Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Justlettersandnumbers

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

Justlettersandnumbers

Final (215/3/9). Closed as successful by WJBscribe @ 23:30, 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.

Follow-up I'm relieved to hear that all edits from that unacceptably offensive username have now been redacted from Transandinomys bolivaris and elsewhere by TheSandDoctor; thank you!

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: Sakaimover, please excuse me for being so slow to answer this; I've had a rather difficult day in the real world. If you sensed some reticence in my answer to question 3 above, that was because, while I want to be completely transparent about my own mistakes and failings, I didn't want to attract unnecessary attention to the behaviour of other editors. Both you and Tryptofish have found this ANI discussion, which was pretty much the culmination of my first year here, and – for anyone who can be bothered to plough through it – seems to summarise it fairly well. As I've said before, there's more in my user-talk-page archives; there's also more here. Tryptofish has been kind enough to characterise this as "a newish editor getting hot under the collar"; I see a newish editor being quite insufferably obnoxious. What did I learn? Principally, that confrontation was not going to lead to results here. Also that it's much easier to drive an editor away than it is to retain one, that admins are not moderators, and that ANI is a lottery (if it had not been for the steady reasonable voice of one of our best admins in that discussion, and her subsequent advice, I would surely never have returned to editing). I've written above that I returned to the project with "a determination to remain civil even when others were not"; a quick glance at some of the earlier posts here from 2013 shows that I was at first far from successful in that; I hope I do better now.

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: Thanks for this, Worm That Turned – it's taken me a bit of time to try to recall and research some of what happened back then. I think you're referring to the (hidden) intermediate edit in this diff? As far as I can see, that revision was hidden, but the content of the edit was never removed from the page (as I think it should, and was meant to, have been), so I hope that it's OK to discuss it now? More or less the same seems to have happened here, a similarly inappropriate edit of mine. I received an email shortly after that; it was courteous but made it quite clear that this was not acceptable. I took the warning seriously, and would like to be able say that I never made such an edit again (I was at first relieved to hear that you'd only noticed that one time); however, looking only a little further forward, I find this, which I don't think is much better. I would not make that edit now.

Two things are wrong with those two edits of mine on 8 September 2013, though both fall under the general heading of harassment: the tone of the questions is unduly and unacceptably intimidating; and they reveal or refer to personal information that had not been voluntarily disclosed on Wikipedia. We might have a philosophical, or even a community, discussion about whether removing the space between your first and last names does anything to protect or conceal your identity; we might note the apparent discrepancy between the views of the Foundation on paid editing and outing and our policy; but until there's consensus to change that policy, that's our line and none of us should cross it. I can't see how googling - which takes place entirely outside this closed world of ours – can in itself be unacceptable; but posting the results, or even indicating where they could be found, could be.

As for other options, they seem quite limited. I've never found our guidelines for dealing with paid editing, or our category of administrators prepared to handle violations of our Terms of Use, for example. I know of one admin who could be emailed with details of ToU violations. OTRS agents quite frequently become aware of undisclosed paid editing; in at least one case this has been reported and acted on.

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: Thank you for an easy question, Andrew Davidson. I went to sign up for some website, I don't remember which, and was told that my username had to be just letters and numbers. Well, I thought to myself, OK, whatever you say, but what's everyone else going to do? I remembered the username when I came to sign up for this project.

Additional question from Reyk

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

A: Reyk, please forgive me for leaving this question until last. While some of the other questions have required a measure of research, reflection and/or self-examination, this is much broader; I'm still not sure that I'm ready to try to answer it. Some of our policies are really not much more than firm guidelines – it could be argued that, say, the exact detail of when to use an apostrophe or similar character in an article title is not of truly fundamental importance to the project. The five pillars that bind and define us are categorised among our policies and guidelines, but not marked with {{policy}}; are they policies, or something above that? – I don't really know. The policies to which we should attach the most importance are those with legal considerations. Non-discrimination, no libel, privacy, child protection, no legal threats – these define not the detail and mechanics of the encyclopaedia, but the social fabric of the environment in which it is created. Of the policies in that category, I've devoted the most time and energy to copyright problems; that, like much of the rest of our policy, is based in the Terms of Use. I don't know what could be important than those.

Correction: Of course, that should read "I don't know what could be more important than those".

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?

