Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Justlettersandnumbers

Justlettersandnumbers

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (79/3/3); Scheduled to end 21:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Nomination

Justlettersandnumbers (talk · contribs) – My fellow editors, it is my great pleasure to introduce you to Justlettersandnumbers. An active editor who has been autopatrolled since 2011, JLAN is a prolific content creator, contributing hundreds of articles to the project while nabbing a bunch of DYKs along the way. In addition to his penchant for livestock stubs, Justlettersandnumbers has helped out at WP:NPP as well as WP:UAA, reporting scores and scores of users, particularly those associated with spam or COI names. Perhaps most importantly, JLAN has a calm, collected demeanor and is frequently a source of advice for his fellow editors. My interactions with Justlettersandnumbers have consistently left me impressed by his understanding of policy and more importantly how he conveyed it; I've always felt the better for seeing his comments.

On a more specialized front, Justlettersandnumbers has spent years dedicated to combating some of our hardest problems — copyright and COI. Many of you probably already know JLAN for his work at WP:Copyright problems (where he is a clerk) and at WP:COIN (also at WP:CCI and the historical WP:SCV). If you check JLAN's talk page history, you'll see that it is positively littered with requests for help and thanks related to these efforts. These investigations take a lot of work and we could always use more sysops familiar with these policies and processes; Justlettersandnumbers has for years proven more than capable. The final thread tying this all together? Justlettersandnumbers has been an OTRS member for years, in particular helping out at Commons. With an established track record of understanding the ins and outs of content creation, both the good and the bad, and a proven ability to communicate well with other editors, I think they'll make a stellar sysop. I hope you'll join me in supporting this request. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Co-nom by Moonriddengirl

I don't remember exactly the first day I encountered Justlettersandnumbers, but I do remember the impact JLAN had on copyright cleanup: huge. JLAN became a copyright clerk in January 2014 after demonstrating in a less formal way the ability to process issues on the copyright problems noticeboard, and he has been diligent in the copyright clerk role ever since. He is one of the key participants keeping that important workflow going at the moment. When I have time to participate, I always find that he's been actively processing what he, as a clerk, can. Giving him the tools would only allow him to work more efficiently there, and we need more admins in that area.

For me, a successful copyright administrator needs to be very knowledgeable about policies and fairly knowledgeable about the law that underpins them, capable of explaining problems in a comprehensible way especially to newcomers and ESL volunteers who may come from cultures that view intellectual property in different ways, appropriately diligent in checking for patterns when there is reason to believe that issues in a contributor's history are more widespread than first reported, and interested in helping contributors who struggle with what is for many a very complex concept to contribute in a policy-compliant way. Copyright admins need to be able to take an informed position and represent it in consensus discussions of other informed contributors in an area of law that sometimes sees even US Supreme Court justices dissenting, while also accepting consensus that goes against them when that consensus is based in policy. They need to be able to politely reject anything that looks like consensus that does not recognize the legal underpinnings in this area of work and remain polite even when disappointed editors learning content is unusable become aggressive. I have found JLAN to demonstrate all these traits. Moreover, he's demonstrated his desire to learn and grow and his ability to do so over the years he has been dedicated to this task. It's hard work, and he does it well.

In addition to his dedication in copyright cleanup, JLAN has a long-established demonstrated interest in conflict of interest editing, another area which requires a blend of patience, firmness, and kindness. Not every COI editor is working in bad faith, but it's still a line we need to hold.

I offered to nominate JLAN for adminship long ago. I thought he was ready then, but he wanted to become more seasoned. I'm delighted that he, too, now feels ready to take a step that I think is not only reasonable, but long overdue. I hope you will support us in this request and allow JLAN to advance his critical contributions to the next level.

I need to note that I am enthusiastically co-nomming Justlettersandnumbers in my capacity as a volunteer, which is where I have worked with him, independent of my work with the Wikimedia Foundation. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Co-nom by Alex Shih

I first encountered Justlettersandnumbers (JLAN) when I was patrolling Category:Requested RD1 redactions. Their requests were always concise but complete, making it very easy to fulfill these requests. For someone like myself that does not really work with copyright, I probably cannot do justice for the tremendous amount of work done by JLAN, but I hope I can express an outsider's perspective. I had the privilege to learn from JLAN by admiring their prolific work with CopyPatrol, WP:CP, WP:CCI and many other relating areas in the background. Occasionally I feel that JLAN can be a little bit aggressive with their approach, which I think is a common trait shared by many editors working tirelessly in combating copyvio and paid editing. But the way they communicate has always been calm and rational, never failed to remain civil even in situations where they may have been unfairly accused; for instance, see this exchange that took place at my talk page back in January ([1]). I really think JLAN will make a fine administrator, and there is absolutely the need for tools as they would help us tremendously in keeping the RD1 backlog in check. I hope you would agree. Alex Shih (talk) 13:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Amory, MRG, Alex, thank you for your generous support and the confidence you've shown in nominating me here. I'm pleased to accept, thank you! Note: I have only ever had one account, this one; I have never edited for pay or any other reward, nor would I ever do so. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

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: The project maintenance area I know best is copyright clean-up. If the community accepts me for this job, my first task will be to learn to do some of the routine admin work there – revision-deletion under criterion RD1, deletion of non-viable rewrite pages and unredeemable copyvio pages, and in time history merging when a viable rewrite page needs to be moved into place over a compromised article. This is work that at the moment is taking up the valuable time of experienced admins. I think I'm sufficiently familiar with speedy criterion G12 and its possible outcomes to be able to evaluate those requests as necessary; I would hope to be able to handle some G4 and G11 requests too. From there on, I see it as a learning curve, a process of gradually acquiring skills and experience through observation, and especially by listening to advice from experienced admins.

