JJMC89 for sysop

Dysklyver · Unread post by **Dysklyver** » Thu Dec 27, 2018 5:07 pm

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JJMC89 (T-H-L)

Sneaky little guy started an RfA on Christmas so I only just saw it, because I am lazy and didn't check till just now.

Currently 113-7-7, despite being a self-nomination on Christmas Day.

Anyway it looks like he is a shoe-in and will soon be a new admin, so congrats I guess?

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Thu Dec 27, 2018 5:15 pm

He's exactly the sort of weasel that would pass RFA. The guy never had an original thought in his life, is a total yes man and koolaid drinker who won't do a single thing to improve the community and will support and enable his fellow admins, right or wrong. He'll make a great admin if you support enabling abusive conduct because he makes a terrible contributor!

Dysklyver · Unread post by **Dysklyver** » Thu Dec 27, 2018 6:05 pm

Couldn't say it better myself:

Crowsnest wrote: Anyone here remotely able to get their head around being so addicted to Wikipedia that you schedule your RfA for your Christmas holidays because that is when you will have the necessary time off work to properly answer all the questions?

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... 7726#p7726

Madness.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Thu Dec 27, 2018 6:12 pm

Him and a couple hundred others it appears. I see a lot of people voting, commenting and asking questions on Christmas day.

The Garbage Scow · Unread post by **The Garbage Scow** » Thu Dec 27, 2018 7:11 pm

It's not THAT strange that people are voting... there are many more non-Christians than Christians in the world. Though the nom himself is wishing people Merry Christmas, so... yeah. That's kind of sad.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Thu Dec 27, 2018 7:17 pm

The Garbage Scow wrote:It's not THAT strange that people are voting... there are many more non-Christians than Christians in the world. Though the nom himself is wishing people Merry Christmas, so... yeah. That's kind of sad.

Well that's true but when you look at the list of people I see a lot that are familiar to me as American, European and or Christian. So although you are certainly correct that there must be some voting that don't celebrate Christmas, it looks like the vast majority just don't have a life or anything better to do than to edit.

Dysklyver · Unread post by **Dysklyver** » Thu Dec 27, 2018 7:21 pm

The Garbage Scow wrote:It's not THAT strange that people are voting... there are many more non-Christians than Christians in the world.

In the world yes, but on Wikipedia, where the vast majority of editors are from traditionally Christian areas of Europe and the US, you would expect most of them to be attending someones Christmas party, even if they think Jesus is made up and the whole party is Santa themed.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Thu Dec 27, 2018 9:34 pm

To be fair, even if you do celebrate Christmas, you may well have more free time while having an extended break than when you are at work all day and maybe helping children with homework in the evening. After all, plenty of people on here are finding time to post.

Now 119/11/6, so slightly going against him, but surely very unlikely to fail. Will there be a bureaucrat available on New Year's Day to do the honours?

Guido den Broeder · Unread post by **Guido den Broeder** » Thu Dec 27, 2018 9:35 pm

Kumioko wrote:
The Garbage Scow wrote:It's not THAT strange that people are voting... there are many more non-Christians than Christians in the world. Though the nom himself is wishing people Merry Christmas, so... yeah. That's kind of sad.
Well that's true but when you look at the list of people I see a lot that are familiar to me as American, European and or Christian. So although you are certainly correct that there must be some voting that don't celebrate Christmas, it looks like the vast majority just don't have a life or anything better to do than to edit.

I think this is a well-established fact.

Beeblebrox · Unread post by **Beeblebrox** » Thu Dec 27, 2018 9:41 pm

My family hasn't done Christmas on actual Christmas day in years. Someone always has to work or some other conflict arises. Not being at all religious and having given up on the whole concept of a giant gift exchange some years ago for us it's really about getting together, having a nice meal, and just enjoying each others' company.

In any event, regardless of the Christmas thing this RFA looks like it will sail right through. I don't find anything particularly compelling in the current crop of opposes.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Thu Dec 27, 2018 10:27 pm

Nope, as I said he is exactly the kind of editor who makes admin....and I don't mean that in a good way.

