Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins or sysops), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. A user either submits his/her own request for adminship (a self-nomination) or is nominated by another user. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request.

This page also hosts Requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.

Contents 1 About RfA 2 Nominating 3 Current nominations for adminship 3.1 James Frankcom 3.1.1 Nomination 3.1.2 Questions for the candidate 3.1.3 General comments 3.1.4 Discussion 3.1.4.1 Support 3.1.4.2 Oppose 3.1.4.3 Neutral 3.2 Shubinator 3.2.1 Nomination 3.2.2 Questions for the candidate 3.2.3 General comments 3.2.4 Discussion 3.2.4.1 Support 3.2.4.2 Oppose 3.2.4.3 Neutral 4 About RfB 5 Current nominations for bureaucratship 5.1 Juliancolton 5.1.1 Nomination 5.1.2 Questions for the candidate 5.1.3 General comments 5.1.4 Discussion 5.1.4.1 Support 5.1.4.2 Oppose 5.1.4.3 Neutral 6 Related pages

About RfA

The community grants administrator status to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice.

Nomination standards

There are no official prerequisites for adminship, other than having an account and a basic level of trust from other editors. The community looks for a variety of things in candidates, and everybody has their own opinion. For examples of what the community is looking for, read some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs.

Decision process

Any user may nominate another user with an account. Nominations remain posted for seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which time users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of that period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. This is sometimes difficult to ascertain and is not a numerical measurement, but as a general descriptive rule of thumb most of those above ~80% approval pass; most of those below ~70% fail, and the area between is subject to bureaucratic discretion.

Bureaucrats may also use their discretion to close nominations early, if a promotion is unlikely and they see no further benefit in leaving the application open. Only bureaucrats may close a nomination as a definitive promotion, but any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing; please do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or that are not blatantly unpassable. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination, but they should make sure they leave a note with the candidate, and if necessary add the request to the unsuccessful requests.

In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination so as to make consensus clearer. If your nomination fails, please wait a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within a month, but many editors prefer several months before reapplying.

Self-nominations are permitted. If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, you may wish to consult admin coaching first, so as to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. Also, you might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience.

Expressing opinions

Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections, but IPs are unable to place a numerical (#) "vote". The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, and meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence. In close nominations, detailed explanations behind your position will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep", "no way" and "as per."

To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the relevant candidate. Any Wikipedians, including users who do not have an account and/or are not logged in ("anons"), are invited to participate in the comments section and ask questions. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism is useful for the candidate to hear so he/she can make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on-topic.

Note that the Requests for adminship process draws a variety of Wikipedians to express their opinions and help make these decisions. There are some editors who oppose many, or even most, requests, for a particular reason. Although the community currently endorses the right of any Wikipedian with an account to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections, this more-or-less uncommon voting pattern is perceived by some as "trolling". Before responding to such comments in an RfA, consider whether that is the best forum for what you have to say. Not fanning the fire will, at the very least, not make the situation worse. Remember, the bureaucrats who close the discussions have a lot of experience, and are able to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Nominating

Nominations can only be accepted by the user in question. If you wish to nominate a user, contact them first before making the nomination page. If they accept, create the nomination and ask them to sign their acceptance. To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow the instructions on this page. The nomination may be considered "malformed" and removed if you do not follow these instructions or transclude the request properly. Users interested in becoming administrators may add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls. A list of these users including additional information is automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls.

Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 05:18:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

---

James Frankcom

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (2/2/3); Scheduled to end 07:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

James Frankcom (talk · contribs) – I am 34 years old, I live in London. I am a trainee teacher. I have Bachelor of Arts with Honours (BA Hons) in International Relations from Staffordshire University, England. I have taken part in archaeological digs and actively research areas of historical interest to me with a view to future publication. I enjoy reading Wikipedia and have contributed many wikis and parts of wikis since 2005, mostly on British history but also geographical and topical subjects further afield. It gives me particular joy to research something so far missing from Wikipedia and adding to this record of human knowledge. I have become concerned that too many people with Admin controls are career-editors rather than contributing editors, sometimes some over zealous admins can undermine the confidence the contributing editors have using and expanding the site and this threatens the whole wikipedia project. It is important to remember the time and effort taken by contributing editors to add content and how quick, easy and often unfair it can be when people delete their work. I would seek to be constructive and assist editors to improve their own work to meet agreed wikipedia standards. James Frankcom (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Resolving editorial disputes when asked to assist. Encouraging and assisting broad based discussions between numerous editors for edit conflict resolution. Fixing broken links and other administrative tasks as requested.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugra: very informative, multiple source material, illustrated, concise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_of_Zvonimir: a topic previously neglected, explorative, illustrated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Librazhd_District: a work in process, previously consisted of a few lines in very bad English,I used original material supplied by the local authorities when in Librazhd, other editors now have something to add to and work upon.

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

A:I have disagreed with other editors in the past and when asked to make my case provided as much information and reasoning as I could. If the conflict began to deteriorate I asked for mediation and took third party opinion. I feel contentious areas of fact should be resolved by having the different points represented and justified rather than one particular view point made pre-eminent excluding all others.

General comments

• Links for James Frankcom: James Frankcom (talk · contribs · deleted · count [quick] · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi · search an, ani, cn, an3)
• Edit summary usage for James Frankcom can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/James Frankcom before commenting.

Discussion

I have been a contributing editor and a first-editor of thousands of wikipedia articles since 2004.

• Edit stats posted on the talk page. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support if an incomplete RfA is going to go ahead then why not. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 08:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Support mainly per deliriousandlost. Additionally, I don't think you're likely to break anything. Best of luck. ···Katerenka (討論) 08:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Support because I fell that James Frankcom understands the duties and responsibilities of an admin, is prepared to take the role serious and will continue make worthwhile contributions. We have collaborated on a few articles; he has always been supportive of my work and responsive to my questions. I wish him the best of luck should he be granted adminship. Dymuniadau gorau. ~Geaugagrrl ^talk 03:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - Not enough edits outside of the article space for me to think that this person is safe with the tools. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 07:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose - Partly per coffee, but mainly because you don't need to be an administrator to do any of those things. WFCforLife (talk) 07:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose Having a sporadic editing history, and having few edits outside of article space so I cannot accurately judge this candidate's experience in the admin related areas. ArcAngel (talk) 04:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I am taking the neutral per Q1. These activities the candidate wants to perform as an Admin do not necessarily require Adminship. And Adminship doesn't give him any more authority to perform these "better" than other editors. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 07:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I uphold this neutral vote, and would recommend the candidate to withdraw per WP:SNOW. Nothing personal, but by your Q1 answer and given your limted experience, this RfA is unlikely to succed. You're always welcome to try again. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 04:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Neutral The candidate does not require adminship to perform the tasks stated in Q1. They also have almost no activity in "admin" areas (such as CSDs, PRODs, AfDs, AN/ANI, etc), so I cannot judge if they would use the tools wisely. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Neutral Mainly per Phantomsteve. LouriePieterse 08:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Shubinator

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (80/4/1); Scheduled to end 20:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Shubinator (talk · contribs) – Shubinator joined Wikipedia around January 2009, and has since made about 11,000 edits and developed several tools (mostly for DYK maintenance) such as DYKcheck.js and DYKHousekeepingBot, as well as helping with templates. He has been a major asset to the maintenance of that project, especially on the technical side of things, and his technical expertise has also helped in other areas (for example, he also helped when I was working on my bot). While the majority of Shubinator's edits are DYK-related maintenance, he also has content experience: he's created several new articles and written an FA, Icos, which demonstrated to me that he knows what makes good content. Looking at his deleted contribs, he also has experience with CSD tagging for maintenance-related deletions, such as db-talk, and image fair use; in my skim of his contribs since about September I didn't see any incorrect CSD taggings. Finally, Shubinator is a very patient and civil user; I have never seen him lose his temper at anyone; the most recent content disagreement I see in his history is User talk:Nerdseeksblonde#Further reading sections, which looks quite civil to me. All in all, I think Shubinator's technical expertise, along with admin tools, will make him an asset to the areas he has experience in, particularly template/bot/script work (being able to edit protected pages, etc.) and maintenance-related deletions and such. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination by JamieS93

Since he began editing in January, I've noticed Shubinator's continually helpful work with the Did You Know (DYK) process and I began following his contribs. Having accumulated nearly 2,800 edits to T:TDYK, he's very experienced with the process of approving hooks and maintaining accuracy with information on the Main Page. Shubinator possesses a solid knowledge of image copyright policy and has diligently worked "behind-the-scenes" tagging files with license issues (deleted contribs [admin only]). Still, he also manages to be a productive content writer, his most notable achievement being the improvement of Icos. Through his maintenance-related work, Shub has had some discussions and disagreements with others, all of which have been handled in a straightforward, productive manner. He has also demonstrated a fair level of clue during decisions and interactions with others – once, an editor offered him an RfA nom back in August (1) which he respectfully declined, feeling that it wasn't the time yet.