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

A: I came here to help with writing an encyclopaedia, and content creation is still my main reason for wanting to contribute. However, I don't do nearly as much of it as I would like: I started 2017 trying to write a new article every day (that lasted a couple of weeks or so); in 2018 I didn't even make the attempt. I spend a lot of my time either trying to sort out copyright or COI matters, or copy-editing other people's work to try to bring it into line with the basic principles of the project. More or less at random, I feel some measure of satisfaction at content I wrote at Il Primo Libro delle Canzoni, which I started, and at Add MS 29987, which I did not; at things like {{Goat breeds of Italy}}, where I've turned many of the links blue since I created it as a sea of red; at my discovery that a very prolific contributor was both habitually violating copyrights in hidden text and editing for pay; and whenever the backlog at WP:CP shows signs of falling to a manageable level. I originally asked to become an OTRS agent just to be able to process copyright releases, but now handle a variety of tickets, many of them relating to Wikipedia.

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: I think I have had my share of both conflict and stress in the past. My first year here (roughly March 2011 – March 2012) was very difficult, and I ended up leaving the project: I know now that my own behaviour during that time fell very far short of ideal, and I apologise to more or less everyone I came into contact with in that period. I returned about a year later with a rather different approach: a determination to remain civil even when others were not, to concentrate on the content rather than the editor, and to stick as closely as possible to WP:BRD; I also more or less abandoned the topic area I had been most interested in. I work in areas where conflict is at times to be expected: on learning that they've fallen foul of our copyright policy – or indeed our COI guidelines – some editors are immediately collaborative and make efforts to put things right; others may regard it as a personal affront and react with denial, animosity or hostility. I've been in some disputes over content, perhaps most extensively at American Pekin Duck, which went to dispute resolution; I have tried my hand at giving a third opinion on a few occasions, and of course I've had many productive discussions with other editors where different points of view were presented and a resolution agreed. Once a matter rises beyond that to the level of a disagreement, resolution becomes much harder; I've learnt that trying to stay calm, courteous and collaborative at all times offers the best chance of success.

---

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 Ad Orientem

4. Hi Justlettersandnumbers. Thank you for offering to serve as an administrator. Do you believe it is ever appropriate for an admin to delete a page from the mainspace on sight, which is to say it was not nominated for deletion by another editor or reviewed by another admin? Please explain and if yes, then briefly outline when you think that would be acceptable.

A. Thanks, Ad Orientem, good question! Two answers:

• A page consisting only of content of the types described in RD criteria 2, 3 and 4 (2. Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material, 3. Purely disruptive material, 4. Oversightable information) or at G10. Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose, or a page whose title contains any of those, should be deleted on sight. You'd normally then want to request Wikipedia:Oversight of the edits as well (for serious BLP violations, for example) unless quite certain that it's not needed.
• Our speedy deletion process provides a valuable system of checks and balances – one editor suggests deletion, another evaluates the suggestion in the light of policy – and that's the process admins should use most of the time. If you're sure that a page should be deleted, a second pair of eyes cannot hurt, and if you're not sure you shouldn't be thinking of deleting it on sight. That said, admins do – I believe – sometimes delete on sight; this might happen in obvious cases of G1 or A3, as G5 for page creations of a sockpuppet of a blocked master, or unredeemable and recently-created copyvio pages as G12, and perhaps elsewhere.

Additional question from Dolotta

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

A: Dolotta, I wish that this was one of the three standard questions! I have a range of weaknesses that I'm aware of, of which this is only a selection:

• I have participated only to a minor extent in GA/FA preparation and processes, to which I think I'm just temperamentally unsuited
• I have essentially no experience of fighting vandalism; I revert obvious vandalism to the pages on my watchlist (which isn't huge, about 20000 pages), and warn some users, but that is the extent of it (please also see Q.9 from Lourdes, which relates to this)
• I don't have an IT background and can handle only basic syntax in templates; I have no knowledge or understanding of scripts or bots or regex or IP ranges, and don't even know what technical abilities might be required for check-user.
• I try to be careful in what I say and in what I write, and particularly careful and thorough in investigating page histories for copyvio and so on; that means I can be slow to resolve matters or respond to requests, which may be frustrating for other editors.

Will that do for now? I'm sure that I – or perhaps my fellow-editors? – can find more.