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

A: Thanks for these two questions, Hhkohh. I think I've already more or less answered them in replying to questions 6 and 7 above, but please let me know if you need more detail on any specific point. I didn't mention WP:PROD: that's a process that I hardly ever use (my PROD log is very brief), and that's because I can hardly ever believe of an article, however bad, that "no opposition to the deletion is expected" – we can almost always expect that at least the article creator might object. Many PROD nominations that I see, and some I've made myself, do not meet that fundamental requirement, and so are not – in theory, at least – eligible. An exception might be the creations of an indeffed or site-banned editor, who is no longer in a position to object; I looked at Category:All articles proposed for deletion, and the first page that came up, 122nd SS-Standarte, created by a user who is now site-banned, seems fully eligible for deletion from 27 September; I'd be confident in carrying out that request.

Follow-up:@Justlettersandnumbers: I did not see your answers about closing XfD. And if you are an admin, can you give me one case each where you take action in WP:SPI, WP:RPP and WP:AIV? Good luck Hhkohh (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Hhkohh, in my reply to questions 6 and 7 I did mention AfD and FfD closure as areas where I might become active. For AIV, RPP and SPI, could you perhaps clarify whether you are looking for examples of action I have taken in those areas (which of course would not be administrative action), or examples of what I would have done had I been an admin?

Justlettersandnumbers, examples of what I would have done had I been an admin Hhkohh (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Begoon

16. Hi. Could you please comment a little regarding the "Corriente Cattle" discussion from your talk page, and any thoughts you may have had about it at the time, or subsequently? -- Begoon 04:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

A: Nice choice, Begoon! – a revert where I was not, and am not, entirely sure of my ground. Two alarm bells rang when I saw the edit: the self-citation, and the two references to the North American Corriente Association, which as a commercial organisation marketing registration of these cattle is not an independent reliable source; it's fairly common for animal breed registries to add inappropriate promotional content to our pages – see Nigora for an example). I mentioned only the self-cite in my edit summary and on my talk-page. The penultimate comment there is from an editor who perhaps wasn't too happy that I'd redirected Töfrahöllin as unreferenced. I wasn't aware, or had forgotten until just now: of the last comment on my talk from Gary D Robson; that that editor has a page here; or that he'd restored most of what I'd removed. The Corriente page needs to be rewritten with some proper sources – the first and last refs in a page such as this would be a start.

Thanks for the thorough answer - that's the context I was hoping for. The discussion initially got my attention because the self-citation was the only stated issue, so some elaboration is helpful. On an unrelated point - the 'pings' you are making in this answer section won't work, because the responses are unsigned - initially I thought there was no way around that, but I see from this help page that links in edit summaries now notify, so that could be a 'solution'. Cheers. -- Begoon 01:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Eli355

17. What is your opinion on the WP:NOTBROKE policy?

A: Thank you, Eli355 – that's actually an editing guideline rather than a binding policy. It's sound advice and I see no reason not to agree with it, or follow it. Occam's Razor can perhaps be stated as "other things being equal, the simpler solution is preferable". If I link a topic from something I'm writing (as I considered linking economy of hypothesis in the previous sentence) and then find it's a red link, I don't (usually) change what I've written, but create a redirect instead (I'll do that in a moment). Occasionally I think that the redirect should or could become an article, and add a {{R with possibilities}} template to it.

Additional question from Kirbanzo

18. Will you be combating vandalism, since vandalism can involve copyright infringement (which you state is your area of expertise)?

A: Thank you, Kirbanzo. I don't want to completely rule out anything – people can change, and so can their interests. However, as I've said in my answer to questions 5 and 7 above, AIV is an area where I have little experience, and where I am relatively unlikely to become active. It seems more useful to the project if I stick to areas where I already have some knowledge and experience.

Additional question from Charles Stewart

19. User:Bus stop alleges that you had a period where you stripped articles, without due care to whether stripped-out links counted as reliable sources attesting to notability, and then nominated the article in question for deletion. Do you think there is any justice to this claim? (edited)

Thanks for this, Charles Stewart: I'm not sure how much I can do to answer without focusing too much either on what is essentially a disagreement over the application of our new notability guidelines for companies, or on the behaviour of other editors. There's probably some justice or truth in the claim, as there is in many claims, however far-fetched; but I don't think there's much. I have copy-edited many pages on artists and commercial art galleries; this is an area where one conflict-of-interest or UPE editor after another attempts to use our project to publicise their business. "Stripped" is fairly loaded term, I think. What I have often done in such articles is to remove (a) unreliable sources such as artsy, artnet, ocula, saatchiart (which is not the Saatchi Gallery) and the galleries themselves, (b) unsourced or promotional content, and (c) unencyclopaedic content such as lists of clients, with the aim of creating a page that consists only of neutral and verifiable encyclopaedic material; please see, for example, Hauser & Wirth – a notable gallery with a long history of conflicted editing. If at the end of that process I find that the topic does not appear to meet our notability criteria, I might nominate it for deletion. If it is a gallery, those criteria are the excellent and fairly stringent new guidelines for companies and organisations; of course, we have a lot of articles on organisations that do not meet those revised criteria.

