Stewards/Confirm/2025/JJMC89

JJMC89

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

English:

• Languages: en-N
• Personal info: I am seeking confirmation for my second term. Since being elected last year, I performed ~9,000 publicly logged Steward actions, performed ~750 checks on loginwiki, closed ~1,200 Steward VRT tickets (excluding a mountain of spam/junk), and closed many global UTRS appeals. I have routinely provided feedback to the WMF on projects that (may) impact Steward tools/work.
  I expect my activity to be similar over the next year. I will continue to be available on IRC and, if really necessary, Discord.

বাংলা:

• ভাষা:
• ব্যক্তিগত তথ্যাদি: translation needed

Deutsch:

• Sprachen:
• Informationen zur Person: translation needed

español:

• Idiomas:
• Información personal: translation needed

magyar:

• Nyelvek:
• Személyes információk: translation needed

italiano:

• Lingue:
• Informazioni personali: translation needed

Nederlands:

• Taalvaardigheid:
• Persoonlijke informatie: translation needed

русский:

• Языки:
• Личная информация: translation needed

Tiếng Việt:

• Ngôn ngữ:
• Thông tin cá nhân: translation needed

中文（简体）:

• 可说语言:
• 个人资料: translation needed

中文（繁體）:

• 可說語言:
• 個人資料: translation needed

Comments about JJMC89

• Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC).

Neutral pending responses to questions and criticism; JJMC89 indeed did a good job as a steward, but communication and accountability are two key points as well. --Stïnger （会話） 23:51, 16 February 2025 (UTC).

Switching to Remove for being unresponsive for 20 days(!) already. It seems they've been inactive since the confirmation started. I expect stewards to be responsive and take the feedback that the community is giving—and on time— which unfortunately this seems not to be the case. --Stïnger （会話） 16:40, 26 February 2025 (UTC).

• Question: Your handling of the recent Feeglgeef case on Wikifunctions was quite frankly, poor, including 1 block that you are clearly not permitted to make (Special:Redirect/logid/58453510) as per Meta:Meta–steward relationship and rejecting a resignation (which stewards cannot really do...which in turn resulted in the ex-admin turning abusive). How do you think you'll address such situations going forward without a "my way or the highway" approach? //shb (t • c) 14:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  Given the lack of a response and JJMC having been active on-wiki since 14:06, Feb 6 (see w:en:Special:Diff/1274363337, made on 23:00 UTC the same day), I am voting a strong remove. JJMC's unwillingness to handle criticism, poor attempts of collaboration, poor communication, the enwiki OS issue, the Feeglgeef case, and going by a smart kitten's comment, the phab cases, the number of controversies is far too many for someone's first year as a steward. //shb (t • c) 22:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - XXBlackburnXx (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
•  Weak keep --V0lkanic (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• {{k}} On SHB's note I've also noticed similar stuff from JJ which could seem like overriding or reversing other stewards' actions. One of the cases that I am the most disappointed about was the Seckends case. I initially locked the account for lock evasion, but some time later when they appealed their lock JJ unlocked - not because of the appeal but because I had provided "no clarification of lock evasion" in the lock summary. After I responded in the VRT ticket for clarification JJ still refused to re-lock. Granted, I should have provided information in the lock summary about who the "evader" was, but in situations like this I find it better to leave the user in question a note to clarify (such as this), before taking action, because communication is important, especially as a steward. However, I am still leaving a keep comment, as I find them active enough and they've been especially helpful for stuff like VRT/UTRS and as a checkuser-l list owner. EPIC (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

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

  I just want to leave an additional note that the Seckends and Feeglgeef cases aren't the only cases of "overriding other stewards" - there are several of these that I've noticed during the time I've been a steward with JJ, particularly around my actions. I don't know if this has to do with any bias against me or just the fact that I have been performing a large amount of this year's actions - but I simply can't overlook the firstly mentioned , because, I'm going to admit, I've felt a bit uncomfortable with JJ's communication style towards me in private communication channels. I'm not alone in that - that communication style isn't really limited to me, but I've felt like I've been a "main target", which might also have to do with me being one of the more active stews. I'll add that JJ did provide some extra context around the Feeglgeef deal in the stewards' IRC channel, but I unfortunately found it more on the defensive side there as well (basically "my decline should stand"). With that being said I'd still like to see their response. EPIC (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

