Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Juliancolton

Add links
From 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[edit]

Final: (226/67/9); closed 09:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC) by Warofdreams (talk · contribs).

Nomination[edit]

Juliancolton (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – Today I am here to present Juliancolton to the community for consideration for the userright of bureaucrat. Julian has been an editor since November 18, 2006 and an admin since September 27, 2008. In that period of time he has committed over 84,000 edits to the database and 14,000 logged actions, which I believe form a proper record for judging his ability.

In those actions, Julian has created 20 FAs such as Typhoon Tip and about 60 GAs like Hurricane Bonnie (1998), which places him among the most accomplished active Wikipedians in these areas. Additionally, he has closed over 2,000 AFDs with a high degree of accuracy. AFD closing requires administrators to use their judgment to ascertain consensus and he has done a fine job there. Additionally, he founded the Hudson Valley Wikiproject and the Non-tropical Storms Wikiproject. Further, he is highly active clerking at Change username and has nominated several individuals for RFA. These efforts show that Julian can balance the workload of creating high quality content with performing administrative work. They also show he is a well rounded contributor who is in touch with the community and adept at acting properly within policy in tasks he performs. For these reasons, I put him forward today for bureaucratship. MBisanz talk 01:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully and humbly accept, and thank MBisanz for his nomination. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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. The primary determining factor is whether or not the community trusts an individual with the extra set of tools. The role of a bureaucrat is to judge the discussion, and establish whether or not a consensus has been reached regarding that issue. I'm not too keen on arbitrary percentage limits, but from what I understand, 70%–80% percent falls within the realm of bureaucrat discretion.
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. As with all of the RfAs I would close, I'd read the entire discussion, including the talk page, to try to fully understand the situation. I would then weigh the various arguments produced by the discussion, and if at that time I was unable to establish consensus, I would initiate a bureaucrat discussion. If I were the only bureaucrat qualified to close the RfA, however, I would exercise my best judgment and provide a thorough rationale to explain my decision.
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 feel I'm generally a reasonable admin and editor who has a strong and comprehensive understanding of policy. I contribute to the project several hundred times per day, and I actively participate in community discussions. As MBisanz noted, I have contributed substantial amounts of quality content to the project in addition to my work with various internal processes (such as AFD, CHU, etc). I have also been trusted with adminship on three other projects, including Commons. But beyond any content or administrative work that I have done, I believe my most redeeming qualities are that I always strive to be both honest and fair in my interactions with other editors, and that I readily admit to my mistakes and do my best to learn from them.

Optional Question from Balloonman

4. Julian, when I first discovered that you were still a minor, it shocked me. I honestly pictured you as a 40 year old middle manager working for some national weather/ocean watching organization. Thus, I am not concerned about your personal maturity. The concern I have, is that over the past six months or so, you have emerged as one of the strongest voices against "ageism." Going so far as to co-support an RfC against the most vocal voice criticizing youthful admins. In one discussion, you wrote, I fail to see how "oppose because candidate isn't 18" is any different than "oppose because candidate is black" or "oppose because candidate is white". They're the same. First, do you still stand by that statement? If so why? If not, what is wrong with it? Second, can you alleviate my fear that you will be more likely to promote people who are under the age of 18 because of your public views on "ageism"?---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I am a minor within my jurisdiction, and I am against ageist-type views. That said, my views have matured somewhat regarding the matter since last year, when I compared ageism to racism. I still think discriminating based on age is wrong, but I've begun to view the issue in a different light as of late. To answer your other question, I always strive to be both neutral and fair in my administrative (and editorial) decisions. Regardless of whether I "like" the candidate for whatever reason, I assure you I would not let my personal feelings get in the way of judging consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up Can you elaborate on how you've started to view the subject in a different light?---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 13:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll be perfectly honest here. I suppose that since being promoted to sysop, my views on quite a few matters have evolved, as I've read through thousands of discussions and made plenty of difficult judgment calls. I now see that age-based discrimination is justified in many cases, particularly in the real-world. I've also come to see that editors who oppose RfAs based on age are acting in good-faith, whereas in early 2008, I often thought the direct opposite. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from Groomtech
5. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?
A: As I said earlier, I did not really wish to answer this question, so I apologize if my answer is a bit shaky. As you mention on your userpage, there are many different kinds of rights that Wikipedians have. The official Wikipedia policy mentions only two in particular, the right to vanish (for users in good standing) and the eight to fork. However, as a community, we have developed many, many additional standards that have essentially become our noncodified rights (in addition to our natural rights and those given to us by our respective systems of government). There are, quite literally, dozens of such rights, including the right to privacy, the right to be treated civilly and respectfully, the right not be defamed or discriminated against, the right edit to Wikipedia for editors in good standing, the right to fair treatment, etc. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Questions from Pharaoh of the Wizards

6. How would you close these RfA? If you opine for a crat chat, please express what you would have said there as the final determination of the outcome.
6a. Aervanath 75%
A: Probably no consensus; while supports far outnumbered the opposition, there appeared to be too many concerns. Note that I say this purely from a procedural point of view, as Aervanath has been an excellent admin since his promotion. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6b. Wikipedian Prolific 75% Note: The Candidate spent 5- 10 hours for just 1 edit as he was drawing images and some images took him about and opposes were largely due to his lack of mainspace edits
A: Also no consensus for basically the same reason as Aervanath. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Is a trusted candidate who in your opinion will never misuse tools but has no experience in Deletion having taken in less than 10 WP:AFDin over 3 years but wants to use the tools in Deletions of articles and images in WP:CSD,WP:PROD ,WP:IFD is opposed in a RFA for that and it comes into the area of discretion?What would you do ? In WP:CSD for example some pages are deleted within minutes involving the Admin,Recent page patroller and perhaps a newuser writing his first article.Would you trust the Admin to have the tools?If the RFA comes within the 70-80% discretion area .How will close it?
A: It depends. If there was no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the candidate would misuse the tools, and is, aside from low levels of experience in deletion, a productive editor, I would most likely support. It's impossible to say how I would close such an RfA, however.

Optional Question(s) from DGG

8. Some questions about the way you close AfDs.
8a. Some days you close over 50 AfDs--and sometimes that is more than one-half the total. Why do you do such a high proportion?-
A I'm not sure how to answer this to be honest. I feel I am well-qualified for closing AfDs, but not by any means more well-qualified than other admins. See, when I arrive at AfD, in most cases the straight-forward discussions have already been closed for obvious reasons, and I take on the more difficult or controversial decisions to suppress the backlog. Thus, I do usually end up closing 1/3 to 1/2 of each day's AfDs. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8b. You sometimes close before the 7 days have elapsed, sometimes half a day, such as [1] , or just a few hours , as [2] (before the change to 7 days, you were frequently closing at 4 days, not 5,) Why?
A No, I don't view it as a race at all. I'm not a big fan of process creep, so I'm readily prepared to invoke IAR in order to close certain discussions prematurely. Nonetheless, I nearly always let AfDs run their full 7 days. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8c. You close them at the average rate of 1 per minute, sometimes 2 per minute. Does that give you enough time to consider?
A I frequently check the current AfD log, and read nearly all discussions; when it is time for closing, I'm able to make a decision quickly and efficiently. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8d. When you close, you almost never give any explanation at all. Why?
A I nearly always provide a rationale to explain my more difficult or contentious decisions, but I often leave out detailed explanations when I feel the discussion has been straightforward. This is because in my experience, long and detailed rationales tend to be divisive and drama-inducing. Even so, I'm more than happy to explain my actions upon request. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8e. Why do you prefer to close AfDs rather than discuss in them?
A Hard to say. I generally try to remain as neutral as possible whenever I go, so I'm able to assist in resolving disputes or such; obviously I'd be far less neutral participating in an AfD than I would be simply closing it. Furthermore, I generally feel more competition closing AfDs than I do "voting" in them. I do occasionally provide my $0.02, however. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Moni3
9. You and I often agree, but every now and then we are ideologically opposed. One of these issues is regarding the limitations of your articles. While I respect that level of detail necessary to comprehend weather and cyclones, all of your articles are storm-related (or road-related, another topic with multiple articles that may follow a formula). I would not ask this of an arbitrator's nomination, but the bureaucrat issue compels me to bring it up. Why do you not branch out? It suggests that you have such a specialized niche that you are unable or unwilling to expand other types of articles. Not only would it benefit Wikipedia, but it would also be personally beneficial for you to take on something you are interested in yet know very little about. My least concern is that you are taking the path of least resistance and it would be frustrating and difficult to construct articles on new topics. My most skeptical assumption is that it is much easier to collect bronze stars when articles are formulaic and can simply have different information plugged in depending on the storm or road. I wanted to give you an opportunity to explain it.
A: Wikipedia is a volunteer project, which means no-one has an obligation to even edit on any given day. As such, editors should work where they feel comfortable; for me, that is primarily the tropical cyclones WikiProject. I've been heavily interested in meteorology for 5 or 6 years now, and I feel quite knowledgeable in that field, so I can make a greater impact on the project by concentrating on weather-related articles than improving other random stuff. Roads came as an interest to me when Mitchazenia (talk · contribs), one of WP:NYSR's most productive members, basically taught me how to edit. That said, I don't just limit myself to meteorology or highways; I often write on lakes, swamps, villages, and whatever else catches my eye. To be honest, I'm not terribly set on getting the bronze FA stars. I contribute to the featured content process in good-faith because I feel it's a worthwhile endeavor, and a benefit for Wikipedia. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. You have stated your opinions on ageism on Wikipedia. I tend to avoid this argument unless confronted with it directly. You will have the ability to perform functions, end discussions, and archive or promote RfAs in which ageism and IRC problems leak into the discussions. I think the calls of discrimination are... what's a nicer word for bullshit? Nevermind. It's discrimination to people who have not faced real discrimination in my opinion, and a cycle of fallacy that can only be resolved with time and age. Yet in my experience and background (with a master's in Gifted Education) I also recognize the extraordinary abilities of some young people. Gifted in one area does not equal gifted in all, and it is common for a student to exhibit extraordinary intellectual behavior while simultaneously exhibiting age-level or below-average emotional behavior. Many adults display fairly shameful behavior as well, so there do not seem to be easy guidelines for this issue. Do you plan to implement your ideas about ageism in bureaucratic functions? If so, how might you do this?
A: In short, no—as started above, I wouldn't let my personal views get in the way of administrative or bureaucratic actions.
Questions from seresin
11. Please explain how you would have closed the following discussions: Taken from Aitias
  • Successful - At the time, it was somewhat straightforward, and the plagiarism issues had not yet arisen. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expansion, upon request: The closing bureaucrat's job is to evaluate consensus as it had exists at the end of the RfX. At the end of this RfA, the final tally sat at 126/32/5, or 79.7%, which is on the very high end of the traditional discretionary zone. The supports mainly thought that FlyingToaster had improved enough since her previous RfA, while the opposers had concerns either over the content work that FlyingToaster had done or over the possible "IRC supports". Since FlyingToaster had created over 150 articles (remember, Peter Damian had not yet brought up the plagiarism issues, and so the closing bureaucrat would have been unaware of this), there was fairly strong evidence that FlyingToaster did contribute to the mainspace, and so those opposes would not have been enough for me to close the RfA as no consensus.
  • Successful - Despite significant opposition, consensus was to promote. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expansion, upon request: Much of the opposition here was based on the concern that Orlady handled disputes poorly, but a portion of the opposes do not provide sufficient rationales. No consensus here too would be a valid close, but I believe that there was enough consensus to promote.
  • No consensus - While the supports far outnumbered the opposes, there were several substantial concerns (note that I say this from a procedural point of view: Rootology has been an excellent admin since being promoted). –Juliancolton | Talk 18:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expansion, upon request: There was quite a bit of concern over whether Rootology had improved enough since his indefinite ban, amongst other issues; these are very valid concerns, and ard difficult to overlook. On the other hand, 150 other editors were convinced that he had done so, and since his block at enwiki, he had been trusted with adminship at Commons. All things considered, I could find no consensus to support.
  • Unsuccessful - At that time, there was no consensus to promote. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expansion, upon request: I simply did not see a consensus to promote here. The opposition was vocal and substantial, and backed up its assertions with specific examples
  • Successful - Trusted user, fairly uncontroversial nomination, despite the unusual circumstances. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expansion, upon request: Lustiger seth nominated himself when he had about 50 edits at enwiki; while this would usually fall under WP:NOTNOW, he was a trusted admin at dewiki, and offered to help out here with the spam blacklist. While many editors were a bit opposed to the idea of giving adminship to somebody who is barely active, most of the RfA community agreed that the user was trustworthy enough to stand by his word, and only work in areas he had been familiar with.
  • Unsuccessful - At that time, there was no consensus to promote. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have initiated a discussion among other bureaucrats to determine the outcome. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expansion, upon request: Much of the opposition came as a result of LHVU's lack of sensitivity with regards to real-life harassment, and these are of course very valid concerns. However, many supporting users claimed the opposition was unconvincing. No consensus would have been a valid option, but the opinions of other bureaucrats would likely have been necessary to make an accurate decision.
  • Unsuccessful - At that time, there was no consensus to promote. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No consensus seems like the only reasonable option here. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have initiated a cratchat, as the result was too complex for a single bureaucrat to decide. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expansion, upon request: In this case, the opposition was based mainly off a few key factors, including the fact that Avraham filed a second RfB so quickly, and the fact that he lacked experience in many bureaucrat-related areas. However, since there was obviously a solid foundation of supports, it would have been impossible for a single bureaucrat to make an informed and accurate decision.
  • Successful - This may be a bit of a controversial answer, but after reading through much of the discussion, it seems there is a fairly clear consensus to promote. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expansion, upon request: Well, Riana was obviously an extremely trusted user at the time. "Numerically speaking, [the RfB] fell very slightly above the highest % support for an unsuccessful nomination (85.3% - Quadell) and below the lowest % support for a successful RfB (86.7% - Andre)" at the time.[3] The opposition mainly centered on two issues: Riana's nomination of Kelly Martin for adminship (which ended disasterously) and issues of incivility. I agree with what Warofdreams said at the 'cratchat: "I do not, however, believe that 'no significant opposition' has been a rule of thumb, and indeed it is almost impossible to achieve in a discussion involving so many users. In this case, the opposition clearly is significant; the question is whether it is sufficient that this should be closed as no consensus. In summary, this is within the range commonly given particularly close consideration. In my view, a small number of issues have been raised, have been fully considered, and there are nonetheless a large majority in favour of Riana becoming a bureaucrat. It's a finely balanced one, but I would call it as just sufficient to constitute a consensus."
12. What is your philosophy on what votes and rationales (oppose or otherwise) may be disregarded, or afforded less weight, and how will you apply this?
A: No good-faith votes should be completely disregarded in my opinion, as nearly everyone is welcome to voice their opinion at RfA. However, a key part of determining consensus is judging which opinions hold more weight. In general, arguments supported by policy should be given generous weight, but obviously there are exceptions. It depends on the situation, really. Apologies for this answer being sort of dull, but I can't think of much else to add at the moment. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are no specific examples of good-faith votes you would discount? You can think of none? Especially given the recent discussions on WT:RFA, of which I note you have been a not insignificant participant. And to which policies must votes be related to be given weight? What are some of the exceptions? ÷seresin 18:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have been clearer. There are many good-faith votes to which I would assign very little weight, but none that I would disregard without even considering, as that goes against the spirit of consensus in my opinion.
On the other hand, votes supported by any number of conduct policies and specific examples of inappropriate behavior receive extra weight; opposes with little to no evidence, unless the reason for which is extremely obvious, often contribute little to the discussion. If you asked me about specific examples of votes, I would be able to explain in greater detail. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to be a bother, but you're not actually saying anything. There are many good-faith votes to which I would assign very little weight, but none that I would disregard without even considering. You seem to have drawn a distinction between "discount" and "assign little weight"; since I only used the former word I see why you chose to only specify there. So if I could trouble you again: to which votes and rationales would you assign less weight, or even "very little weight"? The only reason we have bureaucrats instead of bots in charge of promoting is so that we can have someone qualify rather than quantify the votes and reasons. I want to know how you plan to qualify oppose votes. ÷seresin 23:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, everything as far as qualifying opposition votes generally goes case-by-case. If the communtiy had previously expressed serious concerns about a particular type of vote and that vote was not backed up by policy (DougsTech, Kurt Weber), those votes would be discounted. Several other types of votes I would assign little weight: oppose votes demanding quite ridiculous standards (eg. 2 years of experience, 20,000 edits) that have been deemed inappropriate by the community; votes focusing on where a particular candidate stands on certain internal political debates; opposes with no rationale; and votes that came as a direct result of canvassing. Hopefully this is a more adequate response, but feel free to request further clarfication. Again, I must say that it is more of knowing it when you see it, so particular examples as to what in particular you wish to hear my opinion of about would be good. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Optional Question from Jarry1250
13. Do you think that your two own unsuccessful RfAs - or your "landslide" third request - will affect how you close other people's requests for adminship? If so, how?
Not necessarily. My first two RfAs (which both closed within a day) showed me that failing an RfA is usually a stressful and disappointing situation, but the closing bureaucrat can't help that. Again, I don't think it'll affect how I close other RfAs. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Keepscases
14. You have a userbox that states you are protected by a Smith & Wesson .357. Are you old enough to legally own a firearm? Please explain.
A: No, I am not. That userbox is intended to be a light-hearted joke, though I'll remove it if you're uncomfortable with it. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Questions from Tony1
15. How old are you? (I'm 53, and I don't consider myself ageist. However, if you are 14, I'm concerned; if you are 17 and nearly 18, I'm less concerned. It's not a deal-breaker, but you're putting yourself forward for election to a highly responsible position at the world's most significant information site, and it's unusual for a minor to do so. At issue are breadth of emotional experience, maturity, and in legal terms, the likelihood of exposure to the nastier elements of WP. Please don't take offence.)
A: The Internet is a very unsafe place, so I prefer not to disclose my exact age; however, I will say that I am between the ages of 14 and 18. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. To what extent would you discount supports or opposes based on (i) a candidate's writing ability, (ii) the extent and breadth of a candidate's content editing, and (iii) claimed insufficient knowledge of some policies (e.g., WP:NFC)? The obverse of these questions are (i) what kind of writing ability does an admin need to perform their duties well? (ii) Is it important for an admin to have had a moderate amount of experience at content editing? and (iii) Does an admin need good knowledge of all of the major policies? In each case: why or why not?