Jans Hammer · Unread post by **Jans Hammer** » Fri Dec 28, 2018 11:27 am

Kumioko wrote:Nope, as I said he is exactly the kind of editor who makes admin....and I don't mean that in a good way.

This could be a late swinger. Once it gets to the discretionary range it will fail due to lack of clue on dealing with civility to IPs and other emerging concerns.

chad100 · Unread post by **chad100** » Fri Dec 28, 2018 1:55 pm

It is heading towards the Crat zone.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Fri Dec 28, 2018 2:43 pm

chad100 wrote:It is heading towards the Crat zone.

It's still got a ways to go to get there but even if it does, he has a lot of support in the admin/functionary circles so he would likely pass of it went to the bureaus. The fact is he isn't an editor and doesn't respect editors or what they do and that is the type that frequently gets promoted to admin.

Jans Hammer · Unread post by **Jans Hammer** » Fri Dec 28, 2018 4:25 pm

Kumioko wrote:
chad100 wrote:It is heading towards the Crat zone.
It's still got a ways to go to get there but even if it does, he has a lot of support in the admin/functionary circles so he would likely pass of it went to the bureaus. The fact is he isn't an editor and doesn't respect editors or what they do and that is the type that frequently gets promoted to admin.

Not sure why you see a conspiracy to support this candidate. If it gets as far as the crats, with the weight of evidence and supports switched to oppose, friends in high places are not going to rescue that situation. The weight of evidence against is already far heavier than the large number of token supports which are basically one word.

Dysklyver · Unread post by **Dysklyver** » Fri Dec 28, 2018 4:43 pm

Jans Hammer wrote:
Kumioko wrote:
chad100 wrote:It is heading towards the Crat zone.
It's still got a ways to go to get there but even if it does, he has a lot of support in the admin/functionary circles so he would likely pass of it went to the bureaus. The fact is he isn't an editor and doesn't respect editors or what they do and that is the type that frequently gets promoted to admin.
Not sure why you see a conspiracy to support this candidate. If it gets as far as the crats, with the weight of evidence and supports switched to oppose, friends in high places are not going to rescue that situation. The weight of evidence against is already far heavier than the large number of token supports which are basically one word.

The weight of evidence is basically irrelevant, all that matters is how many important admins are in the oppose section.

Oppose camp.

Kranix (T-C-L)
Sir Joseph (T-C-L) - matters
Explicit (T-C-L) - admin
Banedon (T-C-L)
Spirit of Eagle (T-C-L)
Fox (T-C-L) - admin
Jacona (T-C-L)
JC7V7DC5768 (T-C-L)
Calidum (T-C-L)
Crazynas (T-C-L)
Spinningspark (T-C-L) - admin
Jon Kolbert (T-C-L) - matters
ansh666 (T-C-L) - admin
JLaw220 (T-C-L) (literally a sockpuppet)
SerialNumber54129 (T-C-L) - matters
Uanfala (T-C-L) - matters
Leaky caldron (T-C-L) - matters
Begoon (T-C-L)
Bilorv (T-C-L) - matters

5 admins and 6 relevant users?
Not sinking anything yet.

SixOClock · Unread post by **SixOClock** » Fri Dec 28, 2018 4:44 pm

Jans Hammer wrote:
Kumioko wrote:
chad100 wrote:It is heading towards the Crat zone.
It's still got a ways to go to get there but even if it does, he has a lot of support in the admin/functionary circles so he would likely pass of it went to the bureaus. The fact is he isn't an editor and doesn't respect editors or what they do and that is the type that frequently gets promoted to admin.
Not sure why you see a conspiracy to support this candidate. If it gets as far as the crats, with the weight of evidence and supports switched to oppose, friends in high places are not going to rescue that situation. The weight of evidence against is already far heavier than the large number of token supports which are basically one word.

