fault. It's hard to put yourself in the shoes of someone with no idea of how Wikipedia works but this is how IP editors start out; a bland edit warring template does nothing to help this IP, because instead you need to leave them a message about how page histories work. (The regional language differences template is appropriate though.) Their comment that they would leave a civility mention to the experienced editor is what I was hoping for, and I'm not expecting or wanting the editor to be blocked or attacked. But they rather undermine the issue with the phrase "going after the editors for being uncivil isn't going deescalate the situation". It's not about "going after" anyone, but of making sure that the editor doesn't continue this behaviour—and if they do, there needs to be consequences. No user on this site is irreplacable. If you are a bully who ignores BITE then it doesn't matter if you've written half the FAs on the site, because in your time you've scared off 50 good-faith people who never became editors because of you, and they would have done more valuable work than you ever have. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 02:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

   Moved to oppose. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 16:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

4. Neutral, leaning oppose (moved from support) - the lack of consideration of CIVIL aspects in certain questions is particularly concerning. This aspect is not so egregious, and the candidate is otherwise well-qualified, to warrant an opposition at this point - but it is of major concern. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
5. Neutral -- reasonable answers to some questions and I'm not sure about others. I think I will park myself here on this RFA. -- Dolotta (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

   Neutral -- The deficiencies in answer 5 are not disqualifying on their own, but several of the other opposes raise valid concerns. Am after evidence in q29 on the candidate's judgement when things are not straightforward. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC) (moving to oppose ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC))

6. Neutral per question 5. Jc86035 (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
7. Neutral pending answer to my question and additional research. Strikerforce^Talk 21:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
8. Neutral -- while I don't think admins need to be prolific content creators, can't support someone whose experience in that area is so completely non-existent.--Staberinde (talk) 10:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
9. Neutral Cannot support someone with so little content creation, and not great answers to some of the questions. But I won’t oppose outright as they are unlikely to abuse the tools. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

   Neutral (moved from support) Per HJMitchell's oppose, but do not feel that lack of content creation will be that much a negative, or that this editor will misuse the mop. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 07:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC) (moved to oppose)

10. Neutral, concern with response to q.5. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
11. Neutral, concerns seem legitimate but not necessarily disqualifying. —JBL (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
12. Neutral Generally looks ok-ish, but the clear lack of any significant content creation makes me wonder how sympathetic or understanding they are of the core purpose of Wikipedia and those who build it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
13. Neutral I do not feel qualified to judge, but am uneasy about his reaction to the aggressive tone of the hypothetical “fuck off!”-ers; I suspect the content creation issue matters less. PJTraill (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
14. Regretful Neutral I'm landing here basically because I am pretty underwhelmed with both the candidate's answers and their level of participation during the process. I was about to add myself to the Support team back on the 26th, but I noticed the the candidate still had a lot of unanswered questions still sitting around. They finally got to them, but they are one or two line answers that really felt rushed and half-answered (and I really think that's what ended up happening at Q5 and Q8 especially). Furthermore, they've haven't touched the page in over a day and a half, and only 4 times in the past 5 days. Not that they need to be addressing every single point, but I would have thought that they would at least be acknowledging some of the issues that have been brought up. If they are busy, well, in their own words, My RfA is the one thing that I can control the timing of on Wikipedia, and I have the extra time to dedicate to RfA this week. I'm sorry, this just doesn't feel like something that the candidate has made a priority. Although I've not gone through an RFA, I've had enough similar experiences to understand how stressful and un-fun it can be, and I understand the desire to see it over as quickly as possible. However, this is the one week where you need to be accessible and engaged, and I just haven't seen that with this candidate. That being said, I am definitely not opposing, because ultimately I'm perfectly fine with them having the tools. CThomas³ (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
15. Neutral. I am encouraged by the comments in the RfA about incivility towards new editors, and I hope that when JJMC89 becomes an admin they will take these comments to heart. However, there are plenty of admins who would do exactly what was described in the answer to question 5, so this is not a reason to oppose. Bradv🍁 22:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