A: All of these are valid concerns, and should not be completely disregarded. In my opinion, admins should have the ability to write reasonably well, both in the mainspace and within discussions; content building and effective communication are key. In terms of content contributions, while I like RfA candidates to have at least some recognized work under their belt, it really comes down to trust. If the community has shown through consensus that it trusts a candidate with little in the way of content creation, the result would be to promote. As for the final questions, yes, I believe admins should be familiar with all major policies. I don't expect admins to be able to recite each policy word-for-word, but they should be able to understand the rules they're enforcing. Thus, opposes based on lack of knowledge of policy should be given significant weight. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Maxim(talk)
17: Can you please explain the IRC incident mentioned in the oppose and neutral sections? While Jennavecia has already given an explanation, and not that I don't trust her, it would be best if you could provide an explanation to clarify what right now looks like a series of misunderstandings by multiple users.
A: I think Jennavecia is correct for the most part. My IRC connection was shaky, and as a result my client repeatedly and automatically re-joined, thus flooding my personal channel. Not knowing it was me, I suggested it might have been another person, who had been disruptive in the same channel earlier that day. A few other users perceived it as a malicious attempt on my part to get said person banned from the channel, but indeed, it was little more than a misunderstanding. Hopefully this makes sense to non-IRC gurus. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Optional Question from MLauba
18:How do you see the admin role within Wikipedia?
Admins should be role models for other editors, and should follow nearly all policies, conduct or otherwise, whenever possible. They should be friendly and willing to help, and they should use their tools to the benefit of the encyclopedia. They should be able to resolve disputes calmly and professionally, and should have broad experience with the project. They should understand Wikipedia's goals, and work to meet them. They should be able to communicate effectively, and explain their decisions when asked. They should generally be fair and neutral in their administrative actions, and should fully understand the role consensus has within the project. That said, adminship shouldn't be a particularly big deal in terms of social status or level of power. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Question from Apoc2400
19:Have you written any article that is not about an individual road or storm?
Yes, I've written/expanded dozens if not hundreds of articles unrelated to meteorology and highways; including everything from Cards Pond, to Great Swamp (New York), to 2009 flu pandemic in Canada (significant changed since I created it, obviously) . I've simply focused my efforts on roads and storms. –Juliancolton | Talk 12:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion[edit]

  • I'm opting not to answer Q #5 for the time being; will explain upon request. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that I intentionally try to keep my answers concise. I will happily expound upon any of my rationales upon request. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another note to future participants: I do not close AfDs against consensus. AfD is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion, and in order to determine consensus you need to weigh the various arguments. If you take issue with any of my closes, please seek a discussion at DRV and/or my talk page, as I really do think it's unfair that this issue was never raised at my talk page or my administrator review. Thank you. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@KillerChihuahua: I'm not on any sort of "campaign" against the opposers. When I see a potentially faulty rationale, I occasionally discuss it to keep the discussion fair. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which might be appropriate, were it not your Rfb which is in question. Your pestering of "potentially faulty rationales" is pestering those who have opposed. AGF! I am certain they have given the matter thought. I don't see you questioning potentially faulty rationales on the "supports" - your statement that you're trying to "keep the discussion fair" is, I am sorry to have to say, utter nonsense. You're arguing your case with those who have opposed and it is very poor behavior on your part. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a vote. This is not a straw poll. This is a discussion. Discussion entails conversation; and by conversing, editors should start to debate. There is no debate without arguing back; and, socializing and pleasantries exempted, there is no discussion without debate. —Animum (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC), slightly edited at 21:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I volunteer to help out, and I can't defend myself against incorrect claims? And you'll also notice that I have indeed responded to a few supports. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We all volunteer. And "defending myself" can often be "defensive campaigning" which is precisely what I said. No, I don't think its appropriate. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 02:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a question, hopefully I don't sound incivil: why are editors not prepared to defend why they !voted the way they did? As RfA and RfB are discussions, not majority votes, people should be expecting to defend their rationale, whether it be challenged by a random passer-by, a supporter, another opposer, or the nominee in question. Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ed. It's a discussion. All voters should be prepared to justify their votes without dismissing an attempt at good-faith debate as "badgering" or such. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Expressing concern about how you are handling this Rfb is not "dismissing ... debate", its expressing concern. You cannot blow this off by calling it something it is not. You are making it very clear you don't care that you are creating a hostile and Inquisition like atmosphere here. Your refusal to treat these concerns with anything like any kind of due consideration is reinforcing my choice to oppose. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Situation resolved and "cannot be in good faith considered when the close is made."[4] لennavecia 17:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now received an email from an editor, indicating s/he would like to oppose this Rfb; but s/he thinks you will pass, and they are afraid of getting on your bad side, due to your incessent arguments with the opposes! I think that is clear enough. You may not realize it, but you are making others feel hounded and afraid. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 12:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Theres a flip side to that Killer, which is the negative attacks on candidates has likely been having the affect of making some afraid to put themselves up for promotion in the first place. Questioning oppose opinions can result in a discussion which addresses all concerns, setting opposers minds at rest, leading to them change their vote. Surely most of good faith would welcome such discussion at it clearly improves the quality of our overall decision making? Granted those opposing on false pretences will likely be hostile to questioning, but surely we dont have to change our processes to pander to folk who oppose due to politics, grudges, or simply as they get off on putting folk down? If theyre not up for a little discussion, they dont need to step up.
Also Julians a cool guy, no way will he hold a grudge against someone whos opposed!
PS. Sorry if this sounds unsympathetic, from what little Ive seen youre a very protective puppy and ive no doubt youre motivated by good faith, i just dont think we can let opposers have a free hand while restricting supporters. Im going to have a look at RfA talk to see if theres any positive suggestions to make this process less adversarial. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of the Rfb is that we promote people we trust to be able to judge. Taht's why its "not a vote" - because the 'crats can weight arguments. Support, he's trustworthy +1. Oppose, I don't like his userpage 0. Oppose, he is rude (dif, dif, dif) -1. It is not so that the oppose's can be badgered and harassed by an over-eager campaigner. Your suggestion that the person who emailed me, who specifically said "...fear of potential retribution within this kind of interpersonal environment..." get "tough" is not helpful, IMO. It is up to Julian to not be so aggressive that he intimidates editors so much he scares them away from voicing their concerns. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't think it's fair on anyone if we're just judged by our ages; 80 year olds may be senile, but certainly not all of them. Scrutinizing and commenting on actions is better, in my opinion. -- Mentifisto 04:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, I second this. —Animum (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Support I have had the privilege and pleasure of working with Julian at WP:CHU and WP:RFA and its assorted subpages both prior and subsequent to my RfB. Julian has always struck me as a calm, level-headed, mature, and sensible editor, and I had suggested that he consider the next step a number of months ago. I'm glad to see that he is willing to volunteer even more time to the English Wikipedia project in areas where, in my opinion, he demonstrates a solid understanding of both the policies and guidelines, as well as the ability to "read" community consensus. While I may not have always agreed with everything Julian has written, he is easily an editor whose judgment I am willing to trust and who will, in my opinion, use that judgment sagaciously when necessary. Good Luck! -- Avi (talk) 04:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Juliancolton is an excellent editor, and I've been generally impressed whenever I encounter him. I think he would make an excellent bureaucrat. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Juliancolton is a very calm and reasonable individual who would make an exceptional bureaucrat. Plastikspork (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support He can definitely be trusted with even more tools, as he has shown he knows how to correctly use the tools he currently has. I have no doubt in Julian's ability to close RfAs according to consensus and to adequately (even exceptionally) perform other bureaucratic tasks. Good luck! Timmeh 04:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Very good contributions; will make good decisions with the tools. -download ׀ sign! 04:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - trustworthy admin. PhilKnight (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Absolutely About Time. Never thought I was going to see this. Best of Luck! :) -FASTILY (TALK) 04:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support unequivocal net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Support I have continued to be impressed by his judgement, in all aspects of his work as an admin. His AfD closures have been remarkably accurate, showing he has ability to judge consensus. His work in dealing with vandalism shows he has calm temperament, not liable to overheating and exploding. His contributions to RfA also, show his willingness to trust users and their judgement and his general understanding of this page. I have full confidence that he shows the same amount of maturity of any other bureaucrat. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong Support excellent editor. I'd rather he just just kept writing articles though instead wasting time on bureaucracy like renames YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 04:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support absolutely without reservation. --Stephen 04:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support This editor is very active in general Wikipedia matters and is an active administrator. He has shown maturity in his administrative actions and in various events related to U.S. Roads, one of the varied areas he has contributed to. Therefore, he would make an excellent bureaucrat. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong Support There are two or three users that helped ease me into the Wikipedia community and JC is the one that deserves the most credit. Being somewhat local and editing many of the same pages, he supported me in many of my endeavors, including (successfully) nominating me for adminship. I owe him a lot and much of my work here can stem back to his graceful patience with me as a bit of an unofficial adopter in my early days; even today, he's always there to immediately answer a question for me on IRC. That speaks to his character, but his contributions speak to his efforts and skills here as what I would legitimately call the paragon of sysops on the English Wikipedia; he edits at a level that all sysops and editors should strive for, consistently keeps a cool and level head, and offers clear and clever insight into any issue he is involved in. "Net positive" isn't even an argument here because I know for a fact that he will be one of the most successful bureaucrats this project has ever seen. Wikipedia will be a better place with JC as a bureaucrat. Consider that a bit of a "Ooo, look what I found" co-nom. :) wadester16 05:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong Support I have worked with Julian in multiple areas: When I was a new editor, he helped encourage me, and guide me in policy and guidelines to be followed, as well as what was considered common sense. In matter related to BLP issues, he continues to help me on a regular basis. As a new admin, he has given me valuable advice and assistance. I'm not quite sure how he does it, but he always manages to find time to help with even the most trivial matters. He appears exceptional in his ability to gauge consensus, and I believe he would make a positive addition to the community in fulfilling that role. — Ched :  ?  05:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Julian is a fine editor who constantly strives to improve the encyclopedia. I have not always agreed with him, and it is likely that I will disagree with him multiple times in the future. But I trust that Julian will always consider all inputs before making a final decision, as that is the style I have observed from him. With the amount of consistently solid work that he has put into the encyclopedia — both in mainspace and in other areas, I have no problem with supporting him. NW (Talk) 05:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. I've been wondering why he isn't one already. Great contributor, has the right temperament, and is active in crat areas. Definitely trustworthy. Jafeluv (talk) 05:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Yes, absolutely. Nakon 05:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Has always been helpful whenever I've asked him a question and he also has a a stack of GA/FA's to his name. Best of luck. Although the opposes look concerning :) Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 05:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    btw there wasn't any opposes when I wrote that. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 05:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support There is a reason I had preemptively watchlisted this RFB and I'm glad to see Julian finally went for it. A great contributor who has time and time again shown that he is one of the most clueful, patient and helpful admins on this project, whose insight and impartiality should be an example to us all (they are to me). I might not agree with everything he says or does but I can always be sure that he will not let his personal opinions interfere with his tasks as an admin. Julian has the necessary knowledge in most of the crat areas, is an active clerk at WP:CHU and an active contributor to WP:RFA and I am more than convinced that he will do an impressive job as a crat. Regards SoWhy 06:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - Excellent editor and from what I've seen is always level-headed, fair and reasoned, even in difficult situations. No hesitation in supporting. Camw (talk) 06:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - Very reasonable and calm administrator that absolutely deserves the shiny tools. CL — 06:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support, I have no concerns about Juliancolton's suitability - he's generally been an exemplary editor and admin. I don't really see why he wants to bother with bureaucrat tools as well, but if he does I trust him! :)~ mazca talk 06:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support: Julian is a fine administrator, with a level head and an ability to see all sides of an argument and then make a reasonable conclusion, so will be a great bureaucrat SpitfireTally-ho! 07:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. I'm not part of the RfA or RfB crowd, but when I saw this user was nominated, I decided to weigh in. There are probably some who would take exception to his heavy IRC ties, but I consider him an asset to the community and my only real concern is that he doesn't burn out and leave as apparently happens so often on Wikipedia. He can definitely be trusted and I believe he knows enough to handle the tools. Good luck! Recognizance (talk) 07:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support We need some extra hands given recent losses and I can think of few better to close RFA's - and the other tasks should never have been given to 'crats only. Pedro :  Chat  07:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support A very competent and courteous candidate. Dr.K. logos 07:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Excellent editor/trustworthy admin. Will be a great bureaucrat. Frehley 07:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Trustworthy and willing to do the work. -- Banjeboi 07:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm supporting per brilliant interaction in the past which I believe constitutes good potential for a bureaucrat. However I believe this RfB may attract IRC !votes so I'd be a little wary of popularity voting. Not that that would result in a bad promotion, it's just that by proxy canvassing is never really a good thing. Good luck, weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but further thought leads me to abstain for now. I'm not opposing, because I believe that you would develop into a good bureaucrat, but we need someone that is a good bureaucrat now. Not that that makes too much sense, but it does to me... also, the age thing is a bit of an influence. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 11:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support As nom. MBisanz talk 08:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support per nomination and previous highly positive interactions. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support about time :) Jeni (talk)(Jenuk1985) 10:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support I am very happy to support this candidacy. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. I have not had any interaction with Julian myself, but I have observed over time with way he interacts with others. His comments are always logical, thoughtful, rational, intelligent and measured. He keeps his cool and maintains the focus on the matter in hand. I see no valid reasons to oppose him. He's just the sort of person we need to keep improving Wikipedia. AlexandrDmitri (talk) 11:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Full support. Julian is trustworthy, level-headed, and knows the ropes. Kingturtle (talk) 11:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC) P.S. To be clear, I have recused myself (a Bureaucrat) of any closure actions or closure discussions of the RfB. Kingturtle (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Absolutely, both from personal interactions and general demeanour. Good luck! - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 11:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Strong support Most definitely. I've seen Julian more active in some bureaucratic areas than some of our bureaucrats, themselves. Julian is a very reasonable, helpful, and trustworthy administrator. I've been waiting for him to build up the courage to open his RfB, and I'm keeping my fingers crossed that this passes. An excellent candidate! (User:Juliancolton/Accomplishments says it all) iMatthew talk at 11:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Absolutely. Helpful whenever we've run into each other, been a big help in changing TFA/R from a madhouse into a civil place where stuff gets done. Not worried about age, anyone who has descended into the crucible of FAC twenty times, and come out with a FA, has to be able to handle himself. Age is a plus, actually, we'll have the pleasure of his assistance in the project that much longer. I have no doubt he'll use the extra buttons wisely. Oh, and I'm not on IRC, not a member of any WikiProject and the cabal hates me.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. (edit conflict)Strong support - I've been waiting for this one. I have been Julian's admin coachee (see the coaching page) since Halloween 2008 (over 8 months), and I have had a massive respect for him ever since. He has been constantly kind, fair, and helpful, and he has just about the best knowledge of policies and guidelines one can find. Back in May, I offered Julian a nomination for 'cratship, and he replied here. Good luck, buddy! You deserve the cross-wrenches 100%. → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 12:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. 'Rainbow Support' I give him a shitload of support, he is to be trusted, good user and great editor. --Mixwell!Talk 12:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ˙ʇoן ɐ ɯıɥ ʇsnɹʇ ı puɐ uıɯpɐ punoɹɐ ןןɐ ʇɐǝɹƃ ɐ sı ǝɥ ˙unɹ s,uoʇןoɔuɐıןnɾ uı ʇɹoddns ʎɯ ƃuıʇɐɯɹıɟɟɐǝɹ ɯɐ ı --Mixwell!Talk 02:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Obviously trusted. I trust him too, heavily. ceranthor 12:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support As one of the people who helped Julian find his footing on wikipedia, I have had great pleasure in watching Julian grow from strength to strength as an editor. The experience he has on wikipedia is clearly indicated by his success at being able to balance admin tasks and content editting. 20FA's is a great achievement by anyones standards and he activity at AFD is also exceptional. He is one of the most exemplary admins we have and the most important thing is that I do not believe that giving him the extra bits will affect the positive contributions to the project that he gives. He has an extensive experience of consensus discussions and I raise a point that judging consensus is more than just counting !votes and is more about looking at the merits of the discussion. I wish him the best of luck and my full support. Seddσn talk|WikimediaUK 12:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Very trustworthy, very active.--Giants27 (c|s) 12:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Strong support - Decision time has finally come. I've been working with Julian mainly since he started, and he's gotten farther from me in that time. I trust him with bureaucratship, I just need the promise that he'll stay an active article editor. He has 20 Featured Articles, almost 75 Good Articles, and an don't give up attitude when it comes to finishing work. He is active in almost every admin area you could think of, not something I like doing, but he does it well. Therefore he has my long support.Mitch/HC32 13:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - I have seen Juliancolton a lot around Wikipedia and I do have a good impression of him. He certainly has a beyond excellent history of contributions and has good history on use of the admin tools, including AfD closures. I am confident he will make a good bureaucrat. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Seeing all of the absolutely appropriate gushy support above makes me feel good about Wikipedia. Quoting myself from JC's WP:ADREV: I'm reminded of the Twain quote, "Really great people make you feel that you, too, can become great." People tend to feel good about themselves when JC is around, because he encourages and leads by example, without being self-promotional, at RFA, FAC, UAA, and many chat channels and wikiprojects. - Dank (push to talk) 13:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support He is the best editor I know (arguably second) and I only edit WP:TROP and WP:NTROP with him. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home