It is normal for Kumioko. Everything to do with Wikipedia is a conspiracy - especially any admin or anyone who ever puts forth for admin.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Fri Dec 28, 2018 6:50 pm

SixOClock wrote:
Jans Hammer wrote:
Kumioko wrote:
chad100 wrote:It is heading towards the Crat zone.
It's still got a ways to go to get there but even if it does, he has a lot of support in the admin/functionary circles so he would likely pass of it went to the bureaus. The fact is he isn't an editor and doesn't respect editors or what they do and that is the type that frequently gets promoted to admin.
Not sure why you see a conspiracy to support this candidate. If it gets as far as the crats, with the weight of evidence and supports switched to oppose, friends in high places are not going to rescue that situation. The weight of evidence against is already far heavier than the large number of token supports which are basically one word.
It is normal for Kumioko. Everything to do with Wikipedia is a conspiracy - especially any admin or anyone who ever puts forth for admin.

That's not really true. The problem is that the admin culture on Wikipedia favors people who are disrespectful to editors, act like dicks to new editors and support without question the actions of other admins. JJ fits that perfectly. He isn't an editor, he is a troll and he spends all of his time creating or perpetuating drama. The Wikipedia community and project needs a better admin than JJ, but he is the sort of admin they deserve!

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Fri Dec 28, 2018 9:17 pm

Currently 144/20/7, which is 87.8% ignoring neutrals. That should sail through unless there's a last minute stampede. Weight of comments is totally irrelevant unless it goes to crat discussion; it's just a count of votes (so they're not !votes).

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Fri Dec 28, 2018 9:43 pm

I wonder why User:Ritchie333 (T-C-L) used the Noel Coward (T-H-L) article as the "example" for his question in this RfA (#5, the one many of the opposers are referring to)? The dispute over putting an infobox in that article isn't exactly a hypothetical thing, it actually happened, though it wasn't an AnonIP who put in the infobox. Presumably anyone who put one in now would be immediately reverted and told to refer to the lengthy discussion on the matter that took place in August 2016 (not that the conclusion to that was especially definitive).

Maybe User:JJMC89 wasn't aware of this incident, and Ritchie333 was trying to test his awareness of the ongoing infobox wars in some way...?

Dysklyver · Unread post by **Dysklyver** » Fri Dec 28, 2018 9:55 pm

Dysklyver wrote: JLaw220 (T-C-L) (literally a sockpuppet)

Now blocked as a sock of LovelyGirl7 (T-C-L).

Ansh666 · Unread post by **Ansh666** » Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:28 am

I'd put myself in the "admin that doesn't matter" section

Unread post by **tarantino** » Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:35 am

Dysklyver wrote:
Dysklyver wrote: JLaw220 (T-C-L) (literally a sockpuppet)
Now blocked as a sock of LovelyGirl7 (T-C-L).

Outed on wikipedia as the former child actor Jeffrey Landman. His accounts on wp go back at least 13 years.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sat Dec 29, 2018 7:05 pm

Currently 157/23/7, which is 87.2% ignoring neutrals. Slowly going the wrong way, but still a safe bet for a pass.

chad100 · Unread post by **chad100** » Sun Dec 30, 2018 4:51 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... KAGfan2018

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... s/Morganlh
Less than 20 edits voting support

Dysklyver · Unread post by **Dysklyver** » Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:38 pm

Socks ahoy.

Do you think Bbb23 reads this forum? I imagine the checkusers don't because we make fun of them so much, but you never know for sure.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:02 pm

I think Bbb23 will CU any unknown editor who votes on RFA so even if he doesn't look here, he will CU them anyway.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:18 pm

It obviously looks highly suspicious if someone with so few edits knows what an admin is, let alone how to find RfA. I hope that the closing crat ignores them, not that it would make much difference.

Black Kite · Unread post by **Black Kite** » Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:32 pm

Poetlister wrote:It obviously looks highly suspicious if someone with so few edits knows what an admin is, let alone how to find RfA. I hope that the closing crat ignores them, not that it would make much difference.

Don't forget that all RfAs are now advertised via watchlist notices, so anyone with an account will see it. Whether they're a sock or not, that would be a reasonable explanation as to how they found their way there. I see one of those two has since been blocked as a very obvious sock.

