Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Justlettersandnumbers

Q16
Doing my best AGF here, not knowing, or their intentions, but loaded question much? While I loathe to be RFA Question Police, I currently fail to see how this is either important or useful instead of divisive. Thanks, Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  21:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's been removed. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 23:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Bus stop oppose discussion

 * Does pointing out that the use (and even linking!) of "anti-intellectual" is silly count as hounding an oppose? Because I wouldn't want to do that. Just because Bus Stop thinks it's OK to call people names doesn't mean he should be hounded. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Why the concern with "hounding"? It is OK with me if you object to my post. And I didn't think I was "hounding" the editor who is up for adminship. I wasn't trying to call them names. I've removed the internal link to "anti-intellectual". I was just trying to describe the problem. This isn't a playground. If we respect information then we don't toss junk out like the above quotes I've provided. Bus stop (talk) 23:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * De-linking an insult is ... an improvement ... I suppose, but it's still an insult. Better still would be to learn what the word means, realize it's not applicable, and strike it altogether. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can explain to me how characterizing a comment as "anti-intellectual" is an insult. Furthermore if someone demonstrates so little appreciation of a subject area as illustrated in the comments that I quoted above, can they be expected to exercise good judgement? We aren't simply following policies and guidelines. We are also exercising judgement. Bus stop (talk) 23:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've made some adjustments to my original post. Perhaps "anti-intellectual" constitutes an overstating of my case. Bus stop (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow... here we go again. So this candidate has nominated some art gallery pages for deletion. He can't delete them on his own, so how many of his noms have reached a consensus for deletion? If the majority of his noms are deleted, that is by community consensus and/or by sound application of policy. So even if you disagree with the deletions, strong numbers means he knows what he's doing. This is what we want in an admin. This is only a problem if very few of his noms are deleted. So do you have any stats? Because other than his numbers at AfD, his three co-noms have listed numerous and compelling reasons to support his candidacy for adminship. Do you have any arguments to counter all those reasons? (In short... do you really believe he will make a bad admin?) But also, if you (or anyone) could provide those AfD stats, that would be helpful. -  wolf  02:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Added note; nm, I found his stats; 89% match, so it looks like he's just doing his job well. The community and P&G support the deletion of these galleries. Clearly you take umbrage with the deletions, but opposing this candidacy because of it is iniquitous and bureaucrats should take note of that. - wolf  03:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * —I have tried to engage them in dialogue but I do not think they have ever responded to such overtures. I refrained from making this point earlier. I'm prompted to do so by the post below which observes lack of participation on talk page. That has been my frustrating experience too. Bus stop (talk) 03:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Poor communication is indeed a concern in any RfA. You didn't mention it earlier, but if you can demonstrate a pattern of poor comms, or refusal to engage where necessary, with diffs, then that is something we should all take note of.- wolf  03:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't get it--"these repeated arguments...were made in the absence of arguments that galleries do acquire notability from artists or artworks". That makes sense to me, since I am not aware of the existence of arguments that galleries acquire notability etc. Now, if a gallery is a conduit for famous artists they are going to generate coverage and are more likely to pass the GNG, but (absent any specifics) the mere claim that, for instance, some dealer handled some Van Goghs doesn't make that dealer notable. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * —Vincent van Gogh wouldn't be a contemporary artist. Bus stop (talk) 04:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Really. Drmies (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The passage about butchers and cars sounds like a summary of the notability is not inherited guideline to me, and that applies to contemporary art just as much as any other area. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 06:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Contemporary art is different because, generally speaking, only exceptional galleries frequently handle notable art. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 08:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course WP:INHERIT applies to galleries of contemporary art, . Who said it did not? WP:INHERIT applies everywhere. But the editor is clueless, at least in this instance. They do not understand the nature of the entity that they are trying to delete. And as problematic they are not inclined to learn. Here we have a User page section called "notability of galleries" initiated by on the Talk page of . A couple of points. They have an axe to grind: "I wonder why you think a commercial gallery is not not just a retail business that sells stuff – isn't that exactly what it is and does?" And: "While I know that galleries like to think and believe that they in some way 'make' the artists, artists often tend not to agree." Also, they reference "Picasso", when the topic is contemporary art. I realize many here may not recognize any distinction. But a clueful editor nominating articles on contemporary art might try addressing the entity under discussion. And finally I try to address them in conversation. But I can't make someone respond. They apparently had their mind made up and they weren't going to be bothered with dissenting opinions. This routine repeated itself on the AfD pages. The editor will become an administrator. That is obvious from the "Support"s above. But they're not unblemished. I'm refraining from making personal attacks. But my assessment is they've been