Additional question from Bus stop

20. I hope those who tentatively "Oppose" are also able to ask questions. Why are you comparing contemporary art to "the varieties of pasta sold by Safeway" in your edit summary at the time that you remove potentially notability-supporting sources about 3 weeks prior to nominating this article for deletion? I'm concerned with your ability to keep biases in check. In my opinion we all have biases but the person who is going to be an administrator has to learn to respect every nook and cranny of this project. I wish you good luck, as you will probably pass. I hope you understand that I am just expressing my concerns and giving you the opportunity to assuage my lingering doubts. It should go without saying that I bear no animosity toward you. I'm really basically wondering what would prompt someone to compare contemporary art to "the varieties of pasta sold by Safeway". As you know this is hardly an isolated comment. You've nominated many galleries for deletion and you've made no secret you regard art as no different from anything else which is your prerogative and a very valid position to take.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] But wouldn't this color your perception of art galleries? And should you be working in this area if you have such a one-sided view?

For the first part of your question, Bus stop, the pasta comparison is restatement (though perhaps not the best one possible) of our policy on what Wikipedia is not: "7. Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees ... , equipment, estates, offices, store locations, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions"; selling artworks is the routine business of a commercial art gallery, as selling pasta is a part of the routine business of Safeway, and is of no more encyclopaedic interest.

For the second part, I believe that my view that art galleries are subject to exactly the same notability requirements as any other company or organisation is widely shared by other editors. In those recent deletion discussions, and others such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meessen De Clercq where I did not participate, there has been one lone voice arguing without success against that view.

Do I have biases? I think so: I'm very much in favour of neutral, well-sourced and well-written encyclopaedic content about notable topics; I'm against poorly-sourced, promotional or trivial material, and often try to repair or remove it. I hope that those are desirable qualities in any editor.

While you say that you "try to repair" I've seen no instance of that and you've provided no example of that. While it is true that Wikipedia is not "simple listings without context information" you are obviating the possibility of expanding on the reliably sourced reviews of exhibitions by removing those sources prior to nomination for deletion. I'm still wondering why art is compared to everything but art. "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" That is your opening statement in your nomination for deletion of the De Sarthe Gallery. As it is your opening statement, it cannot be argued that this is a restatement of WP:INHERIT. That would be a straw man argument because certainly no one argued that the gallery was notable based on any notability of artists. All I see is gratuitous comparisons of art to cars, meat, thrift shop items, plumbing supplies and pasta. You've done this repeatedly. And unfortunately you are not owning up to it. And no, that is not a "desirable quality in an editor". I wanted to change my oppose to support but that is impossible.

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)

    .... and with the answer to Q12, proves they have sufficient sense of humour to survive around here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:33, 25 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 had 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 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) Undo strike. wumbolo ^^^ 18:03, 28 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)
80. Support Good candidate. Quiddity (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
81. Support A solid record with no red or yellow flags. Good judgement and demeanor. Good answers to the questions (so far). The opposes are not persuasive. We need to remember that we are voting on whether or not to grant a few extra tools to a volunteer editor of an online encyclopedia. We are not electing the next pope or president. Infallibility is not a reasonable criteria and the totality of this editor's record does not give me any pause about their knowledge and/or temperament. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
82. Support We desperately need copyright people and it would be a sad triumph of absurdity not to grant admin status to this candidate. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
83. Support. Fully qualified candidate. However, I have a mild concern that for several years, the candidate has focused on just letters and numbers. Please consider expanding your horizons to include punctuation, diacritics, and Unicode characters for a more complete Wikipedia experience. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

    NYB, how long have you been sitting on that awful pun just waiting to spring it on unsuspecting editors in an attempt to make us spit our drinks over our keyboards?Ealdgyth - Talk 17:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