Another watchful set of eyes would be beneficial at WP:ERRORS, too. Considering his generally calm demeanor, technical abilities (as Rjanag covered above), and strong level of administrative experience, Shubinator would clearly be a net positive with the extra tools, and I'm pleased to co-nominate him. JamieS93 19:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Shubinator (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I'll mainly work with the Did you know section; anything from loading the queues to fixing mistakes reported at WP:ERRORS. The admin bit would also be useful for improving protected templates. I've done a little image work in the past, and I might help out there as an admin, with the coaching of experienced admins in the area.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: My DYKcheck script has streamlined the DYK process for reviewers and nominators. It's saved a lot of human time and allows reviewers to focus more on content instead of checking off a list. Icos is my best content contribution. I nurtured the article from this to featured article status.

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

A: I've been in a few "conflicts", most notably this and with a troubled user (a few links: 1, 2, ended in 3). I try to discuss the issue at hand and I don't let my emotions get the best of me. If the discussion isn't going anywhere, I ask other neutral editors for their opinion.

Additional optional questions from Doc Quintana

4. What is your opinion on "cooldown blocks"?

A: Cooldown blocks shouldn't be used. A user can be blocked for continuing disruptive behavior, but if the user has stopped, there's no need for a cooldown block.

(Expanded) A user shouldn't be blocked just for cooling him down. However, if the user is vandalizing (for example), and hasn't stopped, he can be blocked for vandalism.

Additional optional questions from Coffee

5. If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, (such as this), where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it?

A. I don't plan on closing BLP AfDs any time soon. That said, I would default to delete on no-consensus BLPs if there's unsourced material. If the article's sourced, I would default to keep.

6. What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs?

A. BLP articles certainly should be watched more closely than other articles. Our current system doesn't catch a fair number of false statements inserted into BLP articles. Just a week ago Wikipedia was in the news for an article stating a journalist was dead. We should find the right balance between "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and protecting people. I haven't worked directly with BLP articles, but quite a few go through DYK. I've often asked editors to provide less negative hooks, and we've outright rejected a few articles that were almost entirely negative.

Additional optional questions from Davewild

7. Reference your answer to question 5 are you saying that if there is no consensus and just a part of the BLP is unsourced you will close the AFD as delete? Are you aware of what the Wikipedia:Deletion policy says about closing BLPs with no consensus and the discussion on the Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Default to delete for BLPs where defaulting to delete for BLPs was not accepted? Will you follow that policy?

A. If a part of the BLP is unsourced, I'd try to trim the unsourced parts and keep the remaining article. I will follow community consensus. Wikipedia:Deletion policy does say no-consensus AfDs should be closed as keep, but also says that no-consensus BLP AfDs may be closed as delete in certain situtations.

Additional optional questions from Friday

8. Your earliest edits don't look like they were made by a new editor. Do you have previous accounts you have used?

A. No. For the record, this account and my bot's (User:DYKHousekeepingBot) are the only ones I've used or created. Also, I made fewer than 10 edits as an IP before this account.

Questions from ArcAngel

9. What are/is the most important policy(s) regarding administrative functions?

A: As many of the admin functions require admins to measure consensus, and almost all should reflect it, WP:Consensus is the most important.

10. Could you please provide examples of inadequate reports to WP:AIV (that you would decline and remove from that page without blocking the user reported)?

A: Some examples: if the user's been inadequately warned (for example, only a level 1 warning), the user was warned a while back but hasn't been warned since, the user stopped vandalizing, or the user is involved in a content dispute (in which case the edits would not be classified as vandalism). (Note: Here user means user or IP; I was too lazy to write it out.)

11. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

A: A ban is the community's decision that a person should not edit in a particular area (for topic bans), or any area (for sitewide bans). A block removes editing privileges from an account (and often the underlying IP, for autoblock) for the entire site except the user's talk page. A block is the technical tool used to implement a sitewide ban.

Additional optional question from Seraphimblade

12. In consideration of one of the support comments, I see you had clarified a bit in question 7, but am still not exactly clear. Under what circumstances would you be inclined to close a "no consensus" AfD on a BLP as delete, and how would you have closed the specific AfD cited in question 5 had you been the one to do so?

A: If there was no substantial content left after trimming the article of unsourced statements, I would close as delete. I can't see the Shankbone article, but by the comments in the AfD it seems like sourcing wasn't the issue, so I would close as keep for that particular example.

General comments

• Links for Shubinator: Shubinator (talk · contribs · deleted · count [quick] · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi · search an, ani, cn, an3)
• Edit summary usage for Shubinator can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Shubinator before commenting.

Discussion

• Re. Q8: the candidate's first changes do seem advanced for a new contributor, but I think this seems like a genuine series of newbie-questions. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Hmmmm.. A new user shows up, uses good edit summaries right from the beginning, posts a userbox saying "I assume good faith" as their second edit, participates in RFA a mere few hours after their first edit, and then worries about getting CU'd because of it. This seems like a genuine newbie to you? Friday (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't say that. I said the questions he posted on Steve's talk page indicates that either he's a master sockpuppeteer who knows just the right questions to ask, or he was a legitimate new editor. In the spirit of AGF, I like to think the latter. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• (ec) Keep in mind I was watching Enigmaman's RfA the previous night, where AGF was thrown around a fair bit, as well as CU. How did I get to Enigmaman's RfA in the first place? I'm not sure. I was bored that night, so I wandered around quite a bit on Wikipedia. I remember reading some of the morass on Talk:Sarah Palin. Shubinator (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Just my two cents on these points and Neutral #3 below... I don't think familiarity with process or jargon necessarily means someone has had an account before. Some people are naturally more careful/painstaking to read up on project pages before diving in much, and I know from personal experience that they can really suck you in. I knew about WP:SPIDER, WP:MASTODON, WP:COOL, and WP:EW before I had ever registered an account, because I had stumbled across project space once and was fascinated to read about this crazy community stuff. Sure, a lot of new users are pretty clueless (and many of us were clueless when we first started), but that doesn't necessarily mean a new user who's read project pages must be an old user with a new name. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• The strange idea that all newbies are clueless idiots is a common one, sadly. It's unfortunate that new editors who follow the rules and do things correctly are automatically suspicious and get opposed later on at their RFA on very spurious grounds. As for myself, I started out on Uncyclopedia, months before Wikipedia, so I had familiarity with processes, syntax etc. I think Friday expects all newbies to be idiots, and anyone who isn't is a sockpuppet and not genuine. Majorly talk 15:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Shubinator, could you expand a bit on Question 4? smithers - talk - sign! 21:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Shubinator (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Edit stats posted on talk. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Just FYI, Shubinator told me several days ago that he would be out of town for a few days starting today. So if new questions are posted, they may not be responded to right away. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Actually I'll be out starting January 3rd, so I'm still around. Shubinator (talk) 15:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oops! I think that's the second time I've made that mistake.... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Samir 18:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