destructive and lazy in communication with someone who clearly disagreed with their "mission" to delete galleries on contemporary art. I don't think they have ever responded directly to me or engaged me in dialogue despite the fact I think I represented their primary opposition in their efforts. If you all think that's a great character trait in an admin—good luck to all of us. Bus stop (talk) 11:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi again, it seems you missed my reply to you above. NBD, I'll ask again, especially since you raised the issue of communication again. Can you provide any diffs of you attempting to contact or discuss something with JLAN and he didn't reply? You can't expect people to reply to everyone, all the time, but communication is important, especially for admins who are compelled to respond to inquiries about any admin actions they take, to explain them clearly and justify them if need be (per WP:ADMINACCT). Good comms are paramount for an admin, so if there is an issue here, we should know about it. Thanks - wolf  11:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi —I can be seen here addressing . They do not respond. Also, didn't I just provide another example of their non-responsiveness in my post immediately above? If the electrons are misbehaving, I linked here. I am quite certain there are other examples. But I would have to search for them and I think I have made my point. Have you heard the phrase "a bull in a china shop"? I am suggesting that a bull in a china shop is an editor who could not care less about a topic that is covered on Wikipedia and additionally doesn't want to engage in dialogue with an editor questioning their initiatives in that area. Bus stop (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. While I understand your concern about the uniqueness of art galleries and how they seem to be slipping through the cracks in our notability guidelines and into deletion, I don't think your problem isn't with just JLAN, but the guidelines that are working against you. As for JLAN, you expressed some concern over his communication. But you only provided two examples, and in one he appears to be enagaing editors there to learn more about art galleries. The other example, I don't see a reply but that could be because the discussion closed. Did you try following up with him on his talk page? Anyway, there isn't a pattern established here, so I can't really see comms as being a concern for this candidate. I have to ask, other than singular issues you've had over galleries and dialogue, are you concerned that he would not be good admin in the many others areas of the project that admins work in and where JLAN has already established himself as an asset? Just curious. Thanks again -  wolf  17:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ditto at this AfD, . And the editor,, routinely removed all citations to reviews of exhibitions that have been held at the galleries prior to nominating them for deletion. Repeatedly I've told them that reviews in reliable sources potentially contribute to notability for art galleries. But they repeat the process at the next AfD. And they do not engage in dialogue. They have zero interest in galleries of contemporary art. "I wonder why you think a commercial gallery is not not just a retail business that sells stuff – isn't that exactly what it is and does? Yes, of course there's a lot of accompanying hype, but so is there in many other marketing businesses." "While I know that galleries like to think and believe that they in some way "make" the artists, artists often tend not to agree. Nor does our art-historical perspective support this kind of thesis – does anyone believe that Vollard "made" Picasso? I think not; from where we stand now, Picasso made Picasso." If they have no regard for the subject matter—please bear in mind that the subject matter is galleries of contemporary art—then let them work elsewhere in the project. Alternatively, if they choose to work in this area, then should they not be engaging in dialogue? Do they magically lose these negative traits when they become an administrator? Bus stop (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this particular discussion has reached the point where it should be either closed/collapsed or moved to the talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have been mentioned. Perhaps I can respond. —it is not my position that "all art galleries matter". Bus stop (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The gallery nominations were good calls, and do not reflect any lack of understanding on JLAN's part. Absolutely nothing abnormal or improper in JLAN's nomination. The is just sour grapes. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Rzvas oppose discussion

 * 1) Oppose His long term edit warring on Anthem of the Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic and lack of participation on talk page shows clear disregard to WP:BRD and WP:CON. 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. This incident is too recent. Rzvas (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In the diff you linked, JLAN removes the English translation, which was a copyvio. What's the issue with the edit otherwise? Enterprisey (talk!) 06:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You need to check the whole diff and see the history. JLAN was edit warring to remove over 11k-12k bytes of text by incorrectly claiming it to be a copyright violation. After those reverts, he would tag the page with copyvio notice because he says he wanted "expert opinion", even after having been already told enough times by others that it was not a copyright violation. Once the investigation was over and it was proven that the lyrics are not copyright violation, JLAN resumed his edit warring and this time he provided a new dubious reason to remove nearly 12k bytes of text and even reverted the admin when he was himself the one asking for the "expert opinion". JLAN further believes that images should be removed from articles when deletion discussions are on-going. His nomination of the image for deletion in question seems problematic as well. Rzvas (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify a few items in your comments? You're concerned about an situation at the "Anthem of the Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic" page. You accuse JLAN of "long term edit-warring" He made 10 edits over 2 months, and if they were removing copyvio content, that is being repeatedly added, then he not edit-warring, he's doing his job. (See WP:EW "Exemptions" #5). Further, you claim there was a lack of participation on the talk page, but he did indeed comment there.