84. Support - I remember seeing you handle an OTRS image on FFD recently and wondered why you aren't an admin yet. Glad to see this RFA. --B (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
85. I am afraid the opposes are out of proportion nonsense. Support. On all fronts, JLAN has demonstrated experience and sound judgment. AGK [•] 17:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
86. Support Per all of the above. Layzner (Talk) 17:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
87. Support - Solid nominee who I believe deserves the mop. Good luck.   Aloha27  talk  18:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
88. Support. First of all, given Alex's oblique reference to aggressiveness in the nomination, and the candidate's own comments about his first year in the answer to Q3, I decided (pending an answer to Q10), to do my own digging, and I think that a lot of it can be found here. I looked into what led to it, and to make a long story short, I'm not seeing anything that would concern me now, after all these intervening years without ongoing trouble. That was a long time ago. Basically, a newish editor getting hot under the collar after having started out being quite collaborative, then taking some time off, and coming back and avoiding the topic area (which I take to be horses) and being an exemplary contributor since. The rest of the answer to Q3 satisfies me that the candidate is self-aware. In the, um, modern era, the candidate is someone with plenty of clue (visible in the answers to questions) and plenty of courtesy. (I came here fully expecting to support without having to do research first.) The rationale for using the tools is a strong one, and there is more than enough experience both in content work and in copyvio-related admin-like work. This is an excellent candidate. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

    I'll point out that I was peripherally involved with the horse disputes that JLAN was involved in that he alluded to, and I have no issues whatsoever supporting his RfA. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