   iMatthew ^talk at 20:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

2. Strong Support Absolutely. He's been ready for months.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 20:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
3. As co-nom. JamieS93 20:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Support. I've worked with Shubinator before; he's a good guy, trusted and reliable. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Great editor; works well with others. Has a need for the tools as evidenced by his at DYK especially. Considering that I offered to nominate him a few months ago, I better offer my strong support for this request. NW (Talk) 20:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Support; trusted, productive and experienced contributor. 20:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Have noticed Shubinator around at DYK for a while (he's given me several DYK credits!) and have not noticed anything bad there and being an admin will certainly help there. If you decide to close AFDs in the future I urge you to remember that the closers job is to decide consensus based on policy, not to decide what content should be in articles - your statement that you will follow community consensus and my own observation of your edits give me confidence that you will do fine as an admin. Davewild (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
8. Support your work at DYK is enough to make me support. You will be a great asset there.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 20:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
9. Support - I trust the nominator and his explanation that this user will make a great impression in the DYK area as an admin. Schfifty3 20:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
10. Support I think Shubinator will use the tools well and for the benefit of the project. The answers to questions 1 and 5, in my opinion, shows that Shubinator won't jump into the deep end and will stick to what they're best at. The handling of the FAC discussion and the conversation with Nerdseeksblonde linked above demonstrate that Shubinator has the right temperament and leads me to believe they would make a fine admin. Nev1 (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
11. Looks good to me. Malinaccier (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
12. Support - This user has lots of great DYK work, will make a good administrator. December21st2012Freak ^{Happy Holidays!} 21:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
13. Despite the weak answer to Q4, which indicates that the candidate isn't really familiar with the blocking process, I'm willing to support without reservation. A cool-headed, kind, individual, it seems to me. I doubt he will go into areas he doesn't know straightaway or without experience. ceranthor 21:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
14. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
15. Support - Many positives from this editor, no negatives that I see, and while a couple of the answers (particularly to Q4) are awkward, I don't see anything completely incorrect. (The gist of the 4th answer, that I got, was that CDBs shouldn't be done, and that blocks are meant to prevent disruption, not cool people down, which should be the main point; and I give Shubinator credit for trying to answer in his own words.) -- Atama頭 22:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
16. Support Definitely! Excellent DYK work, (especially DYKcheck). Also per Ceranthor. LittleMountain5 22:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
17. Support I am happy with the replies to the questions, and see no real cause of concern. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
18. ad vitam aut culpam (NOTE this was to be support vote 2 before the rfa was un-transcluded pending the co-nom.) We should welcome prospective admins who can dedicate their time to areas other than XfD. Comprehensive experience with DYK and some experience in SPI is nice to see. Answer to Q4 is good by me. delirious ☯ ^{~ happy christmas~} 23:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
19. Support, with a Bacon martini raised. Cirt (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
20. Support. Looks good to me. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
21. Support I'm sure you'll have familiarized yourself with the blocking policy (question 4) before this is over. Overall, very excellent work indeed. Good job!  fetchcomms☛ 00:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
22. Support No concerns with this user. Happy Holidays! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

    Support. Alison22 (talk) 01:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

    Indented vote from indef blocked sock account. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

23. Support -Coffee // have a cup // ark // 02:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
24. Support. Definitely, helpful at DYK etc. More Main Page admins needed. --candle•wicke 02:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
25. Support should be fine with tools. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
26. Support I can see no reason not to support. No credible oppose rationale offered (at the time I posted this). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
27. Support DYK needs admin hands at the wheel, or the ship never goes anywhere. Good candidate, good history. Broader experience wouldn't be a bad idea before jumping into new areas, but every admin doesn't have to participate in XfD and the like to earn the mop. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
28. Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards, as it is nearly my second favorite holiday, the candidate contributed to a featured article and six DYKs, User:Shubinator/Awards is encouraging to see, candidate has never been blocked, and current support is at 96%. Merry Christmas! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
29. Support Wow, awesome editor will do good work with the mop. RP459 (talk) 04:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
30. As co-nominator. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
31. Support. Don't have personal communication with the candidate, but crossed quite a lot at DYK. Impressions: they don't say much but say things well, solid and to the point - focus at the issue rather than drama; skeptical mind. All actions I saw demonstrate strong dedication to WP, and the technical abilities were of great help to DYK. In fact, I don't recall any, even minor blunder by this user, though those are quite common at DYK. Q8 doesn't really bother me - I feel the candidate was simply intelligent and knowledgeable enough for editing before starting (note, their first edits were not that technically advanced and the candidate is skilled in coding). I do feel I can trust the candidate. Materialscientist (talk) 05:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
32. Strong Support. No personal experience with this user, but from what I've seen of his work he seems both dedicated and civil, and able to keep a level head while dealing with problematic users. Well suited for the mop. Angrysockhop (talk to me) 06:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
33. Yes, I think so. I'm not seeing any alarms, answers seem sensible, should be an asset. GedUK  08:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
34. Support BejinhanTalk 10:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
35. Support No problems. Warrah (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
36. Most certainly. He's among DYK's most valuable workers. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 13:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
37. Support A dedicated contributor, and a major asset to the DYK project. There is no evidence presented on socking (or even any blind guesses) and I'm not going to withhold my support based on anybody's gut feelings. All my interactions with this user has been good, and I believe giving him the tools will be a net positive. ≈ Chamal ^talk ☃ 14:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
38. Yes.--Microcell (talk) 14:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
39. Support. The main page background areas definitely need more admins looking after them and Shubinator obviously knows what he's doing. Trustworthy and competent. The concerns over hosiery are totally absurd- that kind of thing could easily be learnt from surfing WP without editing. The lack of edits to the mainspace and project space concerned me at first but then I saw the edits to talk and template talk, of which 397 edits are to T:TDYK and he's managed a FA on the side! Impressive. Merry Christmas, HJMitchell You rang? 16:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
40. Support Shubinator's contributions to DYK have been valuable and knowledgeable (as Materialscientist noted). His DYKcheck tool is a very valuable tool that has saved me and others a lot of time. To me, this shows a good admin's attitude—he sees where he can help and does it. In fact, I'll have to enter the cliche that I actually thought you were already an admin—and a good one at that.

    I don't completely agree with your way of handling BLPs, but your answers appear to be within the bounds of admin discretion supported in recent precedents. Opposing over differences in opinion, or in interpretation of policy (where the interpretation is reasonable) is unproductive, but I feel that this is what Seraphimblade is doing in his oppose. (Also, I think Seraphimblade should consider Shubinator's answer to Q7.)

    RMHED's oppose is baseless without any supporting evidence. I haven't seen any reason not to trust Shubinator, but would urge any user who has evidence to the contrary to come forth with it instead of just asserting it.

    I don't see the fault in the Q4 response that Doc Quintana and Smithers7 see. Shubinator is right that a cooldown block in itself is not acceptable, but that in cases where one would consider a cooldown block, a block for vandalism or general disruptiveness may often be appropriate anyway. Shubinator's answers are all succinct and to the point—an additional argument in favor of granting him adminship.

    The concern expressed by Hobit and Friday doesn't seem well-founded. True, Shubinator showed a pretty good understanding of wikisyntax in his earliest few edits, but that's understandable for someone who has done some IP edits before and who has taken the time to get a bit familiar with the syntax. Note that his first edit was not as flawless as one would expect from a returning user, as shown by his use of third-level headers and bare-URL references.

    In summary, Shubinator is a valued contributor who will undoubtedly also be a valued admin and the comments under "Oppose" and "Neutral" lack solid ground. I'll take this opportunity to correct the bad Latin introduced by one of the users who were so kind to support my RFA and say: Tribue virgam! Ucucha 16:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC) (edited 16:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