Additional question(s) from usernamekiran

6. This is more of a follow-up to #1: If the time permits, would you be willing to expand the areas of your admin activities? If yes, which areas would that be? —usernamekiran(talk) 22:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

A: Absolutely! The limited areas I've outlined in Q.1 are those where I think I already have the background knowledge (of policy and practice, not the nuts and bolts of the toolkit) to consider making some cautious first edits with the tools; I didn't include evaluation of CCI requests, but I'm confident that I understand the requirements there too. I would hope to expand from there to other speedy-deletion categories, to WP:UAA (but see Q.8 from L293D), and to some closures of RM, AfD and perhaps FFD discussions.

7. In your guess, in which admin areas would you be least active? (name of 2-3 areas would suffice.) —usernamekiran(talk) 22:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

A: I would not even consider making any admin edit in any area where my understanding is sketchy or hazy. At the moment, that includes RPP – where I could presumably learn the criteria for evaluating requests – and areas such as, say, edit filter management (not entirely limited to admins), where I have little hope of ever acquiring the necessary skills. I see SPI and AIV| as areas where I'm relatively unlikely to be especially active.

Additional question from L293D

8. You see a new account, User:Serial_rapists_should_die at UAA. What do you do?

A: Thanks, L293D! As a new admin, I'd probably do nothing and wait to see what happens in order to learn from it – this is not urgent as it would be if it were "[named living person] should die...". What I think will happen: indefinite block as a disruptive username, probably with {{Uw-uhblock}} on the user's talk-page. What I also thought would happen, but apparently does not: consider whether the username is sufficiently offensive to be redacted from page histories. I'm really quite surprised to see that the username is not redacted from the history of Transandinomys bolivaris, for example.

Additional question from Lourdes

9. Thank you for applying. I notice you have used rollback in various edits. To help me understand your perspective on rollback, I've chosen a sample of your rollback edits from the last three months and would be grateful if you could explain why you believe these edits comply with Wikipedia:Rollback#When to use rollback. Thank you.

[2], [3], [4], [5] (vandalism warning on new editor's talk page post rollback), [6] (Unconstructive edit warning on IP's page for leaving talk page edit request), [7], [8]

A: Thanks for this question, Lourdes! I'm always uncomfortable about my use of rollback because of its lack of a custom edit-summary option, so I appreciate a chance to review some of those edits. You've linked to nine diffs in all, which I've numbered 1–9 below.

1. Part of a mass-rollback with custom edit-summary "unhelpful edit" (using WritKeeper's script) of four edits by an IP, of which two were the blanking of a deletion discussion, another included the insertion of a spurious "S" ("SFerguson"), and the other was this
2. Not vandalism, just a bad edit; I should not have used standard rollback without an edit summary here
3. Linkspam, but not deceptive or repeated, so I should not have used standard rollback without an edit summary here
4. Obvious hoaxing vandalism, there aren't any 65 kg chickens – the Jersey Giant is among the heaviest breeds, and reaches about 6 kg
5. Not exactly a warning, that is {{welcomevandal}}, a welcome for such editors
6. Just one more bit of nonsense in a long series of the same – please see the numerous IP edits immediately before the page was semi-protected for vandalism on 15 July 2018
7. Yes, {{uw-vandalism1}}, first warning to this IP (of course all the edits are probably by one person or small group, but this was the first from this address)
8. Not vandalism, just a bad edit; I should not have used standard rollback without an edit summary here
9. Aargh! – totally incomprehensible. I have no recollection of it, nor can I see any possible reason why I would even have considered using rollback here, or even reverting at all. The only explanation I can think of is a misclick – the page is on my watchlist because I added a hatnote there in 2011. I'd better see how it can be put right.

Additional question from Sakaimover

10. From what I’ve seen, you look like a very strong candidate. For now, I have one question you’re the best suited to answer:

You said above “I think I have had my share of both conflict and stress in the past. My first year here (roughly March 2011 – March 2012) was very difficult, and I ended up leaving the project: I know now that my own behaviour during that time fell very far short of ideal, and I apologise to more or less everyone I came into contact with in that period.”

It’s very mature of you to acknowledge that you had some problems; however, I don’t get a good sense of what transpired in this answer (or in the following prose). Could you please elaborate in more detail on the difficulties you had and exactly what you learned?

A:

Additional question from Worm That Turned

11. I know you've spent a lot of time working at places like COIN, where there is a balancing act between evidencing conflicts and posting personal information. I'm aware that you have been involved in researching and posting personal information in the past (only time I've spotted was 5 years ago), and I was wondering where you feel the line is drawn? How much googling is acceptable to show that there is or isn't a conflict of interest? How much of that information can or should you post on Wikipedia and what other options might you have?

A:

Additional question from Andrew D.

12. The user name "justlettersandnumbers" seems to mean something but I'm not sure what that is. Please explain its origin.