  Switched to remove, see below. EPIC (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep JrandWP (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Not familiar with the whole situation so may change my !vote later if more comes up. I personally don't have too much of an issue with the partial block because it's exclusively on a steward page, and if someone is being uncivil on a steward page, I don't see why the stewards can't deal with it directly. --Ferien (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

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

  Just to be clear, as there has been some debate on a lack of response here, my remove suggestion is not primarily due to the enwiki oversight situation - it certainly is not banned by policy but looks poor, especially if you question an oversighter openly - nor due to the lack of answers here, because frankly, the Feeglgeef discussion already demonstrates a lack of accountability on its own to the stage I think a remove is necessary. The other poor decisions are additional reasons, but to reiterate, I'm not opposing based on whether JJMC responds here or not, he could be busy with real life at the moment. He had a chance to explain and/or apologise for his actions at the SRP request, and has had a month to do so otherwise, but during the discussion he persisted with the same flawed point and dodged comments the whole time, even as he saw the admin turning abusive (even blocking them locally) and others were starting to question his actions. Another point that doesn't seem to have been noted yet: JJMC asked EPIC not to override his decision when it arguably wasn't an override (JJMC said resign when you're ready, Feeglgeef made six further comments that clearly indicate that they were ready, JJMC was still not satisfied) yet saw absolutely no issue in overriding the lock EPIC gives above (Special:CentralAuth/Seckends) without any communication. If you aren't happy having your actions reversed without communication (primarily as a result of unclear explanation) then perhaps apply the same courtesy to other stewards. --Ferien (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep --Jan Myšák (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per Ferien. Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep —Aopou {talk} 20:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Hey man im josh (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Miniapolis 00:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. Codename Noreste (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep HouseBlaster (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Ternera (talk) 03:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep I don't believe that 'things turning abusive' was a result of JJMC89's actions, as the relevant user's behavior around January 9th, both on- and off-wiki, was generally erratic even before the SRP request. Mahir256 (talk) 05:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

  It was very much a case of an everyone sucks here situation, but the drama could have ended a day earlier had JJMC simply processed the resignation. The only reason why I have such an erratic block log on Wikifunctions is because of JJMC. //shb (t • c) 11:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep --Lookruk 💬 (Talk) 09:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• There are a few things that cause me concern.
  • Firstly, in November, JJMC89 (who is not an Oversighter on the English Wikipedia) appears to have questioned an enwiki Oversighter on her public user talk page about a suppression action she took on that wiki. Due to the inherently non-public nature of suppressions, it feels iffy at best for a discussion about them to be held in public view; and the English Wikipedia's Oversight policy specifically states that [c]omplaints or inquiries about potential misuse of the oversighter user permissions should be referred to the Arbitration Committee. In addition, JJMC89 mentioned that he looked at the [enwiki suppression] log to know who to ask about reversing the suppression, but I don't understand why he did that instead of emailing the enwiki ArbCom, as the local policy says should be done with misuse enquiries.
  • Secondly, although I had noticed the Feeglgeef case mentioned by SHB2000 above, I was not previously aware of the block made on Meta-Wiki.
  • Thirdly, I have concerns regarding JJMC89's actions in security Phabricator tickets (which, if I understand correctly, he has access to in his role as a Steward). To my memory, I have had direct interactions with him in three security tasks, and all have been (in my opinion) less than ideal at the least:
    • in phab:T381442, he made several comments which (in my opinion) represent a lack of security consideration of the issue at hand;
    • in phab:T223501, he appears to have unilaterally closed as invalid a security issue that had been open for several years & had been reported by at least three separate people (including myself), with a closing summary that again (in my opinion) represents a less than full consideration of the matter at hand; and
    • in phab:T385792, he has made a comment which I believe does not show a full consideration of the situation from a security point of view.
    In my opinion, these comments matter, if for no other reason than because comments such as these in a security task may be some of the first responses that someone reporting a MediaWiki/Wikimedia security issue receives. Speaking personally, I remember it feeling quite exhausting in phab:T381442, when I felt that - in response to his comment - I had to further justify why the issue I'd reported was a valid security matter/one that needed action at all.
    I'm aware that these tasks won't be accessible to a majority of people reading this, for which I apologise; however, I'm raising them here as I feel that they are relevant to JJMC89's stewardship.
  Because of these, I am currently leaning remove, although I note that I am obviously personally involved with the Phabricator tickets I have mentioned above. ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 10:57, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