41. Support Good DYK work. --JN466 16:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
42. Support I don't see any issues with this candidate. I am confident that when it comes to BLP AFD's, candidate will do the right thing. ArcAngel (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
43. Support - No huge concerns. smithers - talk - sign! 18:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
44. Support - Looking at my own first (logged in) edits, they seemed pretty advanced too. Not everyone comes to Wikipedia with no wiki-editing experience, or even with no wikipedia experience. This might sound egotistical in light of my last statement, but I think the early advanced edits demonstrate a good sense of WP:CLUE more than anything. Gigs (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
45. Support Strong contributor to the project. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
46. Support File this under "They weren't an admin already?!" Shubinator is a hardworking, experienced editor who seems trustworthy. I'd like to thank him for his useful WP:DYKcheck tool and his helpful bot. With his wealth of DYK experience, Shubinator surely will be a tremendous help at WP:DYK, which is always in need of more administrators, and at WP:ERRORS. As for the whole "BLP no consensus" debate, I don't really like seeing either side use RfA as a battleground. Candidates for adminship, in my opinion, should not be judged on that issue alone – and besides, Shubinator closing an AfD as "no consensus, default to delete" would hardly be different from, say, Coffee doing the same. The candidate's answer to Q12 leads me to believe that he would do just fine closing AfDs. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
47. Support User has shown his continued dedication to the project and has shown via talk and project pages that the candidate has the mature, patient, and helpful attributes that will only serve to better Wikipedia. See no reason that the tools or responsiblities given will be misused. Calmer Waters 23:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
48. Support I loved the questions/answers. --MisterWiki talk contribs 03:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
49. Support per above comments. — æk^Talk 05:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
50. Tim Song (talk) 08:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
51. Support - Solid editor, even temperment, reasonable answers to questions, highly doubtful that they are likely to misuse tools. Easy to pile on in support. Happy holidays! Jusdafax 10:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
52. Support because the candidate is a frightful bore and therefore is more than suited to the role. Should be a bureaucrat. Crafty (talk) 12:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
53. Support: An asset at DYK and elsewhere, good temperament, positive lack of drama. Concerns about "clueful" newbie are paranoid, I think. Not everyone has to start off being an idiot; some of us read before leaping. Maedin\^talk 16:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
54. Yes, looks a good prospect.  GARDEN  19:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
55. Because you're a good editor, and the opposes (#1 and #2 in particular) are weak, baseless and irrelevant. Majorly talk 19:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
56. Support: Clearly an expert in the DYK area, and I think admins with specific areas of interest are very desirable. Possible lack of expertise in other areas doesn't worry me, because this looks like someone who would not take on specific admin tasks without acquiring appropriate knowledge first. Vague "I don't trust him" Opposes are very weak. Criticising someone for not appearing dumb enough when they first started contributing also seems weak. Oscroft (talk) 20:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
57. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns, looking to do useful work with administrator tasks that always could use additional staffing. The opposers' rationales are completely unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
58. Support, per rʨanaɢ and my own observations of his work at DYK. —mattisse (Talk) 20:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
59. Support - meets my usual standards. Has rescued an article. Is clueful. Bearian (talk) 20:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
60. Support Constructive, valuable edits. No concerns with this user.  IShadowed  ✰  21:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
61. Merry Christmas to a great candidate. Ret.Prof (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
62. Support - Not much more needs to be said. Great editor who I can trust with the tools. Airplaneman ^talk 03:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
63. Support Have crossed paths with Shubinator many times. I see nothing that gives a worry, and much that gives confidence. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
64. Support I found this a very interesting application. This editor has an extremely in depth contribution history outside of the article namespace and in areas that are in dire need of help. Providing this editor with the tools to bring about more profound improvements to Wikipedia would be in our best interest. Mkdw^talk 07:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
65. Support no reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
66. Support A year of solid contributions? Y Works smoothly with others? Y Demonstrated interest, skill, and potential for usefulness in sysop areas? Y Three checks and you're in! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
67. Support as someone who will provide useful admin work in a few specialized areas where there is a real need, and who has shown a good administrative temperament in the relatively few instances of being in a conflict with other users. (I would suggest that you take it slow in moving into other, more contentious, areas of administrative work.) --Tryptofish (talk) 15:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
68. Support based on work at DYK  Francium12  19:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
69. Support Good track and feel the project will only benefit with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
70. - Great contributor to DYK, appears to have clue, genuine need for the tools due to his work on templates etc. Gatoclass (talk) 02:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
71. Hmmm. On looking at your earliest contributions, I get a Pastor Theo (talk · contribs) (aka Ecoleetage (talk · contribs))-like feeling—heh, you and PT began editing only ten days away from each other—but I highly doubt that one account would vote support while the other opposes if that were the case. The excellent work you have done, especially at DYK, and your answer to question eight dissuade me from believing this line of thought, so support. Hypothetically speaking, if you are a sock, I believe that you will continue the great editing you do and not get into trouble like your former account did. This would have a nice side effect of making you a big net positive. I just pray that you don't break this leap of faith I am making. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
72. Support As someone whose first edit led to an accusation of being a sockpuppet, you have my sympathies (and support). Does a fine job on DYK, has a clue, and seems very mop-worthy, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

    Support like I did last time around. ReverendWayne (talk) 05:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC) (Sorry, edited wrong section.) ReverendWayne (talk) 05:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

73. Support Three of the four opposes honestly make me laugh. Let us assume for a moment that you are a sockpuppet. Well... then you are a pretty damned useful sockpuppet and I would support you anyway. You have excellent conflict resolution skills, your knowledge of admin functions is very good. The chances that you will delete the mainpage or break the Wiki seems remote. That's pretty much fulfilled all of my requirements. Trusilver 09:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
74. Support I've observed his nothing but good activities in DYK areas for a while, so I can easily say he earns my thrust.-Caspian blue 14:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
75. Support. Plenty of skill and no sign of trouble. I liked the answer to Q3 and the links there that showed clear thinking, calmness and positivity in a challenging situation. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
76. Support Seems like he knows his way around. LouriePieterse 21:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
77. Support – I've seen Shubinator around for a bit, and I'm sure he'll do a fine job. –MuZemike 05:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
78. I have nothing but good impressions of Shubinator from interactions at DYK, and they have sufficiently advanced understanding of high-content and enough clue to become involved in other administrative areas competently. Thank you for your very valuable contributions to the encyclopaedia, Shubinator.  Skomorokh  08:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
79. Support, after thinking on this further and examining the edit history, as well as getting a good answer in clarification, I can no longer see anything that would lead me not to support. And I don't like the idea of "WAY TOO COMPETENT INITIALLY!" opposes either. A lot of people cut their teeth editing as IPs and/or bothered to lurk and read up on things before wading in. I see those attributes as a positive, not a negative. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
80. Support. Shubinator is a hard worker and has a cool user name. What more could we ask for? Oh yeah, that they don't cheat and lie--I'll assume good faith, and have no reason to think differently. Good luck, Shubinator! Not a stub anymore, haha! Drmies (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
81. Support—all the "oppose" rationales are so mind-bogglingly [insert Wikipedia-suitable description here] that I really have no option! ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 23:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
82. Support. Recognize this candidate from DYK. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
83. Oh noes, someone who's read the rules and guidelines before he started editing! Must be someone's sock. GlassCobra 04:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I don't trust you, probably someones hosiery. RMHED (talk) 01:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

   Your rationale makes me want to indent this entirely inappropriate oppose. Please explain why you have chosen this rationale... The Thing _{Merry Christmas} 01:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

   My oppose is entirely appropriate, adminship is fundamentally about trust, I don't trust this user. RMHED (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

   I'm sure this oppose based on a "lack of trust" means a lot coming from an editor that falsifies their contribution history to Wikipedia on their user page. -- Atama頭 02:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

   You are assuming this is my first Wikipedia account, it isn't. RMHED (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

   Are you suggesting you have a sock puppet? Mkdw^talk 07:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

   Atama: Seriously? If I see someone quote one of those damn awards again I'm going to send them up for MFD. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 02:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

   (←) Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, including RMHED. Leave him be. Shubinator (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

   • I agree, but I would ask if RHMED could give some examples (preferably with diffs) showing when the candidate has shown that they cannot be trusted. No one has to provide a detailed rationale (indeed, you are entitled just to sign it with no comment), but as granting adminship is all about trust, I'd be interested in knowing why you feel that you cannot trust the candidate — it might be that specific examples might be useful in changing other editors' support. If you genuinely have reasons for not trusting this user (as opposed to either a gut instinct, or a personal reason), then evidence of that would be very illuminating for this RfA. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

   Atama, please do not resort to personal attacks. Aditya Ex Machina 17:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

   Merry Christmas to everyone and see you in the new year! - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

   A follow-up to my comment; I don't believe my comment was a personal attack, but it was certainly an ad hominem, unnecessary (would anyone take this "oppose" seriously anyway?) and as Coffee has hinted, lame. Not my best showing. I'll strike it out although it should go without saying that I'm still not comfortable with this opposition rationale. -- Atama頭 21:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose per answer to question 5. The correct response to unsourced material in a BLP would be to remove that material, not nuke the whole thing. Recent discussion at WT:DEL did not show anywhere near consensus for default to delete on any articles, including BLPs. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Neutral for now, answer to my question gives me more to think on.

2. Early editing behavior is suspicious for someone claiming to be new. This could be a real newbie, but evidence suggests otherwise. So for me, this one does not pass the smell test. Friday (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

   Last I checked, we assumed good faith when presented with personal suspicion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

   Perhaps we should change our welcome message to caution new editors to demonstrate a sufficient level of incompetence early on. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

3. Weak oppose per questions 5, 7, 12. No consensus defaults to keep, except for marginal BLPs where the subject has requested deletion. That's the way things are right now, and we don't need admins who would close contrary to existing policy. If you think consensus should change, the correct thing to do is not to close such discussions in the hopes of ramming changes through - it's to either argue to change the policy, or vote for deletions in those discussions. Ray^Talk 17:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

   Though they have said they wouldn't close BLP AfDs. GedUK  17:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

   Hence why this is weak. To be pedantic, the candidate has remarked that they will not be closing BLP AFDs "anytime soon." However, the questions have repeatedly asked the candidate to carefully consider the situation, and, having done so, the candidate has still not come up with a reply I would consider satisfactory. On some level, that speaks to either a distinct difference in philosophy or judgment that makes me uncomfortable. Ray^Talk 22:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

   Lack of experience outside DYKs. I'd like to see at least a few edits in general "admin" areas, so I can be sure that the candidate can handle requests if asked to do so. Also the candidate's early edit history is suspicious (edit: like mine), but perhaps does not warrant an oppose on its own. Aditya Ex Machina 17:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

   Indeed, it does not, considering this. Majorly talk 19:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

   Okay, you're right. Edited. Aditya Ex Machina 19:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

   A few edits: at AfD, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7; at RFPP; at AIV, 1, 2, 3. Unfortunately I can't link to successful CSDs. Shubinator (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