 * The same situation Carries over to "Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2018 July 3", where dealing with the same... excitable editor, it appears JLAN is really trying help him. There was some uncertainty about the rights to the translated content from another site, and I see that 2 admins got involved, had the same uncertainty about the rights. However, it seems that they were able to resolve it so that the editor was satisfied and the project was protected legally. (Am I getting any of this wrong? I skimmed thru it all quickly). I don't see where your concerns about edit-warring, refusing to communicate or lack of copyvio knowledge are warranted. You present only one situation, and a minor one at that.
 * So I ask you, when you gauge this against all the accomplishments and experience JLAN has, as well as all praise that he has received from so many experienced editors and admins here, do you really think he will not make for a good administrator? Thanks - wolf  09:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * According to which book it is fine to edit war to remove 11k bytes of text while deliberately rejecting the fact that it is not a copyright violation? JLAN was not exempted from 3RR here because it is not like you are allowed to remove more than a thousand words only because a dozen of words are copyvio and if thousands of words are being removed as copyvio then it shows that the person has poor understanding of copyvio and that is the case here. Once the issue of copyvio was already resolved, JLAN used another dubious reason to remove the content, showing his failure to move on. Not to forget the deletion nomination on commons which is apparently problematic. It is obvious that he takes copyright investigations to a personal level. I think he will misuse admin tools to enforce his misunderstanding. Rzvas (talk) 09:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't see how the size of the content removal matters. If a entire 100kB has been copied from a protected source, then you'll see a 100kB deletion. If copyvio content is re-added 10 times in an hour, it can be reverted 10 in an hour and not be edit-warring. (Though the guy re-adding it should be blocked). Regardless if you or anyone thinks that material was copyvio, JLAN didn't 4RR anyway, so no edit-warring. In looking through the diffs, it appears all his edits were good faith efforts to remove potentially copyvio content, along with other unsourced content and content not permitted by policy. You linked to a deletion nomination on Commons, and from what I see there is a calm, patient and polite JLAN trying to confirm whether copyright applies or not, in a difficult case. All the while the same rude, belligerent editor from the WP article is now there continuing to berate JLAN. I see a potential admin carefully looking out for the project, trying to help editors, (despite the hostility) and keeping his cool the whole time, all like he's supposed to. Obviously you have a strong opinion about this particular article that I wonder if may be colouring your POV. I don't see anything in this entire situation you've cited as a 'con', and reason to oppose, especially when weighed against all the 'pros' and all the reasons to support. You've opposed, as is your right, I just wonder how much weight it'll get. But thanks for the reply just the same. - wolf  11:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Size clearly matters since you can only remove what constitutes copyvio if you want to take advantage of the exemption. This content was obviously not a copyvio. JLAN was removing +12,609 bytes, while nearly 12,000 bytes of content was not copyvio and that is why he was not exempted from 3RR since most of the removal didn't even concerned copyvio content. "didn't 4RR anyway, so no edit-warring"? You should already know that one can edit war without breaking 4RR. "deletion nomination" should not be used for confirming "whether copyright applies or not", since talk page and noticeboards are there and that is something JLAN significantly avoids including this article where his talk page contribution was nil compared to the amount of reverts he made. To refer other editor (BrendonTheWizard) who has a better understanding of copyvio and policies as "rude, belligerent" is a personal attack. I haven't even edited this "particular article", but it is obvious to anyone including you that how JLAN's behavior actually needs to be categorized as, and it is certainly not the one that we would expect from an admin. Rzvas (talk) 12:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * as I am on a very old mobile right now, I can't go over the diffs. But as of now, all the editors in this discussion agree on one thing: regardless the size, copy-vio should be removed. I request to decide whether the removed material was copy-vio or not. Also, as someone commented out below, this can be moved to talk page soon. Hence, preciseness is also requested. — usernamekiran (talk)  12:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) *Just a few comments by a relatively neutral participant (assuming such a thing exists) about the incident at Anthem of the Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic referenced above. First off, passions were somewhat hightened, and both sides did go a little bit over the top – I'm not going to second the accussations of edit-warring. However, there are issues with two particular edits. The first was this. On that page you can see two instances of the enormous Template:copyvio: one, correctly used, down in the "Lyrics" section, and another one at the top, surrounding the infobox because of the file used there. This second use appears to have been inappropriate: as stated in the template's documentation, it shouldn't be used for files, and anyway you wouldn't want to make an entire article virtually unreadable because of an issue with one of the files in it, would you? I understand that this issue concerns a really arcane area that most editors shouldn't be expected to be familiar with, but it does become relevant for an admin candidate who has specifically declared this to be their main focus. Now, the copyright investigation that they started was open for a month (long enough for the hatchets to be buried), and it was decided at the end that the original lyrics were OK, but then Justlettersandnumbers came and removed them all anyway. The content isn't impeccable (the sourcing could be better, and one of the sets of transliterations looks iffy), but that was already discussed on the talk page, and the rought consensus, if I remember correctly, was for the inclusion of the lyrics to depend on their copyright status. Once that was cleared, the way forward certainly wansn't for them to go back to square one again. – Uanfala (talk) 13:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

BrendonTheWizard oppose discussion

 * 1) 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)
 * As the admin who closed the copyvio lising for Anthem of the Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic, it certainly doesn't "mandate" any version of the content. The decision was only to remove the English translation of the anthem because the copyright was doubtful. The fact that the other versions are PD doesn't mean they have to be included in the article, just that they can't be removed for copyright concerns. They can still be removed for any other reason according to editorial judgement. JLAN took the view that having nine different versions of foreign language lyrics in that article is excessive. Whether that's true has nothing to do with copyright.  Hut 8.5  20:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course you are right that uncopyrighted material can still be challenged, but per the described reasons I am not swayed that they acted with good judgment. You note: just that they can't be removed for copyright concerns. That is key here. In removing them, they cited WP:NOTLYRICS, a policy whose wording very explicitly relates to copyright, making it unjustified to remove all lyrics in all languages from an article whose copyvio listing just found them to be uncopyrighted. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 21:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * WRT: In removing them, they cited WP:NOTLYRICS, a policy whose wording very explicitly relates to copyright. Um, no, it refers to both copyrighted and uncopyrighted works. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not the blanket removal of sourced uncopyrighted material it doesn't. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 22:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * From WP:NOTLYRICS: the full text can be put on Wikisource and linked to from the article. That would imply that the full text of the song should not be in the article. Currently there are nine different copies of the full text of the anthem in the article. This isn't unusual with national anthem articles: Hej Slaveni (nine copies), God Save the Queen (three copies, with multiple smaller versions), Mila Rodino (four copies), etc, etc. Few articles, e.g. Star spangled banner (one full copy), are more conservative with their usage of lyrics, but that's, ironically, an edge case, and still non-compliant with NOTLYRICS. I'm not saying that I agree with JLAN's conduct on the article the edit-warring is unacceptable, but that was a multi-party edit-war with several editors (yourself included) involved  just that there is a justification to remove the content under NOTLYRICS. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The confusion here is with WP:LYRICS, which is almost entirely about the copyright status, and it was widely cited in the discussion on that article's talk page. WP:NOTLYRICS, which JLAN refererred to in the edit under discussion, is somewhat suprisingly a different thing: a parapgraph of WP:NOT basically stating that wikipedia is not a database of lyrics. But it then links to NPS, which specifically says that the lyrics of most national anthems (like other short songs) are usually included within their articles. But all that is beside the point: no-one, not even admin canditates, are required to know all the fine print. The problems with JLAN's conduct in this instance have already been explained above, and there's really no need to continue pulling that into all sorts of directions. – Uanfala (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)