89. Support: Looks good over-all. Trusted. All the best. --Titodutta (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
90. If copyright is what the user does, and Diannaa and MRG support, then I support too. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
91. Support Looks like an excellent candidate, happy to support. CThomas³ (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
92. Support As per Tryptofish's points. If you aren't doing so, you may disregard my request not to point that thing at me. (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
93. Support – ... per pretty much everyone else above, I guess? Certainly qualified to wield the mop. –FlyingAce^✈hello 20:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
94. ...per answers to questions above. I don't see why this person shouldn't be an admin. Eddie 21:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
95. Support per Diannaa. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
96. Support per noms and personal observations.--John Cline (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
97. Support Under 90% AfD "delete votes" at least, and does article creation. No major reason to oppose. Collect (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
98. Support per nominations. Seems like an experienced and knowledgeable editor (judging by the edit history and talk page) who would benefit from an additional tools. I did read the "Oppose" votes regarding the edit conflicts at Anthem of the Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic article but while the situation was slightly concerning I did not see any major causes to not support this candidate. And the first "Oppose" vote I disregarded because it was made by a person with a history (yes, I did my research) of excessive WP:bludgeoning of other participants of AfDs related to certain art galleries, all to promote "all art galleries matter" personal agenda.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
99. Support , based on review. Kierzek (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
100. Support. A net positive experience with the nominee's work, so it is fair to expect an overall net positive for the project. The issues listed below are relatively minor single issues and no proof of pattern of bad editing has been presented. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
101. Support, per noms and others. A net benefit. – SchroCat (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
102. Support Needs to delete pages under G12, for example. BTW, I have previously posted a message about RfA at the candidate's user talk page, which had since been archived. And now the RfA is finally here! GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
103. Support Because of Amory's nomination, the editor's excellent work across Wikipedia, and with visible confidence in JLAN being able to recognise issues with their rollback usage. Lourdes 01:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
104. Support. Strong grasp of policy, and high volume of good contributions. — Newslinger talk 01:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
105. Support Experienced editor, clear need for the tools, and excellent answers to the questions so far. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
106. Support per Newyorkbrad and the answer to Q12. Lepricavark (talk) 01:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
107. Support based largely on previous observations of the editor. --joe decker^talk 01:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
108. OK. feminist (talk) 05:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
109. Support. Very easy decision. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
110. Support. If this user is unsuitable for adminship then the rest of us should probably all resign. WaggersTALK 11:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
111. Support. Clear positive. Daask (talk) 12:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
112. Seems like they have a solid understanding of policy. Article work looks good. Net positive as far as I can tell. ceranthor 14:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
113. Per AGK, et al. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
114. Support Fully qualified candidate.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
115. Support. Generally good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
116. Support good candidate. Jianhui67 ^T★C 15:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
117. Support Eligible for adminshipPATH SLOPU ^(Talk) 16:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
118. Support per TNT, Ritchie333, and Fish Karate. Not much more to say here other than good luck and welcome to the team! If you ever have any questions, myself and others are always around to ask. (Okay, I lied....I did have one more thing to say :P) --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
119. Support: It is clear this editor is bent on resolving our most serious problems here on Wikipedia. Hdjensofjfnen (If you want to trout me, go ahead!) 16:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
120. Support - editor clearly experienced enough to handle the burden of adminship. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
121. Support — Per nominations. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 18:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
122. Support A little baggage indicated in the opposes, but we all have a little. Seeing a NETPOS still. -- ferret (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
123. Support. Glrx (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
124. Support. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
125. Support I've had plenty of positive interactions with JLAN over the years and am confident that they will be a fine addition to the admin corps. SmartSE (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
126. Support Will be a useful asset to the project with the tools; will contribute meaningfully to areas that can always use more help. Has my trust. Spencer^T•C 20:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
127. Very Strong Support It's easy to note that this will be a good admin, even with opposes. The fact that an user don't know the rules is not for forever, because he can study better the rules. Luístro ☎️ 22:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
128. Support no concerns. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
129. Support Seems competent. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
130. Support: Nothing I've seen gives me any reason to worry. TeraTIX 00:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
131. Support -- Begoon 01:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
132. An easy support despite their poor grasp of numbers. Abecedare (talk) 02:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
133. 110% Support - Excellent candidate, I don't see any red flags here nor any valid reason to oppose. –Davey2010^Talk 02:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
134. Support - //nepaxt 03:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
135. Support - seems like a strong candidate to me. bd2412 T 03:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
136. Support - Great sense of copyright rules. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 03:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
137. Support thanks to his strong copyright efforts and the value of having more admins in that and associated areas. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
138. Support- no worries here. Good answers to the questions, including mine. Reyk _YO! 06:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
139. Stephen 06:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
140. support Earned my respect in our interactions. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 07:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
141. SupportI don't feel qualified to vote but what I READ supports this nominationEschoryii (talk) 08:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
142. Support: Net positive and willing to admit to and learn from mistakes. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
143. Support RHcosm (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
144. Support. A rational, cool editor as evidenced by his failure to grasp what passes for contemporary art and more importantly - owns up to his own past mistakes (and we all have them) in a good manner. definitely has a CLUE, and would seem to be a constructive addition to the admin corps.Icewhiz (talk) 09:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
145. Support JLAN has been invaluable to the project in copyright clean up for years, and access to the tools will allow them to extend their practice to areas where they had to wait for others to complete clean up on their behalf (RD1 for example). MLauba ^(Talk) 10:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
146. Support Strong candidate, net positive. talk to !dave 12:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
147. Support Trusted user with a good track record. Constructive and calm in difficult interactions with other editors. Sincere answers to all questions, including transparent discussion of rare past mistakes and learning from them. GermanJoe (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
148. Support. Good candidate. /Julle (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
149. Support Excellent nominations and I see no reason why they can’t be trusted with the tools. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
150. Support. Yep. Good luck! — sparklism ^hey! 17:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
151. Support. IF Maggie signs off on a copyvio admin, that's enough. Courcelles (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
152. Support. Trusted, competent contributor. utcursch | talk 17:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
153. Support everything seems to be ticked off correctly. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
154. Support  pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 17:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
155. Support. I've looked at the reasoning for the opposes, and none of them give me any cause for concern. Oh Still Small Voice of Clam (formerly Optimist on the run) 18:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
156. Support I've seen JLAN around, and have liked what I've seen. Trustworthy noms, and generally-good answers to questions. Opposes (including WTT's) no issue here. Happy to pile on. Miniapolis 19:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
157. Support. Strong candidate. Good work in the copyright field and an OTRS volunteer. Having another good article contributor as an admin is always a positive thing! Though I note the reservations in the 'opposes' these are not enough to persuade me that the applicant willl not clearly be a net positive. Just Chilling (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
158. Support Trusted noms; also more admins working in copyright are desperately needed. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
159. Support - no reason not to. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
160. Support OK by me. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
161. Support Per the responses to all the questions, especially question #13 which I agree with whole heartily. Valeince (talk) 01:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
162. Support No issues here, well-qualified. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
163. Support ^{Babymissfortune} 02:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
164. Support, someone who willingly enters the quagmire that is copyvio and actually doesnt mind being there deserves all the tools that is in a janitor's bucket, added to that the creation of numerous moo moo articles and JLAN gets a big tick from me. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
165. Support Having JLAN on board has been highly beneficial to the project so far, I see no reason not to increase the benefit by handing over the tools. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
166. Support It's good to have another admin in the oft-forgot copyright realm.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 11:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
167. Support - Kurtis ^(talk) 11:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
168. Support - needless pile-on, but having read the nom statements, the answers to questions, some familiarity with JLAN's work, and reading supports and opposes, I'm highly confident this site will be improved if candidate has access to extra tools. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
169. Support Net positive, good editor. Vermont (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
170. Support per WP:TTWOA. Good work in copyright areas, and we always need more admins who understand copyright. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
171. Support No reason not to. Natureium (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
172. Support: Trusted user, no good reason that they would end up abusing the tools, given all three nomination statements. ToThAc (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
173. Support The candidate more than meets my User:Mkdw/RfA Standards and their admin score is just shy of 1,000. Mkdw ^talk 15:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
174. Support - A net positive and a good editor who wants to work in an area of need. - tucoxn\^talk 16:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
175. Support happy to endorse Lyndaship (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
176. Support per answers to questions. ~Awilley (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
177. Support - Unnecessary pile-on support; good luck with the bit: don't forget those of us back in the trenches. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
178. Support - Good experience, trusted user, good demeanor for a long period of time, will work in an area where extra help is needed and has experience as a clerk. Donner60 (talk) 04:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
179. Support - Looks like an excellent editor, and a fine candidate for adminship.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
180. Support ‐‐1997kB (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
181. Support. Not sure how I missed this. You're a member of my "wait, they're not already an administrator?" club, so easy support. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
182. Support. epicgenius (talk) 16:32, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
183. Support - the wub "?!" 16:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
184. Support - An excellent editor and colleague. His copyvio work has been invaluable. Voceditenore (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
185. Support The good answers + the noms pushed me here --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
186. support WTT's concerns are fair, but candidate's response is good too. But I would strongly advice to the candidate to be more careful about this stuff in the future, forever. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:56, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
187. Support - Seems qualified and no concerns. -- Dane ^talk 19:56, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
188. Support—I have carefully reviewed the oppose !votes, and they do not satisfy me that there are concerns about JLAN's likely performance as an administrator. Steve Smith (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
189. Support - Great candidate. Mtminchi08 (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
190. Support – No concerns. Bradv 02:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
191. Support - Another good candidate. You will do well with the mop. Neovu79 (talk) 05:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
192. Support. The discussion here has shown that the candidate has a good temperament to handle conflicts and learn from them. Deryck C. 14:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
193. Support - it's all been said. Was hanging on to be No. 200 but the tension is just getting too much. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