A:

Additional question from Reyk

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

A:

Additional questions from Hhkohh

14. As follow-up Q1. You will do some copyright cleanup. So will you close XfD and look up WP:PROD? How and Why?

A:

15. Will you involve in WP:SPI, WP:RPP and WP:AIV, why? If yes, can you give me some examples, thanks

A:

Discussion

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

---

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

Support

1. As nominator. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
2. No reason not to. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Sure--Ymblanter (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
4. Support - Looks like a good candidate. Cbl62 (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
5. Support - good content creator and calm demeanor. Seems to check all of the boxes for what we want in an admin. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
6. Yes. Yes. Yes. Not seeing one bad thing in at least 400 contribs (as far back as I have time to go). Definitely a positive. WizardKing 21:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
7. Support - absolutely - very efficient regarding copyvio issues, and in other areas where admins are needed most. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 21:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
8. Support - see no reason not to. Rlendog (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
9. support looks good--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
10. Support The place where we come into contact the most is copyright clean-up. JLAN's work is without fail accurate and complete; I trust him completely. JLAN will make a good admin. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
11. Support - unaware of this editor, but passes the "not a muppet, has a clue, got a good reason and convinced good nominators" test. Have at it! - TNT ^💖 22:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
12. Support Contribs and overall work tell me that this would be a net positive having them the bit. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
13. Support I’ve come across this editor here and there although we don’t generally work in the same areas. They have experience and clue and I would think another admin involved in copyright cleanup would be quite beneficial to the project. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
14. MRG should just be allowed to make anyone she wants an admin. I trust her judgement 100%. No offense to JL&N, who I'm sure is a wonderful person in their own right... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

    @Floquenbeam: I could've sworn there was a Wikipedia policy here somewhere that states "Moonriddengirl is always right"... Mz7 (talk) 01:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

    It's here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

15. Support - can't say I have had the pleasure of coming across this editor, but they are a clear net positive, worthy of the mop. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
16. Support I have seen JLAN around, and have always found them an impressive contributor. I am confident they will make a fine admin. --Vexations (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
17. Support No major problems, has clue, net positive. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 23:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
18. Support As co-nom, better later than never. Alex Shih (talk) 23:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
19. Support I've been on a "support" kick lately so have been looking for someone to !vote against, however, Justlettersandnumbers does not appear to be that someone. They have a stellar AfD match rate, a consistent and broad edit history, no disciplinary record, and have made a solid case for needing adminship. Chetsford (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
20. Co-nom support. :) Rationale above. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
21. Support And I believe a possible answer to q12 is wifi password :P ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
22. Support: an experienced editor working in the very boring yet very important area of copyright sounds like the perfect candidate for adminship. Their contributions seem excellent and there's a clear need for the tools. The candidate's temperament seems wonderful, which is particularly important as they work in areas with newbies, and with users receiving nasty warnings and scary notices. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 23:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
23. Support Trust Moonriddengirl's judgement fully .Has been around since Dec 2010 and has created around 500 articles.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
24. Strong Support as Bilorv, Justlettersandnumbers has shown the temperament to be a great admin. I was one of those newbies who had a copyvio issue. The interaction was welcoming, polite & encouraging, helping me to understand the issue - result a much improved article & a newbie who continues to contribute to the project. Find bruce (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
25. Support – Qualified candidate experienced in dealing with copyright problems on Wikipedia. The CAT:RD1 backlog will be served well with Justlettersandnumbers on board. Mz7 (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
26. Support A clear and obvious need for the tools in an area where we badly need admins. Huge range of experience and skill, most recently witnessed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2018 July 6 where he was very helpful in trying to investigate what appears to be a mountain of copyvios on Led Zeppelin-related articles. Give him the damn mop already. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
27. The fact that he wants to be an admin makes me question the judgment a tiny bit, but I digress, certainly qualified. Wizardman 23:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
28. Support - qualified candidate with strong backing and support already in place. Will be net positive for community. Operator873^talkconnect 23:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
29. Support the endorsements by the nominators make a very good case for the candidate. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 00:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
30. Support - Good contribution record, no red flags, trustworthy noms, and we really need more specialized admins. GAB^gab 00:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
31. Support. I thought you were one already...--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 00:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
32. Support Why not? -FASTILY 01:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
33. Support. Absolutely. Kablammo (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
34. Yes please. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
35. Support Would make a good admin. KCVelaga (talk) 01:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
36. Support No problem. Knightrises10 (talk) 01:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
37. Support - likely net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
38. Support. A true asset to the project. Thank you for being willing to take the mop. Loopy30 (talk)
39. Support I particularly appreciate their level-headed approach to situations, coupled with strong, clear communication skills. A review of their contributions does reveal an approach that can sometimes be "a little bit aggressive" (as per Alex Shih), but I do not think this affects the overall quality of their work or judgement. Airplaneman ✈ 02:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
40. Support —AE (talk • contributions) 03:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
41. Support Checking copyright is a thankless task so anyone who has chosen that pit to do such good work in is certainly worthy of adminship. Oh, and being nominated by MRG certainly helps. Blackmane (talk) 03:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
42. Support - Old name, no problems ever. Still waiting to see what idiocy is dredged up by the sabotage sect. Carrite (talk) 04:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
43. Support: no concerns; thank you for volunteering. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
44. Support: Its about time! I've been stalking JLN's talk page long enough to know they have what it takes. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
45. Support Had me at copyright clerk..someone who does a lot of good copyvio work should definitely have the mop Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
46. Support precious much more than letters and numbers! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
47. Support; clueful; nothing of concern on talk page or archives. Very clearly a net positive. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
48. Support Happy to see this one finally coming up for RfA. JLAN is one of the most helpful, reliable editors I've encountered, and I've come to trust JLAN's advice and appreciate their help. They would make a valuable addition.  Spintendo  06:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
49. Support. Yes. Easily. Sensible and even-tempered. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
50. Support I've seen plenty of Justlettersandnumbers' copyright work, which is of a very good standard. I've also seen Justlettersandnumbers end up in a number of disputes with other editors who object to text being removed as a copyright violation, these are also handled well. Should have become an admin some time ago. Hut 8.5 06:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
51. Support, does good work and no apparent problems. Fram (talk) 07:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
52. Support. Why not? Double sharp (talk) 07:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
53. Support - I've seen you around, and I've never taken an issue with anything you've done, so this was an easy support :) Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
54. Support per noms, even if ostensibly he has no substance. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
55. Support: clear reason for seeking adminship. I think that Bus Stop raises a valid concern about AfD, but (i) this is an issue of the general culture seen in the AfD process, and the remedy is to argue for change, and (ii) I don't regard this as an issue to do this suitedness to become an admin; what would concern me is evidence than JLAN would not know how to close AfD's correctly. I think JLAN's nomination is very strong. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
56. Support - per noms. I see nothing concerning about temperament or judgement. JLAN would definitely benefit from being an admin in that area of work. EclipseDude (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
57. Support. As we all know, all admins are clueless, bigoted, corrupt, and biased drama-mongers who are only interested in self-promotion, and are actively plotting together in secret to destroy Wikipedia, and then the whole planet. JLAN has not yet shown any of these necessary skills, and is instead trying to fool us by appearing calm, sensible, and trustworthy. However, I'm sure they can learn, given time. Welcome to the team! Fish+Karate 09:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
58. Support I have a look at the section Justlettersandnumbers' works in. I think Justlettersandnumbers' could do with being an admin if it helps working that section. scope_creep (talk) 09:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
59. Support per TNT. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
60. Support From what I've seen, does good work on copyright-related things. » Shadowowl | talk 09:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
61. Support per the noms - wolf 09:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
62. Support - Really, really good candidate. Amazing work with content creation, etc, and has otherwise been of immense benefit to our project. Will certainly not misuse the tools. Orphan Wiki 10:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
63. Support - nominators outline a candidate very suited to the tools. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
64. Support - As per Diannaa and the candidate's work on copyright matters. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
65. Support - Per Moonriddengirl I absolutely and wholeheartedly endorse this application for adminship. I actually suggested to the candidate a while ago that they should consider running and would have nominated if I had known it was coming. The opposition is pure pettifogging, a failure to comprehend basic principles of notability, or in this case, non-notability, and a classic example of why so few highly qualified editors are not prepared to go through this ridiculous ordeal. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
66. Support - have no great concerns with their editing or behavior. Their work with copyright is excellent. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