  47. Support - I have seen no reason to believe that Julian does not have the necessary clue to be able to make the right decisions as a bureaucrat. J.delanoygabsadds 13:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We have a very decent (and frankly, above average) content contributor who has found time to carry the administrator role and wants to do more work. Not seeing the downside here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Too oppose. Rjd0060 (talk) 02:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Very Strong Support We could use more b'crats, and Julian is more than trustworthy with the extra tools. All the Best, Mifter (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support He would make a great 'crat. hmwithτ 13:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Has demonstrated from his contributions that he has the temperament and policy knowledge that would make him a good bureaucrat. --Polaron | Talk 14:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - Julian and I have a strong history on having opposing views at RfAs. However, during these RfAs, our discussions have always revealed that he has the ability to see how the candidates he supports are doing. He knows which supports are strong and which opposes are meaningful. I can definitely trust in him to be a Crat that would discount things that are "votes" in their truest sense - obvious and blatant canvassing, off topic statements without any real weight, biased supports that are done merely to counteract some oppose or votes done out of spite or revenge. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Minor or not, Julian is the epitome of a mature, well-rounded contributor whose primary goal is improving the encyclopedia. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Weak Support per answers to my questions. Just to clarify, I was prepared to oppose JC because of his comparisons of ageism to racism. I think the comparison is abhorrent, but the comment was made about a year ago and I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt that he has matured in this regard. I would, however, advise him to refrain from promoting candidates who are known to be minors (at least at first.) His advocacy on the subject of ageism does raise some concerns, but again not enough to push me into the oppose camp.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Some of the opposes have merit, I'm going to remain in the support column, but moved to weak support.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My two cents is that sometimes the best description of what's not working in a given situation is that someone is acting too young, and if you're sufficiently gentle, then it's not a sin to say that; it would be abhorrent to say they're acting too black. I interpret comments I've seen (this year) from JC as an attempt to be supportive of younger editors who were either getting beat up or feeling that way; that interpretation is the one that is in line with everything else I've seen Julian say, not the interpretation that he's got a manifesto about a new social order where kids are in charge that he'd like to push; that doesn't sound like JC at all to me. - Dank (push to talk) 15:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support piling on. Jehochman Talk 14:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. A fantastic editor in all areas. I've never seen him be anything but calm and thoughtful, and his good/useful contributions to RFAs are helpful too. Featured content work is a great plus, but it would be nice if you could try something other than weather/road articles. Majorly talk 14:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've written a few lake articles, as well. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 14:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Juliancolton has consistently been an editor whom I can trust. That blue-gray signature is a sign of a well thought-out response, and pretty much acts as a stamp of approval as far as I'm concerned. I'd be glad to see Julian in the bureaucrat role, despite the fact that it would ruin our even number. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 14:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. (edit conflict) Support Very trustworthy. SUL (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support I have yet to ever find a problem with Julian's judgment, and even on some where on the surface I may have thought, "Would I that way?" deep down I ended up agreeing anyway. rootology (C)(T) 15:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Strong Support Awesome article work, great admin, will be a fine bureaucrat. LittleMountain5 15:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Strong support. Couldn't think of a better candidate. Strong in every respect. Durova273 15:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Per Balloonman's comments in Q4, and Julian's answer. Julian almost always shows great judgment, he's active in several areas, and from a review of his AFD work, he seems to judge consensus there in a well thought out way. Even where I disagree, I can understand and accept his rationale. Consistently knows exactly what he's doing and what needs done. However, I was concerned that as a 'crat, he would discount good-faith opposes based on what he considers "ageism". His answer to Q4 convinces me that, even in cases where he disagrees, he now sees such opposes as legitimate opinions. Therefore, I am happy to support. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. As you know, I was not a big fan of you a while ago, but you've earned my trust through the time. You will be a good b'crat for sure.--Caspian blue 15:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC) (addendum) Oh, you're currently under 18!!! (why I've thought that you would be over at least 25)...--Caspian blue 22:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Strong Support - Julian is an excellent editor who helps out within WP:TC and is a very good admin who i am sure despite his age would not abuse the extra tools, given to him.Jason Rees (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support RFB's are very important. Standards are always raised compared to RFA's. Becoming a bureaucrat is important, because to me, you are joining the small group who in many essences keep Wikipedia going. I have the trust of Juliancolton, from seeing him around, to lend my strong support. Good luck! America69 (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Strong support - Juliancolton is someone who is always willing to help people, he has written a number of good and featured articles, and his judgment is pretty good. He is one of the all time best editors on en.wikipedia. This website needs someone like Juliancolton as a bureaucrat. AdjustShift (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Strong support Amazing admin, will make a splendid bureaucrat. Maturity is determined by mental makeup, not age. RayTalk 17:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. I've had this former red-link watchlisted. Julian is the first to come to mind when I think of future 'crats; he's very active in the areas a 'crat is supposed to frequent. I could type out a long paragraph of reasons why Julian is so fit for the role, but I think his record speaks for itself. Now I have to ask, can we get to WP:200? Master&Expert (Talk) 17:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:200 seems likely at this stage – the RfB is only less than 2 days in, and Julian already has 131 supporters (presently the 9th most supported RfB in Wikipedia history)! → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 18:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support, would make a great bcrat. Wizardman 17:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Unconvincing opposes. I trust JC, his work as an admin is solid, and I see no reason to deny him the extra tools. Aditya α ß 17:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Strongest possible support Everything is good and there are only frivolous opposes. Triplestop x3 18:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Strong support Have to agree one or two AfDs maybe ought not to have been closed as delete, other than that, faultless candidate. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - Good user, and an active admin worthy of being a bureaucrat. Yotcmdr (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support - Has a good amount of clue. -Djsasso (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support - "...and I am unanimous in that." APK coffee talk 18:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support - good user, good admin, no issues here. Age is not a concern for me, I respect the person, not their age. fr33kman -simpleWP- 18:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support - He is a great sysop. He has shown, that he can write pages, that means he know many about this project. There aren't any issues. Good luck. Barras (de) (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support of course. Juliancolton has been one of those people I see everywhere doing the best of work any user can do. I proudly support him, and I always will. — RyanCross (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support I actually like how the WP:Ageism thing played out. Many people think the way he did around that age, and I find that young people who express their opinions strongly about it the way he did usually are pretty bright. They tend to get frustrated because they know they are smart and can't understand why their age should matter. Then, as they grow up a little, they start to realize that no matter how smart you are, there's no substitute for experience. I think he's at the point where this realization is taking place, and I think he's smart enough to know when he might need input from others. It seems to me that Juliancolton is nothing more than a precocious young person who tries to do the right thing, almost always does, and is able to recognize when he might be making a mistake. He's also simply one of those people around here that I've always had a good feeling about. I am supporting him for bureaucrat because I am confident that he will make the right decisions. -shirulashem (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Absolutely. He has been a terrific admin and I see no reason that he will not continue to an outstanding job as a crat. Thingg⊕⊗ 19:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  80. I've always known him to be an intelligent editor who will do well with the bureaucrat tools. Good luck, Malinaccier P. (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  81. I think Julian is a terrific administrator and editor, and one that I've worked with on several different projects. Since I'd have to recuse myself from closing his RfB anyway, I might as well jump on in. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support An extremely capable admin. I have no concerns. Law type! snype? 19:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  83. This is overdue No concerns whatsoever. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 19:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support ample evidence that the user is dedicated to the project and can be trusted with the extra tools. Guest9999 (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Demonstrates a clear ability to judge consensus which is, essentially, the job of a bureaucrat. Alexfusco5 20:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to move to neutral because I believe too many valid concerns have been raised below, I'm not going to oppose but I don't feel comfortable supporting under the circumstances Alexfusco5 01:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support I agree with much of the above. My experience of Juliancolton leads me to think that he is appropriate for this role. He always seems willing to assist, I've noticed his name in an insane amount of areas (indeed I probably know the name and edits more than the actual person behind them) and I am inclined to think that he must be one of the most prolific administrators that Wikipedia has. I don't really want to repeat what has been said so hopefully that will be enough. --candle•wicke 20:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support — No concerns. We need more bureaucrats, and the added powers that bureaucrats possess do not inspire a lot of concern about possible misuse, the way admin powers do. I'm afraid he is one of the people, when I see his name on an admin decision, I assume it's been decided correctly. EdJohnston (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support — His age is a concern as his personality is developing - it will undergo some significant changes over the next couple of years - which introduces an unusual element of uncertainty (for better and for worse) for a crat position. He has consistently been doing a great job so far, and sometimes you just have to deal with any problems when they arise - should they arise at all. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support I see Julian's name all over the project, and it always inspires confidence. As trustworthy an editor and admin as any on the project. I foresee no problems. --LP talk 21:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support. He is one of the best admins we have. I'm positive that he can be trusted as a crat. Tavix |  Talk  21:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ”'Support”'. I am relatively new around here, but from my experience with Juliancolton, whenever I see his name, I feel confident that Wikipedia is in good hands. Vicenarian (T · C) 21:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support - Best dang admin out there, thanks for your hard work. -Marcusmax(speak) 21:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Very knowledgeable about policy and willing to do what needs done. Most importantly, I've never seen a hint of bias in his work. ThemFromSpace 22:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support, I see Julian all over the project no matter where I look and am always impressed, similar to above comments. Good luck! --Taelus (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support As per many of the reasons cited above. My own interactions with Julian have always been helpful and civil and I think he would continue doing a fine job. On the issue of age I tend to follow a quote from one of my favorite authors Robert A. Heinlein. He stated "Age is not an accomplishment, and youth is not a sin." Shinerunner (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support – I'm late to the party, but I'd like to join the supporting crowd. Julian is diligent and active in the right areas, has a good sense of what he's doing and what he seeks to achieve, and certainly appears to have the necessary impetus to fill the position. I just hope he doesn't burn out; as the candidate himself notes, he edits several hundred times a day, which must be (in a virtual sense) exhausting. Good luck. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support. I've never had anything but positive interactions with Julian. I trust his judgement, and I'm sure he'll make a fine bureaucrat. Matt (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support I have seen a lot of Juliancolton's work at closing AfDs as well as the occasional comment in them and his work there is pretty much irreproachable. There have even been a couple of times when a close-call closure was against my strong opinion but his comments convinced me that he made the correct decision. I am sure he has made errors but I haven't seen them. Age is indeed an issue and unfortunately that is something no one understands until they are no longer young but that is much outweighed by the repeaatedly-demonstrated fact that this is a person we can trust to make correct decisions. In some decisions, being young is a benefit but unfortunately that is something few understand when they are old. Closing RfAs is very important work and I trust him to do it properly. Drawn Some (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support — Jake Wartenberg 00:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support Very competent. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support Julian is a great editor and a valuable asset to the project and would be one of the best fits for this position there is out there. He is always on top of things and does a good job. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 01:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support. All of my interactions with this user have been extremely positive, and I've seen Julian do good work throughout Wikipedia, in many different locations. The main reason for opposition seems to be about the candidate's age and their ability to explain themselves, but I don't have any major concerns about that. While it is certainly true that younger admins/crats are more likely to make poor decisions, this is only a generalization. If someone, no matter how young, proves to be an intelligent and mature user, I think we can trust them with the tools. Good luck, The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 01:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support (switched from oppose). My own reasons for opposing were hardly quantifiable, and I'm not swayed by maturity concerns that have been put forth. Since I can't support the rest of the opposers, I'm giving Julian the benefit of the doubt. At the very least, I figure he can grow and will admit mistakes. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support. Absolutely. I don't have much to add onto the above support statements, but I've been aware of his contribs over the past many months, and there is one conclusion that I continue to reach: Julian seems to be the ultimate example of cluefulness. Well-qualified for another level of responsibility. Jamie☆S93 01:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support, You are amazing. The fact that you have contributed so much in such a short period of time at your age amazes me. Being slightly older than you, I thought that I had done something short of a miracle with my total, but you have proved me wrong. Good luck in your endeavors should we never cross paths (unlikely, but this is a big site). Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Strong Support. Julian is an amazing admin and seriously knows his stuff. He has definitely helped me on a number of occasions when I was a fledgling admin and I am honored to support his candidacy. I think he will make a very good 'crat. Valley2city‽ 03:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support - Obviously he knows what he's doing in technical terms, he has an admirable record of content creation and seems a moderate, thoughtful young chap. A careful review of his performance as an editor and an administrator puts the spear through suggestions that his age renders him unsuitable for promotion. His unwillingness to answer Q5 indicates to me that he is a little more cautious than I might like, but I doubt that will be an impediment to his performing the role of a bureaucrat, which seems a rather mundane task to me. Crafty (talk) 03:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support A solid admin who has showed good balance in his closes and been willing to get involved in difficult decisions. Should make an excellent bureaucrat where these qualities are sorely needed. Alansohn (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support Have encountered him from time in article areas (not RfDs etc, where I haven't tended to participate), and has seemed diligent and level-headed. Based on what I have read here today, I would encourage him to write a little more in closing summaries etc - I'm guessing this is something likely to be (even?) more important as a 'crat than it has been in the admin role. Good to have him around. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I will certainly endeavor to explain my decisions better from now on. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Strong Support - Yes, I think he would be a great bureaucrat with what I have seen of him. --ilamb94 (talk) 03:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support Julian does a great job of handling stressful situations day in and day out and thus I believe he is one of the best bureaucrat candidates around. I understand the rationales behind most of the opposes but it is my experience that Julian avoids making hasty decisions as an administrator and I wouldn't expect a sudden change of character if he becomes a bureaucrat. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 03:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Strong Support: It's about time. Geez. This is probably one of the best editors on EN. I read all of this crap about him being to young. Sooner or later all these old admins and bureaucrats that we have are going to be heading out the door. There is no better an editor then Julain to step up and become the future of EN. A smart and fair guy. I don't doubt his judgement for a second.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 03:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support Most happy to support you in this endeavour Julian.--VS talk 04:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support. No doubt about it. bibliomaniac15 04:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Frankly I have mixed feelings. I have occasionally been puzzled by a few of his edits when we crossed paths several months ago; but on the other hand he does really good work most of the time, I think his work as an admin has shown his capacity to improve, I am a little concerned by his lack of depth of experiences in other fields beyond meteorology; however I think he has good basic sound judgment and I think he will do well...Modernist (talk) 04:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Reluctantly I am withdrawing my support and changing to oppose...Modernist (talk) 04:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support This guy should've been an admin a long time ago. This is long over due. --TitanOne (talk) 05:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He's been an admin for quite a while now. He's running for bureaucratship. — Σxplicit 06:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support - I can't see evidence that he wouldn abuse his tools/the communities trust. Matty (talk) 07:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Does he have clue? Yes. No further questions. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support Why not. Several of the opposes are unconvincing as they concern things that aren't related to this job. I see no reason why he shouldn't be able to judge consensus. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  117. I trust himprashanthns (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support - trustworthy editor and administrator. Very competent. Theleftorium 12:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support - Hell Yea. OtisJimmyOne 12:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support All of my experiences with Julian make my think he'll be a fine bureaucrat. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Strongest support - Wow, I didn't see this one coming due to my absence over the past few months, but his work with articles is exemplary and his participation in matters at RfA is of equal value. I find the opposes entirely unconvincing, particularly the ones based around AfD. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  14:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Giving my support to this excellent, kind, and fair administrator in his request for bureaucratship. I'm unimpressed with the circus this is being turned into: Julian doesn't deserve it, for he is one of our least controversial, best behaved, and greatest administrators. Acalamari 15:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support. I've had nothing but positive interactions with Julian. Excellent editor and administrator. Cool3 (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support Most minors lack the maturity needed for this role. But most minors don't edit Wikipedia to his standard. Also I agree with the examples quoted in the oppose section - if RFA is a discussion where we expect crats to weight the strength of the argument, then the appropriate weight for an oppose with no reason is nothing or close to nothing. ϢereSpielChequers 16:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support JC's one of the best editors I've been lucky to know. He is not just great in Articles, but he's a great administrator. He will make a great Bureaucrat. Darren23 (Contribs) 16:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support Everything ive seen from this admin is supportive and constructive, Ive yet to come accross an instance where i wasnt impressed Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Strong Support You aren't a crat yet? But I was so sure you were...--Iner22 (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support While I don't always agree with Julian, I believe that he is generally trustworthy. I do not provide this support without hesitation and I'm not entirely sure whether Julian is suited for bureaucratship, but I guess the only way to find that out is to give him a chance. — Aitias // discussion 18:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support I've read through the opposes, and I think that Juliancolton has done a great job closing AfDs. The argument presented by DGG (that he monopolizes AFD) holds no water, since any sysop can just step up and close them. Good luck, JC! Firestorm Talk 18:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support I trust Julian fully. His contributions to the project are wonderful and his actions as an administrator have further demonstrated his trustworthiness and sound judgment. Good luck, Julian. :-)--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 20:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support Excellent admin, I completely trust JC... One of the best editors that I have ever seen. Until It Sleeps Wake me 21:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support - Don't see anything wrong with the candidate that means he can't be trusted with the extra responsibility. Skinny87 (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support – It seems that the brunt of this RFB regards JC's AFD closures. Wrt to Q8a, if the desire is to let other admins close AFDs to get a more representative sampling from the admin community on XFDs, then that's a very weak reason to oppose at most. Admins and crats must judge whether or not consensus for deletion in XFDs (or adminship for RFAs or flagging bots for BRFAs) and should refrain from adding any notes in closures that gives them the impression that their closures were more indicative of an !vote (which, IMHO, was what MBisanz looked at, and why he nominated JC for this RFB). Finally, although process is important, IAR ensures that we're not dwelling on clear cases, allowing us to move on to other ventures and pressing issues on the encyclopedia. He has done what is expected by policy and tradition for admins. MuZemike 22:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support both an excellent editor and administrator.--kelapstick (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support. I have worked with Julian in the roads project since he joined Wikipedia, and have seen his growth from a newbie editor to an admin to someone that I would trust as a bureaucrat. I have had naught but positive interaction with him, and wish him luck in his endeavors should he be promoted. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support, seems sensible and trustworthy. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support, and I wouldn't say that very often about a self-confessed minor. (I have a son older than Julian, so from my point of view someone under 18 is only just out of the cradle.) But I like Juliancolton. He's a genuinely good-humoured and collegial editor and a pleasure to interact with. And more objectively, he closes a lot of things, and he does do it fairly quickly, but I tend to find his closures accurate (with a couple of unimportant exceptions).

