Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Juliancolton 2

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for bureaucratship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.


Juliancolton

Final (209/46/5); Closed by ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe at 00:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC); Comments: While there was significant support shown, some of it in spite of (or because of) comments and concerns raised by those opposed to this candidate, there were several issues raised by those who opposed which were substantial, and multiple opinions were expressed regarding the same topic rather than simply "me too" !votes. After discussion, we determined that there was not consensus to promote in this case. Thank you for your patience during this process. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Juliancolton (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – I'm running again because I've noticed that CHU has been getting increasingly backlogged over recent weeks. I realize that while the holidays to make it harder for people to get on WP, this seems to be a long-running issue, even if a minor one. IMO it's unfair to make new users wait several days or weeks for a response, especially if they have an urgent reason for doing so. This problem is particularly prominent at the usurpations page, where obvious requests are left to stagnate.

I'm a bureaucrat at the Simple Wikipedia, and I've done several renames there, in addition to clerking the CHU page at en.wiki for about a year now. I have probably close to 500 edits related to username changes, between adding notes and reformatting requests to notifying editors of potential roadblocks. I believe this shows I have the necessary experience to push the rename button a bit more often.

As I enjoy voting in RfA and reviewing candidates' contributions, I don't expect to close many nominations. While I do believe I'm capable of doing so, CHU is my main motive for running. My last RfB was in July, FWIW, and many of the issues raised were addressed over the past six months. Some people said three months would be sufficient, others suggested that I should wait a year; I'd say six months is a reasonable compromise. As always, criticism is welcome. Merry Christmas, and happy New Year everyone :) –Juliancolton | Talk 00:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
A. As mentioned above I expect to focus on username changing rather than RfA. However, RfA, including RfB, is in essence a week long discussion to determine if a given user is sufficiently trustworthy to be appointed to the position of adminship or bureaucratship. While percentages have historically played a significant role in determining the outcomes of RfAs, numbers only go so far, and I believe that the ability to interperet consensus thoughtfully and cautiously is important in a 'crat. What at first seems like an overwhelming amount of opposition may very well be found to be insignificant upon a more comprehensive investigation, and vice-versa. All things considered, the criteria for promoting an admin or bureaucrat candidate varies considerably with each candidacy, so it would be almost impossible to describe them in general.
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. Wikipedia is run by a community encompassing thousands of contributors and millions of uninvolved readers and viewers. Therefore, complicated decisions should seldom be made by a single user. It is, of course, acceptable for a single bureaucrat to close the more straightforward nominations, but I think 'cratchats should be utilized more often, as they can help to create a more accurate reading of consensus. If, as a bureaucrat I would come across a complex and controversial discussion that I felt I needed to evaluate, I would obviously make an attempt to determine a reasonable outcome myself, but I would likely seek opinions of my fellow bureaucrats.
3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
A. I've spent thousands of hours on Wikipedia, reading, editing, participating and interacting with the community, and I've also participated in numerous other Wikimedia Foundation wikis. I feel that as a result, I have a deep and comprehensive understanding of the project's policies and guidelines, as well as its undocumented standards and norms. More specifically, I have engaged in nearly all major administrative regions of enwiki, so I'm familar with hundreds of different processes. In my editing, patrolling, and mopping, I strive to be fair to all users, and in general I've not gotten into any major editorial disputes with my fellow users. I do, however, make an effort to offer "olive branches" when necessary.
4. Preemptively asking this: Why did you go on an extended wikibreak in October, only to return a week later?
A. Around that time, a personal issue partly related to Wikipedia came up, and for a host of reasons I decided it was best to disclose that I might have been away for quite a while. However, said issue was more-or-less resolved quicker than I expected. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Soap

5. I'm interested in your views on the username policy. How would you judge the appropriateness of each of the following usernames? Assume that all are good faith contributors with no vandal edits and no apparent conflicts of interest. These can be interpreted either as new accounts which registered these names as their original choices, or requests from existing accounts to change their names to these.
OnlineDoctor
Depends. This could very easily be a promotional name; oh the other hand it could just as well be a doctor looking to add new info to the project. In this case, I'd leave a {{uw-username}} note on their talk and determine what to do if they respond. If not, it's a judgment call. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ImpeachObama
Clearly offensive or divisive. Block, though whether to hardblock or softblock would be determined by their edits. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pissanna (user claims it's a foreign name)
This is a tricky one. I remember a few months back dealing with a username that contained "kike". When asked about it, they claimed it was a real foreign name pronounced Key-kay. It really all depends on the situation. If they're editing in good faith and the username isn't obviously offensive ("piss" isn't particularly vulgar) then it's probably fine to leave them be. Otherwise, it would be best to notify them and advise them that it would be wise to pick another moniker. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ManitoWebDesigner (a user whose userpage is not blatantly promotional, but does seem interested in finding new clients on Wikipedia even so)
This seems clearly promotional, so in all likelihood, I would at the very least suggest they pick a new name, and failing an agreement to do that, I'd softblock under the aforementioned circumstances. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
E (from a user that registered with a longer name, and posted a CHUU request, but only has a few edits per month on the English Wikipedia and doesn't show interest in contributing more often)
Nothing can really be done at that point, if they got that name fair and square. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

6 What is the difference between a Tough Block and a normal one?
Seems that a "difficult block" is one likely to stir up a large dispute (aka drama), mainly because it involves an experienced or tenured editor. There's really no such thing as a "normal" block, IMO; each one should be made with deep consideration, and reviewed on its own merits. Sometimes we block for spam, sometimes for obscenities, sometimes for vandalism, sometimes for edit warring, et cetera. Anyway, I'm not really a big fan of that page. Something as serious as blocking shouldn't really be glorified or acknowledged in that manner. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Anonymous Dissident

7. I'd be interested in an elaboration, if at all possible, on why you retired and returned so swiftly a few months ago. To retire because off-wiki matters had compromised your ability to participate is entirely understandable, but the note you left at the time doesn't seem to agree with that rationale: "This user is rather disenchanted with the project, and doesn't foresee continued participation with it." The impression I got was that you'd gradually become weary of the wiki paradigm, not that a sudden issue had thrown you into departure. Thanks, and best of luck with your candidacy. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can e-mail if you'd like further details, but otherwise it's something I'd like to keep quiet. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's not a problem. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More preemptive questions

8. These usually come up, so I've taken the time to answer the most popular RfAs ahead-of-time:
  • Well, in this case, I supported the candidate. However, as a bureaucrat, I would have likely extended the discussion beyond its original deadline. Despite a strong base of support, several valid opposes were issued towards the very end of the discussion and, obviously, another day of conversation would have probably led to a different outcome.
  • With a tally of 102/33, the closing bureaucrat's statement is largely true in that the candidate received broad support. Reading through the Support section, though, many editors later struck their endorsements after reconsideration, and quite a few of the support votes appear weak in nature. Additionally, as far as I can tell, most of the opposers presented sufficient evidence to adequately substantiate their claims. Some of the opposition could have strengthened their arguments by linking to diffs and such, but overall I don't see this as consensus to promote; therefore, consensus not reached.
  • Promote for a couple reasons. First, the RfA ended with 76% of the editors supporting; this would, barring any reason to discount a significant portion of the votes, generally suggest promotion is appropriate. That said, a close evaluation of the opposes reveals that many of the arguments presented by those advocating against +sysopping the candidate were flimsy. In the more borderline cases, it is up to the closing bureaucrat to decide which side of the debate provides a better collective case; if one offers limited weight to the "no need" arguments, as well as "too many admins" and and a few of the other vague rationales, consensus is clear.
  • Seems a pretty straightforward unsuccessful RfA. The concerns raised were widespread and consensus was not in favor of granting the candidate sysop tools.
  • Overall, I would have closed this one as successful. RfA is largely an issue of trust, and in this case, there was a general consensus that the candidate was sufficiently trustworthy to handle a small number of specific and minor tasks.
  • Crat chat, simply too much debate for one bureaucrat to reasonably examine in one sitting.
  • Unsuccessful. I don't necessarily agree with the opposers' arguments. However, it's clear that the opposition carried unity in their concerns and I don't see necessary levels of support to outweigh that.
  • I would open a bureaucrat discussion. Canvassing is a very serious issue, and certainly has the ability to influence a debate unfairly; but I wouldn't feel comfortable determining what constitutes 'canvassing' by myself. As such, I would have sought the opinions of other crats.
  • This is a very tough call. This RfA ended at 73% of voters supporting, placing it at the extreme lower end of the discretionary range, at least in the current environment. The opposes presented valid and strong arguments, though quite a few supports seemed to refute these objections with sufficient weight. I don't think it would have been practical for one bureaucrat to decide on an outcome, so I would have likely initiated a crat chat.
  • I find it a bit hard to believe that this nomination resulted in resysopping. At 61%, it seems clear to me the community was not in favor of promotion. As such I'd have closed this as unsuccessful.
  • Too many objections to justify concluding that consensus endorsed promotion in this case. Unsuccessful.
  • The oppostion in that RfA was substantial enough to sway the debate towards unsuccessful.
  • In this case, unsuccessful seems like the only reasonable outcome. There was significant opposition and not an overwhelming amount of endorsements to outweight it.
  • Unsuccessful as well for basically the same reason as Avi 2. Simply insufficient consensus for promotion.
  • I'd argue for promotion; though I'm unsure of the norms in 2005, the opposition would be weak by today's standards in that "no need for more" isn't necessarily a pursuasive argument.
  • I probably would have promoted had I closed the discussion singlehandedly. There was an extremely large majority in support, and the opposition, while valid, did not offer such exceptional arguments as to outweigh it.
  • I'd go with promotion, although with a bit of hesitance. Traditionally, bureaucrats are almost unanimously trusted, and in order for an RfB to pass there must be relatively little opposition. Going by numbers, 12 opposes is quite significant, although I note that a few were admittedly "weak" or "reluctant". Still, the candidate enjoyed substantial support, sufficient to push the decision into the range of promotion.

–Juliancolton | Talk 04:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Shubinator

9. If an RfA candidate has asked that the RfA be kept open for the full seven days, are there any conditions where you would close early?
Well, bureaucrats are given the ability to close RfAs, and their judgment is to be trusted. As a non-bureaucrat, no, I would not close an RfA early against the candidate's wishes; as a bureaucrat, however, I would determine if the candidacy's probable result is sufficiently clear. If it's obvious it won't succeed, then yes, it might be appropriate to close it early even if the candidate requests it remain listed for the full week's time. However, promotions should very rarely be done ahead of schedule (I can't think of any such situations but I'm sure it's possible, I guess...) –Juliancolton | Talk 04:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Bradjamesbrown

10. You've touched on what you plan to do with the tools at RfA's, and CHU. The one area that's not been mentioned at all is bot policy/flagging. Do you have any experience working with the BAG? (I've looked, and I can't find any- and that's fine with me; it is by far the most technical of the three. However, as b'crat only has three major functions, I'd like to hear something from you about the third.)
My technical abilities are admittedly minimal, but I do operate a bot, JCbot. It has three approved tasks and one pending promotion. I do occasionally comment on existing BRFAs, and I do intend to work with flagging/deflagging if promoted. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. If selected, would you join the Bureaucrats mailing list?
As I can't see any major downsides, I will probably join. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Jusdafax

12. A few related questions in regards to the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC, which in essence proposes a 'Reverse Rfa'. Seeing as the proposal, if enacted, may include wording to give Bureaucrats additional powers (including the power to close the Cda process or, as in an Rfa, make the call on whether consensus has been reached) do you support this role for bureaucrats? And what is your opinion on the proposal in general, and of the perception of some in the community that there is an ongoing problem of misuse of administrators' tools or influence? Thanks, Jusdafax 08:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That page has grown to be rather tl;dr, but I'll take a stab at it. :) I'm of the opinion that adminship should be more easy-come, easy-go. As such, I do agree that some form of deadminship process should be initiated. I'm not sure that necessarily has to do admin abuse or misuse; it's just common sense in my opinion that if an admin no longer has the community's trust for whatever reason, there should be some method of having their sysop flag removed without prejudice. Having a community vote or discussion with the end result interpreted by a bureaucrat seems like a reasonable idea to me, although obviously the details are important. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Keepscases

13. You meet a young lady who has taken an interest in you. She is beautiful, affectionate, educated, honest, and cheerful. However, she has made it clear that she doesn't understand nor approve of your work on Wikipedia. She feels that people should be paid to update Wikipedia, and that someone's free time would be better spent on other activities (leisure and/or charitable). Knowing she feels this way, would you pursue a relationship with this person, or would her thoughts on Wikipedia be a deal-breaker?
A: (Assuming this is in fact a serious question.) Much as I enjoy reading, editing, and participating in Wikipedia, if I had to choose between continuing my work here and maintaining a relationship in real life, I'd likely pick the latter option. Doesn't necessarily mean I'd quit altogether, but I would spend less time editing, certainly. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Becksguy

14. Continuation from Question 9. Assume that a hypothetical RfA is clearly and without any doubt going to be unsuccessful. But the candidate requests that the RfA process be kept open for the full seven day period so as to gain additional helpful feedback. Would you then close that RfA early anyway? Would you still close early against the canidates wishes if the feedback had become (a) civil but unconstructive, (b) uncivil or negative, or (c) contentious?
A: It's a judgment call really. If the candidate is still receiving good-faith, constructive criticism and reviews, it would be acceptable to keep the discussion open even if it's all but guaranteed to fail. Even though RfA shouldn't be used as a substitute for editor review, once you're there, you might as well try to obtain as many suggestions as possible.