    And I would like to add that I'm unconvinced by the opposes based on Anthem of the Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic. We're the English wikipedia - it does our readers no service to have NINE different versions of non-English lyrics on the article about the anthem. It's useless and I definitely side with whoever would remove them as a matter of common-sense if nothing else. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

67. Support - no major concerns. GiantSnowman 13:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
68. Support I'm familiar with this editor's patrolling, more than happy to support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
69. Support: Great candidate for the mop. Will do a great job. — MRD2014 ^Talk 14:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
70. Support Per noms. shoy (reactions) 14:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
71. Support. Meets reasonable criteria; the two opposes, so far, do not show a pattern which would concern me. Ifnord (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
72. Support. Possesses the competence required. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
73. Support. A useful candidate who will do much to help the Wiki. I've only had good interactions with them in the past. The answers to questions above satisfy me, and the opposition so far is not compelling. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 14:51, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
74. Support per nominations, statistics, and the incredible support numbers. wumbolo ^^^ 14:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
75. Support I can only remember seeing useful and well-considered contributions from this editor, they've done fine work at NPP, and seem fully qualified to rootle around in WP's judicial underbelly. Not grasping what matters in contemporary art is a distinct bonus kidding... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
76. Support Per Chetsford and the nominators. This candidate has good content creation, fights copyright effectively, has great temperment. Excellent candidate will make excellent admin. JC7V-constructive zone 15:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
77. Support - Trusted editor. FitIndia talk to me 16:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
78. Go for it. — 🦊 16:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
79. Support per Diannaa. Additionally, the opposes are unconvincing. Nihlus 17:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose due to my perception of an inability to grasp what matters in contemporary art. I think this is displayed in the propensity to nominate multiple articles on galleries of contemporary art for deletion with explanations like "a business does not become notable because it works on notable jobs or because it sells notable products – a car dealer does not become notable because he sells well-known brands of car, a butcher's shop does not become notable because it sells a famous kind of meat, a second-hand charity shop does not become notable because it sells clothes made by famous companies, a plumber does not become notable because he works on a famous building".[9] It should be noted that these repeated arguments, varied at each AfD, were made in the absence of arguments that galleries do acquire notability from artists or artworks. Anyway, they've done destruction in ridding the project of articles on important art galleries. The repeated comparison of contemporary art to items that are not art I think demonstrates an inability to understand the very area in which this editor is operating. An admin should not be a blatant embodiment of bias of any sort and this editor doesn't "get it". Here is another blurb by our admin-to-be: "A car dealer does not become notable because he sells well-known brands of car, a butcher's shop does not become notable because it sells a famous kind of meat, a second-hand charity shop does not become notable because it sells clothes made by famous companies".[10] Bus stop (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