  Now to be fair with the Feeglgeef case, I did end up indeffing them based on further disruption, but IMO the nature of the initial block is very much that should be left to admins here as per Meta:Meta–steward relationship. Incivility blocks on steward-specific pages is not listed as an exception. //shb (t • c) 11:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

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

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

  @Legoktm: Thanks for taking a look at them -- I appreciate your reply & hearing your perspective.
  Like I say, I appreciate that I am personally involved with the tickets; however (for one of the examples), as my reply in T381442 may indicate, I think I felt quite shocked reading the comment JJMC89 left in that task saying that nothing should happen. To probably put it somewhat bluntly, I just couldn't really imagine how something that allows you to do what's described in that task's title & description could be thought to be an acceptable situation security-wise. That being said, I do note what you have said & I take it on board.
  In addition, the way in which T223501 was closed as invalid (without, e.g., a comment suggesting the action and asking for other opinions beforehand, in a ticket with the characteristics this one has) strikes me as a potential example of the inflexibility mentioned by arcticocean below.
  In terms of interrelatedness, I view the first and third as being more related than the second, which (trying here to intentionally word things as vaguely as possible!) I suppose could be said to be related in that it relates to the same underlying component, but to be honest I wouldn't have previously said that the second task was related to the others if I'd been asked.
  Thank you again for taking a look at the tickets - I appreciate you taking the time to do so. /gen ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 14:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

• {{Neutral}} while I await candidate responses and consider other comments. While I commend JJMC89's dedication to the role, high activity is not a significantly important quality in stewards. Steward is an important role and not everybody is suited to it. I have concerns about JJMC89 as a steward, based on my observations the past year.
  • There is a communication style, a sort of "I'm going to do this, without warning or explanation" approach, that has caused issues.
  • There's also an inflexibility or reluctance to change position, listen, or engage with others.
  • There is also a tone issue: while everyone has their own style, JJMC89 often signals opposition without really explaining why or proposing a solution, which is subtly pernicious in an online community.
  Our steward elections do not effectively detect these kind of behaviours, because they manifest only once the user has the flag and starts interacting with others. But the behaviours have manifested this year and it is important to address them. --Arcticocean ■ 12:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Remove without opposition to re-election in future if there is improvement - (A) For years there have been concerns at his home wiki about disappearing during criticism of his actions or editing while ignoring it. That likely (the final decision-making is secret) led to his unsuccessful applications for CU in 2020 and 2022. For this confirmation, JJMC89 was online on 6 February (en.wiki) and 7 February (on UTRS) but has since disappeared. The benefit of the doubt of being busy offline only goes so far. (B) He frequently overturns other people without discussion, as other stewards and various people have said here, or steams ahead with doing something. This was also my experience on the Ombuds Commission, where it created problems several times. (C) The stern and unsettling tone is a permanent feature and has been previously highlighted to him, without improvement. Those are three significant concerns and confirmation this year would be highly controversial. At Masti's reconfirmation last year JJMC89 himself voted 'weak confirm' due to concerns about ignoring community concerns, so there is obviously an understanding of the problem, but this situation having lasted years and occurred on many more occasions is even more serious. Arcticocean ■ 10:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