    I want you to give more complete closure summaries in future, please, JC. :)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  138. Support - because there is very little judgement required to be a crat, given that those in the role actually have very little discretion. Can you read? Check. Are you an idiot? Doesn't look like it (would have been more certain had you not decided to go through one of these again...). – Toon 23:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  139. I had to think about this for longer than I initially thought, but I've known you for ages, and I do think you would be a net positive as an administrator, so for that reason, my opinion is in this section. Best of luck, Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 23:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support I only wish that half the editors here were as mature as Juliancolton. (Count me among those who pictured him as in his 40s. Just goes to show that there are some very mature teens, and some very immature adults in this world.) He's clueful, has a brain, communicates well, and is always open to discussion. He has the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart. What more can I ask of a crat?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  141. long winded supportI should be !voting in the oppose section because (a) he's too young (b) he closes too many Afds or (c) he needs more experience - all of which I kinda sorta agree with. But (a) I'm amazed, flabbergasted, shocked, dazed, that he's so young! He's not exactly invisible and if he's a drunk pretending to be sober he's definitely doing an excellent job - clearly they don't make youth the same way as they did when I was 14-18! Also, if maturity comes with age (and I do believe it does, or at least one learns not to take oneself overly seriously), then he can only get more mature from here on and we'll have a mature bureaucrat who'll only get better - what's wrong with that? (b) I think juliancolton is a serious young man trying to responsibly make his way in the world and efficiently clearing admin tasks is one of these responsibilities that he's fulfilling. With time, he'll learn that discretion is the better part of valor, but, in the meantime, I think the analogy between RfAs and AfDs is a tad stretched (a slight difference in number and backlogs!). At worst, a couple more RfA closes than normal - though, after this RfB, even that's unlikely - before other bureaucrats start begging for a chance to close an RfB. (c) He does need more experience and this is probably the one thing that would give me pause except that I see no harm in his gaining the experience as a bureaucrat. The worst case scenario that I can see is that he'll err once or twice on the side of seeing a consensus to promote in an RfA where its not totally clear and not only is that the worst case it's also not totally a bad thing. Overall, I see him as a stayer - someone who will stay with the project and is not climbing the rungs because they're there, as an overall asset to the project that we should be loathe to lose, as a young person who will grow into the role, and as a responsible editor who says what he means. All in all I'd rather err on the side of making him a bureaucrat a wee bit early rather than risk losing him and so I fall solidly in the support column. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving to very strong support. I must say I'm impressed by the way juliancolton has carried himself through this difficult and messy RfB. Excellent bureaucrat material. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 01:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support — JC has continually impressed me by his actions in various areas of the 'pedia. I wish him all the luck with the new tools. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support Absolutely, yes. I trust JC to use his/er judgement for crat tasks. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Strong support Has what I'm looking for in a bureaucrat. I trust his judgment, I like what I've seen of him as an administrator, and he has experience in the necessary areas. I will be disappointed if this RfB doesn't pass. Enigmamsg 06:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support To say the rationales given for opposing are extremely thin would be putting it mildly. This is an excellent candidate who will make an excellent bureaucrat. (An aside: Bureaucrat is such a terrible name for this role) -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Strongest Possible Support One of the most friendly users I have met here; great experience, and definitely deserves to be a 'crat. Best of luck, JC. Pmlineditor 07:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  147. It's perfectly fine to have young bureaucrats. Ilyanep and Linuxbeak are no longer active, so let's welcome some new underage overlords. Kusma (talk) 08:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Strong Support: Everything I have seen in his responses above and in his work all over Wikipedia leads me to conclude that he will be a first class 'crat. Frankly I think the opposers are making mountains out of molehills. – ukexpat (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Strong support2: His contributions around the Wikipedia community let us know that he is completely capable of using these extra tools. I believe, though I may be mistaken, that the same "no special status" idea applies to Bureaucrats; he's mature, experienced, and will use these new tools for the improvement of our community and encyclopedia. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say 14:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support - While I can't say that I agree with all of his policies and positions, I have never seen him act in bad faith or in any manner that reflects poorly on himself or on Wikipedia, which is something that I cannot say about the vast majority of other Admins. I support his application for Bureaucratship and I think that he will be excellent at the job. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Strong Support Wow, it's about time! Look at what the other supporters have to say- they beat me to the punch. He is a seasoned editor. He is very mature and friendly- a role model for all Wikipedians. I have never seen him, as Nutiketaiel said, do anything unconstructive or mean. (for lack of better words) He would definitely benefit from the tools that he will have by being a bureaucrat. Best of luck! Airplaneman (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support I view RfB as less important than RfA in any case -- the only real requirement is to follow consensus -- and I've seen plenty enough of Julian to make me trust him to follow consensus. Looie496 (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  153. If he wasn't already, I'd probably oppose an RFA for him at this point, but regarding the three bureaucrat powers (when are we going to rename that ridiculous title?) I don't have a problem. The slight (apparent) tendency to "go with the herd", while potentially a negative in an admin, is a positive regarding all three limited 'crat functions. – iridescent 2 15:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support (from neutral). Per Q18 - while we're not really on the same wavelength on this issues, we're not that far apart either, and that, combined with the rest of what I know and have seen from the candidate, makes it a go for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MLauba (talk • contribs)
  154. Support This was a difficult decision to make, but after reading all the comments on this page and based on my own interactions with Julian, I think it is the right one. Graham Colm Talk 17:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Pzrmd (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support, without reluctance. Wherever I seem to go, whether it be AfD or RfAs, Julian's name seems to pop up constantly. His Mainspace contributions go above and beyond what most of us could dream of completing, and he's an all-around good quality editor. -- Nomader (Talk) 18:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Sure. —Animum (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Based on conversations with julian, his article editing, his adminship responsibility and the fact I trust him with the tools, definate supportAndy (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  159. Support --Mardetanha talk 22:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support. I am confident that Juliancolton could and would do a good job as a bureaucrat. Whether or not this request for 'cratship is successful, I am sure he will take some of the comments (positive and negative) into consideration in his editing and administrator work going forward. In a type of comment I rarely make but feel impelled to here, I would also urge that Julian consider somewhat moderating the amount or pace of his editing and adminning—not because of any concerns with the quality of his work, but to avoid the risk of burnout, as I want to see him part of the project for many years to come. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support - he has my trust and I believe that he will make a good 'crat even though I generally would like to see one year between the successful RfA and an RfB. I must also echo the sentiments of Newyorkbrad above. -MBK004 01:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Strong support per many of the reasons stated above and my history in interacting with this user, I have every reason to be confident that Julian will make a wonderful 'crat. --Neskaya kanetsv? 01:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support - after much thought, I have decided to move here from neutral. While the AfD questions are still a concern, the main question I should be asking myself is "do I think JC would be a good bureaucrat?" The answer is an unreserved "yes"—I think that he can and will close RfA's based on the strength of the arguments and will help WP:CHU a great deal. Good luck, my friend. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  164. For Juliancolton. Keegan (talk) 04:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support Age isn't an issue (no maturity-related behavioural concerns; if the Foundation didn't want under-age crats/admins, we'd know about it) and I have faith in his ability to judge consensus and act accordingly. BencherliteTalk 07:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support Juliancolton has been a good admin, and I feel that he will be a good bureaucrat. -Porchcrop (talk|contributions) 08:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Strong support - Unequivocally. I don't see where he stated that he was under the age of majority, but meh. I have never thought of him as being immature, and nor have I seen him being so (as far as my shoddy memory can remember). I fail to see how age comes into such a matter as this when all this position infers is an extension of the tools he already has -- he has clearly demonstrated a use for the bureaucrat bit, and has not let the community down through his use of his current extended set of tools. Julian is a huge positive input to this project, and I believe that giving him the 'crat tools would merely allow him to excercise this positive input on a wider scale. Absolutely. — neuro(talk) 09:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Strong Support A perfect candidate. Always seems to be around everywhere!! Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Support Opposers unconvincing. Dlohcierekim 13:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support I'm pretty new here, but I've seen enough to be very impressed with this candidate. Hard-working, level-headed, the right kind of temperament for the role. ReverendWayne (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Support. Unconvinced by the Opposes. Candidate displays good judgment and does not make decisions or edit with emotion. In my opinion he has the right disposition for the job; while he gives himself some credit, I have never seen him claim ownership or talk in terms of "my article". I have only seen competency, restraint and a fine ability to work with others. And if he is young, then I am all the more impressed. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Support He's a good guy and he'll do well. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Support Julian is one of the most mature, kind, and dedicated editors I have encountered on this project. He has done great work as an admin, and I can only see this continue if he becomes a bureaucrat. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 17:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Support—active and clearly has a great understanding of policy. Great candidate. —Ynhockey (Talk) 19:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Strong Support - A very experienced and mature user. A few bad AfD's here and there aren't much compared to just how many of them he closes. It's like a person's voting record in Congress. If a Congressman/woman were running for president, I wouldn't oppose them simply because they voted for a few things I didn't like while in Congress. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Support Well rounded, and answered q's well. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support. Opposers totally unconvincing; usual bullshit and hypocrisy abounds. Tan | 39 04:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Some of the opposes below makes me ashamed to be in this community. —Dark talk 05:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I will scream with despair if I see another support rationale like these last two, come on guys help Julian out with a proper support. Polargeo (talk) 05:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Go ahead and scream. There have been 140+ supports before mine (I just got back from vacation). Please, let me dig through contribs for 45 mins when I've been working with the guy on this project for a year. Would "per X and Y" help you out? Fill in the variables with your favorite supports. Tan | 39 06:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think part of what Polargeo might be taking issue with is your suggestion that you see a lot of "bullshit and hypocrisy" in the oppose section. Even if that's how you feel, and even if it's true, it's utterly non-helpful to point that out here. Of course it's fine to think those opposing are making bad arguments, but I think most of the !votes in that section are in good faith and reasonably thoughtful. For what it's worth, I think one of the reasons that many editors (including myself) avoid participation in RfAs is because they frequently devolve into pissing contests between opposers and supporters. Since I'm opposing this RfB, I disagree with those supporting for the most part, but at the same time I completely respect your views and those of everyone else in the support camp. I think it's possible to discuss and disagree here without being disrespectful, and I don't think your comment is helpful in that regard. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree. Whatever you think of Julian and/or the opposes, I don't think it is appropriate to say those you disagree with are full of bullshit and a bunch of hypocrites --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not say any of the opposes are bullshit or that the opposers are hypocrites. That being said, I have little patience for some of the opposes. I will not comment any further on this matter. —Dark talk 11:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Support Considering his contributions and overall record there is no reason to oppose. I don't care if he were 10 (which he's not), as his judgement is good and he's a net positive to the encyclopaedia. His answers to queries are well thought out and well worded. I am sure he will take on board any criticisms raised that are actually valid, and overall I believe he'd be an excellent crat. My only concern is he would do less admin and editor work, but otherwise he's a safe bet. Nja247 09:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Good content contributor. Good administrator. Should be a good bureaucrat. ~ Ameliorate! 10:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Support Over several years as editor and admin I have seen Julian working on many, many occasions, and have been consistently impressed by his judgement. I did not know his age; it did not and does not seen relevant. And the alleged lack of maturity mentioned in some oppose votes is not, in my opinion, evident in his work. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 11:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Support Clearly the age business is an issue, but then I hardly ever take anyone seriously unless they are at least 1,000 years old, so I am prepared to overlook it on this occasion. To put it another way, as has been said about various other scallywags such as Wayne & William - "if he's good enough, he's old enough". Ben MacDui 11:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  183. Support. Exemplary Wikipedian. Is he underage? I don't care. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Support. My initial gut reaction on seeing this RfB was "good idea!" due to the candidate's contributions on Simple English Wikiquote. Also per extensive AfD closes combined with lack of any concerns I find compelling raised in the oppose section. The candidate has initiative, is civil, and seems to know what is going on across multiple projects. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Support In my observations of Juliancolton, I have seen no reason not to have confidence in his judgment. Also, I'm favorably impressed by his thoughtful responses to questions raised here. My only concern is that he spends an unhealthy amount of time on Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Support (ec) Yeah, will make a good addition to the crat team. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 20:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Support 172 | Talk 22:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Support Clueful user who has shown he has the experience needed. One concern I have is that Julian will burn himself out, which would indeed be a loss to all the WMF projects. But nothing in his edit history has made me question whether he should have these extra "buttons". Killiondude (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Support Definitely. ≈ MindstormsKid[citation needed] 01:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Support: He can definitely be trusted with more tools, good luck. South Bay (talk) 02:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    By "she" you must mean Juliancolton's twin sister, Julianacolton. Correct? :) iMatthew talk at 02:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps even "Jiliancolton". ;) Acalamari 02:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could be female take Julian of Norwich for example Polargeo (talk) 06:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Strong Support: I have seen him around, and believe there is no reason to worry about him abusing the tools. I also have confidence in his decisions. SparksBoy (talk) 04:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Support, I trust Juliancolton's judgment. -- Luk talk 14:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Support, I think that he is one of the best admins. He did a great job of helping me when I was just a wee n00b, and still helps me if I have a need for it. Bureaucrat is a role I trust him with. Gosox5555 (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, looking through your edit history, it appears that you actually met JC two days ago when you sent him [this] message, twenty minutes later you voted for him here. I noticed you signed off with the comment, good luck fighting the ageists, considering this would you please clarify what you are actually supporting here. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    Given that this RfB is ending in just a few hours and that it looks like this RfB will not promote Julian to a 'crat, do you really feel the need to make posts like this, Off2riorob? It seems a bit late in the game, and almost as if you're "kicking" Julian while he's "down", for lack of a better term. Killiondude (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can assure you there is no kicking at all. Although it isn't much practiced, if we oppose, then we also have a responsibility to question the supports. As for the closure the percentage is currently at 77.5% so lets not prejudge the closure yet. As it has recently been brought to my attention that all support votes are counted, I feel that by not questioning the weak ones that is allowing them all to be blindly accepted when some of them are relativly and assuming good faith, of little value. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    Just to clarify; I have never met him in person, I was asking for him to close a deletion discussion that was withdrawn, and had not been acted on. I am supporting him because he helped me learn Wikipedia when I was a n00b, not that long ago, and that is the main reason. I am also a minor, and think that the WP:Ageist opinion is not justified if the editor has proven that they know a large amount about a subject, and most importantly cite sources. I knew that it was an issue in the discoussion, and hoped that a perfectly capable editor wouldn't be denied a leadership role, solely because of age. Here in the US, we have just elected Barack Obama, one of the youngest Presidents in history. Age is really no reason to keep someone from doing something. Sorry for the rant, please direct any additional questions to my talk page. Gosox5555 (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Strong support for three reasons (in order of least importance to most importance): reverse discrimination, prolific editor, fantastic admin. Bsimmons666 (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  195. Support I've worked with and observed him for some time and have never been concerned. I find many of the opposes, particularly those of Peter Damian and Prodego to be little more than tendentious personal ax grinding. The age crap is particularly mind numbing as well. This is an online, volunteer built encyclopedia, not a weapons system, or a complicated piece of heavy machinery. Julian works diligently to make Wikipedia better, and he does so in a communicative and even handed manner. That's all that matters. You can't oppose someone because you want this project to be something it isn't. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  196. Support Definitely. Brilliant user, more than deserves to be a 'crat. BG7even 16:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  197. Support. I've had only positive interaction with this user. Has my utmost confidence.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  198. WP:200 Hurr. --Closedmouth (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  199. Support Despite rejecting numerous offers by users in the past, I'm glad that he has come forward at last. Good luck, I'mperator 17:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  200. Support. Too bad this will never happen though, with 50 opposes and counting. Sad really. ViperNerd (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  201. Support. Age really shouldn't be a factor here. Julian has done an amazing job and an administrator and I was actually surprised to find out he was young, which only makes me believe he has the maturity to be a bureaucrat and can only get better at it over time. I see no down sides. — Σxplicit 19:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  202. Although, I don't agree with him on everything, it's obvious that Julian is a good user, an asset to the project, and very experienced (despite what the opposers are suggesting.... time isn't the only way to measure experience). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  203. Support Mgillfr (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  204. Support After much thought. Too late though I guess. Benders Game 20:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  205. Support Excellent contributor, definite net positive for the project. No valid reason to oppose. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 20:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  206. Support I trust his judgement. AniMatedraw 21:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  207. Strong Support user has show that they can fulfill this position without any worries. ♪ βcommand 21:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  208. Support - I do not have any concerns that he would misuse the `crat bit. — Kralizec! (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  209. Support - an asset to the encyclopedia, WP:CLUE, and all that. This is an interesting RfB - several of the opposes (particularly those accusing him of creating articles and eliminating backlogs) could have easily been read as supports had they simply been posted in a different section. The long and the short of it, however, is that he will be a net positive if appointed to become a 'crat. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  210. Support - No problems for me. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 01:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  211. Support  After a careful examination of the issues, pro and con, I ken that the former outweighs the latter. He is a careful, conscientious administrator. --StaniStani  03:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  212. Support See no valid reason to oppose and I am thankful for his contributions as an admin Corpx (talk) 06:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  213. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 08:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  214. Strong SupportGreat contributions and as per Acaramari.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  215. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 10:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  216. Support - JC is not the type to abuse the 'crat tools. Can see no reason to oppose. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  217. Strong Support - JulianColton comes across as a very dedicated user who will use the 'crat tools to the best of his ability. After reviewing his edit history and RFB questions, I think he will be a useful addition to the current group of Bureaucrats. Harlem675 14:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  218. Support - He sounds like he knows what he's doing. I think he could handle this well! - PrincessofLlyr (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  219. Support - I've put a great deal of thought into my vote, read all of the oppose section, including participating in some of it, and really considered Julian overall. I've gotten to know Julian pretty well and I'm impressed with his editing and his judgment. He keeps a cool head in heated situations and he's able to look at the big picture when others often are not. He has a firm grasp on policy and experience in the 'crat areas. He's always willing to help and I trust his word. I believe that because of his personality and his desire to please people, gain and hold their trust, and be respected, if there were any issues to arise from his use of the 'crat tools, he would make the necessary moves to improve upon the situation. I believe, from private conversations with Julian, that he takes criticisms to heart and is genuinely desirous of addressing valid concerns, proving opposers wrong through good action, and making his supporters proud. He has always been respectful and courteous in all my interactions with him, and I believe he would make a wonderful 'crat. لennavecia 16:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  220. Support - he is a good editor, and I have no doubt that he will make a good bureaucrat. --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  221. Extreme Support. I only talked to him once and I knew in that message that he's a great person who would never abuse his power and is willing to help and trust others with thier goals. All I can say is: He has my full support. I also got to look at his records and all of it seems to be up to notch and meets the requirements. Secret Saturdays (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, thanks for your comment, I notice you are a new editor to this wikipedia, would you please explain your comment a little more, as to why you think Julian would make a good bureaucrat.(Off2riorob (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)) I find this vote a little funny or irregular SS, also left the same message on Skomoroah's RFA [here]and then deleted it and then posted the same comment here. I have left a request on her talk page to add a liitle expansion to her vote here. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say it's because SS posted their comment on the wrong page first. Not funny or irregular at all. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have had a good look through SS's edit history and with all due respect I would say they only very recently found out that crats and JC exist. Wuth all due respect I would say that it is not a very informed vote and that the closing crat should take that into consideration. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    ...yeah, but that's not what I was responding to, because that made sense. The part I commented on was what didn't. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  222. Support   «l| ?romethean ™|l»  (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  223. Strong Support - excellent admin, has matured even more in the past year.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  224. Strongest possible support. Despite my being on a wikibreak, I'm still lurking about and happened to stumble on this via a fellow user's talk page. Julian, I had no idea you were up for this honor and I'm beyond happy that I checked in. Your administrative help is beyond the call of duty and I can't think of a better choice for a b'crat. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  225. support-I never participate in rfa/b's but after I see the amount of time, dedication, and thoughtfulness JC puts into wikipedia, I only know Wikiedia will only be better if he had more access to tools.-- penubag  (talk) 08:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  226. Strong Support I've known Julian for so long in Wikipedia and I'm sure he will continue to be an asset to the Wikipedia Project. -- Tinu Cherian - 09:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. I'm sorry, but I have to oppose. Per this, really, and previous comments I have made on the matter. Obviously this is very likely to pass, and I trust that you understand that I have absolutely no doubt in your levelheadedness or maturity. But I do feel very strongly that WMF should not be granting extra rights to those who are not of the age of majority in the jurisdictions in which WMF operates. → ROUX ₪ 05:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, it's fine; I fully understand and respect your views. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. His tendency to close no-consensus AfDs as Delete when he feels the article doesn't deserve to be kept doesn't instill much confidence in me. I was involved in this AfD, where opinions were split 50/50, but a quick search found this one, and I'm sure a more thorough review would uncover others. Comments such as these or these make it clear he values his own opinion above consensus, and sees due process as a mere nuisance. This RfB seems destined to pass anyway, but I for one am not looking forward to RfA candidates being promoted without clear consensus simply because Julian felt they ought to be sysoped. Owen× ☎ 09:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't plan on responding to every oppose, but I'd just like to comment here. I assure you that I never let my personal feelings get in the way of judging consensus. AfD isn't a vote, so I do indeed weigh the various arguments before making a decision, but again, I always remain neutral. –Juliancolton | Talk 12:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Another, more recent example can be found here, where presumably Julian saw the lack of consensus as an invitation to cast his own, deciding !vote as the closing admin. To clarify, I don't think there's any ill intent on his side. I'm sure the Delete arguments did sound more convincing to him. Arguments tend to sound more convincing when one is already predisposed to agree with that side. That's why the ubiquitous WP:NOTAVOTE claim is often a red flag. Owen× ☎ 14:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, consensus seemed clear to me; in no way did I take it as an invitation to cast the deciding opinion. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see these examples of JC's strengths. The three cited AfDs are extremely close calls and the delete arguments do indeed outweigh the supports. That said, you cite two places where another editor questions the closure. How can one complain about a response like, "Perhaps it would be best to initiate a discussion at DRV, so we can get some outside opinions"? (one of your cited links); it's precisely the response he should have given. Additionally, I think this shows that JC is only human, and will fix his mistakes when made aware of them. He may be loved, but he is no deity. Please do not expect that from him. wadester16 15:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of weighing arguments, this one should be discounted completely. All three examples were good closes and remain deleted now. If there were an issue with the close, DRV is the place to bring it up, not RFB. لennavecia 17:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong oppose. On grounds of #1 above, but let me talk about this. Drunk people famously try not to act drunk, they try to act sober. They concentrate on acting as soberly as they can: speaking precisely, not stumbling, not swaying, putting their full attention into not appearing drunk. Similarly young people try not to act young, and try to appear old. They are particularly obsessed with concepts like 'maturity' - when I look at any of these RfA's and people comment on how 'mature' someone is or judge people by their 'maturity' I recognise straight away the people concerned are probably under 21, at least. (Note the word 'mature' has already been used in the discussion above 9 times). I didn't know how old Julian was until today, but he always struck me by his trying-to-appear-mature manner, which I find irritating. Sometimes people need to act in an 'immature' way, or rather, to express their opinions in a strong and forceful way, possibly to cause offence, if that is necessary. True maturity is about expressing yourself in whatever way is necessary and efective to produce the outcome that is right. People who are always trying to appear mature (in the form that they imagine maturity takes), will not be effective in producing such an outcome. So, very sorry, but I must oppose. Regards Peter Damian (talk) 10:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Further reason for oppose. Once again, we are seeing a candidate with claims to good and featured articles, so it is time to look at some of these articles. Colton claims here to have significantly contributed to a number of featured articles of which, one - Meteorological_history_of_Tropical_Storm_Allison - he claims to have 'written from scratch'. Let's have a look. The first thing that strikes you is the odd style. I challenge anyone to read it all the way through. It is painfully dull: it reads exactly like a weather report. Which is because it is in fact a weather report - see here. Please note, this is not plagiarism on the scale of the FlyingToaster RfA. The wording of each of the copied sentences has been changed so that the end result is not identical. But the basic structure and style is the same. For example, Colton's version reads "The low-level circulation dissipated, though the mid-level circulation persisted. ", whereas the original reads "The low-level circulation weakened ... whereas the strong mid-level circulation remained intact". But you have to ask what this is doing in an encyclopedia where our duty is to summarise information in a way appropriate to an encyclopedia, rather than a weather report. Peter Damian (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not see how that article is plagiarism at all, nor do I see how it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The latter seems to be merely a matter of opinion, so I won't argue that. The accusation of plagiarism is another matter.