But again, trying to figure out whether or not the candidate is, in actuality, still receiving constructive criticism is part of the bureaucrats' role. If I've determined that the discussion is no longer productive, I might be inclined to close the discussion regardless of the candidate's wishes, though of course that depends greatly on the exact circumstances. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:this is actually based on a situation which arose within the last week (as you can see if you look at the failed RfAs - I'm not going to name the specific editor). In the RfA in question, a SNOW closure (after 3 hours) was explicitly re-opened by the candidate (even though they had 9 opposes and no supports - and 1 neutral). It was then closed (16 hours after it was started) by a 'crat - when the tally was 1/38/4. This was after discussion about whether an RfA should be closed after a candidate has clearly shown that they wish it to continue for the full 7 days. Just thought I'd provide the background to that question, as not everyone reading would necessarily have seen the RfA, what with the holidays an' all. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Shawn in Montreal

15. Follow up from question 4. It wasn't a "wikibreak" notice it was pretty much a resignation. I was one of many people posting notices on your Talk page asking you to consider and I'm glad you did, a few days later. But I would still like to know more about what all this was about. Could you expand on what the "personal issue partly related to Wikipedia" was?
I'm open to emailing almost anybody who is interested in learning details of the situation. However, as I mentioned above it's something I'm trying to keep quiet on-wiki as my security could be seriously (further) compromised. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Btilm
16. Hello! Since you have a particular interest in WP:CHU, I thought I might give you a few instances of username changes. None of these usernames actually exist, and I have given details about each user under "notes". I will most likely post more once you answer these. Please give me your response to these changes under each one.
Hotdogsatbreakfast → Hotdogsatbreakfastandlunch
A:  Not done. Username changing is a courtesy service usually provided exclusively to good-faith contributors. A pure vandal will have to earn the privilege of being granted their request. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taylorswiftishot → Iamtherealbatman
A:  Done. Old name is a violation of the username policy as misleading, threatening, offensive, etc., so it's necessary to rename the account if it has so many edits to a high-profile page. Their status as a contributor can be determined later. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
James Murphey → Johnathon Santa
  • Current name: James Murphey (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
  • Requested name: Johnathon Santa (SUL reports: old & new) (rename user)
  • Reason: The username has my real name and I don't want that. James Murphey (talk)
  • Notes: This current username has 89 edits (not including the username request) to 2 different places. The first one is the current user's user page. The second one is the article James Murphey, started by this user, who also filled it with poorly-written, unreferenced information. The requested user name does not show any trace in SUL reports.
A: I'd add a {{CHU|note}} asking the user if they understand WP:COI, WP:SPAMMER, and other pertinent policies. If they acknowledge that they've reviewed why their article is problematic, I see no problem moving forward with the security-related request. Failing a response after a week or so I would probably mark it as {{notdone}}. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Optional (serious-mockerous) questions from Proofreader77
17. Excuse me if this seems too irreverent a question, but I understand what stewards are good for, yet it seems that the only satisfying use of a bureaucrat bit would be if you woke up one day with the desire to rename Jimbo Wales account to "Mud," just for the pleasure of (momentarily) telling him to his face: Your name is Mud around here, and it be true. Knowing that you could, seems small consolation to the general wussiness of bureaucratism: e.g., Sysops have the social pleasure of terrorizing the fauna, but a crat doing that would be laughed at for stooping to cruelty. (And you can't terrorize administrators with subtle threats to strip their bit.)

Bottom line: Could you please explain why being a Wikipedia bureaucrat is not the wussiest thing one might become. (And if you have a good answer to that, do you promise not to brag about it at the prom to fill up your dance card? :-)

Note(?): Skipping most important question, I see. (semi-serious smile, question requires broad perspective/wisdom to answer. Perhaps. :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 22:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Suppose there is a large number of oppose votes, but it is clear that the opposers are serial social bullies who (or their friends) have been nailed for it by the RfA candidate in the past. Does a crat have the authority to simply overlook "snowball bullshit" arising from those who habitually commit social crimes — or must a crat bow to "the social"?
"Bullshit" is vague, subjective, and isn't really a valid rationale for discounting a large volume of the opposition. So long as their arguments hold water, there's no evidence of sockpuppets or canvassing, and the voters are considered to be in good-standing, their opinions are probably legitimate. But I can't really make a reasonable call on that hypothetical scenario without background context—how many supports were there, for example? –Juliancolton | Talk 14:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe we should expect a Wikipedia bureaucrat to be a exceptionally knowledgeable connoisseur of bullshit varieties. (A fundamental area of rhetorical education, acknowledging the serious lack of that focus in education for the past century or so, but to be corrected, in due course .:-) But yes, excuse the lack of specificity of the details here ... For a less vague question, see "do you promise not to brag about it at the prom ..." ;-) Proofreader77 (interact) 22:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. If I create a bot "whose" only purpose is to randomly mock Juliancolton for being a wussy bureaucrat from time to time, would you OK it?
A. Heh, that's not my job. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 14:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Comment)
"Bureaucrats are Wikipedia users with the technical ability to:
  • promote other users to administrator or bureaucrat status;
  • grant and revoke an account's bot status; and
  • rename user accounts."
-- :-) You wouldn't really need WP:BAG approval for that one, would you? lol (Bureaucrat's discretion regarding said-bureaucrat-mocking bot under scope of self-mockery exclusion? :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 22:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Depends. What's the programming code? :) –Juliancolton | Talk 03:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse delayed response: I was blocked 31hrs because an administrator did not understand "rhetorical interaction" 101, and chose to block me for a message about giving $1,000 to Wikipedia on Jimbo's talk page (note: Jimbo had told an editor to go cool off a month, but the editor had started a new policy topic ... Proofreader77 ruled it out of order, and encouraged matching donation of $1/word for transgressive editor. etc etc) ' ...

... Anyway, as to your question: "What's the programming code?" (1) It only posts to User talk:Juliancolton and (2) it reads all your comments to talk and project pages, and if the Bureaucrat Pomposity Coefficient (BPC) reaches .8, a mocking comment appears on said talk page. (Simulations suggest this will improve Bureaucrat Operating Equilibrium [BOE] by 55.2% ...

At this point I cease commentary/interrogation, to go add a support vote based on the good humor and balance (un-mocked state:-) demonstrated here. And of course, Happy New Year! Cheers.
-- Proofreader77 (interact) 11:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from WFCforLife
20. I haven't been around wikipedia that long, and this is the first time I have participated in an RfB. My understanding of a bureucrat's role is that while most of the time they work to a set of quite rigidly-defined rules, there are occasions where they are required to exercise discretion. Given that it is easier to move Heaven and Earth on wikipedia (EDIT: actually, just heaven) than it is to de-sysop someone, clearly these discretionary calls are not insignificant. Could you give a couple of examples where you have made discretionary calls on wikipedia, either by ignoring the rules for the benefit of the encyclopaedia, or where you were able to exercise discretion in your role as an admin?
A. I'm often of the opinion that policies are merely descriptive rather than prescriptive, and are sometimes not comprehensive. Therefore, I have been known to take BOLD-yet-still-fairly-reasonable administrative actions. I probably wouldn't be able to remember specific examples of particularly IAR-ish decisions of mine, but a few of my more difficult decisions at AfD that I can remember include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levi Johnston and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (2nd nomination), though I know there are countless others I just can't seem to recall at the moment. (Worth noting that I closed the Levi Johnston debate a few days early because I felt the discussion had gone beyond productive at that point.) Either way, I believe that common sense is crucial when policy doesn't explicitly address a particular situation. Welcome to RfX, by the way! –Juliancolton | Talk 14:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from Tedder
21. More of these silly scenarios. Suppose you find out that an article was created by someone with an obvious or stated COI. What do you do? (block user, delete article, and/or "other")
A. Depends. COI issues alone are not usually enough to justify immediate deletion of an article, unless it is written with an unambiguously spammy tone. If it's clearly an ad I would delete and at least warn the user in question or block if the username violates WP:U. Assuming there's nothing that necessitates blocks or deletions, however, I'd simply tag the article with maintenance notices and send it to AfD if its notability was weak. –Juliancolton | Talk 06:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. What's your opinion of paid editing?
A. I'm not entirely familiar with the subject of paid contributing, even though I did participate in the relevant request for comment IIRC. In short, however, I believe paid editing should almost always be strongly discouraged, as, even with the best of intentions, it invariably leads to bias/COI issues. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from TheWeakWilled
23 In regards to age (I may have missed if you stated your age elsewhere), have you reached the age of majority in your area? Saw your last RFB. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 17:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A.
Optional question from Chaser.
24. What made you think this situation would have been a conflict of interest for someone that had opposed the RFA?
A. Nothing, really, but a few times people have asked about COIs in similar situations so I just wanted to be up-front about it. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what was your understanding about how withdrawn RFAs are handled before others chimed in at that thread?--Chaser (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The same as I described above. Although I might be misunderstanding this question a bit, could you please confirm that's the sort of answer you were looking for? Thanks for the questions. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from User:Sjakkalle.
25. Here you signed off on the "farewell" signature list to a banned user. Was this a mere thanks for the content work, or a show of support that the person ought not to have been banned, or something else?
A

General comments

RfBs for this user:

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

Discussion

  • In response to A Stop at Willoughby—as you said, admins who have a vested personal interest in an article being discussed at XfD are discouraged from closing the debate. I've closed several thousand AfDs over the past 16 months or so, and I'm pretty confident I can determine when I feel neutral or disinterested enough to take administrative action. It'll be the same way at RfA; if I believe my views on a certain issue would cloud my judgment, I would avoid closing the RfA and instead engage in it at an editorial level. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a quick comment regarding the "Friday incident", since it seems that it may ha been misinterpreted a bit. All I did at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Friday was add my signature to two lists; to certify the basis for the RfC and endorse another editor's post. I engaged in no further activity with the discussion. I agree that the RfC was not well-constructed, but in my view, certifying an RfC doesn't necessarily mean you agree with the initial statement, just that you endorse the opinion that there's a problem. Hopefully this doesn't come across as too defensive, I just wanted to clear things up. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to TheWeakWilled and other editors that want to bring age issues up, why are you even asking/opposing? That's bullsh*t (no offense to anyone, remembering WP:AGF in mind). ANYONE can edit this site, registered or not. There is nothing in the terms of service, privacy policy or the TOS of the Wikimedia Foundation. Although there's WP:CHILD, take the Star Wars Kid for example. You easily notice that there's the word "kid" in there. No mention of his name anywhere in the article. If someone were to create an article about some kid under 13 that has their own biographical article (take Balloon boy hoax as another example, although it also covers the hoax), including their age, name and (possibly) their school, then f*** (I do know Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, but I find swears funnier censored) the WP:CHILD essay. If that essay were to become a policy or a guideline, it would be a Wikipedia disaster like I think Flagged Revisions will be. The worst that could happen is a sysop/bureaucrat blocking everyone on this site. Solution: get a steward or a developer to come in. Otherwise, abuse is highly unlikely. Those are my views on this issue, if you want to respond, post. ConCompS (Talk to me) 21:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was just wondering, as I didn't even know that he was a teen until today. I have yet to cast a !vote, and it will most likely be in the Support column. I wasn't going to base my vote off of it. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a valid concern. I'll admit that generally younger folks aren't well-suited for positions of higher responsibility on WP. Perhaps that makes me a hypocrite, but I think I have the necessary maturity to handle an additional role; that doesn't make the opinions of those who disagree unfounded though. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. He's only improved from the last time around. I think he's fully ready now. ceranthor 00:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No doubt in my mind.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 01:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I was wondering when this would finally come up again. More than definitely qualified, no concerns with this user.  IShadowed  ✰  01:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Bwrs (talk) 02:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. I've known Julian since his early days with the project through the U.S. Roads WikiProject. As time has gone on I've seen him evolve from a newcomer into a great administrator whose name seems to turn up on every Wikipedia-space page that I visit. No hesitation supporting him for bureaucrat. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I trust his judgment, and he is an experienced administrator. --Rschen7754) 02:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Definitely. And I hope this doesn't spiral out of control...  fetchcomms☛ 02:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strongest Possible Support Outstanding user and very active with over 110000 edits and has made made and done a lot of admin actions with nearly 2800 blocks and 16000 page deletions and hence he can be trusted with being a good and active yet a non controversial crat and is also a content creator with over 134 articles. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. For juliancolton. Keegan (talk) 03:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Bsimmons666 (talk) 03:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. About Time. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong Support One of the best editors around. Airplaneman talk 04:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support, per nomination. –blurpeace (talk) 04:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Julian is one of our most dedicated administrators and one of the most helpful editors in general. I think he would make an excellent bureaucrat. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 04:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong Support of course. ❄ upstateNYer ❄ 04:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. ewww... It's a julian claus —Dark 05:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong SupportWTHN?Abce2|Free lemonadeonly 25 cents! 05:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong Support - was a great admin, will be a good bureaucrat. December21st2012Freak Happy Holidays! 05:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Cratship is about trust, and I believe Julian has earned that trust. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong Support No joke, I was actually saying to myself today "I wonder why Julian isn't a 'crat yet". He has both the experience and trust necessary to perform this job. --Shirik (talk) 06:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong Support. Bracing for the drama, but anybody truly dedicated will wonder why this hasn't already happened. Şļџğģő 06:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support I've had the chance to interact with Jullian in several forums. I've seen Julian show restraint and maturity in his actions, even in the times that we have been opposite sides of the debate at hand. Dave (talk) 07:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support will make an excellent additional 'crat. BencherliteTalk 07:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Of course!-SpacemanSpiff 07:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support with no hesitation! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support The only objection I've been able to come up with is in relation to age; and ultimately I'm not comfortable opposing a candidate based on that. Julian has proven himself trustworthy with the sysop tools. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Great candidate for this role: Level-headed, bright, dedicated, and of good moral character. Obviously learned from the last Rfb. Delighted to support. Jusdafax 08:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support No doubts here. ≈ Chamal talk ☃ 09:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, no worries. Cirt (talk) 09:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Of course. Tim Song (talk) 10:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support BejinhanTalk 10:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Heh, yes. Pmlineditor ∞ 10:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support, per nom. Theleftorium 10:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support supported on last will do so again Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, Congrats JC. Unomi (talk) 11:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support without hesitation -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 13:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Strong Support: He represents the very best of Wikipedia! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support I can count on the dull-blue signature as a sign of stability in any discussion. I only met him via my first official scolding over something when I was brand new, but will never forget how incredibly polite and very helpful he was.. From everything I've seen, it just keep getting better and better. Good luck! ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Extremely strong support. Although I've had no personal interaction with him, Julian, I think I can safely say, is one of the most respected editors on the wiki. His massive experience, for example, in closing AfDs, and trustworthiness (if that's even a word!) make him more than qualified for the job. HJMitchell You rang? 13:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Total Support Trustworthy city. Upgrading to highest level of support as most of the reasons on offer to oppose, when properly thought out, seem to be reasons why Julian should be made a crat. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. (edit conflict) Support Very active user. Talk page exemplifies what a bureaucrat should aim for, particularly this. Although JC is a well-regarded admin, he graciously helps out a newcomer. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 14:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Julian is a sensible and dedicated user who has become a competent and trusted administrator. I have absolutely no concerns about his suitability for the additional responsibility of bureaucratship. ~ mazca talk 14:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Absolutely no question. Thingg⊕⊗ 14:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Yesyesyes, just like last time. That signature is among the names I most immediately associate with respectful and thought-out responses, and JC would be a huge boon to the CHU scene. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Unconditional Support No concerns awesome admin, very active, has all the qualities we should be looking for in a crat. RP459 (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - I fully trust Julian to be able to make decisions regarding crat matters. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 15:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. If not this user, then whom? I remember that there were comments last time about making fewer me-too comments, and I think Julian has genuinely improved on that. He is ideally qualified. Absolutely. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support I supported last time, if anything he is better qualified now. ϢereSpielChequers 15:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Strong Support There is no reason to oppose. Julian is one of the most trusted and respected editors here and him becomeing a crat will only help this site.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 15:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 15:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. One of the most hardworking users. Avoids drama. Shubinator (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Responsible, civil, understands policy, and more that I won't even go on to mention. What more could I look for in a b-crat candidate?--Res2216firestar 15:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. He does a great work. I know him from several projects. I'm also a simple wiki crat and can confirm that he does a good work there in all areas. I trust him and have no worries. He knows what he is doing. I see no reason why he shouldn't be a crat. Good luck Julian. --Barras talk 15:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support I like your answer to Q12, not because you support the policy but for the reason you gave "I'm not sure that necessarily has to do admin abuse or misuse; it's just common sense in my opinion that if an admin no longer has the community's trust for whatever reason ...". Sole Soul (talk) 15:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Major support. One of the best Wikipedia users I know, and very trusted/respected by the community. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 15:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Per last time. Julian has not stopped his activity in crat related areas and has done impressive work for a long time now. Regards SoWhy 16:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support He's level-headed, inciteful, knowledgable, and fair. Every time I've crossed his path I have admired his work. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Knowledgeable, has clue, nothing else needed.  GARDEN  16:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. No valid concerns have been raised at all, so, very strong support for an excellent candidate. Majorly talk 16:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Strong Support - I see no wrong with you as an administrator, so why can't you be a crat? smithers - talk - sign! 17:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support He has only improved since last time. LittleMountain5 17:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Good experiences in the past, and improvement in concerns from last time. Happy Holidays! America69 (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support I've ran across his work on occasion, and I've seen nothing that would shake my trust in the slightest. Very insightful, reasonable, good decision making skills. Angrysockhop (Merry Christmas!) 18:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Secret account 19:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Hell yes. ···Katerenka (討論) 20:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Strong Support. Juliancolton has shown the insight and involvement into the various areas I consider paramount to fulfilling the role of Bureaucrat. I have complete confidence in his abilities. Mkdwtalk 20:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Very Strong Support Great admin, great editor. Willking1979 (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Thank you for coming back into the meatgrinder. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Definite Support -- I seldom !vote, but comments here, as well as actions, show a clear understanding of relevant policies. -- Pakaran 21:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your support. As IPs are not allowed to vote, could you please log in if you've got an account? Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 21:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's me. I can't believe I did that. But if you're this on the ball, I suppose it's even more reason to support. -- Pakaran 21:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, alright. :) Thanks again! –Juliancolton | Talk 21:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Unambiguous Support - I can see after noticing him participating in several projects, such as Wikipedia:WikiCup/2010 Signups, that he should without a doubt be able to strive as a bureaucrat! Schfifty3 22:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Delighted to Support again. The depth and breadth of Juliancolton's contributions to Wikipedia are extraordinary. RayTalk 23:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  72. 70+ editors in under 24 hours can't be wrong — I can't imagine having Julian as a bureaucrat being anything but a benefit for Wikipedia. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support No real concerns raised by opposers, imo, even if nothing jumps out and says support, either. But bureaucrat can be a job done by someone who is willing to read what they are supposed to be deciding upon, and Julian Colton appears to read before making decisions. IMO that's what a bureaucrat should do, so there's no reason not to support it if he wants it. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Fágh an Bealach delirious ☯ ~ nollaig shona duit~ 00:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support This is a fairly technical role and I've never seen Julian do anything that would suggest he wouldn't handle it well. Orderinchaos 01:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support, no worries here. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 03:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Surely MBisanz talk 03:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Strong support Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support The opposes are extremely weak and seem tooriginate from an inability to distinguish between someone having an independant opinion, and a fear that the said opinion will be imposed against consensus. The preamble to the sixth oppose goes at great lenght to establish the strengths of JC as and admin and as an editor, as someone who takes care and gives thoughts to his decisions and contributions. It is ridiculous to think that this same care will not be taken when doing bureaucratic work. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think my vote is "ridiculous." See my additional comment below. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  80. I support this non-perfect sometimes-flawed candidate who will likely make a mistake or two, mess something up, and make one or two bad decisions. Overall, Julian is a hard-working, dedicated editor who is looking to extend his services, and help out in a few backloged areas. No doubt he will make some mistakes, but not one human being is perfect. Why should we expect Julian to be? I hate the attitude about "forget the backlogs... who cares if we close the RfA four days late..." If we have backlogs, and a fully-qualified candidate is willing to assist in clearing them, why the hell say no!? You don't agree with some of his views? You think he'll do something improper based on his views? Give me a damn break. We have a policy on assuming good faith, under which it's expected that we don't assume the worst in an editor. There is no way to tell if Julian's take on ageism is going to affect his RfA closures where ageism is a factor. He hasn't done this yet, so why on earth should we assume the worst from someone who has been called "one of Wikipedia's most respected editors" multiple times on this page alone? I hope that before editors place a vote here, they consider the Net Positive essay, and Assume Good Faith policy. To end on a more positive note, Good Luck Julian, and Happy Holidays! :-) iMatthew talk at 03:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I'm assuming bad faith. See my additional comment below. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support JC is a great admin and his current work plus his contribution to projects like WP:WPTC makes him a suitable person for this job. Darren23Edits|Mail 03:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support Excellent editor and administrator and a valuable asset to the community. Triplestop x3 04:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support - I see no reason why I should not support him again after supporting him during RfB #1. -MBK004 05:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Why the hell not. I see no reason why you can't determine consensus and frankly this job isn't rocket science. You're a mature and experienced Wikipedian, you'll do fine. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 08:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support The opposes here are downright ridiculous. A slightly retarded monkey with good intentions could make a better admin than most of the ones we currently have, and the role of crat is even less demanding. I see nothing at all about this user that makes me think he would be anything less than outstanding at this role. Trusilver 09:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support Aditya Ex Machina 10:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support I supported him last time and my feelings haven't changed. Julian is a hard working and level headed contributor and I feel certain that he'll do a great job.Shinerunner (talk) 11:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support The voices from the oppose camp do not sound convincing at all. The candidate's answer regarding the closing of the past RFAs is correct. I began thinking that B'cratship is not as much big dig as RFA, and ArbCom election, so having another B'crat reduces backlog which is a good thing for the community. I do care about age when it comes to electing somebody. However, from what I've observed on many things happening within Wikipedia, one's maturity and wisdom have little thing to with his/her age. Julian is a smart and dedicated admin committed to the community and willing to devote himself to 'crat area, so I want to support him.--Caspian blue 14:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Stong Support. I've always thought JC has been a very hardworking admin and editor with a strong knowledge of policy and a good attitude. I think he could do well with the crat bit. Valley2city‽ 15:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support. Most suitable; good luck! ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 15:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support. He is a good editor who would be suitable to be a bureaucrat enough said.Jason Rees (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support – One of the few reasonable persons on this project. --Aitias (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support To be sure, my own dealings with him have been nothing but great. And his positions of responsibility on other projects lends credence to the idea that he will be a responsible 'crat here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support per nom. Durova386 18:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support We need crats who are very experienced and julian fits the bill here. My earlier oppose was based on a feeling that he wasn't quite ready then. Polargeo (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support - As Julian mentioned, there's a need for more 'crats (at least I think there is), and I can't think of a better candidate, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Strongest possible support. This admin is amazing at friendliness. ConCompS (Talk to me) 20:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support - Wide range of experience, extremely dedicated to the project, all around good guy. Can't think of a single reason he wouldn't make a great Arb. Bullzeye contribs 21:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support although nothing concrete, good feelings about this editor and what work I have seen him do...all the right people support too. Ikip 21:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  101. All my support I have not met Juliun, but from what I've seen and heard during my time here: YES! LouriePieterse 21:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Absolutely support. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support. Let's get it right the second time, shall we? — ξxplicit 22:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support - I trust Juliancolton and the work he has done elsewhere, including having some very trusted positions, generally confirms to me he can be trusted as a bureaucrat here. I don't find the opposition convincing at this time, his views on ageism I don't find concerning. Nor am I feeling cynical about his justifications for being a bureaucrat, and even backlogs are not as much of a problem as betrayed, more bureaucrats, as long as they are competent, is not a bad thing. Camaron · Christopher · talk 23:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support based on prior good experiences with the editor that leave me confident that he will make an excellent `crat. — Kralizec! (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Absolutely. Malinaccier (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support: Trustworthy, clueful, and net positive as a crat. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support: I supported his first RfB and this is just the logical followup. Dr.K.πraxisλogos 00:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support. I'd probably oppose an RFA for Julian were he to run again, for the exact same reasons I'd support an RFB. He's persnickety and obsessed with minutiae and the letter-of-the-law to the extent of sometimes overriding common sense, and will regularly make decisions against his own better judgement, because that's what he thinks the Wisdom Of The Crowd is calling for. This is extremely annoying - especially when one's on the receiving end of it - in an admin, but is exactly how a Wikipedia 'crat ought to behave. – iridescent 01:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support -- Avi (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support, I supported previously, the candidate has only improved further since then. --Taelus (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support He should have been made a 'crat a long time ago... The Thing Merry Christmas 02:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  113. I stongly supported the first time around, and I unequivocally strongly support him again. –MuZemike 05:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  114. 110000 edits, nearly 2800 blocks, 16000 page deletions, thousands of AfD closes. If there were a problem, wouldn't we know by now? - Dank (push to talk) 05:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support—I'll make an exception for someone so young, since he shows a lot of maturity and is trustable. I'm not going to support anyone else this young, though. It should not be the norm. Tony (talk) 05:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support on the basis that this callow youth candidate lives life to a level of boredom that would drive a battery hen to take a night class. He's pedantic, unimaginative, inflexible and presumably awkward in the company of either gender. I suspect he smells like soup. On that basis this Adderall crazed shut-in is more than qualified to be a byoo-row-krat. For 's sake give him the bit and point him in the direction of Meta. East isn't it? Crafty (talk) 07:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Yes, absolutely OhanaUnitedTalk page 08:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Yes. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  11:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support and fully trust. J04n(talk page) 12:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support, and I do so strongly. Having known Julian for some time now, I am confidant in supporting this bid for "'crat". I've found him to be a joy to work with, tremendously thoughtful, and exceptionally mature when faced with adversity. I've never really understood why the 'crat bit was such a big deal, in fact I find it even less a "big deal" than the admin. bit. B'crats don't dictate consensus, they evaluate it. Since "less than 50%" and "more than 70%" isn't exactly "rocket surgery", I don't hesitate in supporting this. Julian has shown that he is quite capable of evaluating consensus; and in fact some of the opposes in his first RfB, which cited that he "did too much work" as rational, would have been amusing, if not sad. I'll admit that Irridescent's "support" made me smile, while I must admit that she brings some excellent points to light. I'm also surprised to find myself in a different section than WJBscribe - that simply doesn't happen very often. I did find one "oppose" to be heartfelt; that which states a concern for Julian's time distribution between "real-life" and the 'pedia. While that is certainly something that one must reflect upon, I don't believe it is our remit as editors to make such evaluations; rather it is something that Julian himself must consider. After considering all reasons to oppose, and after considering Julian's calm demeanor, dedicated work ethic, and his strong desire to improve our project - I am fully confidant in supporting this RfB. — Ched :  ?  14:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of minors being admins. Mostly because of the issues with the content they're entrusted to manage. However, for 'cratship, there is no additional concern in that regard. Opposing on those grounds in an RFA is one thing; in an RFB, it's a moot point. That said, for a long time many editors have pointed out that there are exceptions to the rule when it comes to age and maturity. AnonDiss has been cited countless times as such an example. Julian is easily another. In all of my interactions with him, and in all I've seen from him on the project, he's handled himself well. He displays maturity and clue consistently. He's knowledgeable in all the necessary areas, dedicated, and trustworthy. This project suffers from quite a few significant issues—some more significant than others—and he has a strong grasp on all of them. So while he is young, he's also bright. Being a minor on this project forces him to have to deal with some issues older editors don't have to worry about. I'm impressed with his ability to deal with these issues gracefully. That includes keeping his cool while immature adults with poor manners refer to him as a child, for example. People often like to assume the worst. Lacking details or understanding thereof, they draw inaccurate conclusions. Julian's IRC channel is his personal public channel, something many Wikipedian's have, though quite a few are private (membership required sort of private) channels. Not only are admins, arbs, and Wikimedia chan-ops regulars there, but Jimmy Wales makes an occasional appearance as well. It's a channel of random conversation, less serious than channels such as #wikipedia-en (despite Prodego's best efforts ;)). It is for all these reasons (and adding consideration for his solid content work) that I am confident that Julian will be an asset to the project as a 'crat just as he has been with as an admin. Continue to impress us, Julian. Lara ☁ 14:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Eh. I opposed last time around but the more I think about it the less I feel it was a well-reasoned oppose. Julian does a lot of work, and a lot of good work, around here and hasn't really given me any reason to suspect that he'll cause the project to explode if we give him an extra bit. He may not be the perfect candidate for the position - but then again, who of us is? He's willing to do the job and in all likelihood will do well at it. Some might choose to view his second self-nom as being overly eager for the "promotion" but I would only question the sanity of someone wanting to put themseleves through this ringer again. I hope his remains intact through this ordeal. Good luck! :) Shereth 14:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  123. After giving this a good read through, I've decided to Support. Jeffrey Mall (talk • be merry) - 15:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support - opinion still unchanged from last time. Jeni (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support He exhibits great maturity and policy knowledge needed for this position. I've had the opportunity to see how JC quickly transformed himself from newbie to competent administrator in a short time and am sure will do well in this new capacity. --Polaron | Talk 18:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support User displays the necessary maturity and I like his answers to the questions. While the backlog isn't yet unmanageable, there's nothing wrong with having another crat. The Friday may turn out to be a case of bad judgment, but we're all human here. Else, we'd have bots promoting at RFA. Julian writes those weather and road articles which are boring as hell, but this isn't about content. I trust Julian to use the bit wisely. The WordsmithCommunicate 18:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support - Juliancolton is an excellent administrator and user, and I believe that he has the knowledge, skills, ability and generally awesomeness that is required for being a 'crat. I trust him fully with the additional tools and responsibilities. Ale_Jrbtalk 19:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support I think Julian would be a fine 'crat. ArcAngel (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support My only reservation is age (not maturity, which I think is in ample supply), and I just can't see it as a reason to oppose. If the foundation doesn't see fit to place this limit, I have to go by Julian's activity - and that surely merits the 'crat bit.  Frank  |  talk  20:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support. I have a lot of respect for my esteemed colleagues under the Oppose heading, below, but I just can't agree that their concerns outweigh the candidate's positive contributions to the project. Lara sums up my thoughts well. As for the age issue - we need to know how mature a candidate is, and I think we have that here. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support I've never seen Julian as anything but reasonable and levelheaded, two qualities which will serve him well if he is promoted. TNXMan 21:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support Has been great pretty much every time I recall seeing him, in and out of WPTC. —AySz88\^-^ 21:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support - Generally impressed by Julian overall, and none of the oppositions are compelling to me. -- Atama頭 22:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support: Very good work by this user, I'm sure they'll continue to do so as a bureaucrat. --The Evil IP address (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support --Griffinofwales (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support. As far as the age issue goes, this user is a good example of why there shouldn't be a hard-and-fast rule on it. I had slight concerns about allowing this person to exercise discretion on important calls. While I'm frankly dismayed that wikipedia policy allows for one of the articles he kept, Julian clearly made a tough but correct call there. In that case it's the policy I disagree with; the reading of it was perfect. WFCforLife (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support Opposes don't concern me at all, especially the ones about your age. From what I've seen you are very mature, respectable, and knowledgeable about policy. ThemFromSpace 00:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Strong support, excellent user. Ironholds (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support I see nothing to show that Julian would be anything but a net positive to Wikipedia. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 01:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support. Fully qualified candidate, well suited for this role. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support Comments by both the opposers and supporters indicate that Julian is a top-flight admin. I think that qualifies him for 'cratship. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 03:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support - Per Lara and Dank. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 03:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support - per mazca. J.delanoygabsadds 03:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Strong Support. Juliancolton is a very trustworthy wikipedian. I always see him (her?) helping out. BtilmHappy Holidays! 04:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Him. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 04:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, one of the support statements mentions that you are a minor. Is that true? BtilmHappy Holidays! 04:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support - do we have enough bureaucrats? maybe. However, I don't see a net negative in allowing him to have access to 'crat tools. He is certainly active about the place and has had admin tools for some time. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Strong support (Sorry for the booboo in the opposes below.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support Not as good an editor as I am. But if he keeps at it some day he can be almost as good. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support. I supported him last time. Julian still has the same great qualities. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support—I frequently disagree with Julian on administrative issues, but more often than not come to the conclusion that he's right. Responsible and mature. Good luck! ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 09:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support faithless (speak) 13:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Supported last time, support again. I was actually considering nominating him myself. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 13:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  152. No concerns. Happy‑melon 13:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  153. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 14:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support, if only to negate an insipid "OMG he's young!" oppose below. But apart from that, far more apt and mature than half the people around here who may be twice the age, so quite deserving of a support based on capability alone. Tarc (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Fantastic administrator who has my respect - active in crat areas so could use the tools. Support. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support after considering the arguments pro and con, I believe will be a net positive. Dlohcierekim 16:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Strong Support A dedicated, responsible, skilled candidate who weighs issues individually and has the good of the project at heart. I wish more adults had his level of maturity. FlyingToaster 16:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support Julian is perfectly suited for the 'crat role. I have no concerns regarding his capabilities. --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 17:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support Adequately clueful, experienced and mature in attitude, and some of the opposes are too thin to be taken seriously. I too, have no concerns. Rodhullandemu 17:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support. A superb administrator who is certainly well-suited to be a 'crat. Good luck! Laurinavicius (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support I trust this user. Opposition concerns are minor in my opinion. Jujutacular T · C 18:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  162. No issues whatsoever: I have no idea why the Friday RfC is such a concern in this RfB when it took place before (not since) Juliancolton's last RfB and was hardly raised there: the remaining concerns here don't seem a problem to me and/or are irrelevant to bureaucratship (and would be more suited in an RfA). If anything, I think this is a good demonstration of why people are afraid to deal with bad admins (is everyone else who supported that RfC going to get opposed too?). I don't agree with everything Juliancolton says, but I trust his judgment, think his work is great, and his knowledge is strong. In addition, bureaucratship requires less skill and judgment than adminship (adminship = block button, bureaucratship = rename user). Acalamari 19:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Per above, especially Lara and Acalamari. NW (Talk) 19:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support I think that he has taken his time to respond well to the questions and merits bureaucratship. --Île flottɑnte~Floɑting islɑnd Talk 20:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support. That Julian is an IRC regular would normally give me reason to hesitate, but I want to support him for two reasons: first, I've seen a lot of quiet good sense from him around the project, and secondly I think he's largely right in opposing ageism on WP, because the issue is maturity, not age. I think he would make an insightful, helpful, and neutral bureaucrat. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 23:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Strong Support, I see no problems here. Additionally Julian's comment (in discussion above at 22:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)) makes me feel even better supporting him. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support, as I did last time, and for the same reasons. None of the oppose arguments are even close to being convincing to me.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support — Perfectly sane. —Animum (talk) 03:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Support - fully meets my standards, one of the best admins. Bearian (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  171.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Juliancolton. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  172. I don't care if someone appears to be "trophy-hunting" as long as his or her contributions are good; at the end of the day, it's some extra buttons on a web site. JC's edits are solid and I agree with his general interpretation; I am confident he would make a good 'crat, "needed" or not. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  173. I understand, and sympathize with, some of those opposing. Indeed, I’m starting to slowly move more into the "ageist" camp myself. But in JC's case, I believe he’s demonstrated sufficient maturity and ability to judge consensus to overcome any concerns I have about the (IMHO) mistake of the Friday RFC, and in his last RFB he appeared to have changed his opinion on the validity of "maturity issues" opposes to my satisfaction. His ability to deal with username changes and bot stuff I have total confidence in. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Support - He's been a great editor, admin, and general asset to Wikipedia and he has more than enough experience for the role. I trust him. AlexiusHoratius 16:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Support, I am unconvinced and generally disappointed by the opposes. Julian is certainly entitled to his position on age-based judgments (one I tend to agree with, look at the person, not the date of birth), and while the Friday RfC was probably not the best decision in regards to that, we all make errors, and no one seems to be able to point to any but that one. I see no reason to believe he would allow his personal beliefs to color his closure of RfAs. He certainly might give an "Oppose, user is under 18" less weight in a close call, but I hope all crats give any argument that does not focus on actual misbehavior or bad judgment little credence. For "manufacturing a need"—someone (rightly or wrongly) identified a need for more help in an area, and then volunteered to provide that help? We're calling that bad? I wish more people would add "...and I'll do it" to "This needs done." For "wants power", Julian is quite obviously an editor dedicated to the project, and bureaucrats have very little power in any case. I find Julian to be quite trustworthy, and while imperfect like all of us are, his judgment is generally very good. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Support per Chutznik. Alio The Fool 19:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  177. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Support in my capacity as a volunteer and administrator here. - Philippe 21:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Support. talkingbirds 21:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  180. RMHED (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Support - Great editor and very helpful. What's with all these opposes? Why does his age matter at all? His contributions are of a very high-quality. I don't see how this can go wrong. Onward! --15lsoucy (salve) 01:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Support It's the contributions, not the person behind them, that matter. His prolific contributions are quite valuable to the encyclopedia, he's trusted as an admin on several projects, and keeps a cool head. Wrelwser43 (talk) 04:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  183. 