   That's really not much, but looking through your contribs a bit more I'm tempted to withdraw my oppose. I'm not comfortable opposing your RfA, since there's so much more you could help out with as an admin. Aditya Ex Machina 20:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

4. Oppose on trust issues. Something is going on and with that feeling plus what Ray points out above I feel I need to oppose rather than declare neutrality or simply not voice an opinion. You really knew what you were going to do when you started editing, and how to go about it, but you're so uncertain about BLPs and consensus and what you'd do as an admin in those situations while declaring you want to be an admin. I have to ask myself, what is going on here? And I have to declare that I oppose your adminship based on that. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

   You do realise opposing this candidate marks you out as a bad person? Crafty (talk) 05:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

   Lol, Crafty. Thanks. It's nice to pinpoint where the reputation started. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral Unsure about answer to #4. I'll look further through the candidate's contribs and i'll be willing to change my opinion with further statements from others here. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Expansion of answer to #4 is ok, vandalism blocks are fine, but cool down blocks are not, IMO. I may support in a bit. Doc Quintana (talk) 02:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutral for now. I want some more in question 4. smithers - talk - sign! 21:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Moving to support. Thanks for explaining more. smithers - talk - sign! 18:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Neutral Those early edits, even the early questions, look like an old hand. That said, I've no real evidence, it's impossible to prove one way or the other, and it appears this editor has been doing a great job thus far. So here I sit. Hobit (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral for the moment. After getting clarified, I need to think some more on this one. Want to clarify that this is because the candidate seems to have clarified he won't be overzealous on BLP, not the "You can't oppose for THAT!" bits.Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Moved to support. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

---

About RfB

Shortcut: WP:RFB

Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats, users with the ability to make other users admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here. They can also change the user name of most users and can grant or remove bot status on an account.

The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is 90%, those below 85% will fail and the rest are within the bureaucrat's discretion. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.

Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert {{subst:RfB|User=USERNAME|Description=YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER ~~~~}} into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.

While canvassing for support is frowned upon (to the extent that canvassing editors have had their RfBs fail), some users find it helpful to place {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages. Such declarations are most definitely allowed.

Please add new requests at the top of this section immediately below this line.

Current nominations for bureaucratship

Juliancolton

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (135/17/3); Scheduled to end 00:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

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

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

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

Questions for the candidate

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

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A. As mentioned above I expect to focus on username changing rather than RfA. However, RfA, including RfB, is in essence a week long discussion to determine if a given user is sufficiently trustworthy to be appointed to the position of adminship or bureaucratship. While percentages have historically played a significant role in determining the outcomes of RfAs, numbers only go so far, and I believe that the ability to interperet consensus thoughtfully and cautiously is important in a 'crat. What at first seems like an overwhelming amount of opposition may very well be found to be insignificant upon a more comprehensive investigation, and vice-versa. All things considered, the criteria for promoting an admin or bureaucrat candidate varies considerably with each candidacy, so it would be almost impossible to describe them in general.

2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A. Wikipedia is run by a community encompassing thousands of contributors and millions of uninvolved readers and viewers. Therefore, complicated decisions should seldom be made by a single user. It is, of course, acceptable for a single bureaucrat to close the more straightforward nominations, but I think 'cratchats should be utilized more often, as they can help to create a more accurate reading of consensus. If, as a bureaucrat I would come across a complex and controversial discussion that I felt I needed to evaluate, I would obviously make an attempt to determine a reasonable outcome myself, but I would likely seek opinions of my fellow bureaucrats.

3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?

A. I've spent thousands of hours on Wikipedia, reading, editing, participating and interacting with the community, and I've also participated in numerous other Wikimedia Foundation wikis. I feel that as a result, I have a deep and comprehensive understanding of the project's policies and guidelines, as well as its undocumented standards and norms. More specifically, I have engaged in nearly all major administrative regions of enwiki, so I'm familar with hundreds of different processes. In my editing, patrolling, and mopping, I strive to be fair to all users, and in general I've not gotten into any major editorial disputes with my fellow users. I do, however, make an effort to offer "olive branches" when necessary.

4. Preemptively asking this: Why did you go on an extended wikibreak in October, only to return a week later?

A. Around that time, a personal issue partly related to Wikipedia came up, and for a host of reasons I decided it was best to disclose that I might have been away for quite a while. However, said issue was more-or-less resolved quicker than I expected. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from Soap

5. I'm interested in your views on the username policy. How would you judge the appropriateness of each of the following usernames? Assume that all are good faith contributors with no vandal edits and no apparent conflicts of interest. These can be interpreted either as new accounts which registered these names as their original choices, or requests from existing accounts to change their names to these.

OnlineDoctor

Depends. This could very easily be a promotional name; oh the other hand it could just as well be a doctor looking to add new info to the project. In this case, I'd leave a {{uw-username}} note on their talk and determine what to do if they respond. If not, it's a judgment call. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

ImpeachObama

Clearly offensive or divisive. Block, though whether to hardblock or softblock would be determined by their edits. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Pissanna (user claims it's a foreign name)

This is a tricky one. I remember a few months back dealing with a username that contained "kike". When asked about it, they claimed it was a real foreign name pronounced Key-kay. It really all depends on the situation. If they're editing in good faith and the username isn't obviously offensive ("piss" isn't particularly vulgar) then it's probably fine to leave them be. Otherwise, it would be best to notify them and advise them that it would be wise to pick another moniker. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

ManitoWebDesigner (a user whose userpage is not blatantly promotional, but does seem interested in finding new clients on Wikipedia even so)

This seems clearly promotional, so in all likelihood, I would at the very least suggest they pick a new name, and failing an agreement to do that, I'd softblock under the aforementioned circumstances. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

E (from a user that registered with a longer name, and posted a CHUU request, but only has a few edits per month on the English Wikipedia and doesn't show interest in contributing more often)

Nothing can really be done at that point, if they got that name fair and square. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

6 What is the difference between a Tough Block and a normal one?

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

Optional question from Anonymous Dissident

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

I can e-mail if you'd like further details, but otherwise it's something I'd like to keep quiet. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's not a problem. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

More preemptive questions

8. These usually come up, so I've taken the time to answer the most popular RfAs ahead-of-time:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FlyingToaster 2

• Well, in this case, I supported the candidate. However, as a bureaucrat, I would have likely extended the discussion beyond its original deadline. Despite a strong base of support, several valid opposes were issued towards the very end of the discussion and, obviously, another day of conversation would have probably led to a different outcome.

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Orlady

• With a tally of 102/33, the closing bureaucrat's statement is largely true in that the candidate received broad support. Reading through the Support section, though, many editors later struck their endorsements after reconsideration, and quite a few of the support votes appear weak in nature. Additionally, as far as I can tell, most of the opposers presented sufficient evidence to adequately substantiate their claims. Some of the opposition could have strengthened their arguments by linking to diffs and such, but overall I don't see this as consensus to promote; therefore, consensus not reached.

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Smith609

• Promote for a couple reasons. First, the RfA ended with 76% of the editors supporting; this would, barring any reason to discount a significant portion of the votes, generally suggest promotion is appropriate. That said, a close evaluation of the opposes reveals that many of the arguments presented by those advocating against +sysopping the candidate were flimsy. In the more borderline cases, it is up to the closing bureaucrat to decide which side of the debate provides a better collective case; if one offers limited weight to the "no need" arguments, as well as "too many admins" and and a few of the other vague rationales, consensus is clear.

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ryulong_3

• Seems a pretty straightforward unsuccessful RfA. The concerns raised were widespread and consensus was not in favor of granting the candidate sysop tools.

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/lustiger seth

• Overall, I would have closed this one as successful. RfA is largely an issue of trust, and in this case, there was a general consensus that the candidate was sufficiently trustworthy to handle a small number of specific and minor tasks.

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cirt

• Crat chat, simply too much debate for one bureaucrat to reasonably examine in one sitting.

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zedla

• Unsuccessful. I don't necessarily agree with the opposers' arguments. However, it's clear that the opposition carried unity in their concerns and I don't see necessary levels of support to outweigh that.

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Number 57

• I would open a bureaucrat discussion. Canvassing is a very serious issue, and certainly has the ability to influence a debate unfairly; but I wouldn't feel comfortable determining what constitutes 'canvassing' by myself. As such, I would have sought the opinions of other crats.

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LessHeard vanU

• This is a very tough call. This RfA ended at 73% of voters supporting, placing it at the extreme lower end of the discretionary range, at least in the current environment. The opposes presented valid and strong arguments, though quite a few supports seemed to refute these objections with sufficient weight. I don't think it would have been practical for one bureaucrat to decide on an outcome, so I would have likely initiated a crat chat.