    With regard to the article's structure, I would be interested to see your suggestions on a different structure for the article. Some topics do not lend themselves to a wide variety of organizational strategies. A tropical cyclone has a definitive start, end, and various notable events in between. There is no even remotely logical structure for the article other than the one that the source (and Julian) used.
    With regard to his writing style, this particular storm did not have a tremendous impact compared to some storms. As a result, Julian was forced to rely mostly on National Weather Service reports to write the article. While this fact obviously influenced his style, he did not plagiarize his sources. Merriam-Webster defines the verb "plagiarize" as "To steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own; to use (another's production) without crediting the source". Julian did neither of these. He read through the sources and included what he thought was useful using his own words and including inline citations. This is what you are supposed to do when writing a work based on other works. J.delanoygabsadds 16:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As an additional note. Those are documents produced by a federal agency and are released into the public domain in the United States. There would nothing preventing him from copying the sentances word for word. Yet he has taken the time and effort to ensure that information hasnt been copied and it has been sourced correctly. There is no wrong doing here. Seddσn talk|WikimediaUK 17:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What is WRONG is doing this about 10 times and then claiming this as some great work for which all you people will vote. Peter Damian (talk) 21:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're confusing copyright with plagiarism. Just because something is in the public domain doesn't mean it can't be plagiarised. For example, I could copy and paste The Communist Manifesto into an article, but without proper attribution it would be plagiarism. Plagiarism is about presenting work as your own and the misattribution of ideas, not copyright. Please see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for more details. I'm not commenting on Juliancolton's work as I've not looked at it, but please be sure to distinguish between plagiarism and copyright. Nev1 (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies if I have caused confusion. My point was more of an additional note as to the copyright of the text which is an issue when text is copied from websites. The main issue for plagerism point is that all sections were correctly sourced so plagarism from an academic sense has not occured due to the accurate sourcing Juliancolton has in his articles. Seddσn talk|WikimediaUK 21:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I said: this is NOT plagiarism on the scale of the FlyingToaster RfA. My point is, why write this when he could just have pasted a link to this. All Colton has done is to take a very dull weather report, filter out some of the detail, then replace some of the words with near synonyms. An easy way to get an article (though why something so dull and useless got near an FA is beyond me). Repeat 50-10 times over and then a bunch of clapping seals such as we find here will vote him in. That was what I objected to in the FT affair. Simpy copying stuff with the logical structure intact, without even thinking about thread, structure, relevance, context and all that. My son's school essays are better than this (and that is saying something).Peter Damian (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not all supports are due to Julian's article work, Peter. Everyone has his or her own criteria, so the chorus of sea lions above should not necessarily be indicative of the general consensus as to what should be considered excellent prose. -- Avi (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a question, Peter, if you really care about this (and how dull the article is) - also I am not a particular fan of this article because Allison's destruction is more notable than its lifetime - go complain somewhere like on the Wikipedia WikiProject Tropical Cyclones talk page and such. I don't think this is the right venue. Also, as of recent, I have been telling another user, who doesn't have the strength Julian does, that copying from the Tropical Cyclone Report - your second link, is totally plagarism. I actually did the same thing in the early stages of 2006 in Hurricane Erika (1997) now a Featured Article written by someone else, and well, I heard about it. I do be plagarism is a problem, but if you read the article, sounding like and being the same are two different things. If it was word-by-word, then I would think plagarism applies to this article. I would just like to know if we could switch venues for this discussion? It may be easier than flooding a RFB.Mitch/HC32 21:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Plagiarism is the "use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work." Colton claims to have written this one "from scratch" and he keeps it in a list of such articles [in his user space]. This seems like representing these 'close imitations' as his own original work. So, blatant plagiarism. Peter Damian (talk) 07:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, two things. 1) Tropical Cyclones are a very technical subject, therefore, it is really hard to sound like a 18-year old in your writing. The wording and tone that a person can use is very limited, so it makes it really hard. 2) You didn't answer my question, if you wanna bother about - can't you change your forum?Mitch/HC32 13:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sorry, but I don't trust you for this particular role. Whilst you are a good admin, I'm just not sure about b-cratship. The basis for my vote is from watching WP:CHU, WP:CHU/U and WP:RfA. Seraphim♥ 13:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not want to clutter up the section here so following a suggestion by Ched Davis, would you mind elaborating on how Julian's behavior at those venues was incorrect on this RFB's talk page? Regards SoWhy 16:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Seraphim has elaborated on their !vote at my request at User talk:Seraphim#Juliancolton's RFB. Further discussion on this !vote has taken place at Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/Juliancolton#request for clarification. Regards SoWhy 18:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had a week to consider this candidacy and feel I should expand my rationale a little. When I cast a vote in RfXs I weigh up what I've seen of the user, their suitability to the role applied for and the positives and negatives the community has brought up. My impression of Julian is not an unfavourable one, but I have a niggling doubt that stops me offering my support. Some of the rationales of the users in the opposing camp have made persuasive arguments in regards to closing AfDs and I am in agreement with them; I feel that this trait could carry over into cratship. In a bureaucrat, I like to see that the candidate has a good sense of insight, fairness and thoughtfulness and I'm not sure I see all three of these attributes in Julian. Whilst Julian has many good qualities, I'm unsure if his skill set will transfer to bureaucrat. Seraphim♥ 00:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I appreciate Julian's work as an editor and admin, I'm not sure if his perception of consensus agrees with mine (which I feel is true to the letter/spirit of the law, but which I'm sure he and others would disagree if we had a roundabout talk, but that's something for another venue and time :P) While RfAs are rarely the sort of difficult close that AfDs are, I'm just not comfortable enough. This is more a "gut feeling" statement then I would like, but *shrug* there it is. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC) see above section, --01:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Regrettably. His methodology of closing AfDs just seems a bit off to me; the biggest criticism is that, from my experience, he rarely adds a rationale to a close that isn't clear. Sceptre (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I nearly always write a detailed rationale for my more controversial decisions: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_common_misconceptions_(2nd_nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Levi_Johnston for example. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Sceptre, would you mind explaining why his AfD closures are related to the duties of a bureaucrat? iMatthew talk at 21:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, they're both decisions formulated by a consensus. I'd rather have an admin who closed ten AfDs with exceptional rationales than fifty with no rationales; it's a confidence thing. Sceptre (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. No confidence in his levelheadedness or maturity. Friday (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Oppose. I agree with Friday. Julian strikes me as an extremely intelligent and precocious teenager who is, nonetheless, a very young teenager. I'm concerned, for example, by the answer to question 11. It seems to me that the word explain is italicized for a reason. "This may be a bit of a controversial answer, but after reading through much of the discussion, it seems there is a fairly clear consensus to promote" is absolute garbage as an explanation. Reconcile why there's controversy if there is fairly clear consensus. It's not about being right or wrong. One of the most important skills of a bureaucrat is the ability to explain the tough calls. The reason WJBScribe was a great bureaucrat is because he could provide sensible explanations of his thought process. I sense none of that here. --JayHenry (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to strong oppose. The candidate did not understand my point at all, which is only part one of why I'm making the somewhat symbolic shift to strong oppose. More importantly, I had not seen the RFC against Friday. How can anyone in good conscience support a bureaucrat candidate who in the past week has endorsed a frivolous and misleading RFC primarily because of disagreement with the victim's RFA ideology? That's not even remotely appropriate behavior for a bureaucrat. --JayHenry (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not frivolous and misleading, and nothing to do with disagreement of RFA ideology. It is extremely clear on the RFC that this isn't the case though you're free to believe otherwise. Please read the RFC before making incorrect assumptions, like you just did. Additionally, upgrading your vote to "strong", "very, very strong", "extremely" or whatever doesn't have any effect whatsoever on the outcome. Just thought I'd let you know. Best wishes, Majorly talk 02:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I did read it, Majorly. Also, you're encouraged to note the word symbolic. --JayHenry (talk) 02:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - Sorry Julian, but I can't ignore your painfully blase and succinct non-answers to many of the questions. A bureaucrat is required to defend controversial closures and be ready to amply explain their rationals. This RfB is essentially giving me the impression that you'd rather not. Question 11 in particular is rather disappointing. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that I intentionally kept them concise. I'll happily expound upon any of my rationales upon request. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose: Sorry, I hate to oppose someone who generally seems like a good contributor. Since this seems likely to pass I doubt this will garner me anything other than a few rebuttals and angry looks. Still, I can't sign off on entrusting the bureaucrat bit given some of the attitudes expressed here. Maturity questions are a real issue at RfA, because the single quality most lacking in our admin corps is maturity. I also see what I consider to be a misuse of WP:AGF as a thought-terminating cliche, which is a pet peeve of mine ([5]), and a discouraging support in that thread for what struck me as pretty blatant badgering and goading from Majorly. Finally, I wasn't impressed with the signoff on what to my eyes was a clearly frivolous, poorly constructed, and abusive RfC. Because all of this revolves around questions of RfA, I really can't support this bid for bureaucratship. I don't want someone in a position to be deciding whose !votes to count unless they have some appreciation that maturity is a real and meaningful concern. MastCell Talk 23:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well you're entitled to your opinion, but it wasn't badgering or goading on my part. Nor was the RFC on Friday "clearly frivolous, poorly constructed, and abusive", though of course you are free to believe otherwise. Several others endorsed the RFC. Just because you disagree with it doesn't make it abusive, and I find that characterisation rather offensive, as it's so blatantly false and accusing. You should have brought up your concerns with Julian at the time (and with me), instead of pouring them all out now. It's not really very fair, since you haven't given him the chance to explain himself, instead opposing regardless. Majorly talk 23:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're talking about two different categories. There are things that are disruptive enough that I'd address them directly and immediately. Then there are things that are relatively minor in the grand scheme of Wikipedia, but make me uncomfortable in the context of being granted an extremely high level of access - one which is basically irrevocable. Julian's contributions to that thread fall into the second category for me, not the first, which is why I haven't brought them up before now. I did look at some of Julian's responses to similar questions of ageism/maturity, in particular Moni3's, which I thought were particularly eloquent formulations of the issue. I was impressed with Julian's composure, but not particularly reassured by the content of his answers. Given the entirety of views expressed on ageism/maturity, I'm not convinced that Julian would afford the issue the sort of consideration which I think it warrants, and under those circumstances I can't support a bid for bureaucratship. MastCell Talk 00:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per general maturity concerns mentioned by several above, as well as non-answers to the questions in an arena that very specifically requires precise and detailed explanations. GlassCobra 00:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose ....sorry, Julian, you need more experience, I have to agree with the above comments. Eric Barbour (talk) 00:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It pains me to do this, Julian, it really does. But I just can't get over the point raised by OwenX. It is one of my biggest pet peeves when you close an AfD as delete when it's clear that there's no consensus. By default, AfDs close to keep, and I'm not liking the fact that you look the other way. (X! · talk)  · @103  ·  01:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking my oppose. I believe that I was too harsh on Julian, and I wa sassuming too much bad faith. I'm not going to move to the support section, but I'm not going to oppose over it. (X! · talk)  · @121  ·  01:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I told Julian that I'd sleep on it, and I've decided to stick with my oppose. After seeing Prodego's evidence, I became less tempted to support, and more tempted to oppose. I consider conduct on IRC and Wikipedia to be closely related, and I am a little shook by it. (especially that he blames it on someone else) (X! · talk)  · @287  ·  05:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, this has become quite frustrating. I did nothing intentionally disruptive on IRC, and I did not in any way blame it on somebody else. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    X!, would you mind explaining how you think AfD closures have anything to do with cratship? If this were adminship confirmation, it would make sense. However this is about him getting the tools to rename users and approve bots, as well as close RfAs. Also, Julian explained the situation to me, and it seems clear the he didn't do anything intentionally. He didn't know his computer was acting up until someone brought it up. iMatthew talk at 21:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Prodego talk 01:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a very pretty signature, yes. Do you have a reason for opposing? iMatthew talk at 01:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Prodego, your participation will mean very little if you are unable to rationalise or even remark on your opposition. I assume you have a reason, so why not detail it? This is a discussion, not a vote. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My reasoning involves my personal feelings about Juliancolon, based on off wiki situations, specifically, those occurring on Juliancolton's personal IRC channel, ##juliancolon on freenode. Juliancolton may object if I were to explain that reasoning on wiki. Prodego talk 01:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if this is about what I think it is, it appears to be a bit of a misunderstanding, and I assure you there was no malicious wrongdoing. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless, I will only explain it here with Juliancolton's permission. Those who are on IRC can feel free to ask me there, but I don't feel it would be appropriate to bring up off wiki actions without that permission. Prodego talk 02:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I must echo Pastor Theo below: off-wiki actions (except inasmuch as they are brought on-wiki by the person in question) shouldn't affect on-wiki decisions. We are evaluating Juliancolton's putative behaviour as a bureaucrat, which should be decided by his on-wiki administrative actions or other relevant on-wiki issues. → ROUX ₪ 03:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry. I can't support based on the information provided by Prodego above which I've verified myself. This only confirms the concerns mentioned above by others with regards to maturity. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC) After talking with JC, I'm going to remove my comment all together. I can't support based on the info but I'm not going to interfere. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If I can please interject -- I was under the assumption that we are evaluating Mr. Colton for his Wikipedia performance only. His perceived strengths and/or weaknesses in the real world might make for amusing gossip for those inclined to such distractions, but the relevance of such disclosures to this particular discussion is nil. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a valid point. However, ones personality can reflect across other avenues outside of Wikipedia, as I'm sure you might agree. I think JC is a fine administrator but this issue, even though not related to an on-wiki issue, reflects negatively on his judgment which I must have full confidence in in order to support. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I give both you and Prodego my permission to express your concerns fully, as again, I assure you there was no intentional wrongdoing. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's interesting Theo, since you chastised me for comments made off-site on my RFA. Were you wrong there, or are you wrong here? Majorly talk 02:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Bringing up a grudge in an RfB: not classy. Please take this to someone's talk page instead. wadester16 02:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I daresay that it happens all the time, though its prevalence doesn't excuse it. —Animum (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Rj - I don't understand what you mean you say you verified the information provided above. Prodego didn't provide information. Sometimes I think that an oppose with 'will not say it here without permission' kicks up way more dust than necessary and puts the candidate on the spot to divulge off-wiki information. I guess that's the point. If that's true, why not just ask instead of making people pull teeth? Law type! snype? 02:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not being on IRC, I have no idea what - if anything - is so egregious about Mr. Colton's behavior therein to warrant these whispers of improper behavior. In your case, Majorly, another editor called attention to the existence of the Wikipedia Review comments, which was easy to review since the contents of that web site, unlike IRC, are open to the general public to ponder. In this case, unlike yours, no links are being provided to back up the problems that two of our editors insist to be troublesome. There are only hints of impropriety and no black-and-white presentations. Since Mr. Colton has given permission to his detractors to express themselves at greater depth, I suggest that we listen to what they have to say and judge this situation based on their input. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to be a legalistic bore, but even admins are bound by No. 5 in Administrators are accountable: "Conduct elsewhere incompatible with adminship (off-site attacking, etc)". While one's entire online presence is a personal matter, there is definitely a requirement for it not to be incompatible with the trust put in admins and the model they represent (let alone bureaucrats). Tony (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, so I just asked Julian, because it's sort of ridiculous that it's been presented as it has been, to let others guess at what may be the issue. Understandable, however, considering what the "issue" is, as people could not possibly assume it was something of less consequence than it really is. Julian's connection to IRC was breaking up considerably causing him to be disconnected. Having auto-reconnect and auto-join set for his own channel, he was flooding his channel with leaves and joins. IRC users know what I'm talking about. Julian considered the possibility that a particularly disruptive editor may be causing this and expressed this. Prodego assumed Julian was being malicious in an attempt to get this user, who is currently banned from the channel for unrelated disruptions, banned. Now, let me clarify the most important point in this entire situation. The channel in question is Julian's own channel. So, if he wanted someone banned, he could just op himself and do it. In that he even bothered to bring up his concerns, it showed he wanted other's opinions on the matter, because it was only a possibility he had considered. لennavecia 17:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not exactly correct. In short, what happened was a situation in which the most likely interpretation is an attempt to frame another user. The auto-connect/auto-rejoin part of Jennavencia's summary is not accurate, the connections were not made in such a manner that would be consistent with any sort of automatic action. There is no suitable alternative explanation except an attempt to defame or otherwise tarnish another's reputation, which leads me to question Juliancolton's maturity. And yes, the channel is Juliancolton's personal IRC channel. The a simplified sequence of what happened follows: 1) 3 users join the channel. Due to the way they do (many users, rapidly) it is likely they are malicious. 2) Juliancolton blocks these users from continuing 3) Juliancolton comments that these users are "probably" a certain other person 4) Checking, I discovered that these users were actually juliancolton himself. I can think of no way in which one can, without any indication, join an IRC channel on a web client (no autojoining) multiple times. Given the comment that this was "probably" someone else, the only plausible explanation I've seen or can imagine is malicious intent. Prodego talk 04:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yawn; lame. From all the hush-hush references to this event, I half expected it to be along the lines of sending a virus to certain users in the channel or something. This is petty, and it occurred in his channel. Don't use his channel anymore if you're so concerned. RfB is not the place for this. wadester16 04:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, indeed it was my client. All I can say is that I had no malicious intent, and it was a mere misunderstanding. That's your call if you choose not believe me. –Juliancolton | Talk 06:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like something clarified. Prodego, are you disregarding all of Julian's on-wiki work (FAs, GAs, work in AfD, etc., etc.) and responding solely to this one (IMO, trivial) incident? Because I think processes like these work best when looking at the candidates' actions as a whole. At least a more comprehensive view than one incident. Killiondude (talk) 07:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If anyone has a log of this chat, I'd like to see it. - Dank (push to talk) 11:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can provide logs of both this incident and a similar one which occurred in a different room and involved three IP addresses of which only one was Julian's, which would seem to make it impossible for Julian to have orchestrated the event himself, as Prodego seems to believe. However it is my understanding that it is generally not OK to post logs of IRC chats without the consent of the users involved. Is this an exception? -- Soap Talk/Contributions 02:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For the incident where you and Prodego were both present, I would think the first step would be for both of you to look at the same log and see if you still come to opposite conclusions. - Dank (push to talk) 02:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    At the time, I had figured Julian was just pulling a prank, trying to make us think the room was under attack by a botnet, just for the fun of it, since botnet attacks had been occurring with some regularity on other Wikipedia channels. This puzzled me because it really was out-of-chracter behavior for him. Some days later, though, a similar flood of joins occurred in which there were 3 different IP addresses mixed together, of which one was Julian's and two belonged to nobody I can recognize. (Freenode IRC masks the IP's of regular users; I only know what Julian's IP is because it sometimes shows up after an accidental disconnect.) I still don't really know what really happened, but it doesn't seem possible to me for Julian to be responsible. Prodego and I talked about this on IRC for awhile yesterday and we still disagree. To be fair, I think that Prodego's main reason for mistrust is that Julian seemed to want to blame the event on a certain other user, irregardless of whether Julian had been the one really responsible or not. Thus, I don't think anything that is said here will cause Prodego to change his mind. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 03:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Killiondude: I have extremely high standards for RfBs, especially for those users requesting cratship who have been active for significantly less time than I have. Prodego talk 19:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose His work at closing AfD s shows that he wants the necessary degree of discretion. Though I usually agree with his decision, that's not the key factor--that he tries to monopolize the process is the key factor. DGG (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand what "monopolize" means here, David. Is he closing AfDs early? - Dank (push to talk) 03:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded. How does one 'monopolize' AfD closures, and why would they? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    if one person out of the 950 or so active admins chooses to close one-third or so of the AfDs, I call that attempting to monopolize. The AfD process is not meant to be few people deciding them all. I am concerned because he might well choose to close most of the RfAs as well. No one person should take on himself that much authority at any key position at Wikipedia , especially the two crucial procedures of AfD & here. We depend on cooperation and letting others have an voice. It's not as if they were all hanging around an extra day because nobody else would bother. DGG (talk) 04:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Has anyone said, "Julian won't let me close any AfD's. That's not fair." Diffs would be welcome, DGG. Or are the others who close AfD's (not an area where I've done much, I'm a content geek) happy to have his work as keeping the backlogs low? As one of the 950 or so active admins, Julian is welcome to do my "share". I'm seriously asking, it is not an area where I've worked much, as you are one who seems to know a lot about it, DGG, I'm asking you for diffs of any complaints.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just my opinion of course, but to me that falls under the "Thank god someone is doing it." category. Afd is/was always backlogged and its great to see someone doing that much work there. As with Wehwalt he can definitely have my share. -Djsasso (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think DGG's larger point is well taken. Most of what an admin does involves judgement calls (should I protect for 1, 2,4 weeks? block for x time period? give more weight to this argument over that?) The more admins contributing the more the variance in these calls (which is good!) and it is probably not a good idea for one admin to dominate any one area. I think juliancolton is probably more interested in backlog reduction rather than monopolization but what DGG says is reasonable. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But as a grounds to oppose a RfB it is questionable. Wikipedia works this way. People step up to do things, improve the article on the Acme Widget Company, close AfD's, whatever. Julian stepped into a vacuum here, a situation where there was a need, and he did the work. In the absence of any diffs showing that this caused hard feelings, I have to assume his actions were welcome among those who close AfD's. And since DGG is an admin, all I can say is that if he feels Juliancolton is unfairly carrying too much of the load, he needs to lift that barge and tote that bale!--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't oppose based on this because I think the candidate's motivation is backlog reduction rather than an attempt at monopolization but I think it is important to note that DGG has specifically referred to a high number of early closures in his question (early closures are preemptive and make it hard for other admins to step up to the plate and excessive early closures actually discourage participation). You or I may not oppose for the same reason but the oppose is reasonable. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    DGG - if he is "monopolizing" AfDs, why not give him another set of tools that would take away from his time at AfD? If he is "monopolozing" AfDs, why not close some yourself and take away from his ability to close AfDs? If he is "monopolizing" AfDs and it causes a problem, why not perform a Deletion Review? There are many options, but none of these involve an oppose. Sheer amount of administrative actions is not a legitimate oppose. You seem to be arguing that he does his job too well. What a horrible thing! Ottava Rima (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not concerned because it's afd particularly--I am concerned when someone tried to run a great deal of any Wikipedia process mainly by himself. And the very worst place for this is at RfA because of the very far-reaching effect. DGG (talk) 04:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Then wouldn't various supports from Crats and Arbs above show that they do not think he will take over? And there are so many strong voices at RfA, I really doubt they would allow Julian to dominate. Plus, decisions are rarely made unilaterally, so how would this be a problem? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose I don't have any diffs, so don't bother asking, but too many comments that I've seen from Juliancolton have left me scratching my head. I'm not convinced that Julian has clue at a bureaucrat level. I would be supporting if this was an RFA, but this is a RFB. I have VERY HIGH standards for RFB. My oppose has nothing to do with age - I had no idea that Julian was not legally an adult in his country. SORRY! Royalbroil 04:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you at least find one or two? It would just help me understand your oppose better. Also, is there a specific area where he makes the comments that have left you scratching your head? iMatthew talk at 21:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Regretful oppose. Largely per the answers to the sections of question 8. I cannot claim to know how the process works on the candidate's end but the answers - along with a perusal of closure behavior at AfD - lead me to believe that the candidate demonstrates an occasionally cavalier attitude toward the closing of discussions. I understand that he has given what appears to be a rational answer to the questions, and I don't believe that there is any inherent problem with how he has been handling the closing of deletion debates, however I am not certain that sort of behavior is something I want to see applied to the far more delicate issue of closing a request for adminship. A fantastic administrator to be sure, but doesn't quite instill the amount of faith I need to support this request. Sorry. Shereth 05:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Reluctantly. I like this user a lot. He has generated a tremendous amount of high quality content and should be applauded for it. His admin log is highly impressive with respect to the effort he has put into maintaining the encyclopedia. There are few who are so dedicated to the project, which is why I find it difficult to oppose here. My rationale for opposing is twofold: (1) I have not been convinced by either the nom or the answers to the questions (particularly those posed by DGG) that this user has the adequate judgment to gauge consensus for promoting admins (the Friday RfC linked to above signed off by this user was also worrisome wrt judgment); and (2) I have been sufficiently dissatisfied by bureaucrat judgment to set a far higher bar than I ordinarily would at RfB. -- Samir 06:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Regretful oppose, due to concerns raised above. In all truth, I came here to support Julian but after reading the opposition's rational, I can not, in right mind, support him. –blurpeace (talk) 10:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose I can see that Juliancolton is a good admin who I have found to be polite but in the two major cases I have come across Juliancolton I have found that his reasoning is a bit flawed. He passed a GA for Tropical Storm Nana (2008) after I had suggested on the talk page that it had notability problems. The discussion on notability was then carried out after the article was passed rather than getting consensus first. On the other occassion I felt he AfD'd Mass rape in the Bosnian War when it should have been cleaned up. I felt his motivation was probably a battle with sockpuppets (annoying I will concede) rather than a clearly thought out case as to why the article should not exist. Polargeo (talk) 10:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Two mistakes, even if so, in how many thousand actions? Or are we seeing Balkan partisanship entering this RfB? Are the I-P people just outside (hopefully in separate enclosures)?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes but they are the only two cases I have personally been involved with Juliancolton on wikipedia enough to assess his actions. I thought his judgement was off on both occassions. Therefore I believe that he is not ready for even more responsibility. Please assume good faith and don't throw vague accusations at me in the hope of slurring my name. I came across the Balkan article in an AfD proposed by Juliancolton. I had never edited a Balkan article before and quite honestly I don't enjoy editing articles on mass rape but felt Juliancolton was being biased (maybe understandably so but still biased). Polargeo (talk) 12:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No slur intended, please see the word "Or" which began my second sentence. Did you seek DRV to address the perceived errors?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, "OR" makes it vague. No deletion review needed, result no consensus I moved the article myself to avoid another round of debate. I just have a question in my mind over his judgement. So admin YES, bureaucrat NO. I would like to feel that the judgement of a bureaucrat was more thoughtful and level. Polargeo (talk) 13:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I should point out, Polargo, that both the GA and FA criteria do not mention notability, which is a separate issue. Articles have been passed at FA that didn't meet notability criteria (rare, but it happens.) This isn't really a fault of Julian. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay thanks for the clarification on that. Anyway based on both cases I still feel that his judgement is off and he is not quite ready for the bureaucrat role. I also agree with the comments of DGG in the oppose above. This doesn't mean I think he is not a good admin in general. Polargeo (talk) 13:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Another note. If you read my interaction with Julian on Talk:Tropical_Storm_Nana_(2008)#Notability you will see that it is not really just a technicality of passing the GA I am at odds with. It is that I believe upholding Not the news takes wikipedia beyond a dumping ground for information. Taking fleeting tropical storms that don't make land to GA and even FA shows that Julian is fundamentally going against what I believe is valuable in the project. I am happy for the tropical cyclone people to clone articles and add a few weather forecasts in as secondary references to make them 'notable' but I would prefer not to have people with those inclinations at bureaucrat level with even more influence, even if only a bit. I hope Julian comes away from this line of work and concentrates on becoming an excellent admin and maybe I will vote for him in the future. Polargeo (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it a little hard to believe that an article dealing with a 2008 topic would qualify as "not the news" in 2009. It would seem to contradict the spirit of that idea completely. And you know that your argument is defeating itself and no crat would bother accepting your oppose now that you admit that you are simply opposed to the type of article he works on. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Trust you to wade in to this one. Probably haven't read up as per usual. Certainy from your comment haven't looked at all of the various points I raise. You pick on one single aspect you think you may be able to attack and try to kill my whole argument with it, without even looking in detail at the article. This fits into the rather trashy debating pattern I have come to expect from you Ottava. I love the way you presume to know what all crats think. I am looking forward to an even more mud slingy response, what will you come up with next? Polargeo (talk) 06:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine, no intent to badger, thanks for the explanation. I looked it over, and I'd say it is a close call, and that the AfD hawk who nominates only articles certain to be deleted isn't doing his job. Just like the loan officer who only makes successful loans (unlikely in this economy) is missing opportunities. I'd say there's a need to nominate the doubtful cases and let the community decide, and this was certainly a doubtful case, considering it had been deleted before.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It hadn't been deleted before and I just had a question on judgement throughout the process rather than just the actual nom. Polargeo (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose, reluctantly because I believe Julian is a fine editor and a decent admin, but the comments above raise too many questions for me to have absolute confidence in his judgement when deciding consensus in the borderline cases. A secondary concern is the impression given by the many positons he already holds - admin here and on Simple English Wikipedia, Simple English Wikiquote, and Commons - that he's perhaps spreading himself a bit too thinly. I can't think of another way to put this so I hope I can say it without causing offence to Julian, but I get the impression that he's levelling up. EyeSerenetalk 12:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If I may respond, you have my word that I don't view bureaucratship—or any userright, for that matter—as a level of power or a level-up. I'm simply offering to serve the project in a greater capacity. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your reply, and for understanding the tenor of my comment. I value your contributions highly; I've often seen you around (especially at GA with another of those damn hurricane articles!), and you've certainly proved yourself as an editor and an admin. As Hammersoft notes below though, you haven't been an admin for a year yet, and with your additional commitments to other projects I don't see how you'll have the time to devote to doing the job of a bureaucrat properly. You have many, if not most, of the qualities I'd like to see in a 'crat, but I suspect that the reason for some of the issues raised is that you haven't always taken (or been able to take) the time to examine an issue thoroughly before acting - and the consequences increase with increased authority. Beyond a certain point I believe racking up positions as you have (even though undoubtedly well-earned), is counter-productive, and performance inevitably suffers. If I accept your assurance that you're not trophy-hunting, I must still question your judgement in standing for RfB given the many other calls on your time. EyeSerenetalk 17:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I fully understand your concerns, so I'll try to explain a bit further. I consider myself a Wikimedian rather than a Wikipedian, and as such I edit nearly a dozen projects regularly. Despite this, I spend the majority of my time at enwiki, as I believe it's the project that needs my attention the most. As of yet I've not been stretched thin by all my responsibilities, and I have enough extra time to take on the position of bureaucratship, so I feel I'm suitable for the role in that regard. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Declares bureaucratship is nothing more than a few extra buttons [6], which misses the serious nature of the position. Claims we don't allow people to just write "oppose" on RfA [7] (when did that become policy????), and even further 9 of 10 times is left confused by "oppose per" statements [8]. I'm left feeling Julian would be promote happy. I think adminship standards are ridiculously high, but neither should the flood gates be opened. Can't figure out if FA/GA/DYK editing is an important issue for RfA or not [9] (take a stand?). I also can't shake the feeling that Julian's a trophy hunter. Less than a year experience as an administrator (10 months). Also per oppose 2, Owenx. Also per oppose 3, Peter Damian's comments on cut-paste-modify article creations. It's not the plagiarism that's an issue (it is a PD source). It's the lack of creating an actual encyclopedia article, and just regurgitating a weather report in slightly modified form. Also per oppose 14, DGG. I'm fearful of him monopolizing the RfA process and doing so in a way akin to his work at AfD, which flows into another reason to oppose; his answers to the questions 8a-e, especially 'c'. Julian is learning, which is a good sign, but considerable more time is needed. I recommend waiting a year before trying for bureaucrat again. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "(when did that become policy????)" WP:CONSENSUS has been a policy for a very long time. RfA is not a vote, which means that those who only make bare statements have little weight. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say they don't carry little weight. Julian claims it is not allowed. We do allow people to oppose without giving any reason. There's no policy stating that oppose votes without rationale get removed. In fact, we have a vote right here on this RfB where an opposer has ample reason not to discuss the rationale for the oppose. It might carry not carry much weight, but it IS allowed. Julian is flat wrong on this. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose, sorry. After reading this RfB and reviewing the candidate's statements here I am not convinced the candidate is ready for this role. Jonathunder (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to badger, but can you explain which statements leave you concerned, and possible why they concern you? It just helps for those reading the opposes to determine where they will place their !vote. iMatthew talk at 21:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose I do not see really strong evidence of skill and good character. Very productive, and nothing huge to complain about, but bureaucratship requires something more in my eyes. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Also per Mentifisto #59 below. UAA may be necessary, but probably 90% of what happens there is BITEing newcomers. It seems Juliancolton is one of the guilty. --Apoc2400 (talk) 08:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you mind explaining what "something more" would be for you? I don't see how Julian can work any more in the bureaucratic areas he works in without burning out completely. iMatthew talk at 21:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose - From my experience Juliancolton is an excellent admin, but I don't think he is ready to be a 'crat. I am also troubled by the issues raised by DGG in Q8. The combination of ignoring process to close many "tough" AfDs early combined with the sheer number JC closes gives me the distinct impression that he feels his own judgment is best. It doesn't help that he almost never explains his rationale; often it is not at all clear to the average user why a given AfD is a keep/delete when numbers are close. No offense is attended, and my impressions may well be wrong, but I am uneasy enough with JC to oppose. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't ignore process or consensus, and I wish participants here would understand that. I don't feel my judgment is perfect; I just try to help out by closing the AfDs that are left lying around. You do have a point, however, in that I should explain my rationales better, and I will do so in the future. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    By "ignoring process" I meant closing AfDs early. I do realise it is very common practice to start closing them at ~6.5 days, but I the guidelines do say "discussions are expected to run for at least seven days." The fact that most people choose to ignore it doesn't make it right to do so, IMO. Yes the extra hours are unlikely to make a difference in 95%+, but that is equally an argument to let them run their course as it is to allow them to close early. At bare minimum, I do not feel that "close calls" should be closed early. To me regularly closing close calls early, gives the impression that you "know best" and are concerned an admin who happens to be around at the 7 day mark might not agree. This is probably not your actual motive, but it is the impression this gives. Assuming your rationale is to keep a backlog form forming, that can be accomplished just as easily by closing at 7 days + 1 hour as 6 days + 12 hours or 6 days + 20 hours. To be clear, I am not saying that you actually believe your judgment superior to others - I can't know your actual feelings and wouldn't try to guess them. What I am saying is that is the impression I get form your actions. My opposing based on my impression of your behavior is no different than someone supporting based on their impressions. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that you don't like some of Julian's AfD closing practices, but I can't see how AfD closures have anything to do with his abilities to close RfAs, approve bots, or rename users. Can you please explain some more? iMatthew talk at 21:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Flagging bots is extremely no big deal, as BAG does the actual approving in all cases, as far as I know. Renaming users requires a slight bit of judgment, but is mostly not a big deal as well. However, how a user closes AfDs if the best available evidence of how he/she is likely to close RfAs. Thus opposing based on AfD habits is perfectly legitimate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood, however in that case, this thread may interest you. iMatthew talk at 00:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose. I've only been aware of Juliancolton as an editor here for a month or two, and while I've seen some good work in that time I've also been generally concerned about his judgment on several occasions. I'm not going to bother with diffs since this is my subjective opinion, but this impression is strong enough (and has developed over time rather than being based on one or two incidents) to make me oppose here (I rarely participate at this page in either RfBs or RfAs). Additionally, I've seen Julian at AfD (I close them from time to time) and like DGG have been concerned by the sheer quantity of his closes, and the tendency to provide no (or very little) explanation of possibly controversial closes. I'm more interested in quality rather than quantity in AfD closes, and I think all but the most obvious closes deserve some level of explanation as to rationale. Julian seems to feel differently (though I note and appreciate the comments that he will work to improve on this), and I can imagine this issue carrying over to closures of AfDs as a bureaucrat. The preceding comment by JC essentially reinforces my opposition, particularly when he notes "I don't ignore process or consensus, and I wish participants here would understand that." Maybe that's true, but it's a topic open for debate, and I find it rather unseemly that Julian would essentially say "please understand that I do a good job because that is a fact" here on his RfB. The response to OwenX's oppose above is similar, as Julian justifies this close (which itself had the extremely weak, begging-the-question, rationale of "the arguments for deletion are stronger than those for keeping the page") by saying "consensus seemed clear to me." That's unsurprising, but presumably it was not clear to others, and I see a pattern here where Julian seems to justify his decisions by essentially saying "the decision was justified." Given that, I don't think it appropriate to elevate him to the 'crat position. I don't enjoy opposing folks here, but I do think it was necessary in this case, and I would conclude by saying that Julian clearly does a lot of great work here (more so than most of us) and I think it's important to acknowledge that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose I've been trying to decide if I want to oppose or if I really care enough to participate in this. I cannot ignore the maturity issues, compounded by Julian's assertions that skepticism of the judgment of teenage admins is tantamount to racial discrimination. As I previously stated, I think such comparisons (akin to two editors I've witnessed claiming perceived unfair attacks were "gang rape") are evidence that these folks clearly do not understand what these wholly unpleasant things mean. Further, Julian's specialized niche in articles limits his perceptions of greater article constructing issues. I completely respect the articles Julian has constructed, but without branching out and staying in a topic that may never get put on the main page and may never be confronted by content disputes does not offer the kind of forethought and understanding I would like to see in a bureaucrat. Lastly, although I could thrust both arms in a meat grinder and still count on one hand the number of other editors I admire and defer to, Julian is not one of them. That's not necessarily bad (apparently nearly statistically impossible, but not his fault), but that's my ounce of pretention. I agree with Bigtimepeace. I dislike opposing, but these things are worrying me. --Moni3 (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose—Good work and unusually mature for his age, but 14 years old is just too young for this position. Sorry. Also Moni's concerns. Tony (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I am indeed older than 14. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I can confirm that he is indeed older than 14 (based on his own consistent word from the past several months). I'm not expecting that your actual viewpoint, which is valid and also based on other factors, will be swayed—this is merely a clarification for the sake of everybody. Jamie☆S93 00:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Tony, are you aware we fairly recently promoted a candidate who claims to be 14 as well? I haven't seen a single issue with them as a bureaucrat. Could you perhaps explain why you believe 14 is too young, despite your comment he is unusually mature for his age? This seems to contradict. Majorly talk 16:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Seasoned opposers tend to hint or talk in generalities, rather than saying something blunt like "You fail the the duck test, you approach some problems the way teenagers tend to approach them, and that worries me". This is a significant minority opinion in this RfB, it's not off-the-wall and I doubt the crats will discount it. - Dank (push to talk) 17:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Julian could have nipped this in the bud by telling us in the first place how old he is. I have to ask why he said his age-range is 14–17, if he's not 14 years old. It's all a little coy, when what we want from a crat is crystal-clear judgement and expression in potentially complex situations. Majorly, for a 15-year-old to be sufficiently mature to handle the complex situations s/he needs to deal with at WP would be very, very rare. A social genius, in fact. I can only voice my concerns that promotion to crat is a special thing, and I wonder what the rush is for such a young person, when there are so many ways in which he is already helping the project and acquiring expertise. I'd put it off for a year or two; but that's just my opinion. Tony (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd far rather fail an RfB than compromise my security. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose I've debated off an on since this RfB started whether I wanted to chime in or not, and finally decided that I might as well. My main reason to oppose is per Roux (talk · contribs) as I totally agree with his/her point that "I do feel very strongly that WMF should not be granting extra rights to those who are not of the age of majority in the jurisdictions in which WMF operates". Yes, this is ageist, but it is my opinion and it is no less valid than any other opinion voiced here. The concerns raised by EyeSerene are also valid to me as I also get the impressive that you're trying to take on too much and spread yourself too thin. I also agree with DGG in that the monopolization of AfD bothers me, as well. Your age wasn't enough to oppose off the bat, but coupled with the other concerns expressed here, leads me to this conclusion. Best, t'shaélchat 01:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose because of the candidate's lack of maturity, which has little to do with age, and his AfD history. Chidel (talk) 08:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Woah, woah, what!? Julian hasn't been opposed at all because of "lack of maturity." He has, though, received a few age-related opposes. Can you find 3-5 diffs of him being immature? I wouldn't be able to, personally. iMatthew talk at 11:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, no offense to you, but you have less than 300 edits, and I just don't think you fully understand adminship, or bureaucratship. Your last only two votes in RfAs are "per someone" (see [10] and [11]). This vote seems to be a misinterpretation of the votes above. iMatthew talk at 11:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    iMatthew, it's really starting to look like you're badgering the opposes, which reflects poorly on you but more importantly could have quite the opposite effect on Julian's candidacy than you intend. The user is not an IP nor is apparently a sock or SPA, and is therefore as entitled to make their opinion known as you or I. → ROUX ₪ 11:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like it, huh? It's really painful, however, to sit back and watch the RfB tanks for some silly bandwagon opposes, and some really silly rationales. I'm not badgering anybody, but if RfA/B is indeed a discussion, I'd like to discuss some of the votes I disagree with. iMatthew talk at 11:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not the arbiter of what is and is not an acceptable oppose rationale here. And it is not so much that you are attempting to discuss, it is the manner and frequency with which you are ...aggressively... pursuing the opposes that is a problem. → ROUX ₪ 11:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) iMatthew, I can only echo Roux. Each of the participants are entitled to their opinion, and to write them off as "silly" is not in particularly good spirit. I'm sure the closing bureaucrat will give every remark proper weighting. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant, in my opinion. I guess this is supposed to be a vote, and not a discussion. I'll stay away from the duration of the RfA in that case. iMatthew talk at 12:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Not right for role. Mike R (talk) 12:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Care to elaborate? Without reasoning I suspect your 'vote' (couldn't think of a better word) will stand for little. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  14:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, but you could also point this out to quite a lot of the support voters too. Polargeo (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose. Unlike DGG, my concern is not the number of AfD Juliancolton closes, as such - indeed, he should be complimented for doing a lot of difficult admin work that tends to get one yelled at rather often. My concern is that he admits to closing many AfDs out of process, i.e., too early (even if only by hours or minutes). I feel that this is a serious problem, because this leads to a situation where most AfDs are closed by a minority of admins who are willing to ignoring proper procedure, and few if any (WP:AFD/Old is most often empty or almost empty at the time it is refreshed by a bot) are closed by the majority of admins who do observe process. This is not desirable. This pattern of conduct, and his answer to DGG's question 8b (a mere reference to WP:IAR) may be indicative of a somewhat cavalier attitude to process that I believe would be most inappropriate in a bureaucrat – I am not keen to see admin candidates promoted "per IAR".  Sandstein  14:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    RfAs have a more definitive time limit than AfDs; AfDs are recommended to stay open for seven days, though they can be closed earlier if consensus is clear. Moreover, I rarely close AfDs earlier than a few hours premature. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    AfDs do have a very clear minimum time limit. The deletion policy, at Wikipedia:DP#Deletion discussion, states that "The discussion lasts at least seven days". This is no mere recommendation. Also, nowhere does the policy say that "they can be closed earlier if consensus is clear". Have you ever even read the deletion policy?  Sandstein  14:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that I've continued the discussion on Sandstein's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose - Julian is obviously a very valuable contributor and administrator. However, I have concerns about age (sorry, but I do) and about issues raised above of closing non-concensus AfDs as delete. Evaluating concensus accurately is a particularly important skill for a bureaucrat. LadyofShalott 15:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose JC is a fine fellow, one for whom I have a good deal of affection, who is a good contributor and valuable member of project, and with whose views I am often in sympathy. I am concerned, though, per DGG, et al., that he not infrequently fails properly to interpret consensus-based discussions (although his answers to most of the "how would you close?" questions strike me as correct). I am not at all sure that I would not again support him were he a candidate at RfA (I didn't !vote in RfA 3, being disinclined to participate in discussions of which the outcome is certain, unless I've something unsaid to note, but I thought it clear that JC's sysop[p]ing should be a net positive), but, for various reasons, not least the difficulty of the community's readily reversing bureaucrat error, we apply a more rigorous standard at RfB; on a full consideration of the candidate's record, then, I cannot conclude with sufficient confidence that the net effect on the project of his being promoted should be positive, noting once more that I regret that I've to reach that conclusion and that it is one that I should be pleased to reconsider in the future. Joe (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. I have been thinking about this one for a while. I believe the age concerns are absurd and boil down to being nothing more than irrelevant canards, and they bear no influence in my opinion. However, what really concerns me here is the raw volume of contributions, and the speed at which they are done. Adding more hats to JC's head—and specially the bureaucrat bit, the most exhausting hat in Wiki outside the arbitration committee—would probably result in premature burnout. Additionally, I have some concerns about stubbornness, from my interactions with him in WikiProject Tropical Cyclones. Finally, JC has been an admin less than a year; I consider a one-year adminship tenure a prerequisite for bureaucratship. So regretfully, I have to oppose this nomination. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I often use automated or semi-automated scripts, which results in a high quantity of edits. This isn't a bad thing in my view; we have millions of articles that require some sort of cleanup, so I think automated editing is an absolute necessity if we want to preform said cleanup efficiently. I don't particularly care about my editcount, however, so you can be assured I don't suffer editcountitis. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 22:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that scripts can inflate editcounts absurdly, so that's not a concern. You're spread out too thinly already. Adding the stress of bureaucratship would just spread you out even thinner and burn you out—that's my concern. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose this time round because of: invocation of IAR without compelling reason (per Sandstein), lack of broader experience (per Moni3), relatively short admin track record (per Titoxd and others). JN466 23:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As I pointed out on Moni3's talk page, Julian has helped me in various pages that I have worked on, which include literature, biography, history, and theatre. He was a great help on and off Wiki on Christopher Smart's asylum confinement, for example. He has obviously spent time on both the weather and roads wikiprojects, but he does work on MilHistory articles also. I am unsure as to why people have only focused on the articles that he managed to get through FA instead of the full body of contributions that he has made. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but it's so much different when the article's primary author is the focus of complaint or what the primary author has produced is called into question. Helping out is nice, but unless the work being called into question is the product of hours, weeks, or months of Juliancolton's time, effort, money, intelligence, reading comprehension and writing skills, he's just patiently explaining Wikipedia policy to someone who may not understand. He can disengage at any time, and the article's content is no reflection on him. How likely is it that someone will announce on a tropical storm article page, "Bullshit, Sunny Jim. Your sources are awful and you can't read them anyway. This article is full of errors and your POV is beaming out of the article like the morning sun." But, you know, four or five talk page archives of that. ANI threads, RfCs, dispute resolution, mediation, ArbCom. There are articles I might be very tempted to write except for the time and effort it might take just to get through the talk pages. Months and months of talk pages. My point in my oppose is that I want a bureaucrat who knows what it's like to go through that. --Moni3 (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Moni, I was involved along side of JC in a content dispute that split the weather project. Hurricane Hink wanted to have three GAs deleted and merged into a list about storms for that year instead. The content dispute lasted for at least two months and there are hints of it at another page even now. It deals with Verification, Notability, and other problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I did look at Julian's mainspace contributions, which showed that his top 100 articles were practically all weather- or road-related. I respect your judgement, but I respect Moni3's judgment too, and I don't have the benefit of a history of personal interaction with Julian, or much observation of him that I could call upon ... all of which is making this rather difficult. I am looking for my zip now, so I can neatly divide myself in two halves. ;) This RfB will still stay open for a good few days; let me think about it, I'll keep watching the page. It has not escaped my notice that Julian has many sensible people speaking up for him. JN466 02:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You mentioned a concern that Julian has not gotten into any controversial issues regarding his articles and maintained a cool head throughout, so let me post what Julian brought up on Moni3's talk page: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tropical Storm Erick (2007), Wikipedia:Featured article review/Tropical Storm Erick (2007)/archive1, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropical Storm Erick (2007), and Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive31#Notability.2C_etc. NW (Talk) 02:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose: I do not believe that any minor has the maturity, knowledge or experience necessary for cratship. Furthermore, JC has been an admin for less than a year. I must therefore regretfully oppose. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose:More experience needed. Lots of sheep voting.yousaf465
    commented — Ched :  ?  23:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    replied.Taking my comments back.yousaf465
  37. Oppose:Very regretfully, clearly the editor is good-hearted and a better than average admin. But a crat should be someone who can give convincing explanations for their decisions in a close "vote". I agree with Wisdom89, that doesn't seem to be Julian's strength. His answer to 12 is about as general as it could possibly be, and yet the question goes to the heart of how he would weigh arguments. I would like to see him take up his promise to provide better explanations at AfD before becoming a bureaucrat. Dean B (talk) 07:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose per Q.15 --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but could you please explain what's wrong with Q15? The Foundation has no problem with giving adminship or buraucratship to minors, and it seems I'm almost encouraged to lie about my age. –Juliancolton | Talk 12:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am with Julian in the sense that I have no problem with him/her being under 18. I hate the American term 'minor', always have. However, I would also uphold the right of an individual to oppose based on their feelings about age and being a bureaucrat. This is an individual vote on an individual's opinions not a follow the Foundation rulebook. Although this reminds me a bit of Doogie Howser, M.D.. Polargeo (talk) 13:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That you are responding to criticism about your age by suggesting it's 'almost' an incentive to lie pretty much demonstrates the problem of maturity. Sorry if that's a bit catch 22 - but it's not great thinking on your part. Personally, I think the foundation are wrong entrusting some of the management of an encyclopaedia to minors. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Too young for such powers and authority. I won't make further comment as that could sound patronising. I am sorry Julian, but there is nothing you can do to overcome this, except wait. Giano (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was certain that Wikipedia was trying to denounce the aura of authority surrounding admins and bureaucrats. Guess not.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 13:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The "aura of authority" that you are speaking of relates to admins' opinions in content disputes, on noticeboards, and so forth. While their opinions are not weighted any more than other users, administrators are given wide leeway to interpret and implement applicable policy through blocks, deletions, and protections. Bureaucrats can have a far greater impact even than administrators as they must determine whether there is consensus to promote users in extremely close RfAs and RfBs. For better or for worse, the promotion of any user to sysop or crat can have a tremendous impact on the entire project. Since admins and crats are allowed, even encouraged, to use their judgment to implement policies, this does translate to some form of authority; at some point in time, they will be asked to make a decision of which option to choose in closely contested arguments. As with any position, that authority (whether it is merely implied or not) comes with the responsibility to use your user rights wisely and fairly. I believe Giano is saying that he does not think that Julian is old enough to be able to fill the role of a bureaucrat well, because the amount of responsibility placed on bureaucrats is very great. J.delanoygabsadds 15:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand great amounts of responsibility, but I don't think this responsibility translates into a great amount of authority. Thanks for clearing up though.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 16:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DEAL went out the window in early 2007, we might as well mark it as historical. (My theory is that admins will finish up standing for a fixed term and organising into parties.)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ehm, that links to Jimbo's statement on adminship. This here is a request for bureaucratship — possibly less small of a deal. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but Jimbo noted a few days ago that bureaucrat is a "pretty dull technical position". –Juliancolton | Talk 18:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally am glad that there is no rule on the age of an admin or bureaucrat. that way everyone can say it as they see it and have the freedom to do so. If you wish to turn this into an autocracy where Jimbo or the 'Foundation' decide everything then I think that further devalues wikipedia and whats more gives me more reason to oppose this RfB Polargeo (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. For several reasons, including inconsistency in closing Afds; per comments by Joopercoopers above; and not least, due to the excessive buttonholing and defensive campaigning in all the opposes, above, which I find completely inappropriate. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose:. Still maturing. No fixed opinions about things. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    Comment Thank you for sharing your growing pains, but what's your view of Julian?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That was completely unnecessary. Shereth 23:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree. Those are rather conclusory statements, with little to nothing to back them up, he needs to back them up if he wants to be treated seriously.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are talking to me, I would respectfully point out to you that you should treat all users comments with respect, my oppose was well considered after 4 days of watching the thread develop and reading the comments and talk. My oppose was in direct response to Julians answer to question 4, where he himself says that his opinions are fluid and still developing. Another of my unwritten rules is that nominees for Bureaucratship should have at least two years of exemplary service as an Administrator. My oppose is further encouraged by the (Imo) aggressive interrogation of the opposes by the friends of the nominee. I also don't oppose reluctantly, I oppose with confidence.(Off2riorob (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  42. Oppose per OwenX. Everyking (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose User is very uptight and a stickler. We don't need more of these running around. Shimdidly (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note for bureaucrat: user has just 183 edits as time of writing. Their previous edit prior to this RFB was 16 March, before that two on 22 October last year. Majorly talk 01:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Strange. I opposed above because I believe Juliancolton is not enough of a stickler (a trait that I value in bureaucrats).  Sandstein  07:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose reluctantly, per DGG, Royalbroil and others. RFB candidates should be above suspicion on any grounds, and there are issues raised that don't go away. Are we actually short of bureaucrats at the moment? Johnbod (talk) 02:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A question, if I may, just to make your !vote clear for me: You ask whether we are short of crats at the moment - could you elaborate whether this is relevant to your !vote? Would you !vote otherwise if we were? (Imho 14 active crats for 10 million users is too few but then again "short of" is a subjective phrase.) Regards SoWhy 06:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably not, unless we had severe backlogs etc, which I've not seen suggested. We used to have only 2 actives, with far more admin candidacies etc. Johnbod (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. I'm impressed by his devotion to the project and the amount of work he obviously puts into it. In fact, I recently supported his adminship at Commons. But I do believe that 'crats should ideally be drawn from our most experienced admins. He's had the mop for less than 10 months, and I just don't think that's long enough. As he himself acknowledges in Q4, his views are becoming more tempered as he is gaining more experience as an admin. Experience is a valuable teacher and I'd be happy to support him for 'crat later on, but not just yet. Very sorry, Julian.  