    I have no doubt that there are plenty of admins who are making net negative actions with their mop. There's no reason to set your RfA standard to the level of the worst editor who is currently an admin. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 04:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

    True, but that could be unfair to the candidate considering the example that's been set. I would love to hear JJMC89 explain whether they stand by their answer to question 5, however. Bradv🍁 04:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

16. Neutral. Moved from Support in view of further problems highlighted by Uanfala and others. I still believe the candidate is well qualified, however the last thing we need is another heavy-handed warden. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

General comments

• I would encourage JJMC89 to ignore the question about the meaning of their username, as it is not relevant to the merits of their being given admin powers. 331dot (talk) 15:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
  • 331dot, I agree, and I'd also suggest that they ignore the question about non-Latin character usernames, as we have plenty of Wikimedians who use the script of their native language when choosing a username, including some Stewards. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I would add that I don't think I have ever observed the asker of that question (who asks it with almost every nomination) support a nominee based on responses to it (or at all) as they seem to want the perfect candidate. They are certainly free to want that, but it would leave few admins for this project that is losing them faster than it is getting them. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Is it just me, or is Bilorv's question replicating Ritichie333' somewhat.... In less florid language of course  :) ——SerialNumber54129 19:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
        • @Serial Number 54129: It's a purposefully similar situation, yes, because I'm dissatisfied with the answer given to question 5 and want to see if it's because of the candidate's position or because they interpreted the question in a very different way to me. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 19:22, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

---

• WRT "content creation" … Awareness of copyright issues is a huge factor in "content creation" and too many editors have plagiarized entire articles as a start, and been considered "creators" while the persons finding the violations and dealing with such actual "non-creation" are fully as important. Heck, some editors have uses permutations and combinations of entire paragraphs in hundreds of "articles" in order to pad stubs instead of actually "creating new content" for Wikipedia. Ought we prefer such editors over those who take the issue of plagiarism seriously? I, myself, count the copyright tasks as being important in "content creation." Collect (talk) 20:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Certainly removing copyvio is an essential contribution to the encyclopedia; I do think it's quite different, though, from researching and writing new material. I mean, almost certainly it is, or we wouldn't have big swaths of people who gravitate sharply toward only one or the other. It seems to me the question is mainly, do people who do write new material need to worry that an admin who hasn't done much of it won't understand our experience of contributing to the encyclopedia when handling thorny situations like Q5? Innisfree987 (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

---

• PaleCloudedWhite We're here to judge if this nominee merits being given the admin tools, not question them about their workplace practices with what appears to me to be a loaded question(they aren't going to say "yes I support workplace bullying"). If you want clarification on their response to a question, please just ask what you want clarified. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

  Agree. I'd encourage a rephrase. — 🦊 10:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a workplace. The conduct of the hypothetical editors described in question 5 is bullying, in my view. The candidate does not seem to have considered this. Hence my question. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not a workplace. EEng 12:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

It depends how broad or narrow you make the definition. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Then don't make assertions using undefined elastic terms. EEng 17:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I regard Wikipedia as a workplace, you do not - it's just a difference of opinion, which is not a reason to recommend avoiding using such a term. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Only under the most strained interpretation can Wikipedia, a volunteer project, be characterized as a "workplace", for (as I said at the discussion linked above) at least three reasons:

• there's no contractual relationship between the "worker" and the "employer";
• none of the legal rights, obligations, and restrictions that apply in the workplace apply to Wikipedia; and
• (most impotantly) no one's livelihood depends on editing.