     @Martinevans123: 200 is just a number. GAB^gab 15:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

     Ah, thanks. And there was me thinking it was just letters. Mystic Mev 123 (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

194. Support. I have found nothing to be concerned about. Vanamonde (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
195. Support after review and per answers to questions. Particularly Q20. ZettaComposer (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
196. Support based on experience and interactions therewith(?!?). Crow^Caw 21:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
197. Support An excellent and well-qualified candidate. We have a real need for administrators with a deep understanding of copyright issues. The nominee's views on the notabilty of contemporary art galleries are well within the mainstream, although I recommend more diplomacy and rigor in selecting analogies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
198. Support As per everybody above . Kpgjhpjm 01:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
199. Per Moonriddengirl's nom. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
200. Support I'm coming out of the woodwork to support this great candidate! I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 03:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
201. support of course.-- Dlohcierekim (talk)
202. Support. I have reviewed the opposes and do not find them convincing. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 07:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
203. Support One of the last minute thumbs up. I don't see why not...--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
204. Sipport Perfectly good editor. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC).
     
205. Support Very nice candidate. funplussmart (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
206. Support Obviously.∯WBG^converse 13:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
207. Support Very happy to see the editor here. Rentier (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
208. Support Candidate is well-qualified with good nominations and has demonstrated civility and coolheadedness in recent discussions. ebbillings (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
209. Support Clearly well qualified and highly competent. Gallery nomination referred to above was a good call.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
210. Support Looks okay to me. Deb (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
211. Support. I feel this is going to be a close one, so this may well be the casting vote. If so, good luck and welcome to the corps. Nothing in the opposes to give me any pause, and the endorsements from the usual people I hold in high regard are enough for me.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
212. Support Better late than never, although it doesnt seem to be necessary. Level headed, has a clue, great work and dedication to copyright issues. Curdle (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
213. Support at the last minute. L293D (☎ • ✎) 17:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
214. Support - no concerns. (Swarm ♠ talk) 19:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
215. Support Good candidate. --I am One of Many (talk) 20:15, 1 October 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".[17] 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".[18] Bus stop (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

   Moved discussion to Talk.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

2. Oppose His long term edit warring on Anthem of the Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic[19] and lack of participation on talk page[20] 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.[21] This incident is too recent. Rzvas (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

   Moved discussion to Talk - wolf 12:32, 30 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) As a follow up, after reading the first of the three oppose !votes, I can confirm that I witnessed similar behavior to what another editor compared to "a bull in a china shop:" 1) not engaging in discussions with other editors 2) deleting all existing citations in an article, and then tagging it as having no citations (in their case, proposing an article for deletion after personally removing its existing citations, something that is hard to justify as good faith). I am concerned that JLAN exhibits a pattern of hastily using the WP:TNT option, but without any prior efforts to improve the state of an article or exhaust any other options first; in many cases, the opposite occurs: leaving the article in a worse shape than it was before (even if that means going against admin discretion or existing consensuses), and using that worse shape as a grounds for deletion. This would be fine if there is an effort to improve the article after invoking the TNT option, but instead there is only a habit of throwing the baby out with the WP:BATHWATER. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 19:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