    More unilateral overruling of another steward (in another context) followed by ignoring the subsequent comments challenging his actions: w:WP:VP/Archive 216. This behaviour has been all over every wiki for years and years. Arcticocean ■ 12:21, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• Regarding Arcticocean's comments, my feeling is that they're just being direct, and (as I noted when I voted on them in the SE2024 elections) some of their "rude-looking" actions have a sensible reason behind them, such as rejecting SRG requests with little to no context. That being said:
  • the incident that EPIC raised was not good. Even if EPIC technically made a mistake, you (JJMC89) should have checked with them. It's not like EPIC is inactive.
  • regarding the Feelgeef case, I can give slack to you for it. Refusing the resignation is OK, because the OP was making a mess of the whole situation and it's the OP's fault that the situation went out of control. As stewards cannot re-restore the rights once removed, asking them to be certain is reasonable. The block on the other hand was outside MSR but can be condoned in this instance.
  • The en.wiki oversight case was weird to see and while I do not consider JJMC89's explanation unreasonable and they didn't divulge anything that they shouldn't, it was outside of the rules.
  • I don't know what's in the phab tickets, so cannot comment there.

  Pinging @JJMC89: to give a response, which I expect from someone being reconfirmed as a steward. Leaderboard (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

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

  Remove - no response, no confirmation. Leaderboard (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun} 16:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• I didn't support the candidacy in the first place mostly because of a gut feeling and would rather Remove based on the concerns others have voiced. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep- Hasan (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
• On the enwiki OS thing, I was aware of this at the time it was happening and was mildly surprised to discover that I don't think JJMC did anything wrong. The global oversight policy says ""Stewards can see oversighted revisions on all wikis and can grant themselves active oversight rights in emergency cases or on wikis without local oversighters when there’s a valid request."" (emphasis added) so I think the global oversight policy does allow him to have viewed the information he viewed. I also don't think the homewiki Steward policy applies (there was no action or user right granting involved). I think enwiki could amend our local policy in a way that would suggest Stewards should not use this outside of their actions as stewards (language along the lines of use "only while acting as a steward") but that would be about the future and not what JJMC did which I think followed the policy (and not for nothing was substantively correct about). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Helpful global user and steward. --نوفاك اتشمان (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
• Remove Here is my problem, I accept that the (allegedly abrasive) security bug comments might have a legitimate reason, the Feeglgeef case ha a legitimate explanation of why JJMC89 acted the way they did and the enwiki oversight case was technically within policy. However, the problem here is not that these incidents happened in the first place, but rather that adequate context/explanation was not given for taking these actions and criticism was not responded to. Even in this discussion itself, JJMC89, has had 3 days to respond to the variety of criticism levelled at them, but has not responded to a single comment. Instead, we have the commenters who are trying to reason and understand why they acted the way that they did. Now, I can understand if this was one case of having IRL commitments and that they weren't able to respond. However, having so many incidents with the first year to me implies a pattern of not taking criticism or responding to feedback/confusion about actions, which if exhibited on enwiki would potentially bring them to ANI or ArbCom (due to violating ADMINACCT). This kind of a pattern is incompatible with what we expect from stewards and that is why despite having complete confidence in JJMC89's technical capabilities, I cannot bring myself to support this reconfirmation and instead have decided to oppose it. -- Sohom (talk) 05:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  We should be fair and recognise that Wikimedia is a charitable project and JJMC89 has not edited for a few days. People may have families, jobs, friends, other hobbies, even caring commitments. The confirmation process runs for two weeks and I am sure he will respond during it, when he's next available. Arcticocean ■ 09:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  For the record JJMC was active on enwiki after my comment was made so it's hard to exactly justify using that as an excuse for not answering any of the questions asked about their controversial actions. //shb (t • c) 12:01, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  I get why you feel that way. On the other hand, a single edit on a different project (which is what he's done since your question) doesn't mean he had the time to come here and engage. I think it important to note that individual Stewards have no control over the timing of this process and so it may come at a time when they are less able to engage (and indeed the total amount of necessary engagement here might conversely make all replies slower). I am not trying to convince you to strike your oppose but want to reply so others don't get the wrong idea about JJMC's activity and in the hopes that we can, as articocean suggests, be kind to our fellow volunteers about their availability to participate in a process like this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  I recognise that, but if you've done several major blunders as a steward, a reasonable and timely explanation is required – or at least a note saying that you're away and cannot respond until x date (which is more than understandable – we routinely do this on my home wiki). Seeing neither for what is the highest-risk role is what concerns me – and all the more so when communication was one of the core issues linking all of JJMC's controversies. //shb (t • c) 04:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