JGHowes  talk 13:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose Julian called the Davemeistermoab RFA close "commendable". I disagree. I also disagree that b-ship is just a "few extra button" FWIW... Auntie E (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)(Editing to add) Also believe the candidate doesn't have the experience or maturity for bureaucratship. Auntie E (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So in other words, you're opposing because Julian is happy that someone he nominated for adminship passed in a close RfA? J.delanoygabsadds 20:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll strike that, although I don't find the close within the acceptable parameters at all for a pass, I don't think I could expect the nom to dis a controversial close in his own favor in public, although still the episode doesn't leave me with warm fuzzies. But actually I have other reasons I've added. Auntie E (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I must say that I, too, read JC's comment as an endorsement of the thinking set forth in the close, not just as a celebration of the result, for which no one would fault him, or a generic appreciation for a bureaucrat's making a thoughtful close in a contentious discussion, whatever the outcome (that reading may be much too broad, and I am sure that someone will ask Julian how, were he uninvolved, he would have closed the instant RfA, such that any confusion should be resolved). The major concern of many of those opposing is that the candidate too often misreads consensus (unintentionally, to be sure), and his apparent agreement with an RfA result in which the closer substituted his judgment for that community is not unworthy of note (and, to my mind, at least a bit problematic). Joe (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't call it 'commendable', controversial would be more accurate. I think it would've been more 'crat-like' for juliancolton to not have commented at all on an obviously controversial closure especially where he is the nominator. Still, one swallow does not a summer make (and he's not a crat yet so doesn't have to act like one)....! (Disclosure: I !voted for Dave and am sure he'll make a good admin - just not sure if that's the consensus.)--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 00:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I voted to support JC and to oppose Dave. I think it would have been wiser for Julian to avoid comment on that right now, unless he has totally given up on this RfB. First of all, you avoid controversy during Hell Week. Second of all, I think Dan's closure that way has touched a lot of raw nerves. Just smarter to say nothing.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Regrettably Oppose. I find that if a user closes XfD inconsistently, that is a precursor to something which makes a bigger deal (such as promoting an admin). And constantly badgering opposers leaves a lot to be desired. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. I think this candidacy is premature, the candidate needs to have more experience (in life as well as in the ways of the wiki). Also a number of issues have been raised by other opposers, which I won't list in detail. Without prejudice to deciding to support at a later date. ++Lar: t/c 03:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    By what do you mean that he 'needs to have more experience in life'? — neuro(talk) 10:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought it's clear enough. But see (for example) RDH's oppose, 2 below me. Among others. ++Lar: t/c 16:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose Reluctant change, but my feelings are this is just not the right time yet...Modernist (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose. Sorry to be an unfriendly geezer. Age does not always impart wisdom nor is it an absolute measure of maturity (just lookie at me for instance;), but age does generally improve judgment. This is one reason why one must be of legal age to sit on the ArbCom, WMF board or any post where sound judgment is paramount. Besides, Wikipedia already has a bad reputation for being run by Space Age Whiz Kids.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 08:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure but I think those positions - ArbCom at leasts - have an age requirement due to legal reasons to do with access to the checkuser tool, surely one does not suddenly procure sound judgement overnight by virtue of passing a particular birthday? Guest9999 (talk) 09:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WMF and ArbCom have an age requirement due to legal requirements. After all, minors cannot be held legally accountable. —Dark talk 11:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose. Odd really, because I have no problems particularly with Julian's contributions. I notice some editors' contributions and they always seem rational, insightful, and well explained - I notice Julian around and he seems to make fine decisions, but he's not a user who I would particularly sit up and take notice of. I think bureaucrats should have that something extra I'm afraid. Sorry. Quantpole (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose. I'm unconvinced by the age-related concerns, as in my experience Juliancolton contributes with considerable maturity, even under pressure. However, perceptions are important when editors are asking to be entrusted with additional tools. In this case enthusiasm to help the project is perceived by some as (perhaps youth-related) impatience/eagerness. This could easily be addressed by waiting six months or so. Indeed it would be far better in my view to obtain bureaucratship with a ringing endorsement from the community, rather than through a possible appointment here, when many editors in good standing have expressed some hesitation. Geometry guy 17:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose - sorry, but the lack of consistency in regards to your views on the importance of content contribution in regards to RfA just killed it for me. We just had a controversial close on this very issue, stating on one hand that it has some importance to judge the understanding of core policies while having spent the whole RfA and then the aftermath minimizing the importance of your nominees percieved flaws in precisely this area strikes me as someone who wants to be everything to everyone. MLauba (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I take everything on a case-by-case basis, so my opinion often differs. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My point exactly. The lack of guiding philosophy is what just swung me over. Either understanding the core content policies is important, or it isn't. From there, I'd expect case-by-case tempering of that factor. Not the other way around. MLauba (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose. The user's comments make me believe that he has a more expansive view of how and when Bureaucrats should exercise discretion than I am comfortable with. Dragons flight (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose I agree with Dragons flight and get the same impression. Great admin but I'm not comfortable with (what I perceive) to be sort of an activist bureaucratic atitude. RxS (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose Nothing personal, Julian, I just don't believe that anyone who has only been an admin for a few months (raised to the purple, so to speak, on September 27, 2008) has been an admin long enough to develop the record I think needed to support this kind of promotion.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. +O People have said Julian is "an excellent admin", but I see those comments as meaning "stamped from the generic admin mould." Wikipedia oh so desperately needs admins who act like human beings, who don't blindly follow the mediocre herd of admin (note the emphasis) consensus, and who don't resort to the Adminly VoiceTM. Julian is not one to lead us (by example) away from mediocrity. Sorry. Ling.Nut (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Break from medocrity? Here is what happens when a crat tries to "break the mold". An eighty-five-thousand-byte mess. The same thing (or worse) is true whenever an admin does what he feels is right, ignoring all rules. (I make no judgment as to the merits of either of those examples; I am merely pointing out what happens when anyone tries something like that.) No, the community has been very clear about what they expect from us. They want mediocre admins and crats, and that is what increasingly what they will get. J.delanoygabsadds 03:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The community doesn't want mediocre admins and crats; they want admins and crats who listen to them. I don't always agree with Juliancoulton, but I'm supporting him because I believe he will listen to the community. AdjustShift (talk) 08:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose. I'll echo both User:DGG and User:Sandstein's concerns on the AfD closures, and add one of my own: No one who admits to being under the age of majority in either their own country or Wikipedia's home jurisdiction should be asked to perform administrative duties. Note that this objection is separate from the simple maturity arguments (on which I take no position) but really has to do more with working conditions for minors. It is not prudent of the community to ask self-admitted minors to take on tasks of combatting libel, copyright violation, obscenity and profanity, and threats of various kinds. The mere act of allowing minors to self-select for such roles could place the project and foundation in an unfortunate legal or public relations situations. Jclemens (talk) 05:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose. This has nothing to do with ageism (as that's why I initially hesitated), and I think it's unfortunate that people should hold such inherent prejudices without necessarily looking at what's actual, but per MLauba (just the very premise of commenting on the close of one's nominee favourably) and the fact that he thinks UAA is necessary (being so bitey to new users is?) as it pertains to the relevant work. -- Mentifisto 05:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd just like to clarify a few things (not badgering; please don't view it as such). 1) I've stated numerous times that I would have closed Davemeistermoab's RfA different had I been the closing bureaucrat. 2) UAA is absolutely necessary. If you don't like it, I'm sorry, but that's not an issue for this RfB. Thank you. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's how you handle and interact with UAA that's worrying ultimately, and not whether it's truly 'absolutely' necessary (what in this world is indispensable?) or whether I don't like it. I also thought of bringing this up here since bureaucrats deal with usernames. -- Mentifisto 07:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, UAA is unfriendly. But unnecessary? How did you come to that conclusion? — neuro(talk) 10:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's largely redundant. A huge majority of the reports are anything but blatant violations and most people seem to report usernames that are personally offensive. Surely, it isn't as necessary as AIV. -- Mentifisto 00:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose Julian, I've waited until the last minute for this because I really didn't know how I was going to !vote. Looking at the current tally, I don't suppose this makes much difference, and that is okay, because there's only a few niggling things that are stopping me from supporting. It's odd, because I always thought that if and when you had an RfB, I would wholeheartedly support, but after a long consideration I just don't feel comfortable enough to do so. It isn't a decision I've come to lightly; I regard you as a good friend, an excellent administrator, and an excellent editor. Every single interaction I've seen you involved in, you've been polite, civil, respectful, you don't rush into decisions (except perhaps some AfD closures!), you can hold your own when you believe in something, and for your age, highly intelligent. I've come to you a few times for advice re admin-related matters, even though I'm almost twice your age and became an admin a few months before you. You do your fair share of admin work, and a lot of other admins's share of work, too – mine included if I'm being honest; however, after saying all that, I don't think that you should be a bureaucrat yet. Yeah, it's just a couple more buttons, and there's not that much more you'll be doing, but what you will be doing and the decisions you'll be making are IMO far more important than those of an administrator, and I think it would be better for our crats to be of majority age. The other thing goes back to my point about doing more than your fair share of admin work, you're active in many many places, both on Wikipedia and three other sister projects. While I don't have a problem, per se, with this, because you seem to be coping, I think adding Crat to your CV would be spreading you a little too thin. We've seen it a few times when crats stop becoming editors and admins, and I think it would be a loss if that happened in your case. I was going to put this in the Neutral section, but there's no point being indecisive and wishy-washy about it when I've decided not to support. I wish it was a support, but right now I like the idea of you as an admin more than I do you as a crat. I'm sorry. Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose User is very industrious and helpful but still a child. More importantly, DGG brought up some valid concerns about JC's hasty, high-volume approach to closing AfDs. I am concerned this would translate into an inability to thoughtfully close RfAs. I would, on the other hand, trust JC with other Bureaucractic duties (re-name users, etc.)--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, have you considered he's never been advised about concerns over the high volume closures before? Either on his talk page or admin review. It sucks that the community was happy to have him expending all that energy to do a thankless job keeping down backlogs in that key area, only to have it held against him now. I've found julian to be very responsive to community concerns, but he's not psychic! No way would he rush to close RfAs, theres no similar preasure to AfDs and the community has now made its desire for thoughtfull closures known. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The ideal 'crat would be naturally inclined toward thoughtfully explaining his/her actions and wouldn't need to be told that people want him to be thoughtful. Funny username, btw.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose - It isn't "ageism" to say that I believe it's in the best interest of Wikipedia to have people in positions of trust who are legally of age. Yes, plenty of teenagers are more mature than my 30-something coworkers, but that isn't the point. Also, I'm not thrilled with the notion on the talk page that Juliancolton raised about only working with changing usernames and not handling RFA closures. There's no such thing as a partial bureaucrat - there is a substantial risk if the tools were ever misused - a rogue bureaucrat could potentially wreak havoc on the server and so we shouldn't be handing out this position lightly or to someone who is only partially trusted. --B (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is entirely optional, but could you clarify partially trusted? JC is a highly trusted user. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 00:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, I hope you don't mind if I reply, if you want a reply from this User at such a late date I would suggest a message on his talk page. He is clearly refering to the often used comment that some people like to see a nominee that is fully capable and not one who says he will at first take partial aspects of the responsibilities of the post and learn as they go along, JC stated that at first he would not close RFA's. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    The problem is that he is saying on the talk page words to the effect of, vote for me even though you don't trust me to close RFAs because I'm not going to close RFAs. Well, I don't agree with that contention. If we're going to give you the technical ability to close RFAs, we darned well better trust you not to incorrectly use that ability. --UserB (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose. The position of bureaucrat, I should think, is properly regarded as one of very significant responsibility for the community as a whole. IMO, this promising admin needs more time to develop further and more opportunity to demonstrate long-term stability and a keener depth of insight into the kinds of issues that bureaucrats are regularly expected to confront. Neither Julian's record as admin to date nor his responses to questions presented above on this page, IMO, reflect the level of depth of insight that bureaucrats need possess in order to function effectively in that capacity. I'm not saying Julian isn't capable of possessing these, but IMO an appropriate level of long-term competence and insight into the issues simply hasn't been adequately demonstrated to the community to date. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ..... I should add that I'm also somewhat taken aback by Julian's repeated lobbying in response to users who elect to "oppose"-- totally inappropriate politicking IMO. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose I like JC, a nice guy, and a good admin but I have never really found any of his arguments at RFA's particularly persuasive, they allways seemed to me a lot of edits and not a lot of clarity. That is rather subjective I know, but I would like bureaucrat that is able to defend his decisions in a compelling manner. Icewedge (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    At RfA or AfD? Most of his edits are at AfD (and everyone else seems to focus on Afd). Or are you challenging his nominees and those who he has supported at RfA. If so, please give examples. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think IW is referring to commentary through opposition/support at various RfAs and how they are very rarely nuanced, but rather superficial and unsubstantiated. I could be wrong though. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If that is so (which, is probably the case) then I would like to know how Julian's nominations of people stand up in Icewedge's measure. That would seem to be more appropriate - how does he weigh a candidate and how does he defend the candidate and deal with various criticism. You could tell far more about his understanding of the process as a whole by what points he emphasizes, if he ever gets angry, etc, during the process. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose reluctantly. I've mostly observed Julian at AfD. While most of his work there is good, I've sometimes been concerned by a seeming unwillingness to listen to the consensus and to explain himself in the case of difficult decisions, patterns that DGG also pointed to in questions 8(a)-(e). Julian has matured a lot over the last couple of years, and I think with a little more time he can develop the skills in communication and consensus building that are needed for this position. BRMo (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. I'm really uncomfortable to some of the reactions to oppose votes both on this page and on quite a few other talk pages that have spun off. Yes, it's a boring job, but it's a serious job too: sometimes a 'crat needs to decide whether certain !votes need to be struck. The tone of some of his reactions make me doubt he's ready to be in that position. --SB_Johnny | talk 00:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Been sitting on the fence here, but this seals the deal for me. Sorry, but I feel I have to oppose. Guettarda (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. I know he has a lot of experience, but in my two encounters with him he still seemed rough around the edges. Absolutely nothing to oppose over, since he didn't violate any policy or go against consensus, but some room for growth in communication, which is obviously critical for a b'crat (for example, being more careful with AFD closing statements that give people the wrong idea about his opinions). My two encounters: [12] + [13], Problematic AFD close wording and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropical Storm Erick (2007) where he was a participant, not a closer, and made some interesting points, but ultimately stuck to his less nuanced argument, raising some stubbornness concerns. I hope this was helpful... and that by putting it in the neutral section I mean this as constructive criticism. --Chiliad22 (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral for nowMoving to support. My limited interactions with Juliancolton before recently have left me with confidence that he know what he does. The interactions around Davemeistermoab's RfA do leave me with a lot of respect for the way he's standing up for his nominee even if I don't agree with it. We are however not on the same wavelength in terms of defining adminship, which at present bugs me enough for a neutral vote for a crat role, in other words, where the very definition of what adminship is about will guide closures. MLauba (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral - I consider Julian to be a good friend; I also have the greatest respect in the world for him and what he does with both articles and admin actions. While I would normally support based solely upon the latter, some of the opposes, especially the AfD ones, deeply concern me. While I still believe that I can trust him in closing RfA's—while similar, editor promotion/no promotion seems rather different to me than AfD—I am on a seesaw right now and cannot decide. Will revisit this later; I won't be opposing under any conceivable circumstance, but I am not sure if I will switch to support as of now. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC) moving to support, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. I didn't have to talk to Prodego to know what he means. I'm not on the fence Julian, but you know where I am. I think this RfB was a bit premature and I had very, very tough questions for you. I've decided against posting them and I don't want to be an actual factor in this RfB. Syn 16:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral You an extremly exellent editor, but as I've heard other users say in variuos RFAs and RFBs, an unwritten condition I've have is that the canidate needs a year round experiance(i.e. 1 year as a user, 1 year as a admin)Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 21:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. I acknowledge that this candidate has an extraordinary record as an editor and is an exception to the age question (if there is one) and that is all good. I don't want to oppose but I do have some reservations as to whether he can handle criticism. That he questioned my neutral vote elsewhere gives me pause. Bureaucrat is an important position, otherwise I'd stay silent. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I can indeed handle constructive criticism; in fact, I encourage it. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 04:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Might as well note my existence now that I've removed my support (was #30-something if you want to see it.) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 11:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Juliancolton is an admin already, so the damage is done. No minor should be an admin, ever, under any circumstances, and it is debatable whether they should even edit Wikipedia. Bureaucratship is just an extra button that means little; they are like a notary public in the U.S., a person who rubberstamps a piece of paper.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect you views but what damage has Julian done since he's become an admin? Also, if minors weren't to edit on wikipedia we'd have a lot less GA/FA's. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 23:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral Moved from support (#85) Alexfusco5 01:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral. I tend to agree with some of the opposers, especially Sandstein and DeanB. In my experience, Juliancolton is a good admin, and we don't (or shouldn't) require perfection here. However, one of the main tasks of a bureaucrat is to explain thought processes when performing actions, and it appears that Julian tends to avoid that. I can only remember one time I've interacted with Julian personally; he reverted me when I'd removed (what I thought was) an unnecessary disambiguator from Tropical Storm Nicholas (2003); there is no article at the plain title, and no ambiguity. He was kind enough to leave a note on my talk page (see User talk:Dekimasu#Tropical Storm Nicholas (2003)), but when I explained my reasoning in detail, he declined to engage. He appeared to agree with me, but then stated he felt the disambiguator should remain in place. We both left it there. There's nothing really wrong with that on an editorial level; it's a normal interaction between two editors. On the other hand, for this position, we need people who are willing to engage in detail on matters of process. I'd rather not get into the age stuff, except to note that alleging age-based discrimination is a self-fulfilling prophecy; appeals to it are only likely to draw more attention to age-based concerns. Dekimasuよ! 01:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral. Moved from support. While you are an excellent admin, Julian, some of the concerns raised above make me wonder if you are ready to take on an additional role. Regardless of how this turns out, I wish you the best. Vicenarian (T · C) 02:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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&oldid=1193216112"