'Support Julian, I am impressed with you. You are trustworthy and the answers to your questions instill confidence. Yes! Basket of Puppies 06:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Definitely. I honestly can't see a reason to oppose. GedUK  13:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Yes, why not. Stifle (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Weak Support I really do share some of the opposers' concerns. However, the candidate has worked hard and, if he's sure he wants the additional responsibility, I don't think he'll screw anything up. Keepscases (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Certainly. My experience of Julian across multiple wikis has never been anything but positive. Full support. BG7even 16:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Support because of great experience and contributions. Gosox5555 (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Support. No doubt. ERK talk 16:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Strong Support: I've seen Julian in action countless times and he has demonstrated that he has the right level of maturity and common sense for the job. For those who oppose because of his age: would you rather trust an idiotic, immature, policy-ignorant adult? I believe that a person has two ages: the physical age and the mental age. The physical age is how old the person is in years and the mental age is how mature that person is in terms of behavior and way of thinking. Julian has demonstrated so much maturity, that I actually thought he was an adult at first. Anyway, to the opposers: please judge not a person by his age, but by his ability and contributions. Cheers, Twilight Helryx 17:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we back away from the straw men just a touch. It's fantastic that you feel you can strongly support. However I fail to see that unified call from the opposers to start filling the ranks with idiotic, immature, policy-ignorant adults.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Support There is nobody I would trust more with the tools.--Gordonrox24 | Happy Holidays! 17:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Support - why he (or anyone) would want such a role is beyond me, but Julian has demonstrated that his level of understanding of both policies and judgment are exemplary.--otherlleft 18:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Support. and I'm very disappointed in WJBScribe's oppose. I always thought he was one of the more rational, down-to-earth bcrats around these parts. Oh well. Tan | 39 18:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Support as I did last time around. Diligent editor and admin with the right temperament for this role. ReverendWayne (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  195. Support He'll be a good bureaucrat. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  196. Support I don't agree with every single answer given (or every decision I've seen him make) but I strongly believe that he has the capacity and maturity to be able to be a crat. While the additional tools are small (and used relatively infrequently) I see no specific reasons (after a couple hours of digging) to believe he would use tools irresponsibly. Some of the opposes are valid and understandable, but in the end I don't think its enough to say no. whynot James (T|C) 00:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  197. Support Every confidence. --Chasingsol(talk) 02:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  198. Support Would be a brilliant crat. The Arbiter★★★ 02:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  199. Strong Support. Yes! King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  200. Support I've been waffling on this one... I like Julian and appreciate his contributions to the project, but I would be lying if I didn't state that I didn't share some of the concerns expressed by the Opposers... plus anybody who runs for 'crat obviously does not have the judgment necessary to be a 'crat ;-). BUT whynot James' rationing 5 votes above reminded me that being a 'crat is less of a big deal than being an admin. If there was ever a position where the requirements to pass didn't make sense relative to the additional responsibilities confired, it would be for 'crathood. Thus, I've decided to support.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  201. Support Happy to support this candidate. Mjroots (talk) 10:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  202. Support — I am sure the candidate has the integrity ... and I believe the candidate has sufficient balance to withstand all foolishness that befalls the path of a wussy Bureaucrat (who can't even take anyone's bit away LoL Anyone got a spare Steward bit? :-) -- Proofreader77 (interact) 11:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  203. Support. Candidate is a highly responsible admin with a great deal of dedication and his answers show good judgment. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  204. Support. Overall responsible admin, seems to be suitable as 'crat. Jarkeld (talk) 13:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  205. Support, as one who opposed the candidate's last RfB solely on the underage concern, I've given this a great deal of thought. Having carefully watched his contribs and actions since then, there is no question in my mind that he has the mature judgment and understanding of policies to be an excellent 'crat. (By the way, speaking as someone with a career in aviation myself, I should note that a passenger is considered an "adult" by the FAA at age 15 when it comes to exit row seating on an airliner.)  JGHowes  talk 15:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  206. Support, Julian has shown a lot of good sense and maturity of judgment in his editing and comments, will make a fine Bureaucrat. Dreadstar ☥ 17:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  207. Support Juliancolton is smart, helps people, is fair, and has honor. Honor most important for crats. — JoJo • Talk • 18:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  208. One of our most trusted admins, and will no doubt make a fine bureaucrat. Good luck. Jafeluv (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  209. Moral support - Got my neutral revoked by choice, i'll support morally.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 00:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose. I have a number of concerns from recent months. First, this candidate has been busy on WP:BN, finding trivial delays in bureaucrat work and blowing it out of proportion to try to create the perception that we need more 'crats (several incidents here, such as a few hours delay "disprove the myth that we don't need any more 'crats. :)" -- okay, nonsense. It's essential that 'crats have healthy perspective. It's a ridiculous, unhelpful attitude to think that these things all need to be dealt with in minutes or hours. Yet this seems a persistent belief). I think WJBScribe said it best, "I realise those who are thinking of requesting the bureaucrat flag have an interest in presenting the current bureaucrat team as short staffed, but I do find these sorts of threads a bit depressing." Also, Julian certified an RFC that I find frivolous and abusive against Friday, whom he accuses (two days ago) of not assuming good faith[1]. I don't want 'crats who have this sort of attitude toward RFA participants. Am concerned about his views on ageism. I have seen other things that have concerned me in recent months and will find if necessary. Finally -- administrator on Meta, administrator on Wikinews, administrator on Simple, "Global Rollbacker". That's the sound of the trophy collecting alarm. --JayHenry (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional concerns: Did this account need blocked? Can a reasonable person be offended by the user name holycrapwoah? --JayHenry (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The risk is real that when you have 44 people going one way and one person going the other way, people are so certain that the one must be wrong that they feel confident in contradicting them ... but confidence in contradicting people annoys people and generates opposition at RfA/RfB, and it's also not productive; lone dissenters often have useful things to say, and should be greeted with respect and consideration anytime they have obviously done some digging and some thinking, as Jay has here.
    So, to your points: I follow that if someone makes a case for more crats then runs for crat, there's a potential COI. However, Julian has been very active for years in promoting a more tolerant attitude towards anyone who runs for anything ... so personally, this seems consistent rather than self-serving to me, but YMMV. Also, the phrase he used was "disprove the myth that we don't need any more 'crats" ... which is different than saying "I believe we need more crats", and needed to be said, since there is in fact a persistent myth that we don't need more crats. I don't want to say too much about AGF at RfA at this time, that would lead us down a long and twisty road; some people people think we should say something when people don't AGF in order to try to improve the atmosphere at RFA, some think that it's pointless (because crats can weight votes appropriately) and likely to lead to tangents of recrimination and counter-recrimination (as it has above). I hope we get this resolved some day; I'll be happy to discuss the subject at length after this RfB on my talk page. I'm sorry to see ageism come up again; we've done a pretty good job keeping the lid on that box in recent months. It's just one of those subjects that makes everyone feel worse, regardless of the outcome of the conversation. - Dank (push to talk) 15:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Again ... my goal here is to treat Jay as the intelligent commenter that he is, and I welcome any more detail or explanation, Jay. If what happens instead is that a bunch of people jump in and say, Yeah! You're right! Jay sucks! ... then I will have failed miserably with this reply. - Dank (push to talk) 15:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks again for your polite tone, Dan. The only myth is that anyone has the attitude "who cares if we close the RfA four days late". I care a lot if we close RFAs four days late. That has never happened even once. The notion that "we need more crats" when our backlogs are dealt with extremely quickly reflects either 1) misjudgment or 2) an obsession with reckless speed. One of the links I provided is that Julian doesn't think a "stop and think" period would be useful for re-sysopping. So when I connect the dots: false sense of urgency and opposition to things like a trivially-short "stop and think" period of 24 hours (let me repeat: 24 hours is trivial), sounds like as clear a recipe for rash action as we could get. --JayHenry (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (As for AGF, it is kind of like The Game. The more we talk about it the more we lose. The policy should really only be linked ironically.) --JayHenry (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Finally, what of my concern with appointing a bureaucrat who endorsed a frivolous and misleading RFC against an RFA participant with an unpopular point of view? That's a quality I should be comfortable with in a bureaucrat? Maybe you're comfortable with bureaucrats participating in such campaigns and find that compatible with a non-toxic RFA atmosphere. But, see, I have unpopular opinions too, and a tongue that sometimes comes across as acidic, or, in the vernacular of RFA, I violate the policies of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. (The sacred bluelinks that are our Eucharist; I, a pagan, in the communion line.) How long before policy dictates that we have an RFC against me? --JayHenry (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note for participants: the RFC was neither frivoulous nor misleading; that is just JayHenry's opinion. He, like some others, completely misunderstood its purpose (and clearly still does). I'll repeat it once again: it's not about the opinion, but rather, how the opinion is expressed. There are several editors who manage to oppose candidates frequently, yet manage to avoid the stick that Friday gets. Why? Because they show a smidgen of respect and courtesy. I strongly support any bureaucrat candidate who takes a stance against bullies and pessimists, who feel it necessary to belittle, embarrass, sully and insult whoever they happen to dislike. Thing is, JayHenry is a useful editor (as much as he dislikes me, for whatever reason, I hold a lot of respect for his excellent article work), and while I disagree with his tone, opinions, and pessimistic outlook on the project, it does not come up so frequently as the other editor mentioned who I felt required a discussion. Additionally, Friday is an administrator, somebody who is supposed to be in a position of trust. JayHenry is not. It is unlikely there will be any RFC against JayHenry, at least not from me. Majorly talk 18:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have much experience with RFCCs, and I'm not willing to say who deserves one and who doesn't. The third-season DVD of The Tudors just came out, and when I saw the role the jester played in speaking truth to the king, I was reminded why we give people a pretty free hand on Wikipedia to speak freely, foolishly and ascerbically to people in power ... and who knows who's in power on Wikipedia, or what power even is? We don't have any positions of authority here, except arguably ArbCom. But Friday only got half a support in that RFCC, and my position at RfA/RfB is that I don't like to re-argue the question of whether someone was completely off-base ... if no one thought Julian was off-base at the time, then that's good enough for me; it suggests that he was taking one side of an issue rather than going off on his own tangent or showing faulty judgment. I don't think we've ever talked about why most of us don't oppose candidates if they're on the wrong side of a few issues ... that probably deserves some discussion, because it's so different from how, say, national elections proceed. In almost all U.S. two-candidate presidential elections, for instance, both candidates have received 45% to 55% of the vote ... how strange is it that everyone gets about half the vote, considering the great and awful candidates we've had? It's because there's some kind of faulty wiring in the human psyche that tries to turn any major election into a vote on the "issues", and each side tries to position their favorite "issues" as close to the center of voting spectrum as they can. If we ever do that at RfA or especially RfB, we're screwed ... no one will pass RfB if even 40% of the voters engage in divisive "issue"-politics and split 50/50 on any candidate. So: even though Julian and I don't share identical positions, I'm not going to count off for that at RfB, as long as people have generally had a positive reaction to what he's done, and they have. - Dank (push to talk) 21:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Questions for JayHenry: If the comments precipitating the RfC had to do with women would you feel the same need to defend Friday? Would you trust Friday in the position of bureaucrat more than Juliancolton? Would you support the candidate if he was 25? 1 edit. Lambanog (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That would, obviously, be completely different. --JayHenry (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Too much of a Wikipedia obsessive and too young. It aint healthy, he needs a better balance in his life and making him a 'crat would be detrimental to his mental health. RMHED (talk) 19:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Be careful what you wish for, as you just might get it. RMHED (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't think this needs a response... but... Julian is completely sane, as shown through his on-wiki actions and even off wiki ones. ceranthor 19:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    RHMED, it's no surprise your own RfA's were unsuccessful when you appear to lack the understanding of how this whole RfA process by providing reasonable arguments seems to work. Mkdwtalk 20:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per response to question 12, which I find worrying. Community-based deadminship would be a huge change; treating it as relatively minor and suggesting there is a "common sense" solution (which there isn't--both sides have exhibited common sense, and yet continue to disagree) is not a good idea. I want to stress, though, that I have found Julian to be a very good admin and generally helpful in disputes, and I am opposing solely over that one issue, and by extension over the repeated attempts to bring bureaucrats into it. Chick Bowen 19:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was speaking more hypothetically than anything, to be honest. As I said, the details are important, and no solution is anywhere close to being set in stone yet. I certainly don't take deadminship lightly, and in a way our current method—ArbCom—does work if utilized properly. My "common sense" statement was more in reference to the fact that admins who are no longer trusted by the community as a whole shouldn't retain the bit; not necessarily to the RFDA process as proposed. Hope that helps clear things up. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you feel about the bureaucrat role discussed in many of these proposals? Would you be comfortable, if you were a bureaucrat, in closing a deadminship request that had not gone to arbitration (understanding that the proposals are not all the same and that the details of the process would make a difference)? Chick Bowen 20:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's hard to say right now. Until and unless there is strong community consensus for implementing a deadminship process akin to RfA, where the community discusses the candidate and a bureaucrat closes the debate, I would not encourage or engage in such a process. If "Requests for Deadminship" is created and put into routine usage, and made a part of the bureaucrats' job, I would have no objections. My answer to question 12 was based solely on my personal opinion of the proposal, and the fact that I do generally endorse it. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've created a subpage so that I could fully explain my views on this complex issue without cluttering up your RFB. It includes an immediately relevant section on "deadminship and bureaucrats." I think it's important, if CDA goes through, to have bureaucrats who are unenthusiastic about it, creating a reluctance to deadmin that will have to be overcome by particularly strong reasons to do so. Thus I'm afraid I must continue to oppose this RFB. Let me stress again, though, that I think Julian has been an excellent admin. Chick Bowen 00:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I opposed last time, and I'm going again this time, for largely the same reasons. Julian seems like an excellent editor and admin. I've never seen him be less than mature or polite in his interactions, and while I'm not directly familiar with his content work, I understand that it's very solid. I'm not criticizing him as an editor or admin, but I do feel uncomfortable with supporting him for this particular role. I'm still concerned about his views on RfA and their potential impact on RfA closes. I personally don't think he's given sufficient weight to concerns about maturity at RfA, and the treatment of Friday (talk · contribs) which he's signed off on is not really exemplary of how I'd want to see these sorts of opposes handled. This looks likely to succeed, and if it does, then I hope Julian proves me to be wrong and ignorant in these concerns, but I still feel compelled to voice them - again, without taking anything away from his fine work in several other areas of the project. MastCell Talk 01:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Questions for MastCell: If the comments precipitating the RfC had to do with women would you feel the same need to defend Friday? Would you trust Friday in the position of bureaucrat more than Juliancolton? Would you support the candidate if he was 25? 1 edit. Lambanog (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. I am sorry but I feel I must oppose. As JayHenry explains above, Julian seems to have been trying to "manufacture" a need for more bureaucrats for a while by drawing attention to backlogs that simply do not exist. He does so in his nomination - I cannot see that WP:CHU has in any way been understaffed over the holiday period. Whilst I am perfectly happy for there to be more bureaucrats, and I don't think we need backlogs to have new crats, this approach worries me. I have this thread from WP:BN particularly in mind, where Julian decided to "ruffle some feathers". The post was pointless and rude, mainly managing to antagonise those crats who Julian apparently deemed not be working hard enough. I think successful crats need a tad more diplomacy and - dare I say it - maturity.
    I am troubled by some of the answers to question 8. In particular, I find it difficult to justify the Orlady RfA being closed as no-consensus and I simply do not (as I stated in my closing rationale) see the Cirt RfA as a borderline one. Bureaucrats differ to some extent in how they approach these matters and there is no one right answer, but I find that Julian's idea of what constitutes consensus is way too far from mine. I would also point out that his analysis of the Andrevan and Riana RfBs above appears contradictory - for Riana, exceptional arguments are looked for in the opposition, yet for Andre the 12 opposers are significant as there "must be relatively little opposition".
    Finally, I agree with others above that this sort of thing doesn't show the kind of judgment I'd to see in a crat candidate. All in all, although I recognise that Julian does very good work around the wiki and is clearly very popular, I do not think his temperament is suited to the role of bureaucrat and I have issues with how he would determine consensus based on his answers to the questions. WJBscribe (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but how is Friday's RfC in any way a problem? Please reply on my talk page. Majorly talk 02:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the feedback. If you don't mind, I'd like to try to address a few of those points. I've only known you to be very reasonable, though, so I'm confident your reasons for objecting are valid for the most part.