  That's the key point here and is the major difference between this person and EPIC. EPIC did make some significant mistakes early on in his steward career, and there are still some lingering concerns in his SE2025 confirmation. However, EPIC has done well on resolving those concerns, and in particular makes an attempt to talk through and communicate whenever something wrong has happened (which is important - it's OK if ultimately there's a disagreement - what I want to see is a good-faith attempt). I'm still hoping that JJMC89 will respond - this indeed is a volunteer project, and real-life commitments could well be why we haven't seen a response from them. That's why I haven't formally voted yet. Leaderboard (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep --Ameisenigel (talk) 08:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• Strong remove, per Ferien. Not expecting drama from a stew, not answering questions is absolutely not appropriate. aqurs ❄️ 12:21, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• Remove I don't like many of the situations outlined above. The Feeglgeef business alone isn't great, and particularly interactions with other stewards seem a bit, ahem, uncollaborative (per arcticocean's comment). The lack of response here is also not what I'd like to see from a steward. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Like I said in EPIC's confirmation, I'm lenient because the first year in a role is going to lead to mess ups (and some of them are not always easy to fix immediately). I am overall not concerned enough to remove at this time. Sennecaster (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• Remove with regret. Activity looks good but not responding to questions or objections is not behaviour worthy of a steward. Svārtava (tɕ) 07:33, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
• I've reviewed the concerns presented, and think I still land in the Keep camp. I do think that JJMC89 should consider being a bit more tactful/polite in discussions, and if they have concerns with an oversighted revision they should ideally bring it up privately rather than publicly, but nothing listed above seems unrecoverable. I don't think that viewing a suppressed revision, even on enwiki, is outside of policy (either the global OS policy or the stewards' policy); this is a sensitive area, but as stewards are responsible for permissions management for functionaries (including the ability to do emergency removals), I wouldn't want to restrict the right of stewards to oversee and question suppression decisions within the scope of their responsibilities. I wouldn't expect a steward to be reviewing every suppressed edit on a project, and think that that would be going too far, but certainly examining suppressions that their attention is drawn to in some way seems fine. – Ajraddatz (talk) 09:52, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
•  Weak keep – They've done good work this year as a steward, but the above concerns about a lack of response to objections and interactions with other stewards should be addressed. Chris ☁️^{(talk - contribs)} 22:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep --M/ (talk) 09:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• I'm switching to a {{remove}} with a bit of regret. I had already previously brought up issues in this confirmation, but Arcticocean ultimately made me lean here for now. I feel like their comment shows that the concerns raised here, including the communication issues and them going inactive to avoid criticism, have been a long-term issue with numerous attempts at resolution without luck. Here we have several community members who have wanted to hear JJMC's side of the story and their response to the concerns, including myself, and they've had a lot of opportunity to address that here. But a week later, we have still heard nothing from them and they haven't been active anywhere since last week, neither on- nor off-wiki. I feel like it's important for stewards who expect to be confirmed that they take concerns into account, both from the community and from other stewards, and address them - and I just can't support someone who expects to be able to just "escape" it and still be confirmed. Combined with what I've already mentioned in my previous comments, I find this too serious to reasonably confirm at the moment, and I therefore change my opinion. All that being said, I've still appreciated their work and could still switch back to keep based on that - I just want them to properly address the concerns raised here, which hasn't been the case. EPIC (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  After a lot of thought I'm doing a final switch to Neutral, even though it likely does not have much effect. My comment still applies for the most part and I'm still not very happy that there was no response - because I too would have been very happy to hear it - but I think JJ has done much good work as well, especially around VRT/UTRS and for the cu-l list. All that being said I simply don't feel like piling on anymore. EPIC (talk) 07:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