   Does pointing out that the use (and even linking!) of "anti-intellectual" is silly count as hounding an oppose? Because I wouldn't want to do that. Just because Bus Stop thinks it's OK to call people names doesn't mean he should be hounded. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

   Why the concern with "hounding"? It is OK with me if you object to my post. And I didn't think I was "hounding" the editor who is up for adminship. I wasn't trying to call them names. I've removed the internal link to "anti-intellectual". I was just trying to describe the problem. This isn't a playground. If we respect information then we don't toss junk out like the above quotes I've provided. Bus stop (talk) 23:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

   De-linking an insult is ... an improvement ... I suppose, but it's still an insult. Better still would be to learn what the word means, realize it's not applicable, and strike it altogether. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

   Perhaps you can explain to me how characterizing a comment as "anti-intellectual" is an insult. Furthermore if someone demonstrates so little appreciation of a subject area as illustrated in the comments that I quoted above, can they be expected to exercise good judgement? We aren't simply following policies and guidelines. We are also exercising judgement. Bus stop (talk) 23:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

   I've made some adjustments to my original post. Perhaps "anti-intellectual" constitutes an overstating of my case. Bus stop (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

   Thank you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

   Wow... here we go again. So this candidate has nominated some art gallery pages for deletion. He can't delete them on his own, so how many of his noms have reached a consensus for deletion? If the majority of his noms are deleted, that is by community consensus and/or by sound application of policy. So even if you disagree with the deletions, strong numbers means he knows what he's doing. This is what we want in an admin. This is only a problem if very few of his noms are deleted. So do you have any stats? Because other than his numbers at AfD, his three co-noms have listed numerous and compelling reasons to support his candidacy for adminship. Do you have any arguments to counter all those reasons? (In short... do you really believe he will make a bad admin?) But also, if you (or anyone) could provide those AfD stats, that would be helpful. - wolf 02:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

   Added note; nm, I found his stats; 89% match, so it looks like he's just doing his job well. The community and P&G support the deletion of these galleries. Clearly you take umbrage with the deletions, but opposing this candidacy because of it is iniquitous and bureaucrats should take note of that. - wolf 03:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

   thewolfchild—I have tried to engage them in dialogue but I do not think they have ever responded to such overtures. I refrained from making this point earlier. I'm prompted to do so by the post below which observes lack of participation on talk page. That has been my frustrating experience too. Bus stop (talk) 03:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

   Poor communication is indeed a concern in any RfA. You didn't mention it earlier, but if you can demonstrate a pattern of poor comms, or refusal to engage where necessary, with diffs, then that is something we should all take note of.- wolf 03:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

   I don't get it--"these repeated arguments...were made in the absence of arguments that galleries do acquire notability from artists or artworks". That makes sense to me, since I am not aware of the existence of arguments that galleries acquire notability etc. Now, if a gallery is a conduit for famous artists they are going to generate coverage and are more likely to pass the GNG, but (absent any specifics) the mere claim that, for instance, some dealer handled some Van Goghs doesn't make that dealer notable. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

   Drmies—Vincent van Gogh wouldn't be a contemporary artist. Bus stop (talk) 04:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

   Really. Drmies (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

   The passage about butchers and cars sounds like a summary of the notability is not inherited guideline to me, and that applies to contemporary art just as much as any other area.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

   Contemporary art is different because, generally speaking, only exceptional galleries frequently handle notable art. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

   Of course WP:INHERIT applies to galleries of contemporary art, Amakuru. Who said it did not? WP:INHERIT applies everywhere. But the editor is clueless, at least in this instance. They do not understand the nature of the entity that they are trying to delete. And as problematic they are not inclined to learn. Here we have a User page section called "notability of galleries" initiated by Vexations on the Talk page of Theredproject. A couple of points. They have an axe to grind: "I wonder why you think a commercial gallery is not not just a retail business that sells stuff – isn't that exactly what it is and does?" And: "While I know that galleries like to think and believe that they in some way 'make' the artists, artists often tend not to agree." Also, they reference "Picasso", when the topic is contemporary art. I realize many here may not recognize any distinction. But a clueful editor nominating articles on contemporary art might try addressing the entity under discussion. And finally I try to address them in conversation. But I can't make someone respond. They apparently had their mind made up and they weren't going to be bothered with dissenting opinions. This routine repeated itself on the AfD pages. The editor will become an administrator. That is obvious from the "Support"s above. But they're not unblemished. I'm refraining from making personal attacks. But my assessment is they've been destructive and lazy in communication with someone who clearly disagreed with their "mission" to delete galleries on contemporary art. I don't think they have ever responded directly to me or engaged me in dialogue despite the fact I think I represented their primary opposition in their efforts. If you all think that's a great character trait in an admin—good luck to all of us. Bus stop (talk) 11:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