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Carnildo_3

• I find it a bit hard to believe that this nomination resulted in resysopping. At 61%, it seems clear to me the community was not in favor of promotion. As such I'd have closed this as unsuccessful.

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Everyking_5

• Too many objections to justify concluding that consensus endorsed promotion in this case. Unsuccessful.

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aitias 2

• The oppostion in that RfA was substantial enough to sway the debate towards unsuccessful.

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Avraham_2

• In this case, unsuccessful seems like the only reasonable outcome. There was significant opposition and not an overwhelming amount of endorsements to outweight it.

• Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Ral315

• Unsuccessful as well for basically the same reason as Avi 2. Simply insufficient consensus for promotion.

• Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Quadell

• I'd argue for promotion; though I'm unsure of the norms in 2005, the opposition would be weak by today's standards in that "no need for more" isn't necessarily a pursuasive argument.

• Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Riana

• I probably would have promoted had I closed the discussion singlehandedly. There was an extremely large majority in support, and the opposition, while valid, did not offer such exceptional arguments as to outweigh it.

• Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Andrevan3

• I'd go with promotion, although with a bit of hesitance. Traditionally, bureaucrats are almost unanimously trusted, and in order for an RfB to pass there must be relatively little opposition. Going by numbers, 12 opposes is quite significant, although I note that a few were admittedly "weak" or "reluctant". Still, the candidate enjoyed substantial support, sufficient to push the decision into the range of promotion.

–Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from Shubinator

9. If an RfA candidate has asked that the RfA be kept open for the full seven days, are there any conditions where you would close early?

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

Optional questions from Bradjamesbrown

10. You've touched on what you plan to do with the tools at RfA's, and CHU. The one area that's not been mentioned at all is bot policy/flagging. Do you have any experience working with the BAG? (I've looked, and I can't find any- and that's fine with me; it is by far the most technical of the three. However, as b'crat only has three major functions, I'd like to hear something from you about the third.)

My technical abilities are admittedly minimal, but I do operate a bot, JCbot. It has three approved tasks and one pending promotion. I do occasionally comment on existing BRFAs, and I do intend to work with flagging/deflagging if promoted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

11. If selected, would you join the Bureaucrats mailing list?

As I can't see any major downsides, I will probably join. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Optional questions from Jusdafax

12. A few related questions in regards to the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC, which in essence proposes a 'Reverse Rfa'. Seeing as the proposal, if enacted, may include wording to give Bureaucrats additional powers (including the power to close the Cda process or, as in an Rfa, make the call on whether consensus has been reached) do you support this role for bureaucrats? And what is your opinion on the proposal in general, and of the perception of some in the community that there is an ongoing problem of misuse of administrators' tools or influence? Thanks, Jusdafax 08:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

That page has grown to be rather tl;dr, but I'll take a stab at it. :) I'm of the opinion that adminship should be more easy-come, easy-go. As such, I do agree that some form of deadminship process should be initiated. I'm not sure that necessarily has to do admin abuse or misuse; it's just common sense in my opinion that if an admin no longer has the community's trust for whatever reason, there should be some method of having their sysop flag removed without prejudice. Having a community vote or discussion with the end result interpreted by a bureaucrat seems like a reasonable idea to me, although obviously the details are important. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Additional question from Keepscases

13. You meet a young lady who has taken an interest in you. She is beautiful, affectionate, educated, honest, and cheerful. However, she has made it clear that she doesn't understand nor approve of your work on Wikipedia. She feels that people should be paid to update Wikipedia, and that someone's free time would be better spent on other activities (leisure and/or charitable). Knowing she feels this way, would you pursue a relationship with this person, or would her thoughts on Wikipedia be a deal-breaker?

A: (Assuming this is in fact a serious question.) Much as I enjoy reading, editing, and participating in Wikipedia, if I had to choose between continuing my work here and maintaining a relationship in real life, I'd likely pick the latter option. Doesn't necessarily mean I'd quit altogether, but I would spend less time editing, certainly. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Additional question from Becksguy

14. Continuation from Question 9. Assume that a hypothetical RfA is clearly and without any doubt going to be unsuccessful. But the candidate requests that the RfA process be kept open for the full seven day period so as to gain additional helpful feedback. Would you then close that RfA early anyway? Would you still close early against the canidates wishes if the feedback had become (a) civil but unconstructive, (b) uncivil or negative, or (c) contentious?

A: It's a judgment call really. If the candidate is still receiving good-faith, constructive criticism and reviews, it would be acceptable to keep the discussion open even if it's all but guaranteed to fail. Even though RfA shouldn't be used as a substitute for editor review, once you're there, you might as well try to obtain as many suggestions as possible.

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

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

Additional question from Shawn in Montreal

15. Follow up from question 4. It wasn't a "wikibreak" notice it was pretty much a resignation. I was one of many people posting notices on your Talk page asking you to consider and I'm glad you did, a few days later. But I would still like to know more about what all this was about. Could you expand on what the "personal issue partly related to Wikipedia" was?

I'm open to emailing almost anybody who is interested in learning details of the situation. However, as I mentioned above it's something I'm trying to keep quiet on-wiki as my security could be seriously (further) compromised. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Additional question from Btilm

16. Hello! Since you have a particular interest in WP:CHU, I thought I might give you a few instances of username changes. None of these usernames actually exist, and I have given details about each user under "notes". I will most likely post more once you answer these. Please give me your response to these changes under each one.

Hotdogsatbreakfast → Hotdogsatbreakfastandlunch

• Current name: Hotdogsatbreakfast (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• Requested name: Hotdogsatbreakfastandlunch (SUL reports: old & new) (rename user)
• Reason: I want people to know that I also eat hot dogs for lunch. Hotdogsatbreakfast (talk)
• Notes: The current user name only has 3 edits, including this one. The other two are small vandalism to another article. There is no sign of the requested user name on the SUL reports.

A: N Not done. Username changing is a courtesy service usually provided exclusively to good-faith contributors. A pure vandal will have to earn the privilege of being granted their request. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Taylorswiftishot → Iamtherealbatman

• Current name: Taylorswiftishot (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• Requested name: Iamtherealbatman (SUL reports: old & new) (rename user)
• Reason: Don't like taylor swift after her new album, fearless. Hotdogsatbreakfast (talk)
• Notes: The current user name has made 54 edits (not including the username request) to the Taylor Swift article. All of the edits are unreferenced and are a possible hoax. The requested user name does not show any trace in SUL reports.

A: Y Done. Old name is a violation of the username policy as misleading, threatening, offensive, etc., so it's necessary to rename the account if it has so many edits to a high-profile page. Their status as a contributor can be determined later. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

James Murphey → Johnathon Santa

• Current name: James Murphey (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• Requested name: Johnathon Santa (SUL reports: old & new) (rename user)
• Reason: The username has my real name and I don't want that. James Murphey (talk)
• Notes: This current username has 89 edits (not including the username request) to 2 different places. The first one is the current user's user page. The second one is the article James Murphey, started by this user, who also filled it with poorly-written, unreferenced information. The requested user name does not show any trace in SUL reports.

A: I'd add a {{CHU|note}} asking the user if they understand WP:COI, WP:SPAMMER, and other pertinent policies. If they acknowledge that they've reviewed why their article is problematic, I see no problem moving forward with the security-related request. Failing a response after a week or so I would probably mark it as {{notdone}}. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Optional (serious-mockerous) questions from Proofreader77

17. Excuse me if this seems too irreverent a question, but I understand what stewards are good for, yet it seems that the only satisfying use of a bureaucrat bit would be if you woke up one day with the desire to rename Jimbo Wales account to "Mud," just for the pleasure of (momentarily) telling him to his face: Your name is Mud around here, and it be true. Knowing that you could, seems small consolation to the general wussiness of bureaucratism: e.g., Sysops have the social pleasure of terrorizing the fauna, but a crat doing that would be laughed at for stooping to cruelty. (And you can't terrorize administrators with subtle threats to strip their bit.)

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

Note(?): Skipping most important question, I see. (semi-serious smile, question requires broad perspective/wisdom to answer. Perhaps. :-) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 22:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

18. Suppose there is a large number of oppose votes, but it is clear that the opposers are serial social bullies who (or their friends) have been nailed for it by the RfA candidate in the past. Does a crat have the authority to simply overlook "snowball bullshit" arising from those who habitually commit social crimes — or must a crat bow to "the social"?

