Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Justinc

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

[edit] Justinc

(18/0/0) ending 16:36 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Justinc (talk • contribs) – Justinc has been with us on Wikipedia since October 2004. He has made 3869 edits, 2918 (75%) of which are in the article namespace. He's been pretty active with maintenance work, particularly with images and cracking down on invalid fair use claims. He seems to know his way around Wikipedia policies and procedures, and has a good long history of edits. I think he would be an asset as an admin. Coffee 16:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Accept. Justinc 20:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. First one, Justinc.  Denelson83  20:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support why not? -Greg Asche (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Merovingian (t) (c) 22:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support CambridgeBayWeather 22:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Michael Snow 02:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support I don't have editcountitis--Rogerd 02:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Oh yeah, I support too, if that isn't already implied by my nomination. :"> Coffee 04:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Andre (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Support has been doing good work on food and drink among other things. Has some minor weaknesses on the subleties of Irish beer - but he just needs to drink more of it :-) Dlyons493 Talk 12:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support Gmaxwell 13:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support I don't know this editor, but maybe I'm not getting out much, would appear to good candidate. Alf ^melmac 15:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support We need more admins working with images. Marskell 16:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support We do not have enough London admins. We do not have enough East London admins. We do not have enough London images. From what I can see of Justin's oeuvre, he's needed. Tarquin Binary 02:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. JYolkowski // talk 20:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Cool. --JuntungWu 07:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support. Walter Siegmund 04:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. El_C 03:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support. My only reservations is he coming across as an expert on United States fair use doctrine. I don't know his qualifications for telling other Wikipedians what does and what does not qualify as fair use. --Nv8200p (talk) 03:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. Neutral, has been here a long time, and doesn't have edit as many edits as I would expect. But its not enough to oppose, but also not enough to support. Private Butcher 22:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

   You've got to be joking. He has nearly 4000 edits and that's not enough for you to support? Exactly how many edits would you expect a user to make in a year? This editcountitis is really absurd... Carbonite | Talk 01:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Absurd? Absurd? What is with you people, I'm not opposing, it not like it hurts the canidate that I'm neutral. I expect over 5000 a year, but people don't do that, so I'm not opposing, I'm just being neutral. But fine, while I'm retracting votes, I'll retract this one too. Private Butcher 17:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I wasnt going to comment, but I have to mention three mitigating factors: 1. I make too many edits because I cant see typos on the preview, so they get fixed as minor edits. 2. All the edits I made on {{ifd}} and {{copyvio}} have gone into the ether and are not counted. And 3. I have several hundred edits on Commons (mostly alas related to en wikipedia) that I would like to be taken into nonconsideration. Remember editcountitis is fatal. Justinc 23:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I stand by my statement that it's absurd to considering 4000 edits a year to be "not enough to support". You do realize that only about 400 editors have over 5000 edits total (not per year). Most of those users are already admins. It's quite valid to expect users to have some minimum number of edits. Myself, I like to see 1000 - 1500 edits, although I did just support a user with only 700 edits. Expecting candidates to make over 400 edits a month to earn your support just seems over the top. Carbonite | Talk 02:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. Mostly at the moment helping with cleaning up the backlog of {{nosource}} images for deletionwhich is causing a lot of stress as there are very few people working on it and so people are being aggreived when things are done too hastily. I read the EN mailing list and can pick up on miscellaneous things to do from there. My watchlist has nearly 1500 pages on it now and there are a few disputes to try to calm down (Trappist beer has just flared up).

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. I did a lot of work on the classification under Category:Beer, filling in articles there and encouraging other users which seems to have given some structure to what was rather messy. I wrote all of Kenwood House, which is a nice article if short. There are lots of times that passing by when writing something else I added a stub or redlink and later I come back and found that that was enough to start a better article - Beverley Nichols is one example.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A. There have been a few incidents enforcing picture policy, but they havent caused me stress. I once had to ask for admin help when a user started vandalising my talk page, but generally I just write a reasonable explanation and wait, almost always without reverting. These have usually been quite productive.

The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.