   @Bus stop: Hi again, it seems you missed my reply to you above. NBD, I'll ask again, especially since you raised the issue of communication again. Can you provide any diffs of you attempting to contact or discuss something with JLAN and he didn't reply? You can't expect people to reply to everyone, all the time, but communication is important, especially for admins who are compelled to respond to inquiries about any admin actions they take, to explain them clearly and justify them if need be (per WP:ADMINACCT). Good comms are paramount for an admin, so if there is an issue here, we should know about it. Thanks - wolf 11:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

   Hi thewolfchild—I can be seen here addressing Justlettersandnumbers. They do not respond. Also, didn't I just provide another example of their non-responsiveness in my post immediately above? If the electrons are misbehaving, I linked here. I am quite certain there are other examples. But I would have to search for them and I think I have made my point. Have you heard the phrase "a bull in a china shop"? I am suggesting that a bull in a china shop is an editor who could not care less about a topic that is covered on Wikipedia and additionally doesn't want to engage in dialogue with an editor questioning their initiatives in that area. Bus stop (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

2. Oppose His long term edit warring on Anthem of the Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic[11] and lack of participation on talk page[12] shows clear disregard to WP:BRD and WP:CON. Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2018 July 31 shows that JLAN has a poor understanding of WP:COPYVIO. In place of agreeing with the outcome of investigation, JLAN continued to edit war to remove the content he misconstrued as a copyvio.[13] This incident is too recent. Rzvas (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

   In the diff you linked, JLAN removes the English translation, which was a copyvio. What's the issue with the edit otherwise? Enterprisey (talk!) 06:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

   You need to check the whole diff and see the history. JLAN was edit warring to remove over 11k-12k bytes of text by incorrectly claiming it to be a copyright violation.[14][15] After those reverts, he would tag the page with copyvio notice because he says he wanted "expert opinion",[16] even after having been already told enough times by others that it was not a copyright violation.[17][18] Once the investigation was over and it was proven that the lyrics are not copyright violation,[19] JLAN resumed his edit warring and this time he provided a new dubious reason to remove nearly 12k bytes of text and even reverted the admin when he was himself the one asking for the "expert opinion".[20] JLAN further believes that images should be removed from articles when deletion discussions are on-going.[21] His nomination of the image for deletion in question seems problematic as well. Rzvas (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

   @Rzvas: Can you clarify a few items in your comments? You're concerned about an situation at the "Anthem of the Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic" page. You accuse JLAN of "long term edit-warring" He made 10 edits over 2 months, and if they were removing copyvio content, that is being repeatedly added, then he not edit-warring, he's doing his job. (See WP:EW "Exemptions" #5). Further, you claim there was a lack of participation on the talk page, but he did indeed comment there.

   The same situation Carries over to "Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2018 July 3", where dealing with the same... excitable editor, it appears JLAN is really trying help him. There was some uncertainty about the rights to the translated content from another site, and I see that 2 admins got involved, had the same uncertainty about the rights. However, it seems that they were able to resolve it so that the editor was satisfied and the project was protected legally. (Am I getting any of this wrong? I skimmed thru it all quickly). I don't see where your concerns about edit-warring, refusing to communicate or lack of copyvio knowledge are warranted. You present only one situation, and a minor one at that.

   So I ask you, when you gauge this against all the accomplishments and experience JLAN has, as well as all praise that he has received from so many experienced editors and admins here, do you really think he will not make for a good administrator? Thanks - wolf 09:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

   According to which book it is fine to edit war to remove 11k bytes of text while deliberately rejecting the fact that it is not a copyright violation? JLAN was not exempted from 3RR here because it is not like you are allowed to remove more than a thousand words only because a dozen of words are copyvio and if thousands of words are being removed as copyvio then it shows that the person has poor understanding of copyvio and that is the case here. Once the issue of copyvio was already resolved, JLAN used another dubious reason to remove the content, showing his failure to move on.[22] Not to forget the deletion nomination on commons which is apparently problematic.[23] It is obvious that he takes copyright investigations to a personal level. I think he will misuse admin tools to enforce his misunderstanding. Rzvas (talk) 09:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

   Well, I don't see how the size of the content removal matters. If a entire 100kB has been copied from a protected source, then you'll see a 100kB deletion. If copyvio content is re-added 10 times in an hour, it can be reverted 10 in an hour and not be edit-warring. (Though the guy re-adding it should be blocked). Regardless if you or anyone thinks that material was copyvio, JLAN didn't 4RR anyway, so no edit-warring. In looking through the diffs, it appears all his edits were good faith efforts to remove potentially copyvio content, along with other unsourced content and content not permitted by policy. You linked to a deletion nomination on Commons, and from what I see there is a calm, patient and polite JLAN trying to confirm whether copyright applies or not, in a difficult case. All the while the same rude, belligerent editor from the WP article is now there continuing to berate JLAN. I see a potential admin carefully looking out for the project, trying to help editors, (despite the hostility) and keeping his cool the whole time, all like he's supposed to. Obviously you have a strong opinion about this particular article that I wonder if may be colouring your POV. I don't see anything in this entire situation you've cited as a 'con', and reason to oppose, especially when weighed against all the 'pros' and all the reasons to support. You've opposed, as is your right, I just wonder how much weight it'll get. But thanks for the reply just the same. - wolf 11:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