    I'll be honest; I believe processes like CHU, AIV, and UAA should be kept moving along smoothly. I fully understand and appreciate that we'll all volunteers here, and that backlogs, even if minor, are inevitable. But that's why I'm volunteered to help man certain forums when I ran for adminship, and that's why I'm volunteering to further assist with a couple extras; namely, CHU and BRFA. I'm online much of the time, and I'd be able to help pick up the slack when things get a bit slow. I admit that post on BN was perhaps hasty and not well-articulated, but (without sounding as if I'm searching for excuses) I was trying to draw attention to the unusually large number of outstanding requests in a light-hearted manner without offending anybody, since pointing out potential issues or flaws in a specialty area can strike some nerves. Obviously I failed at that attempt.

    I still believe we should elect more people to various positions if backlogs do start to appear—and I believe they've done just that at CHU and related pages. I'd be happy to point out examples of requests that were not responded to for a particularly lengthy period of time. However I don't believe that will prove my point very well. I disagree that I'm trying to create the perception of backlogs where they don't exist, but of course maybe that is an issue worth looking into. Basically, I'm of the opinion that if we find the current team of bureaucrats cannot handle the workload efficiently, it's necessary to appoint more. The same goes for administrators, rollbackers, and any other "level", for lack of a better word. I'm not by any means saying the current 'crats are not doing their jobs well; I believe in general, they've kept RfA and CHU running fairly well since the inception of those pages. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    "I was trying to draw attention to the unusually large number of outstanding requests in a light-hearted manner without offending anybody". What's bothering me is that there weren't an anusually large number of outstanding requests and that your post was mainly designed to show a "need for bureaucrats" you could rely on in a later RfB, which gave me pause for thought. I don't think you could genuinely have believed only one bureaucrat was active. I find your statement that you weren't looking to offend anyone hard to reconcile with your comment at the time that you were "looking to ruffle feathers". Well, you succeeded - my feathers were ruffled and I formed a negative impression of you as a result. I wouldn't have opposed for that alone but, coupled with your rather odd analysis in reponses to question 8 (especially the inconsistency between the Riana and Andrevan RfBs) make me doubt that you'd be a good choice for a new bureaucrat at this time. WJBscribe (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    When even the analytically adept Mat "Trusthworthy" Bisance has reported crat backlogs as the reason he's not been able to take as much time off wiki as hed prefer, it seems a little strained to suggest Julian is manufacturing the work queues. The AoBF required to label as 'rude' his light hearted reference to a then current queue seems somewhat POV to, especially coming from a supposedly thick skinned crat.
    Even if the assumption many opposers seem to have that Julians RfB is motivated partly by trophy hunting is correct, thats surely a good thing? If folk are going to devote hours of unpaid labour to unrewarding mopping and shovelling, they may as well appreciate the status that goes with it. If we rely on pure selflessness, the project is taking advantage of dedicated talented people even more than it needs to. Seems more of a reason to support! FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose I recognize that this RfB will most likely pass, but I don't really feel comfortable supporting. First of all, I note that this vote is not a criticism of Julian as an editor, nor is it a criticism of Julian as an administrator; rather, I have serious concerns about Julian as a potential bureaucrat. Julian's tireless article work, evidenced by his numerous featured content credits, is truly commendable. Similarly, his admin activity shows a thorough understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, along with good consensus-judging ability. For obvious reasons, he is one of the most respected members of the Wikipedia community, and I count myself among those who respect his achievements here and on other Wikimedia projects. In spite of all this, I don't think I can support his RfB. Judging consensus in RfAs and RfBs is the principal province of the Wikipedia bureaucrat. Now, one of the things for which Julian is known is his strong opposition to ageism; on Wikipedia, ageism is an issue found almost exclusively at RfA/RfB. As detailed at WP:LAWN, there are a number of reasons why ageism is not baseless. While I don't wish to get into that whole debate here, my point is that Julian holds very, very strong views on that issue that could deeply affect his read of consensus in certain RfAs. Put simply, I'm concerned that Julian, as a bureaucrat, would discard these arguments based on his personal opinion and ignore them when judging consensus (I note that while "User is X" is an argument to avoid in adminship discussions, age arguments are not always of this type). Another area specific to bureaucrats is WP:CHU/WP:CHUU/WP:CHU/SUL. Now, while it surely wouldn't hurt to have more bureaucrats working there, and while Julian seems to have a solid understanding of the username policy, I do think he is exaggerating the nature of the backlogs there – both here and in WP:BN posts like this one. That's not to say his words in his self-nomination are cut of whole cloth – again, having more bureaucrats working there would be helpful – but I agree with WJBScribe's concern above that Julian is using backlogs that really don't exist as a reason for the community to promote him to bureaucrat status. That deeply unimpresses me. The final area bureaucrats work in is at WP:BRFA. Normally, this is not a big consideration at RfB; however, Julian stated above that he would work at BRfA. Julian is experienced with most corners of Wikipedia, it seems, but not that one, and he admits to having little technical experience. He's a good candidate for most positions, but for this one in particular, maybe not. For all of these reasons, I oppose. Sorry for the wall of text, but I felt this vote deserved a full rationale. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like my vote here has already been rebuked by two supporters, so allow me to clarify. I don't think I'm assuming the worst of Julian here, and I'm sorry to see anyone feels that way. My feeling is that no one with such a strongly held opinion on an issue – not Julian specifically – can truly remain impartial when judging consensus on that issue. That's why we don't let administrators close XfDs they've voted in, and that's why I don't feel comfortable with Julian closing RfAs where ageism is an issue. I don't think my vote is "ridiculous." A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    COMMENT: I also don't think the comments voiced by A Stop at Willoughby are "ridiculous". I neither agree nor disagree with the concerns at this point, but I think they are cogent and thoughtfully expressed and deserve rational and involved discussion. — Becksguy (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I must concur with Becksguy. I do not feel that ASaW's comments are ridiculous. I may not agree with them (hence my support above), but I feel that ASaW's viewpoint is a perfectly valid one. ASaW has clearly shown that they respect Julian, but has a valid (albeit one I disagree with!) oppose criteria here. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with all. I don't think Julian has done anything to deserve the kind of discredit that can attach when supporters can't simply support him but must discredit those who don't. I read the opposes. I don't think they contributed anything to change my vote. I said so. But I think the closing bureaucrat can simply discredit or ignore the truly discreditable votes, or I hope they can. ASaW clearly spelled out his/her concerns about this RFB and is a member in good standing of the community. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Adding my voice. Julian just seems too eager to be a crat and the excuse for running now (an extremely weak claim of delays at CHU) is just a little too obvious. Spartaz Humbug! 07:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. No. Firstly, per JayHenry and Mastcell re the Friday situation: throwing WP:AGF at his concerns was crassly condescending. Secondly, despite insistent claims of the absolute harmlessness of such activity, the principle of an Admin - let alone a Bureaucrat - hosting their own (IRC) WP-related channel makes me uncomfortable. Thirdly and this is the big one: despite the increasing complexities and demands of the roles, to me there needs still to be an identifiable motivation of "help write an encyclopedia first; insider nods and boss gongs etc second and incidental." I was around to !vote on Julian's first RfA and have seen how he rapidly became deeply engaged with the WP 'community' - to the extent that he seeks increasingly higher participation-level fixes, and his endeavours show a corresponding increasing eagerness that now come across as need - a need to get as far as possible, as 'big' as possible. Even regardless of aims and intentions, though, I worry about the perspective of someone with such an overwhelmingly singular attachment and involvement. Plutonium27 (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by "hosting their own IRC WP-related channel?" This is an open to all channel? Please inform. Thanks. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a private (yet open) channel on freenode for mostly social discussion amongst Wikipedians titled ##juliancolton connect|webchat. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand where you're coming from. Plutonium. Admittedly, I don't have a clue about this freenode thing (I just tried logging on out of curiosity and seemed to foul it up) but it does seem to me that enthusiasm or "need" alone shouldn't be cause to oppose, at least IMO. At some point, Julian's work life will likely change so that he won't have as much time for volunteer unpaid work like this. Seems to me that while he does we'd be well advised to take advantage of it/him. my two cents, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you explain why having a private IRC channel make you uncomfortable? It's a social channel, and a lot of people have private channels too.  fetchcomms☛ 19:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The existence of these 'social discussion' channels has lead to much concern and disagreement. I am not opposed to them in principle but I do believe that abuse - inadvertent or otherwise - has occurred, that the potential for such future occurences is self-evident and that this has to be acknowledged by those who use/support them. The views of both sides of the IRC debate have become entrenched, leading to the refusal of many afficionados to admit any possibility of negative consequences from their activities. Concerns raised have included some RfAs becoming popularity contests via slews of chat-buddies, socialites instead of editors, and the boosting of individual 'visibility' more due to chat than work. Wikipedia business should be on Wikipedia, open for all to see. That Julian views such activity as entirely harmless to the extent that he hosts his own channel shows his conviction that his 'socializing' is compatible with being an Admin and now a 'crat. I view this as naive and complacent. Good intentions can never remove the possibility of inadvertent complications. The role of a 'crat is fraught enough without the burden of speculation and suspicion that could arise over decisions made and actions taken. Plutonium27 (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    While I understand your views, I have not seen such from this user. However, I do see the potential for such an event, and I believe that JC would not let it happen.  fetchcomms☛ 03:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd just like to point out that Julian's channel is frequented by admins, crats and arbs. Even Jimbo himself makes an occasional appearance. If something was amiss there, it would be widely known. The WordsmithCommunicate 19:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which reinforces the impression that not attending at #Julian means one is missing out on rather more than eponymous' adroit self-promotion and teenage fan club. Meanwhile, anyone else compelled to express disbelief at the possibility of such problems on this subject can tell me their "two cents" on my Talk Page. Plutonium27 (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. OpposeStrong Oppose Since you haven't explicitly mentioned it, I'm presuming that you are still legally a child in your jurisdiction. Thus, WMF has no business allowing you to self-select for exposure to the various things administrators and bureaucrats must deal with; my rationale for opposition is unchanged since July, sorry. Jclemens (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Switching to strong oppose per additional discussion at User talk:Jclemens#Explain please?. Jclemens (talk) 04:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know any 16-year-olds who aren't offended by being called a "child" (and I think you meant "legally a minor", anyway), so I assume this was an attempt to prick him and see if he bleeds. Are you saying you consider cratship a more serious obligation than driving a car or getting married? If you were just poking fun at Julian, that would be fine with me (sorry Julian :) ... anyone tough enough to run for cratship should expect people to say things like this, and worse. But there are 16-year-old newbies on Wikipedia, and they don't deserve to be called children, and your statement did seem to apply to anyone of the same age. - Dank (push to talk) 03:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, actually, I meant exactly that. A minor is a perhaps more euphemistic was of saying "legal child". No one who is legally a child should ever be granted admin rights, period. I'd be in favor of all such rights being removed from anyone who fails to assert that they are an adult and legally entitled to form binding contracts, view obscene/profane material, and the like. The WMF opens itself up to legal risk by allowing children to use the tools; the higher the tools, the greater the risk. "Maturity" is irrelevant; a child is a child in the eyes of the law. Jclemens (talk) 06:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Legal risk? I suggest you review the relevant law, particularly the point under US law that people like the WMF aren't liable for the postings of their users in most circumstances. Indeed, the only reason we have age restrictions in some areas is due to the availability of private data to people holding those rights, something not relevant to 'cratship. Ironholds (talk) 07:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And in relation to "forming binding contracts" - adults would be unable to form binding contracts in regards to WP, if you're somehow asserting that adminship is some kind of contract. It completely lacks monetary consideration on either side, and almost any court would find it void. Ironholds (talk) 07:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you'd like to start a philosophical discussion on the merits of child admins and other functionaries, feel free to pop by my talk page. I've said my peace here; additional nuanced conversation is not relevant to this RfB. Jclemens (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose I'm concerned that he'd be more activist then I think is called for, especially his opinion about adminship being more easy come/easy go. And though he's clear about needing a community discussion first, having a bureaucrat judging the result is a bad idea. Along the same lines (Q 14), I'm not crazy about him thinking it's up to a bureaucrat (himself presumably) to judge when a discussion is no longer useful, especially against a users wishes. Running his own IRC channel is a bad idea and turns this RFB into more of a popularity contest then it should be. And while arguing that we don't need any more admins isn't valid, the same case can be made for b-crats. There are no critical backlogs, and having a smaller group of b-crats makes it easier to find consensus among them (in RFA's mostly). Once the b-crat group gets too large, consensus is harder to find and crat-chats become a smaller version of AN/I...and instead of reaching consensus, we'll end up with whoever feels strongest about an RFA closing it. So basically activism, IRC, no need for more B-crats and his age all bring me to an oppose here. RxS (talk) 04:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. problems with Q8. -Atmoz (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please explain what you feel is wrong with those answers so I can address any issues if necessary? –Juliancolton | Talk 15:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Mostly based on several of your answers to initiate "crat chats" (CC). Of the 17 RfA/Bs, you said you would start 3 CCs, which is slightly under 20%. At RfA/B, the only role of the closing bureaucrat is to gauge consensus. If you are unable to do so in ~20% of self-selected cases, then I don't think you're ready to be closing RfA/Bs. -Atmoz (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's under 20% of a hand-picked selection of controversial ones. The majority of cases are far more clear-cut. To indicate that you know that occasionally one person's judgement isn't enough is a show of good judgement, IMHO. WFCforLife (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per l'affaire Friday. Very poor showing by someone whom I thought was more mature and thoughtful. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose too young, not enough maturity and judgment for a position that requires both in spades. Friday incident doesn't help in my view. Would reconsider position in about two years.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Too young and doesn't seem to have quite the right attitude yet, per MastCell, WJBscribe and Boris. Mathsci (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Very Strong Oppose Oh geez, this is User:Juliancolton. Absolutely, absolutely not. I rarely say never, but this is a never. Chutznik (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Got any reason behind this brilliant conclusion? JamieS93 20:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and per WJBscribe. Chutznik (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, Shalom, you don't have to lower yourself to the same idiotic level as someone else. Take it out on JayHenry, not Julian. Majorly talk 00:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, if you want to spite JayHenry, you should probably be supporting ;) WFCforLife (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I'm mostly just flattered either way at this point. --JayHenry (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose, regretfully, but for the same reasons as I did in his previous RfB. Julian needs to get experience working in contentious article space and to my knowledge has not explored articles beyond cyclones. (And why haven't you chosen to work on any controversial article in the interim?) It's too easy to judge how editors should behave when one has not had frustrating experiences as an editor. Although I'm tempted to give WR the middle finger in a symbolic show for their astonishingly poor judgment in targeting him, Julian's youth is too great a concern for me to have faith in him as a judge of complex behavior. --Moni3 (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just commenting on your feelings on contentious articles—I don't think we should force someone to write a FA on a topic that doesn't interest them simply because it is contentious and they need experience writing them. I like warships, so I write on them; JC likes cyclones and roads, so he writes on them; NancyHeise (talk · contribs) writes on religious articles which happen to be contentious, because that is what interests her. Just my thoughts, not trying to badger... Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Badger all you wish. I have prodded Julian before about his neglect of controversial articles. I agree that one should not work in areas in which one has no interest, but if Julian asserts he is interested only in cyclones, add that to my oppose because he's either lying or a very boring one-sided person. However, he has stated in response to my grievances against him that he is actually interested in many topics. So I don't understand why he does not edit in these areas. What I can only conclude is that he avoids stress like this deliberately. Yes, that can be an advantage, but he does not know what it is like for an article to be in the center of harsh commentary and aggressive editing on the main page. With so many FAs, there is simply no excuse for that. He was apparently conscientious to thank me for my oppose during his last RfB asking what he could do to gain my support. I told him, he did not do it, so I continue to oppose. --Moni3 (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see; I wasn't aware that he had broader interests. Thanks for the reply. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your concerns, but your statement that I don't work on articles outside of hurricanes isn't exactly accurate. I work on everything from NRHP listings to creeks, from salt ponds to highways, and from poems to various other things (albeit to a lesser extent). –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "on everything from..." what does that mean? I will be happy to change my not-a-vote when you dive headfirst into Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina, Effects of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans, or something else just as potentially controversial. You choose to work on articles with obscure topics that are, I imagine, plug-ins. Same article, different storm/road. Come on, Julian. Do something challenging. Construct an article from the ground up that you know is going to piss people off. Write about a topic that Kanye West would jump in the middle of and make an ass out of himself. You can cite policy and guidelines. So what? What do you do when an RfC has been called on an article you spent months writing after 45 minutes of discussion, you're being accused of owning it, an entire section has been removed with consensus (perhaps by a group of agenda-driven editors...or just a bunch of shmoes who can't be bothered to care about reading the sources), you've reverted four times, and it's about to go on the main page in 10 minutes and you know the article you carefully and lovingly constructed, now chopped to incoherent babble with you 2 seconds from getting blocked will be reported in the press? Don't answer hypothetically...go do it! --Moni3 (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm a volunteer on Wikipedia and as such I work with subjects I enjoy. I don't think it's necessary nor particularly productive to deliberately wade into controversial articles, and that's why I tend to stay away from contentious articles that will likely lead to dispute. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting point, though, on Moni3's oppose. You do tend to stay away from, even back out of controversial situations. This isn't about editing articles you like, imo. Still, I think it's a useful quality, because it means you won't butt in and give your 2cents worth at AN/I and other places when the drama queen baits are dangled before you. Something to consider, though, how will you act when you're dealing with a contentious situation. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a poor oppose rationale. You essentially complain that the nominee avoids contentious situations at articles, but you ignore the fact that he has made more than 2,800 blocks and 16,000 page deletions, many of them coming from AfD, and assume without qualification that he makes every effort to avoid added stress? Think about that from an outsider's viewpoint; it's flat out hypocritical. This vote makes my head want to blow up. ❄ upstateNYer ❄ 02:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I can finally rest. --Moni3 (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotta hand it to ya, you made me laugh out loud there. ❄ upstateNYer ❄ 03:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just pointing out that bureaucrats don't intervene on articles, so whether or not he choses to edit controversial ones is irrelevant to this position. As for dealing with stressful situations, I think he's shown on many occasions that he is capable of doing so gracefully. As for what he would do in the above hypothetical situation, it's ridiculous to suggest that everyone needs to write articles that piss people off. Worry about how he deals with contentious situations outside of article space. That's what matters for 'cratship. Lara ☁ 02:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree completely. ❄ upstateNYer ❄ 03:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't. I have my reasons, which I have stated here. I don't believe my position is irrelevant and I don't believe Lara has paraphrased my statements accurately. I have said to Juliancolton what I felt needed to be said. Others may come to my talk page to get their cranial explosions there. --Moni3 (talk) 03:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a poor reason in my view to oppose. Editors should not be encouraged to get involved in articles they are not interested in except in an incidental capacity or when called upon to be arbiters. The likelihood they lack expertise in the subject and miss subtle nuances would be higher. Juliancolton has received some criticism along the lines that he may be overeager as it is. If he had acted in the way you are suggesting inserting himself into controversial issues where he knows little then that would tend to support that argument. Thankfully he hasn't. That he has resisted such suggestion despite being prodded is good. I see the reason given as one more convincingly used in support of the candidate not opposition. Lambanog (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe you understand my point. Feel free to request clarification on my talk page. Closing bureaucrats will note your opposition and my subsequent assessment of your misunderstanding. --Moni3 (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Road articles can be surprisingly controversial - see WP:SRNC. --Rschen7754 06:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone who believes that has obviously never tried editing an article even tangentially related to Irish Republicanism, for instance. I think that Moni3 makes a good point; the way to deal with disagreement and conflict isn't to avoid it. Although to be fair you can't really blame Julian for believing that's the way to 'cratship, as most of the current crew seem to have got there by being blandly boring. --Malleus Fatuorum 06:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For crat tasks, its seems to me all you need is wiki-clue. Something you can get by watching multiple situations play out, studying our guidelines, and most of all by getting involved and learning from experience. Julians age has been no bar to clocking up the degree of involvement to develop a very high level of clue. To make good contributions to the politically sensitive articles Moni talks about, its very helpful to also have real life political awareness. Thats something developed in a similar way to wiki clue, but as real life events tend to play out on a longer time scale, a young person is at a disadvantage ( unless like Pitt theyre lucky enough to grow up in the house of a Lord Chatham where they can breathe politics from birth) . To me the fact that Julian has the maturity to restrict himself mostly to wiki controversy and not get heavily involved in controversial articles is yet another reason to support! FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This concept must be much more advanced than I thought. Or obscure. Or something. I did not imagine it would be so difficult to grasp when I posted my oppose. None of y'all will find anyone on Wikipedia who hates the blindingly stupid drama that apparently the community craves at regular intervals than I. My editing philosophy is posted in large blue text on my user page: love what you edit and edit what you love. Neither of these issues are what I am addressing. I am addressing bringing the cookie cutter obscure storms and roads articles that apparently require no critical thinking or creativity, processed like so many generic widgets. I am referring to purposely choosing articles that will never appear on the main page, and never attract any attention because I surmise it is much too comfortable, too politically safe. This tinges on what others have posted: perhaps Julian has had a political position like bureaucrat (for some unfathomable reason) in his sights as a goal. Best not to rock any boats by editing something significant. It is a lack of substance that I oppose. I am concerned that Julian does not wish to grow, or is unable to stretch beyond what he finds comfortable. At his young age, this could become a significant problem, and what's worse is that he is so young he does not see it. But let's leave it at this: if you disagree, then just assume I won't be swayed by reason and go bitch about me somewhere. Don't malign my opinion here. Just leave it alone. Or again, take it to my talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be suggesting that Julian has been plotting a bureaucrat run and been consciously avoiding controversial issues so as to not to raise any ire during his candidacy. But let's see, I see several opposes based on an RFC he certified and he's been getting lots of flak for it. I also see an oppose based on his support for continued discussion of admin recall. Way to go to avoid controversy! Edited to make this comment: Sorry to not make the comment on your talk page per your request but we're only having this discussion because of the RfB and the discussion should be here. Regards, Lambanog (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Per Bali ultimate's concerns regarding problems with maturity and judgment. Warrah (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose due to Friday RFC linked above. Skinwalker (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose - while I have a generally positive opinion of him, I didn't feel comfortable with him in this role even before I came here. I also think that enough concerns have been raised in this section to solidify my concerns into an oppose. Guettarda (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per WJBscribe. I must register my disagreement with many of the other opposers here, particularly RMHED, Plutonium27, and Moni3; however, the issues that have been raised regarding RFA conduct and the bit about the RFC are unsettling. GlassCobra 04:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong oppose The candidate has a recent history of submitting poorly written articles (actually glorified stubs) at WP:FAC and then aggressively countenancing objections by arguing that the FAC criteria have not been formally violated. I can't imagine how he would be on the side of improving standards of Wikipedia featured articles should ArbCom be asked to deliberate on it or on a related issue. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but what does bureaucratship have to do with ArbCom, Arbcom have to do with FAC, or FAC have to do with RfB? NW (Talk) 04:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, its another way of saying that the candidate can't distinguish between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. If he is unable to do so with the FAC criteria, which are clearly laid out, imagine then what might await us in less transparent situations. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. I've obviously not had my coffee. (I'm traveling and its morning where I am right now.) You are right, NW, I thought he was seeking election to be on ArbCom! Well he might actually make a decent bureaucrat, since he seems to be a decent admin. Changing to support!  :) Amazing, it didn't get it even after reading NW's note! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Did someone say coffee? --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 05:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose per Mastcell et al. regarding Friday incident. Still not seeing the judgment necessary for a bureaucrat. Auntie E. 06:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong Oppose Hell no! —Terrence and Phillip 09:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Mind providing us with a reason for this particularly hostile oppose? The Thing Merry Christmas 09:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My past encounters with this candidate have been bitter. I feel that he acts simply on his behalf without the regard of others. However all this was over at the simple wikipedia. His consistant bickering made me feel unwelcome and prompted me to retire. I cannot and will not support such a ignortant user. Period. —Terrence and Phillip 09:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The simple wikipedia and here are two very different places (even if one is arguably just emulating the other, but that's a different rant). But hey, I'm not going to try to make you change your mind. 86.132.163.28 (talk) 10:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, any good crat would know to discard the axe grinders and focus on the constructive !votes. A better test would thus be to see if he will ignore ignorant comments such as this !vote. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm getting curious now. Is this you and if so, how does that dispute relate to him being a crat here? Also, you don't seem to have retired from Simple but that's a minor point. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose. The stated reason for running, namely “… because I've noticed that CHU has been getting increasingly backlogged over recent weeks” and “CHU is my main motive for running” is not persuasive. It is impossible to imagine that he will confine himself to that area (nor should he); therefore this reason looks somewhat contrived. His application would have more credibility if his reasons were more general in describing the range of benefits he can bring to the ‘crat role in its entirety, rather than concentrating on the single debatable issue of backlogs in a specific area. Leaky Caldron 10:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose. I don't agree with all the oppose rationales above, but feel enough causes for concern that I continue to oppose. 1) It does seem candidate is around 16 years old; as someone who was quite precocious as a teenager I am not fundamentally opposed to young people in positions of authority, but if I am aware someone is this age I will be looking for evidence of exceptional maturity. 2) While I have seen JC show sound judgement, the Friday RFC (though it was 6 mos ago) certaintly did not show mature judgement. 3) While we have a rich tradition of wanting users to show they can handle a new position before getting it, JC's frequent commenting at WP:BN coupled with a platform in part built around "there are backlogs around the holidays so we need more crats" smells a bit too much like being on a mission to become a crat. None of these reasons alone would force me to oppose someone who seems to be a good guy and benefit to the encyclopedia. But in combination they make me wonder why exactly we need to be in a rush to get an additional crat now and conclude we don't. Martinp (talk) 13:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I never really said we desperately need more bureaucrats. As I explained in my response to WJBscribe, I just feel that certain bureaucrat-run processes are not running as smoothly as they could. I have no "mission" to become a 'crat, I just find interest in the area and I think I could offer another helping hand around CHU and BRFA. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, no one has mentioned the word desperate. The suggestion is that you have used the (apparently disputed) lack of management in a specific area to justify your request at this particular time. To a number of those who have opposed you this looks like an attempt to create an artificial rational for your becoming a ‘crate, a justification which, in practice, is disputed by those who operate in that area. I would sooner you had not used a specific reason because I think in practice it will come to appear hollow in that your activity will not be restricted to the area you mentioned in your reason for running. Being a young, very enthusiastic wikipedian wanting to grasp another rung up the slippery pole is nothing to be feel awkward about, but justifying it in the way you have has a rather synthetic ring to it. Leaky Caldron 15:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What does being young and enthusiastic have to do with it, though? I realize this RfB will likely not succeed, and I acknowledge and respect that, but I'm simply interested in taking up another responsibility where I feel I can be of use—not to attain power for the sake of it. If that's how my nomination came across, perhaps I should have worded it differently; otherwise I simply stated my honest and genuine intentions and I'm not going to lie to appeal to the masses. As I said, I think the current team of bureaucrats do an excellent job, but there are places that, in my view, are understaffed at times. Perhaps I'm mistaken in that assessment; but it certainly isn't an attempt to artificially produce an argument for blindly appointing more 'crats. Thanks for your participation, nonetheless, as I appreciate the feedback. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. oppose per WJBscribe and others; the rationale isn't convincing, among other problems. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. oppose per WJBscribe, Mastcell, et al., with regret, as he seems to be a very likable young man. Lacks maturity; too anxious for more power/status. As this is self-explanitory, I will not be elaborating. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose per WJBscribe and others. We can and should be very selective on bureaucratship, and though Juliancolton is a fine editor, a convincing case for promotion has not been made, in my view. Jonathunder (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose. I wrestled with this one. I have a great deal of respect for Julian's work on WP, but I don't feel comfortable making him a bureaucrat yet. Like Moni, I'm concerned that Julian seems to shy away from more controversial areas of WP, and the timing of the resignation (which I am very happy was rescinded!) gave the impression that the controversy that erupted from your AfD closure was part of the reason. I also share some of WJBscribe's concerns, particularly about Julian's attitude toward "ageism" (a term I find quite ridiculous) and I think it was unwise to certify the Friday RfC because of that - it raises the perception of trying to shut down an opposing viewpoint. I believe that age - and the requisite maturity or lack thereof - is a valid reason to oppose an RfA candidate, and I worry that Julian will disregard any oppose declarations that list this because he feels that it is an invalid reason. In keeping with that belief, I'm also concerned that Julian's age may indicate that he might not have the requisite maturity to be a bureaucrat. The "ruflling feathers" post on BN that was brought up above was a red flag on this issue; the aborted retirement may be another. To reiterate, I respect Julian's work here and would like to see him continue to contribute to the other areas of WP where he has much to offer, but I am not willing to give the bureaucrat flag yet. Karanacs (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The AfD was not part of the reason. I can email you if you'd like with an explanation. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose Concerned enough by some of the points made in this section to oppose.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. I'll probably take lots of flak for this from the aforementioned "children are not children" crowd, but I'm opposing. Not least because Julian is a child. To be fair, I suspect he's a smart and mature-for-his-age child, but still, a child. And it shows, repeatedly, in the form of poor judgement. I'm also not thrilled with someone so obviously interested in being a "career wikipedian". Others above have probably said it better, so I'll leave it there. Friday (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. As of now, the age thing doesn't bother me - the role is still fairly minor, despite occasional attempts to expand the jurisdiction. Fundamentally opposing per MastCell, however, as that Friday RFC looks like something of a farce. As importantly, I'm not convinced we need more crats right now, and it has become tradition to avoid crat-bloat. In addition, this has the feel of the successful result of a lot of social networking (in #wikipedia-en, #juliancolton, and doubtless elsewhere). Which really, unfortunately, reeks of Wikipedia-as-MMORPG gaming. Comments here and elsewhere were, I suspect, based on IRC chumminess with the editor in question, and not on any rational, dispassionate examination of the evidence. Moreschi (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fail to see how one brief comment about a Samuel Johnson FAC translates into grounds to oppose RFB. Juliancolton never used his tools on behalf of Ottava Rima; is he forbidden mention an instance where he interacted collaboratively? Perhaps Moreschi's closeness to the Ottava Rima dispute colors this interpretation: his opinions are usually sound judgment, but the loaded language here isn't justified by the only link provided. Durova390 22:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, perhaps. I also uncovered a one-line intervention from Julian at Talk:Persian Empire/Archive2 - was that really on your watchlist? Or were you there because O_R_ had been ranting away on IRC (I know for a fact he had been doing so in #wikipedia-en - in fairness to Julian, whatever qualms I may have over his private channel, it's clearly nothing compared to the lamentable failure of the ops of #wikipedia-en to prevent canvassing and editors who do not use IRC being wilfully attacked). Either way, you had clearly not bothered to comprehend fully the issues at hand. I like my bureaucrats to dispassionately examine the issues at hand, not to chip in just because their IRC buddies said so. This misguided commentary led to significant trouble later. Moreschi (talk) 11:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but how do you know I commented in response to an IRC discussion? I simply felt the need to express my opinion in certain situations related to Ottava's ArbCom case, as I worked with him on several articles over the past several months and I'm a supporter of his content work. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That does not cohere. By August 2009 the dispute was nowhere near arbitration: it didn't get there until November. There was a rejected request in late-ish September, but that hadn't happened yet either. Moreschi (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Back around August Juliancolton and Ottava Rima were writing a multipart DYK about Samuel Taylor Coleridge. The Persian Empire dispute probably intruded upon that a little bit and Julian tried to help smooth things over. The ability to work productively with difficult people without becoming embroiled in their disputes is generally regarded as a good trait for a bureaucrat. It's hard to parse this oppose without considering that Moreschi, unlike Julian, was unable to work with Ottava Rima and somehow that touched a raw nerve. Durova390 15:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ottava Rima has been banned for one year for disruptive behaviour and incivility. He rubbed almost all users up the wrong way, creating difficulties even for Jpgordon and SandyGeorgia. It is quite inappropriate for Durvoa to make snide/smug remarks about Moreschi in this connection. Mathsci (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ottava rubbed up some users the wrong way, "not almost all". I'd far rather see Ottava here now than those who banned him, even though he and I hardly agreed about anything. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Take this to the talk page or Wikipedia Review if wish to engage in non-sequiturs. He was banned by ArbCom. Mathsci (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you can't spell it and you clearly don't understand the meaning of non sequitor. Once you do, perhaps we can indeed continue this conversation, but until then there's clearly no point. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    non sequitor is of course a redirect for users who don't know how to spell non sequitur. Was one of the nine GCEs you boasted about in Latin? Mathsci (talk) 23:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Mathsci and Moreschi, I respect you both very much and probably we agree more often than not. Yet it's hard to follow this line of reasoning. It's Juliancolton who's asking for bureaucratship, not Ottava Rima. Juliancolton was one of the people who collaborated on content with Ottava. Is there a reason the two of them shouldn't have written articles about an important poet, or why Juliancolton shouldn't have mentioned a couple of times that Ottava Rima was capable of collaboration? It still seems to me that the ability to communicate effectively with difficult personalities is an argument in favor of 'cratship, rather than any reason to oppose. Durova390 00:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Durova, with all due respect, you must have mislaid your spectacles. It was you that brought up Ottava Rima. I suggested to Malleus that he continue this slightly pointless discussion on the talk page. My personal feeling is that Julian is currently an excellent admin and will make an excellent bureaucrat/clerk, etc, in about two years time. No need to rush things. Aside from that Happy New Year in Southern California! Mathsci (talk) 05:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose having supported last time. I have to agree with WJB that there seems to be a rather unnerving desire from Julian - with various threads at BN that seem to indicate a lack of crats when there are none. I recall (I can't be bothered to find the diff - it's not that relevant) Andre mentioning the exact same thing, that those that apparently want the 'crat flag seem rather keen to find reasons to point our backlogs. I'm not against lots of people having the 'crat tools, but I am against this seeming, well, desperation for them. Nice guy, cracking editor, but not up for this role IMHO. Pedro :  Chat 
  32. Strong Oppose Sorry, Julian. You are a very bright, mature, nice young man. I respect and like you far too much to wish upon you the many boring, thankless tasks which bureaucratship entails. Use the time you have to enjoy your life, focus on your studies, play some games and start deciding your future. And as a wise old man once told me; Keep some sunshine on your face...--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm decked (and extremely impressed) by an emotional admission like that... but even so, not wishing upon him and actively trying to prevent the theoretical from ever happening are completely different. Isn't part of gaining experience and reaching further maturity that, for better or worse, you trust the person enough to "let go"? I'm sure Julian greatly appreciates the personal concerns, but ... well, I'm going to basically be a jerk and say this would be best suited as "Neutral" unless specific reasons to oppose are offered and not this emotional "gut reaction". It could be viewed as an endorsement of the candidate, even-- if you don't wish the pain to fall upon them it suggests you trust them at least obtaining that position. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 00:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, oppose means oppose. So I've added strong to make it clear. The difference is, my opposition is not based on you're too young and lack judgment but rather you're young and have better things to do with your life. Of course if this is not the case, that would be truly sad.-R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 02:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. Actually, I thought about this more, and I've realized that most of my opinions would remain empty. Age and life experiences are important, yes, and without children or experience of watching anyone but myself go through growing up I cannot best appreciate your view. Still in total honesty-- I'm left incredibly impressed by the blunt nature yet complete thoughtfulness on the !vote. There's no way I could ever say "nuh-uh! caring not allowed!", so in that sense this is probably the most thoughtful and honest post I'll ever see in any discussion again. Short of any other way to explain it, there aren't many other times where IAR can go this far and one can speak from the heart and this is a unique situation. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Looks to be hat collecting - I don't feel we need more Bureaucrats at present. Have also seen a few instances of iffy judgement that make me doubt this user's suitability for such a role. --Brilliantine (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of curiosity, what instances are you talking about here? (X! · talk)  · @129  ·  02:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to say that this is based on my memory - I don't keep long lists of things various users have done or not done. I just distinctly remember gaining that impression on a couple of occasions. Brilliantine (talk) 11:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. A regretful and rather paradoxical oppose. Regretful because I'd really like to have felt able to support, but the age thing is a blocker for me. Paradoxical because I'd be much happier having "underage" bureaucrats than administrators, as bureaucrats do very little anyway. As an aside, I'm not going to argue about this, so don't anyone waste their time in trying to engage me in a futile "ageism" argument. --Malleus Fatuorum 06:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    <subsequent comments removed to Malleus' talk page --Dweller (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)>[reply]
  35. Oppose. Strong views on ageism are a problem for a role involving evaluation of arguments of RFA, where it's often an issue. The BN posting also raises questions of judgement and motivation. Kanguole 13:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose per R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine). --MisterWiki talk contribs 16:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldnt want any teenager of mine spending more than say 12 hours a week online, especially on a site thats so unplayful. Of course it would depend on the individual. However, human nature being what it is, I suspect many crats actually start editing less once they get the extra bit. If someone is partially status orientated, then if they have the clue for the role let them get to the highest level and see for themselves its not all that. Realistically, if theres genuine concern for Julian here then RDH's oppose is more a reason to support. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose. If you're going to evaluate consensus as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snak, then no thanks. Pcap ping 17:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting... I don't see anything wrong with that close. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 19:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither do I. To me, that close is more in his favor, showing an ability to properly discern consensus based on article improvement, per WP:HEY. — Becksguy (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. That's... almost as surprising as the staggeringly bad close in the first place. Two initial "delete it" !votes based on the as-nominated state of the article, four !votes listing reliable sources, marked improvement in references during the AfD, and that gets a "no consensus"? Look, I get that a lot of people like Julian, but there's no need to insult Pcap by suggesting that that close was in any way, shape, or form correct. At best, it was an overly quick nose count. Jclemens (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not quite. A straight vote count would have incorrectly yielded a "keep result"; instead, if one takes into account that the article underwent such significant changes as to likely invalidate the initial arguments for deletion, it becomes clear that barring a reason to relist again, "no consensus" was the only reasonable outcome. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion continued here. Pcap ping 06:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose. I have the greatest respect for Julian as an admin and think he typically shows a maturity beyond his years however I have nagging doubts about his approach to this candidacy - articulated by WJBScribe better than I ever could. Nancy talk 17:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose I've been on the fence with this for a long time, however the jclemens thread brings up for me my own concerns about judgment and gives me pause, the sudden withdrawal back in October as well. I know that Julian is a solid contributor, hard worker, valuable asset to the project and mature for his age, this is a tough call...Modernist (talk) 13:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose A very valuable user, but I don't think he's quite ready for this position. I don't yet trust his ability to judge consensus at RfAs, based on some of his AfD closes. Epbr123 (talk) 13:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose: one of the things I used to get on his case about was his AfD closes, as I generally prefer contentious closes, especially no-consensus closes, to have reasoned explanations. It's a shame that, as of two months ago, he was still just closing them as just "no consensus". Not improving this important aspect of AfD closing brings doubt in my confidence in him to evaluate consensus at a RfA level. Sceptre (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose for a variety of reasons. In my experience this user prefers the letter to the spirit of rules, which may indeed be a sign of immaturity, I dunno, but certainly ain't a quality I want in a 'crat. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose I agree with previous comment by Deacon of Pndapetzim; one example is this admonition of a user voting oppose in an RfA to assume good faith. Completely inappropriate. This is not what WP:AGF is about. Wikipedia has had several high-profile cases where misplaced assumptions of good faith in people's applications for office have landed us in hot water. Also per JayHenry and Moni3. --JN466 16:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Weak Oppose - I like JC, I really do, however per Pedro above. The reason being that I feel JC has a rather intense desire to climb the authoritative WP latter to cratship. The constant barrage at BN and citing backlogs too boot. I'm also not particularly wild about the age thing, but this is minor considering he seems rather precocious. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose, per WJBscribe and per the "ageism"/"adultism" views issue. Closing RFAs is one of the main 'crat tasks. In my opinion, if an RFA candidate is a minor and has voluntarily disclosed this fact, that would be a perfectly reasonable concern to raise by oppose voters in such an RFA. I am not comfortable about giving a candidate with such vocal "anti-ageism" views the power to close RFAs. Also, something about the way in which the candidate pushed the argument that there is a shortage of active crats feels off to me. Nsk92 (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose per young age, although I supported you last time, I have since changed my mind on this general issue. Sorry. Power.corrupts (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. @harej 16:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    iMatthew talk at 16:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    -- ¿oʇsıɟıʇuǝɯ '00:81 62 ɹǝqɯǝɔǝp 9002 (ɔʇn)
    Uh...why are you guys just posting you sigs here? If harej is being neutral, s/he may want to state why.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 19:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Because some Wikipedian's have a sense of humor, as shown above. You don't need to state a reason for being neutral, Coldplay. iMatthew talk at 19:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What if I were // to make my comment // inside my signature? // 19:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be pretty cool, Coffee! 19:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear.  GARDEN  20:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    FASTILY (TALK) 21:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Couldn't resist. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 22:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Polargeo (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha.  fetchcomms☛ 00:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    --McJombo Sails // ... // past great blue whales // 02:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ikip 21:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC) this is fun, albeit my signature is the most drab here :([reply]
    Agreed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is voting neutral without any comment like voting "Present"? Valley2city‽ 23:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, it counts as as a vote on the RfA history tool. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 23:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet not on the User:X!/RfX Report (as can be found transcluded on many of our admin dashboards). For some reason the neutral column always reads zero. Valley2city‽ 02:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's supposed to I think, because it doesn't make any difference in the outcome. (I saw that somewhere last week.) ({{od}} is fun!)  fetchcomms☛ 19:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Present." ResMar 20:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually the bot is slightly borked. It's supposed to list the neutrals as well. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 20:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Borked bot? Is that like boneless pork butt? Where am I? How does this thing work? (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Reminds me of User:How do you turn this on. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 02:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Here! Wrelwser43 (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I vote absent or is that negated by the fact that I'm here? Valley2city‽ 07:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm tardy, does this still count? ;) The Thing Merry Christmas 07:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Timotheus Canens (talk) 05:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy (New, Year!) 05:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral too!--AtlanticDeep (talk) 02:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral - I don't know if I can't support this time around. My reasons aren't enough to oppose, but I do feel they need to be expressed. Julian can be a great person all and around, but one, I agree with some of the opposing editors that the reason that this RFB came up in the first place is not a good excuse. Backlogs are backlogs. You don't need to be a bureaucrat to complain. Help advocate for more cleanup. Get other bureaucrats to wake up. Going for it because of it is too weird and a bit on the power hungry side. My other reason for this is that I do feel in the last year, that Julian's writing skills have caused the idea of making FA more of a "game" or "mediocre rank". I will use two examples: Tropical Depression Ten (2005) and New York State Route 311. These both are Featured Articles of his. Tropical Depression Ten, in my honest opinion, shouldn't even exist. Its only claim to fame is the predecessor to Hurricane Katrina. I've opposed the existence since day one, but taking a mediocre storm and mediocre rank (against a consensus made in 2006, when they originally was around). This thing shouldn't be featured, and is really not worth the Featured Article project's time. The second one, NY Route 311, was a well-written and really well detailed FA that definitely deserves what it got, Featured Article status. I don't think we should be sending "mediocre" articles to the best of the best. Again, I don't feel this is an oppose-worthy vote, but I think this should be aired. I do think we're letting him get FAs way too easy. Look at the FAC for Hurricane Nate (2005) - Three flimsy supports and flimsy reviews. I know having lots of tropical cyclone articles can get boring, but not reviewing fairly doesn't help.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 21:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What does FAC have to do with RFB? --Rschen7754 00:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral Certainly won't oppose, may switch to support based on the answer to question 20. WFCforLife (talk) 11:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Need to think about it. Julian's a decent guy, but I've still got a few nagging worries about giving him the crat flag. Sceptre (talk) 03:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Regretfully moved to oppose.[reply]
  3. I supported last time, but this is too fast, too eager.