Dysklyver · Unread post by **Dysklyver** » Mon Dec 31, 2018 1:28 am

Another adminship run just started without waiting for this one to end. Normally that is bad news because the voters have a choice on who to go for.

Still 1 day 15 hours to run though.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Mon Dec 31, 2018 1:32 pm

Dysklyver wrote:Another adminship run just started without waiting for this one to end. Normally that is bad news because the voters have a choice on who to go for.

Still 1 day 15 hours to run though.

There's no problem in voting in two different RfAs. He's now on 83%, so slowly slipping down.

Ansh666 · Unread post by **Ansh666** » Mon Dec 31, 2018 8:35 pm

Kumioko wrote:I think Bbb23 will CU any unknown editor who votes on RFA so even if he doesn't look here, he will CU them anyway.

Undoubtedly.

Beeblebrox · Unread post by **Beeblebrox** » Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:36 am

Unles a whole lotta people oppose from wherever they're getting drunk for New Year's this is going to pass. 83% with 15 hours left.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:39 am

Ansh666 wrote:
Kumioko wrote:I think Bbb23 will CU any unknown editor who votes on RFA so even if he doesn't look here, he will CU them anyway.
Undoubtedly.

Yeah there is no way Bbb23 isn't violating the CU usage rules. He is CUing everying that moves. It's unfortunate that people let him get away with it though.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Tue Jan 01, 2019 9:15 am

Kumioko wrote:Yeah there is no way Bbb23 isn't violating the CU usage rules. He is CUing everying that moves. It's unfortunate that people let him get away with it though.

No doubt he can claim that on each occasion he has reasonable grounds. It would not be easy to fault him on any given CU, only on the long-term pattern.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Tue Jan 01, 2019 4:18 pm

Poetlister wrote:
Kumioko wrote:Yeah there is no way Bbb23 isn't violating the CU usage rules. He is CUing everying that moves. It's unfortunate that people let him get away with it though.
No doubt he can claim that on each occasion he has reasonable grounds. It would not be easy to fault him on any given CU, only on the long-term pattern.

Oh yeah that's what I am saying. No doubt he can often justify the use of the CU toolset but as a long term pattern of use he is definitely abusing them with his fishing expeditions. In fact the way he uses the tools is exactly why the developers originally did not want to release them to the general public for use.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:23 pm

That's why it's hard to get CU, why the WMF gets involved and why every site must have at least two CUs (or none at all) so they can supervise each other. On the medium sized sites where they have a handful of CUs, the mutual checking seems to work pretty well. The trouble is that the English WP is so big and there are so many checks done that it's infeasible to have adequate supervision.

JJMC89 has duly passed.

Dysklyver · Unread post by **Dysklyver** » Tue Jan 01, 2019 10:58 pm

There is no reason for the log of CU checks to not be visible by admins by the way, the default of admins being able to see the checkuser log would be a great way to make things more transparent. If anyone was interested of course.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Wed Jan 02, 2019 12:40 am

Dysklyver wrote:There is no reason for the log of CU checks to not be visible by admins by the way, the default of admins being able to see the checkuser log would be a great way to make things more transparent. If anyone was interested of course.

I agree with that.

Boing! said Zebedee · Unread post by **Boing! said Zebedee** » Wed Jan 02, 2019 8:04 am

Dysklyver wrote:There is no reason for the log of CU checks to not be visible by admins by the way, the default of admins being able to see the checkuser log would be a great way to make things more transparent. If anyone was interested of course.

But if an admin could see who was checked and when, by then looking to see who was subsequently blocked they'd be able to make the connections that only CU's are supposed to be able to see. It would be more transparent, but it would be exposing personal information to more people.

Beeblebrox · Unread post by **Beeblebrox** » Wed Jan 02, 2019 9:46 am

Boing! said Zebedee wrote:
Dysklyver wrote:There is no reason for the log of CU checks to not be visible by admins by the way, the default of admins being able to see the checkuser log would be a great way to make things more transparent. If anyone was interested of course.
But if an admin could see who was checked and when, by then looking to see who was subsequently blocked they'd be able to make the connections that only CU's are supposed to be able to see. It would be more transparent, but it would be exposing personal information to more people.