   Size clearly matters since you can only remove what constitutes copyvio if you want to take advantage of the exemption. This content was obviously not a copyvio. JLAN was removing +12,609 bytes, while nearly 12,000 bytes of content was not copyvio and that is why he was not exempted from 3RR since most of the removal didn't even concerned copyvio content. "didn't 4RR anyway, so no edit-warring"? You should already know that one can edit war without breaking 4RR. "deletion nomination" should not be used for confirming "whether copyright applies or not", since talk page and noticeboards are there and that is something JLAN significantly avoids including this article where his talk page contribution was nil compared to the amount of reverts he made. To refer other editor (BrendonTheWizard) who has a better understanding of copyvio and policies as "rude, belligerent" is a personal attack. I haven't even edited this "particular article", but it is obvious to anyone including you that how JLAN's behavior actually needs to be categorized as, and it is certainly not the one that we would expect from an admin. Rzvas (talk) 12:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

    Comment: as I am on a very old mobile right now, I can't go over the diffs. But as of now, all the editors in this discussion agree on one thing: regardless the size, copy-vio should be removed. I request to decide whether the removed material was copy-vio or not. Also, as someone commented out below, this can be moved to talk page soon. Hence, preciseness is also requested. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

   • Just a few comments by a relatively neutral participant (assuming such a thing exists) about the incident at Anthem of the Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic referenced above. First off, passions were somewhat hightened, and both sides did go a little bit over the top – I'm not going to second the accussations of edit-warring. However, there are issues with two particular edits. The first was this. On that page you can see two instances of the enormous Template:copyvio: one, correctly used, down in the "Lyrics" section, and another one at the top, surrounding the infobox because of the file used there. This second use appears to have been inappropriate: as stated in the template's documentation, it shouldn't be used for files, and anyway you wouldn't want to make an entire article virtually unreadable because of an issue with one of the files in it, would you? I understand that this issue concerns a really arcane area that most editors shouldn't be expected to be familiar with, but it does become relevant for an admin candidate who has specifically declared this to be their main focus.
     Now, the copyright investigation that they started was open for a month (long enough for the hatchets to be buried), and it was decided at the end that the original lyrics were OK, but then Justlettersandnumbers came and removed them all anyway. The content isn't impeccable (the sourcing could be better, and one of the sets of transliterations looks iffy), but that was already discussed on the talk page, and the rought consensus, if I remember correctly, was for the inclusion of the lyrics to depend on their copyright status. Once that was cleared, the way forward certainly wansn't for them to go back to square one again. – Uanfala (talk) 13:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Rzvas I was mentioned twice, so I feel that I should respond. I am concerned that JLAN's judgment is not reliable enough to be an administrator. I was not pleased to see that JLAN spent months engaging in uncooperative and misguided behavior, insisting on going through the copyvio process, and then ignoring the result of said copyvio process. After administrators decided at the copyvio listing (that JLAN personally initiated) that the content in question was in the public domain, and therefore agreed that we should keep the original content but remove dubious English translations, JLAN purged the entire article anyways, and proceeded to warn for reinstating the version mandated by his own copyvio listing (which is a clear vio of WP:SANCTIONGAMING). I don't deny that throughout the discussion regarding the Tajik Soviet anthem that I went over the top (more than once), but this was out of patience running thin due to the months of needless stalling and the number of times we went back to square one for no apparent reason. When initial attempts to politely describe how, for legal reasons, the content he sought to remove could not be subject of copyright (which was, months later, what the copyvio listing confirmed) resulted in no response, it becomes more apparent why this incident was so needlessly frustrating. Editors that refuse to engage in discussions at talk pages, insist upon going through third-party administrative review processes, and then - without any attempt to achieve a consensus to override the administrative decision - completely ignore what the lengthy copyvio listing mandated should not be granted exalted authority over the encyclopedia. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 16:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral for now, leaning towards support. Sakaimover (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Neutral for now. The nominations are strong but the opposition seems to raise valid issues about the candidate's recent editing style. I'm parking here and might move depending on the answers to the floor questions. Deryck C. 10:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Neutral as the oppose votes seems to have raised issues about the candidate that would really make me doubt being part of the support. I don't know whether to move to support or oppose, but I'll stay neutral for now. VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 16:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

General comments

• Honestly speaking, I have never seen the candidate before; but based on Lex's nomination, I am most likely to support. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
• Am I allowed to ask questions here? Just asking, I don’t want to risk being presumptuous. Sakaimover (talk) 03:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

  @Sakaimover:You sure can! -- Dolotta (talk) 03:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@Dolotta:I’m kind of afraid to. So far all the questions have come from people with a lot more experience and power than I have. Sakaimover (talk) 04:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Editors with power?—so not talking about Lourdes then :p. ;) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 07:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@Sakaimover: Hi. Asking a question has nothing to do with edit count, tenure, or user groups (i think that's what you meant by "power"). As a matter of even IP editors are allowed to ask questions. So please feel free :) —usernamekiran(talk) 12:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

---

• Pharaoh of the Wizards: Justlettersandnumbers addressed your question in their acceptance of the nomination. 134.223.230.152 (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes missed it.Reverted myself.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)