"Bullshit" is vague, subjective, and isn't really a valid rationale for discounting a large volume of the opposition. So long as their arguments hold water, there's no evidence of sockpuppets or canvassing, and the voters are considered to be in good-standing, their opinions are probably legitimate. But I can't really make a reasonable call on that hypothetical scenario without background context—how many supports were there, for example? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I believe we should expect a Wikipedia bureaucrat to be a exceptionally knowledgeable connoisseur of bullshit varieties. (A fundamental area of rhetorical education, acknowledging the serious lack of that focus in education for the past century or so, but to be corrected, in due course .:-) But yes, excuse the lack of specificity of the details here ... For a less vague question, see "do you promise not to brag about it at the prom ..." ;-) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 22:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

19. If I create a bot "whose" only purpose is to randomly mock Juliancolton for being a wussy bureaucrat from time to time, would you OK it?

A. Heh, that's not my job. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

(Comment)
"Bureaucrats are Wikipedia users with the technical ability to:

• promote other users to administrator or bureaucrat status;
• grant and revoke an account's bot status; and
• rename user accounts."

-- :-) You wouldn't really need WP:BAG approval for that one, would you? lol (Bureaucrat's discretion regarding said-bureaucrat-mocking bot under scope of self-mockery exclusion? :-) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 22:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Depends. What's the programming code? :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from WFCforLife

20. I haven't been around wikipedia that long, and this is the first time I have participated in an RfB. My understanding of a bureucrat's role is that while most of the time they work to a set of quite rigidly-defined rules, there are occasions where they are required to exercise discretion. Given that it is easier to move Heaven and Earth on wikipedia (EDIT: actually, just heaven) than it is to de-sysop someone, clearly these discretionary calls are not insignificant. Could you give a couple of examples where you have made discretionary calls on wikipedia, either by ignoring the rules for the benefit of the encyclopaedia, or where you were able to exercise discretion in your role as an admin?

A. I'm often of the opinion that policies are merely descriptive rather than prescriptive, and are sometimes not comprehensive. Therefore, I have been known to take BOLD-yet-still-fairly-reasonable administrative actions. I probably wouldn't be able to remember specific examples of particularly IAR-ish decisions of mine, but a few of my more difficult decisions at AfD that I can remember include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levi Johnston and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (2nd nomination), though I know there are countless others I just can't seem to recall at the moment. (Worth noting that I closed the Levi Johnston debate a few days early because I felt the discussion had gone beyond productive at that point.) Either way, I believe that common sense is crucial when policy doesn't explicitly address a particular situation. Welcome to RfX, by the way! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Juliancolton: Juliancolton (talk · contribs · deleted · count [quick] · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi · search an, ani, cn, an3)
• Edit summary usage for Juliancolton (talk · contribs) can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

• In response to A Stop at Willoughby—as you said, admins who have a vested personal interest in an article being discussed at XfD are discouraged from closing the debate. I've closed several thousand AfDs over the past 16 months or so, and I'm pretty confident I can determine when I feel neutral or disinterested enough to take administrative action. It'll be the same way at RfA; if I believe my views on a certain issue would cloud my judgment, I would avoid closing the RfA and instead engage in it at an editorial level. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
• Just a quick comment regarding the "Friday incident", since it seems that it may ha been misinterpreted a bit. All I did at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Friday was add my signature to two lists; to certify the basis for the RfC and endorse another editor's post. I engaged in no further activity with the discussion. I agree that the RfC was not well-constructed, but in my view, certifying an RfC doesn't necessarily mean you agree with the initial statement, just that you endorse the opinion that there's a problem. Hopefully this doesn't come across as too defensive, I just wanted to clear things up. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• I must note that I am confused by the opposition surrounding the Friday RfC. As far as I can tell, JC simply endorsed a couple views, and that was pretty much it. He did not do any of the major writing of the RfC, it was Majorly that did so. Also, considering that this was months ago, I do not see how this would affect JC's judgment, particularly as a bureaucrat, which is essentially only a "boring technical position". The Thing _{Merry Christmas} 00:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
• Note: forgot this in the nom statement. My rights log and rename log at simplewiki. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. He's only improved from the last time around. I think he's fully ready now. ceranthor 00:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
2. No doubt in my mind.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 01:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Support I was wondering when this would finally come up again. More than definitely qualified, no concerns with this user.  IShadowed  ✰  01:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Support Bwrs (talk) 02:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Support. I've known Julian since his early days with the project through the U.S. Roads WikiProject. As time has gone on I've seen him evolve from a newcomer into a great administrator whose name seems to turn up on every Wikipedia-space page that I visit. No hesitation supporting him for bureaucrat. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Support I trust his judgment, and he is an experienced administrator. --Rschen7754) 02:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Definitely. And I hope this doesn't spiral out of control...  fetchcomms☛ 02:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
8. Strongest Possible Support Outstanding user and very active with over 110000 edits and has made made and done a lot of admin actions with nearly 2800 blocks and 16000 page deletions and hence he can be trusted with being a good and active yet a non controversial crat and is also a content creator with over 134 articles. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
9. For juliancolton. Keegan (talk) 03:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
10. Bsimmons666 (talk) 03:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
11. About Time. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
12. Strong Support One of the best editors around. Airplaneman ^talk 04:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
13. Support, per nomination. –blurpeace ^(talk) 04:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
14. Support Julian is one of our most dedicated administrators and one of the most helpful editors in general. I think he would make an excellent bureaucrat. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 04:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
15. Strong Support of course. ❄ upstateNYer ❄ 04:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
16. ewww... It's a julian claus —Dark 05:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
17. Strong SupportWTHN?Abce2|Free lemonadeonly 25 cents! 05:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
18. Strong Support - was a great admin, will be a good bureaucrat. December21st2012Freak ^{Happy Holidays!} 05:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
19. Support Cratship is about trust, and I believe Julian has earned that trust. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
20. Strong Support No joke, I was actually saying to myself today "I wonder why Julian isn't a 'crat yet". He has both the experience and trust necessary to perform this job. --Shirik (talk) 06:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
21. Strong Support. Bracing for the drama, but anybody truly dedicated will wonder why this hasn't already happened. Şļџğģő 06:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
22. Support I've had the chance to interact with Jullian in several forums. I've seen Julian show restraint and maturity in his actions, even in the times that we have been opposite sides of the debate at hand. Dave (talk) 07:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
23. Support will make an excellent additional 'crat. Bencherlite^Talk 07:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
24. Of course!-SpacemanSpiff 07:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
25. Support with no hesitation! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
26. Support The only objection I've been able to come up with is in relation to age; and ultimately I'm not comfortable opposing a candidate based on that. Julian has proven himself trustworthy with the sysop tools. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
27. Support Great candidate for this role: Level-headed, bright, dedicated, and of good moral character. Obviously learned from the last Rfb. Delighted to support. Jusdafax 08:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
28. Support No doubts here. ≈ Chamal ^talk ☃ 09:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
29. Support, no worries. Cirt (talk) 09:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
30. Of course. Tim Song (talk) 10:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
31. Support BejinhanTalk 10:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
32. Heh, yes. Pmlineditor ∞ 10:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
33. Support, per nom. Theleftorium 10:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
34. Support supported on last will do so again Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
35. Support, Congrats JC. Unomi (talk) 11:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
36. Support without hesitation -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 13:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
37. Strong Support: He represents the very best of Wikipedia! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
38. Support I can count on the dull-blue signature as a sign of stability in any discussion. I only met him via my first official scolding over something when I was brand new, but will never forget how incredibly polite and very helpful he was.. From everything I've seen, it just keep getting better and better. Good luck! ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
39. Extremely strong support. Although I've had no personal interaction with him, Julian, I think I can safely say, is one of the most respected editors on the wiki. His massive experience, for example, in closing AfDs, and trustworthiness (if that's even a word!) make him more than qualified for the job. HJMitchell You rang? 13:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
40. Strong Support Trustworthy city. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
41. (edit conflict) Support Very active user. Talk page exemplifies what a bureaucrat should aim for, particularly this. Although JC is a well-regarded admin, he graciously helps out a newcomer. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 14:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
42. Support. Julian is a sensible and dedicated user who has become a competent and trusted administrator. I have absolutely no concerns about his suitability for the additional responsibility of bureaucratship. ~ mazca ^talk 14:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
43. Support Absolutely no question. Thingg^⊕⊗ 14:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
44. Support Yesyesyes, just like last time. That signature is among the names I most immediately associate with respectful and thought-out responses, and JC would be a huge boon to the CHU scene. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
45. Unconditional Support No concerns awesome admin, very active, has all the qualities we should be looking for in a crat. RP459 (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
46. Support - I fully trust Julian to be able to make decisions regarding crat matters. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 15:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
47. Support. If not this user, then whom? I remember that there were comments last time about making fewer me-too comments, and I think Julian has genuinely improved on that. He is ideally qualified. Absolutely. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
48. Support I supported last time, if anything he is better qualified now. ϢereSpielChequers 15:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
49. Strong Support There is no reason to oppose. Julian is one of the most trusted and respected editors here and him becomeing a crat will only help this site.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 15:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
50. Support - Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 15:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
51. One of the most hardworking users. Avoids drama. Shubinator (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
52. Support Responsible, civil, understands policy, and more that I won't even go on to mention. What more could I look for in a b-crat candidate?--Res2216firestar 15:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
53. He does a great work. I know him from several projects. I'm also a simple wiki crat and can confirm that he does a good work there in all areas. I trust him and have no worries. He knows what he is doing. I see no reason why he shouldn't be a crat. Good luck Julian. --Barras ^talk 15:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
54. Support I like your answer to Q12, not because you support the policy but for the reason you gave "I'm not sure that necessarily has to do admin abuse or misuse; it's just common sense in my opinion that if an admin no longer has the community's trust for whatever reason ...". Sole Soul (talk) 15:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
55. Major support. One of the best Wikipedia users I know, and very trusted/respected by the community. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
56. Support Per last time. Julian has not stopped his activity in crat related areas and has done impressive work for a long time now. Regards SoWhy 16:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
57. Support He's level-headed, inciteful, knowledgable, and fair. Every time I've crossed his path I have admired his work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
58. Knowledgeable, has clue, nothing else needed.  GARDEN  16:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
59. No valid concerns have been raised at all, so, very strong support for an excellent candidate. Majorly talk 16:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
60. Strong Support - I see no wrong with you as an administrator, so why can't you be a crat? smithers - talk - sign! 17:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
61. Support He has only improved since last time. LittleMountain5 17:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
62. Support Good experiences in the past, and improvement in concerns from last time. Happy Holidays! America69 (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
63. Support I've ran across his work on occasion, and I've seen nothing that would shake my trust in the slightest. Very insightful, reasonable, good decision making skills. Angrysockhop ^{(Merry Christmas!)} 18:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
64. Secret ^account 19:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
65. Hell fuck yes. ···Katerenka (討論) 20:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
66. Strong Support. Juliancolton has shown the insight and involvement into the various areas I consider paramount to fulfilling the role of Bureaucrat. I have complete confidence in his abilities. Mkdw^talk 20:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
67. Very Strong Support Great admin, great editor. Willking1979 (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
68. Support Thank you for coming back into the meatgrinder. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
69. Definite Support -- I seldom !vote, but comments here, as well as actions, show a clear understanding of relevant policies. -- Pakaran 21:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks for your support. As IPs are not allowed to vote, could you please log in if you've got an account? Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