I strongly, strongly object to the workplace characterization, because the next step is talk of "workplace bullying" and other irrelevance. EEng 00:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I have already read your reasoning at the linked discussion. I could make further comment, but here does not seem an appropriate venue - I suspect this whole sub-thread would end up being hatted or moved to the talkpage, or we'd just get told to drop it. Please feel free to open a thread on my talkpage if you wish to continue. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not my goal to convince you, but to inoculate onlookers against spread of this "workplace" virus, and I believe I've achieved that. EEng 12:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Every volunteer organization I've ever worked with has had enough similarities with a workplace that the comparison has been valid one. Specifically, any time you come together with people you don't otherwise know to work on a project together the project takes on workplace qualities. Crazynas ^t 18:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

That would make a soccer field a workplace. Similar things may go on, as you say, but it's still not a "workplace". See my bullet list above. EEng 03:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Then if it were me I would remove the loaded aspect of the question and simply ask them to expand on their response to the initial question focusing on what you see as bullying. I regret to say that I would encourage JJMC89 to not answer the question as it stands now. 331dot (talk) 10:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

People can support bullying without being aware that they are doing so, hence my phrasing. But the candidate is free to state that they do not believe the hypothetical editors to be bullying. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I have adjusted my question to try and address concerns. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I've one thing to say but two ways to say it. Uncensored version: I swear to God, some of you people are wrangling about the most ridiculous neurotic hand-holding crybully c.r.a.p.! Cut it out! Censored version: it seems every Rfa in the past few years has attracted a coterie of complainers with some pet peeve they just can't set aside, who shamelessly cut an issue out of the herd and rustle it off in another direction, taking up more and more yardage on the page. Could someone please move the discussion following the first neutral !vote to the talk page? It has become longer than the rest of the entire neutral section. – Athaenara ✉ 01:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• While I find the discussions regarding Explicit’s oppose constructive, I can’t say the same about the Q5-based concerns. The question has a bit of « have you stopped beating your wife » to it; the mix of infobox concerns and gratuitous obscenities (and the general difficulties with hypotheticals) make it impossible for any short answer to be comprehensive. (an established editor on vacation) 2606:6000:CC40:7400:AC15:ADCF:5E62:B4C4 (talk) 06:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

  What exactly is the loaded part of the question? It asks the candidate what they would do and they make no mention of "address, in any form whatsoever, the use of profanity targeted at another editor". — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 22:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

  • There’s quite a lot going on. As I’m anonymous here, I won’t hesitate to mention Cassianto here, who has been sanctioned for incivility regarding infoboxes. On the other hand, if it’s clear that a specific sock is adding an infobox to cause disruption (probably because it is character-identical to a previous addition by that sock), « fuck off », while not encouraged, is also not sanctionable. In this type of situation, where any editor can initiate an ANI thread about incivility, and editors who would habitually use incivility are likely to claim INVOLVED concerns, it’s probably best that the admin handling the AIV report not deal with other issues, even (especially) if they are comically inappropriate. If there is no evidence of this user ignoring incivility in THEIR ACTUAL EDITING, and opposes are just based on this ridiculous question, I’d encourage everyone to ignore this monsoon in a coffee-mug. 2606:6000:CC40:7400:6843:35D5:C4C6:7472 (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
    • As Cassianto has not edited since June, has nothing to do with this RfA and has not been mentioned previously, why, on God's green earth, do you feel the need to needlessly crowbar his name into the conversation here? Cassianto is/was not a one-trick pony who obsessed about IBs, as his long list of featured content shows. - SchroCat (talk) 10:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Additionally: If you are acting in a different manner because you are logged out then you would when logged in, you are starting to skirt into the grey area bordering socking territory. Please don't do that. Either act in accordance with how you would when logged in, or refrain from commenting until you're back to your regular computer. --Xover (talk) 10:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
    • WP:ALLROADSLEADTOINFOBOXES. EEng 12:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• And at this point in a collegial debate - after the appropriate "laws" have been applied - comes the proper definition and usage of the English word fuck. It helps define why WP is not a workplace; rather, it is purely academic. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 14:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Who said that Wikipedia is not educational? :-) William Harris • (talk) • 07:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Larry Sanger? ;) ——SerialNumber54129 16:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.