    Also, as time goes on, I'm growing increasingly concerned about Wikipedia's tendency to place children in positions of authority. I'm not yet worried enough to oppose on those grounds alone.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Again ... please don't call a 16-year-old a "child". Vandal-patrollers know that gay/effeminate is the go-to insult for young males, and it has been for 30 or 40 years, but in the 19th century and first half of the 20th century, if you really wanted to insult a male, you didn't question their masculinity, you questioned whether they were grown up or not. Every 16-year-old I know is insulted by the word unless it's coming from someone close to them. How you feel about the capabilities of 16-year-olds is something we can argue; whether it's appropriate to throw blanket insults is not. - Dank (push to talk) 13:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Dank, please stop lecturing people on their choice of terminology. While thin-skinned youths may indeed get their back up at being labeled "child", in every legal sense, they are in fact children. This is what concerns these editors; your insistance that legal accuracy is somehow an insult is hardly helpful. I am certian no insult was intended. Please AGF and cease stirring the pot and causing strife where there was none before. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a very tough issue; if it weren't, we certainly would have solved it by now, with all the effort Wikipedians have put in. This could easily distract from Julian's RfB so I'll continue on the talk page, but I don't mean to hide; if anyone wants to criticize my position on this page, that's fine with me. - Dank (push to talk) 15:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish to record that in my use of the word "children", I did not intend to offend any children who might read this.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting that I'm not particularly offended by being called a "child" or such. I have pretty thick skin after being an admin for well over a year! –Juliancolton | Talk 15:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As you should, and certainly if running for 'crat. A point in your favor, sir. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 16:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe S Marshall and others have a valid concern. Having an authority figure who is underage is disconcerting for some. Teenagers are noted for their moodiness, rashness, and vindictiveness, something I know well as a teacher and from working at summer camp for so many years. That being said I supported Julian's candidacy (see above) for many reasons including that IMHO Julian has demonstrated that he shows the maturity necessary for a 'crat. Even though he may be 16, I don't think he fits the negative stereotype. So I don't think we should attack people for calling Julian "a child", as in his jurisdiction he IS a child, but I also think he can handle 'crat stuff as he has handled admin stuff considerably better than a number of our more "mature" users. Valley2city‽ 23:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Child" isn't the right word though and whether or not an offensive connotation is intended, it does come out offensively, specifically patronizing (at least it would to me if I were that age). In his jurisdiction, he is a minor, which, at least in the vernacular, is not the same; vernacularly speaking, he is an adolescent which is markedly different from being a child (if not more correct). A child, in the use of the word, is someone yet to go through puberty as far as I'm concerned. Consider the new Leandra's Law in New York: every source you'll find will report it as a law making it a felony for driving drunk with a child in the car. The age break on a child? 15 years old. I just find this annoying in some ways because I remember when I was doubted as a teenager when taking on tasks or responsibilities not typical of a teenager; admittedly it wasn't all that long ago, but considering I'm almost 24, I think I'm old enough now to have that opinion respected. The patronizing gets very old very quickly when you're that age, especially when you are the exception, just as Julian is. We shouldn't be judging the poor nominee by his age, we should be judging him by his past performance and skill; based on that (and the logic of "being a child" above), things can only get better, right? Give him a fair shake for what he's done, not what he is. ❄ upstateNYer ❄ 14:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. Given the Juliancolton's comments on the Ottava Rima matter, I am not convinced that he fully acknowledges the very serious concerns which were raised against the user. While that case is not related to bureaucrat duties, a bureaucrat needs to be able to empathize with such concerns when closing an RFA. (It is otherwise so easy to dismiss concerns as baseless, when they really are not. We have seen promotions where the closing bureaucrat ignored significant concerns in the oppose section, and promoted anyway.) With that said, Juliancolton's conduct in this case or other situations hasn't been remotely disruptive in any fashion, and his judgment is sound in general. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean to badger, and I'm obviously biased, but Ottava has always been rather nice to me, and as far as I know he has been to Julian as well. If that's your only concern, think about Julian's preparedness for this role and whether he's ready to be a bureaucrat, not to worry about who he supports. :) Just saying. ceranthor 14:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. My position is neutral leaning oppose. Arguments by MastCell, WJBscribe, Karanacs and Modernist outline some of the issues that make me feel uncomfortable about offering my support. I would rather see the crats we have now close Rfas. Seraphim♥ 00:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Juliancolton_2&oldid=1214398613"