• Remove per concerns raised above and JMC's unwillingness to handle criticism, poor attempts of collaboration, poor communication.--Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 12:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Remove after reading all of the above. It has been a week since the first questions/concerns were posted and there has still been no response. This is a failure of accountability and looks like fleeing from criticism. Toadspike (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Remove -- as oper a number of other very knowledgable comments above. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 17:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Remove --Aca (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Remove. Subpar decisionmaking coupled with poor communication. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 08:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• Remove - Sorry, the communication issues, as well as what Arcticocean mentioned above is enough for me to cast this vote. --Daniuu (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• Remove poor communication on this very page about issues. JavaHurricane 17:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - Per Ajraddatz --Seawolf35 (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• Remove as per Epic and shb. Activity is one thing, behaviour is another. Honestly inactivity is a bit more forgivable. Ajraddatz's rationale just isn't good enough for me. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (talk) 10:05, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• Remove per lack of communication. Lepricavark (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep fully agree with Ajraddatz. 99% of what JJ did last year was of high quality and highly appreciated. The few (potential) mistakes do not justify removal for me. There are countless of possible reasons why they might not be able to respond at the moment. If this was their second/third/... confirmation where they don't respond to criticism, I would understand the votes to remove them, but it's their first year and no action so far is in any way problematic enough to remove, just because they didn't respond. --Johannnes89 (talk) 09:32, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  Stewards are expected to be responsive as soon as possible – the issue isn't just they haven't responded here, the issue is they didn't respond at the request, or afterwards and they haven't responded even when their stewardship is on the line. In other words, this is the third opportunity they've failed to apologise/explain the problem. --Ferien (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• Remove accountability within ~1.5 weeks should generally be compatible with having a life outside the Wikimedia Projects. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
•  Weak keep per Ajraddatz. –FlyingAce^✈hello 22:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• Remove per others here. Elli (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
• Remove I am not familiar with the incidents recounted above, although I do agree that the public posting of something that should have been confidential from the get-go, regardless of nothing substantive being shared, is very concerning (When I had the oversight tool, I was never contacted that way)

  If that were all there was, and JJMC had responded to these criticisms here in a timely fashion, I might still !vote keep.

  But it's clear from the mounting "removes", some from people I have the highest respect for and trust of, that this candidate has lost too much trust from the community to be retained as of the current moment. Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• Remove, contingent that the steward fails to address concerns and questions outlined above. Lack of participation in this discussion is itself concerning. --Babegriev (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per Ajraddatz. AramilFeraxa (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• Remove due to poor communication. Previously, he declined task T379340 too quickly, stating that the tool was "not licensed under an OSI-approved Open Software license," without providing an alternative solution or giving me a chance to contact the user involved for potential tool adoption. Fortunately, the involved user has since added the license. However, I have been waiting for his response on this matter for over two months, and there has been no reply regarding the task to this day. Hakimi97 (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  To be completely fair to JJMC89, I think that action was while wearing his hat of Toolforge standards committee member and not in his capacity as a steward. However, I agree with the rest of your rationale (particular the induction regarding poor communication). I think descision could have been communicated better. Sohom (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  What I can personally conclude from the tool adoption task is that JJMC89 not only rushed to decline the task but also failed to follow up on subsequent responses in a timely manner. Not only does his lack of responses make things complicated (as I might need to seek advice from other Toolforge committee members), but it has also raised my doubts about whether he is capable of communicate professionally for the steward position. The steward role may have a greater and broader impact compared to that of a Toolforge Standards Committee member — not to say that I undermine the importance of the latter, though. Hakimi97 (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep --CFA (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep  @xqt 15:40, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
• Remove. Daask (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
• Neutral Meiræ 21:59, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Remove. I hope nothing bad happened (as JJMC89 had no activity at all in the past three weeks), which is why my remove is weak (happy to withdraw if there is a good reason why JJMC89 couldn't be active during the confirmation period). The lack of answers to legitimate concerns is a big problem — NickK (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
• weak Remove masti <talk> 10:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, per Johannnes89. —DerHexer (Talk) 11:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
• Remove – valid concerns remain unaddressed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, per Ajraddatz and Johannnes89. --Melos (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep – Leo^talk 11:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)