   Moved discussion to talk - wolf 12:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

   (oppose)It is with regret that I end up here, as I think JLAN could make a fine administrator, and in areas of the site that sorely need good administrators. However, I was aware of a previous issue to do with privacy, and asked about it in the general in Q11 - JLAN's second part of his answer was excellent and had he just said that I would probably have given a strong support. He didn't just say that, unfortunately. He linked to the very content which needed to be deleted, though had not been deleted correctly. I'm afraid that, whatever a person might say, what really matters is their actions - and JLAN's actions imply to to me that he does not understand the importance of personal private information, for everyone. As he will have a higher level of access as an administrator, and be put into a position of trust, I'm afraid I must oppose. I'm not expecting anyone to follow me here, I'm sure this will pass and JLAN will make a fine administrator - I'm just hoping that he takes this comment to heart and keeps in mind how important it is to keep private information private. Worm^TT(talk) 08:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

   Can I ask you to clarify a bit here, Worm That Turned? Am I right in thinking that you consider me to be unsuitable for the job because I linked to an edit which had recently been viewed by an oversighter (as specifically confirmed here), but had nevertheless not been redacted? In my answer to question 11 I did express some doubt about that, but of course had confidence in the judgement of the highly-trusted user who had made that call – you. Was I wrong to do so? I see that the edit has now been hidden from view; can I ask why you didn't do that straight away, and why you haven't hidden it completely? (and no, I'm not going to link to where it is still visible!). Please be assured that I do understand and respect our policies on privacy and outing, and that I'm not trying to draw attention away from, or justify in any way, those unacceptable edits I made in 2013. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

   Hi JLAN. The issue that tipped me to oppose is that you saw information that you believed should have been redacted, and linked it here. I believed it was already redacted, your initial post had been suppressed, but I was able to review it. It never occurred to me to check if it had been suppressed correctly. I spent a little while trying to make sure it was correctly suppressed, if I have missed anywhere, I would appreciate it if you could email me the locations. I will ponder a bit more over where my final vote stays as assuming that I had seen and accepted the edit now does go a fair way to explaining your action and the importance of hammering the point home can be made without opposing you in a role that isn't necessarily relevant to the issue. Worm^TT(talk) 14:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

   Worm That Turned, I've emailed you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

   I'm going to strike my vote, as actually a lot of the problems that I am complaining about were caused by me and I would have done better to do handle most of this by email. Worm^TT(talk) 08:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral for now, leaning towards support. Sakaimover (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

   While waiting and watching this page, I found an ANI thread corresponding temporally to the difficulties that JLAN had mentioned having. I found some talk page discussions as well. Without unfairly pointing to specifics, I feel that the content of the ANI thread and talk page discussions actually does warrant a response to Q10. Sakaimover (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

   Sakaimover, I've every intention of answering question 10, and questions 11 and 13 too, but I really have to get some sleep first. In case that ANI page is not enough for you, my talk-page is (partially) archived here: old, older, oldest. Because the "oldest" page was foolishly created as a copy-paste, its history is in the "older" page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

   You say you "foolishly" created it that way? Cut and paste is the only recommended method of archiving. Please see Help:Archiving a talk page. Archiving using a move is "generally no longer used". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

   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)

   Moving to support. Subsequent discussion (especially WTT's struck oppose) has shown that the candidate has a good temperament to handle conflicts and learn from them. Deryck C. 14:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

2. 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)
3. Neutral: JLAN and I have a long history. But takes two to tango. So getting out my popcorn and watching the show. Montanabw^(talk) 22:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
4. Neutral - generally seems to tick all the boxes, though there are some concerns as regards the opposes. Pending neutral while waiting for some more question answers Nosebagbear (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
5. Neutral On lack of substantive content creation, as Wikipedia is about content creation and you have to understand the process of developing an article through the various assessment classes in order to be able to police editors properly. I see a lot of Stub and Start articles. I am also concerned that they don't think they have the temperament to steer an article through the GAN process. It is a basic feature of Wikipedia, and you need to know what it is like for another editor to look critically at your work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
6. Neutral There's lots to like about the idea of Justlettersandnumbers becoming an admin, but I agree completely with Peacemaker67's concerns. The answer to question 5 is fundamentally unsatisfactory: editors who are unfamiliar with what it takes to develop an article to GA class are an unsafe choice to hold the admin tools given that they'll be expected to intervene in articles which have been developed to good standards and assess editors' contributions. In regards to Justlettersandnumbers' focus on copyright issues, this will likely involve them in having to judge when close paraphrasing crosses into copyright violations, which is an issue which often arises in better-quality articles (unfortunately) and their answer to question 5 suggests that they would struggle to do so. The statement that "I have essentially no experience of fighting vandalism" also suggests a lack of focus on working on articles and responding to disruption (for instance, going to AIV), which is concerning. Nick-D (talk) 11:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
7. Neutral I do have a few concerns with JLAN as others have mentioned above and I also like a few things about this candidate, but it seems like there isn't enough to sway me to either side. —JJB^ers 18:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