Exactly. This is also why suppression logs are not at all public.

Dysklyver · Unread post by **Dysklyver** » Wed Jan 02, 2019 11:08 am

Beeblebrox wrote:
Boing! said Zebedee wrote:
Dysklyver wrote:There is no reason for the log of CU checks to not be visible by admins by the way, the default of admins being able to see the checkuser log would be a great way to make things more transparent. If anyone was interested of course.
But if an admin could see who was checked and when, by then looking to see who was subsequently blocked they'd be able to make the connections that only CU's are supposed to be able to see. It would be more transparent, but it would be exposing personal information to more people.
Exactly. This is also why suppression logs are not at all public.

Yup the admins are not trustworthy to know who has has been CU checked.

A.Esculentus · Unread post by **A.Esculentus** » Wed Jan 02, 2019 12:30 pm

Dysklyver wrote: Yup the admins are not trustworthy to know who has has been CU checked.

+1

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Wed Jan 02, 2019 3:13 pm

We can't have it both ways, unfortunately. Either CU is a highly confidential process (as it should be), or it is open to scrutiny by a fairly large number of people. Some circles can't be squared.

Boing! said Zebedee · Unread post by **Boing! said Zebedee** » Wed Jan 02, 2019 3:30 pm

Dysklyver wrote:
Beeblebrox wrote:
Boing! said Zebedee wrote:
Dysklyver wrote:There is no reason for the log of CU checks to not be visible by admins by the way, the default of admins being able to see the checkuser log would be a great way to make things more transparent. If anyone was interested of course.
But if an admin could see who was checked and when, by then looking to see who was subsequently blocked they'd be able to make the connections that only CU's are supposed to be able to see. It would be more transparent, but it would be exposing personal information to more people.
Exactly. This is also why suppression logs are not at all public.
Yup the admins are not trustworthy to know who has has been CU checked.

Agreed - yes, seriously.

C&B · Unread post by **C&B** » Wed Jan 02, 2019 3:52 pm

Imagine if all those recently-compromised admin accounts had been able to view CU data...

Dysklyver · Unread post by **Dysklyver** » Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:18 pm

C&B wrote:Imagine if all those recently-compromised admin accounts had been able to view CU data...

It's not CU data, it is a simple list of which accounts have been checked, with whatever reason Bbb23 has put it for the check, like an edit summary.

turnedworm · Unread post by **turnedworm** » Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:27 pm

It's still CU data as that list will include IP address who have been checked and the order in which they were checked.

So, If I were to check

User:Dysklyver at 10am
IP:192.168.0.1 at 10:03
User:Other Account at 10:04
IP:192.168.0.4 at 10:07
User:3rd Account at 10:10
User:4th Account at 10:10

and then block the 3 accounts - then it's clear that Dysklyver and the other accounts were linked to those IPs and with that IP data you can find out all sorts of other information.

You may not be getting the full CU data, but that's a lot of information to give to 1200 people who don't need to know it.

There are solutions though - anonymise the subject, and just show the comment and performer. The problem is that I expect there are CU logs which include CU information as it was understood these would be hidden and therefore changing them to unhidden may reveal information, so someone would need to oversight those logs.

Dysklyver · Unread post by **Dysklyver** » Wed Jan 02, 2019 6:06 pm

turnedworm wrote: The problem is that I expect there are CU logs which include CU information as it was understood these would be hidden and therefore changing them to unhidden may reveal information, so someone would need to oversight those logs.

I hadn't considered that, it could be very awkward cleaning things up to take that into account.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Wed Jan 02, 2019 9:08 pm

Dysklyver wrote:
turnedworm wrote: The problem is that I expect there are CU logs which include CU information as it was understood these would be hidden and therefore changing them to unhidden may reveal information, so someone would need to oversight those logs.
I hadn't considered that, it could be very awkward cleaning things up to take that into account.

Yes, such CU logs do exist. Also, if the CUs were to be fully open, others would need to see all the messages that they swap with each other.