   Neutral (previously support). The oppose vote by WTT is a bit alarming, and I would like to hear the opinion of other ArbCom members, about the privacy issue. wumbolo ^^^ 18:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC) ArbCom, including WTT, seems to have no issue with what WTT brought up so I'm moving back to support. wumbolo ^^^ 18:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

8. Justlettersandnumbers, could you please restore or add a Table of Contents to your talkpage? Yours is one of the most inaccessible usertalk pages on Wikipedia because of that lack, added to its usual lengthiness. Since administrators are expected to be highly accessible to the community and to intercommunication, especially to newcomers, this problem is a quite serious one in my opinion. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 07:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

   Done, Softlavender. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

9. Neutral The candidate has good work in CopyVio and for that he needs appreciation. However at the same time, Rzvas and Nick-D. point out some valid concerns that are too recent. I hope JLAN takes this as a constructive feedback.--DBigXrayᗙ 10:08, 28 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)

---

• @Ad Orientem: I do not care for your question, especially the second part. It is appropriate for an administrator to speedily "delete a page from the mainspace" if it meets one of the critera for speedy deletion. "Briefly outline when you think that would be acceptable" almost implies that you want a grey, complex answer to what would otherwise be a simple question. "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." The first sentence is a mischaracterization; non-administrators request speedily deletion because they believe a page meets a criterion but cannot delete it themselves (not as part of an explicit check and balance). The second sentence seemingly suggests an administrator should use a CSD template to garner input even if they are sure a page should be deleted (and, in fact, do that "most of the time"). I commend the candidate for answering the question in the way that it seemed you wanted. However, the leading question led to a flawed answer. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

---

• Is it just me, or someone else also thinks that Hhkohh's question is sort of flawed? I don't know how to put my non English thoughts in English/words, but the question isn't right/suitable. That question is more suitable for a candidate for a post of a creative content writer (similar to fiction writer). —usernamekiran(talk) 00:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

  And, aren't they really asking three questions? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

  Well, I think that depends on how one looks at these three questions together. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

  I agree, given the followup: asking JLAN to respond to a sample request at each of three admin areas is literally three questions, per the text of WP:RFA: The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what he or she would do in each of five scenarios). I request that Hhkohh strike the followup questions, or at least two of the three admin areas. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Enterprisey, Usernamekiran, and Serial Number 54129: the number of questions on this RfA is already bordering on the ridiculous. The place to direct such users is WP:RFAV.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

---

• Kudos to Cullen328 for stating the obvious: "I recommend more diplomacy and rigor in selecting analogies". Unfortunately the high-handedness of the nominee precludes their addressing their problematic behavior in an area that they apparently care little about. They are nominating galleries for deletion by stating at the outset for instance that "the purveyor does not inherit notability from the notability of the products purveyed – a car dealer is not notable because he sells cars of notable makes"[22] or "selling a notable product does not necessarily make the seller notable (a car salesman does not become notable because he sells well-known brands of car)"[23]. No one stated that these galleries gain their notability from the artists or artworks associated with them. These are straw man arguments because they are stated from the outset of a nomination-for-deletion process. For some reason the nominee does not address this. Bus stop (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• How does repeating yourself over and over again make your argument more persuasive, Bus stop? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• Cullen328—it is their flawed modus operandi that I am pointing out—removing sources relating to exhibitions at galleries of contemporary art and then nominating those articles for deletion and then stating at the outset that notability is not inherited and then using outlandish analogies to such "inheritance". That modus operandi is problematic. Such AfDs should be dealt with squarely. That would mean bringing an AfD to the attention of the community with a restrained statement as to why it is thought the article should be deleted. As no one has stated that notability is inherited from artists or artworks there is no justification for the long and outlandish diatribe at the outset of these AfDs. Their WP:POINT is simple enough: contemporary art is empty hype. I get it. And I even agree. But we don't use Wikipedia to right great wrongs. Bus stop (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• You did not answer my question about repetition, Bus stop. Instead, you engaged in more repetition. Why is that? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

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