    Yes, it's me. I can't believe I did that. But if you're this on the ball, I suppose it's even more reason to support. -- Pakaran 21:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

    Ah, alright. :) Thanks again! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

70. Unambiguous Support - I can see after noticing him participating in several projects, such as Wikipedia:WikiCup/2010 Signups, that he should without a doubt be able to strive as a bureaucrat! Schfifty3 22:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
71. Delighted to Support again. The depth and breadth of Juliancolton's contributions to Wikipedia are extraordinary. Ray^Talk 23:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
72. 70+ editors in under 24 hours can't be wrong — I can't imagine having Julian as a bureaucrat being anything but a benefit for Wikipedia. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
73. Support No real concerns raised by opposers, imo, even if nothing jumps out and says support, either. But bureaucrat can be a job done by someone who is willing to read what they are supposed to be deciding upon, and Julian Colton appears to read before making decisions. IMO that's what a bureaucrat should do, so there's no reason not to support it if he wants it. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
74. Fágh an Bealach delirious ☯ ^{~ nollaig shona duit~} 00:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
75. Support This is a fairly technical role and I've never seen Julian do anything that would suggest he wouldn't handle it well. Orderinchaos 01:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
76. Support, no worries here. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 03:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
77. Surely MBisanz ^talk 03:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
78. Strong support Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
79. Support The opposes are extremely weak and seem tooriginate from an inability to distinguish between someone having an independant opinion, and a fear that the said opinion will be imposed against consensus. The preamble to the sixth oppose goes at great lenght to establish the strengths of JC as and admin and as an editor, as someone who takes care and gives thoughts to his decisions and contributions. It is ridiculous to think that this same care will not be taken when doing bureaucratic work. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

    I don't think my vote is "ridiculous." See my additional comment below. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

80. I support this non-perfect sometimes-flawed candidate who will likely make a mistake or two, mess something up, and make one or two bad decisions. Overall, Julian is a hard-working, dedicated editor who is looking to extend his services, and help out in a few backloged areas. No doubt he will make some mistakes, but not one human being is perfect. Why should we expect Julian to be? I hate the attitude about "forget the backlogs... who cares if we close the RfA four days late..." If we have backlogs, and a fully-qualified candidate is willing to assist in clearing them, why the hell say no!? You don't agree with some of his views? You think he'll do something improper based on his views? Give me a damn break. We have a policy on assuming good faith, under which it's expected that we don't assume the worst in an editor. There is no way to tell if Julian's take on ageism is going to affect his RfA closures where ageism is a factor. He hasn't done this yet, so why on earth should we assume the worst from someone who has been called "one of Wikipedia's most respected editors" multiple times on this page alone? I hope that before editors place a vote here, they consider the Net Positive essay, and Assume Good Faith policy. To end on a more positive note, Good Luck Julian, and Happy Holidays! :-) iMatthew ^talk at 03:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

    I don't think I'm assuming bad faith. See my additional comment below. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

81. Support JC is a great admin and his current work plus his contribution to projects like WP:WPTC makes him a suitable person for this job. Darren23^Edits|Mail 03:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
82. Support - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
83. Support Excellent editor and administrator and a valuable asset to the community. Triplestop x3 04:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
84. Support - I see no reason why I should not support him again after supporting him during RfB #1. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
85. Support Why the hell not. I see no reason why you can't determine consensus and frankly this job isn't rocket science. You're a mature and experienced Wikipedian, you'll do fine. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 08:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
86. Support The opposes here are downright ridiculous. A slightly retarded monkey with good intentions could make a better admin than most of the ones we currently have, and the role of crat is even less demanding. I see nothing at all about this user that makes me think he would be anything less than outstanding at this role. Trusilver 09:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
87. Support Aditya Ex Machina 10:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
88. Support I supported him last time and my feelings haven't changed. Julian is a hard working and level headed contributor and I feel certain that he'll do a great job.Shinerunner (talk) 11:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
89. Support The voices from the oppose camp do not sound convincing at all. The candidate's answer regarding the closing of the past RFAs is correct. I began thinking that B'cratship is not as much big dig as RFA, and ArbCom election, so having another B'crat reduces backlog which is a good thing for the community. I do care about age when it comes to electing somebody. However, from what I've observed on many things happening within Wikipedia, one's maturity and wisdom have little thing to with his/her age. Julian is a smart and dedicated admin committed to the community and willing to devote himself to 'crat area, so I want to support him.--Caspian blue 14:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
90. Stong Support. I've always thought JC has been a very hardworking admin and editor with a strong knowledge of policy and a good attitude. I think he could do well with the crat bit. Valley2city^‽ 15:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
91. Support. Most suitable; good luck! ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 15:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
92. Support. He is a good editor who would be suitable to be a bureaucrat enough said.Jason Rees (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
93. Support – One of the few reasonable persons on this project. --Aitias (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
94. Support To be sure, my own dealings with him have been nothing but great. And his positions of responsibility on other projects lends credence to the idea that he will be a responsible 'crat here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
95. Support per nom. Durova³⁸⁶ 18:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
96. Support We need crats who are very experienced and julian fits the bill here. My earlier oppose was based on a feeling that he wasn't quite ready then. Polargeo (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
97. Support - As Julian mentioned, there's a need for more 'crats (at least I think there is), and I can't think of a better candidate, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
98. Strongest possible support. This admin is amazing at friendliness. ConCompS (Talk to me) 20:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
99. Support - Wide range of experience, extremely dedicated to the project, all around good guy. Can't think of a single reason he wouldn't make a great Arb. Bullzeye ^contribs 21:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
100. Support although nothing concrete, good feelings about this editor and what work I have seen him do...all the right people support too. Ikip 21:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
101. All my support I have not met Juliun, but from what I've seen and heard during my time here: YES! LouriePieterse 21:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
102. Absolutely support. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
103. Support. Let's get it right the second time, shall we? — ξ^xplicit 22:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
104. Support - I trust Juliancolton and the work he has done elsewhere, including having some very trusted positions, generally confirms to me he can be trusted as a bureaucrat here. I don't find the opposition convincing at this time, his views on ageism I don't find concerning. Nor am I feeling cynical about his justifications for being a bureaucrat, and even backlogs are not as much of a problem as betrayed, more bureaucrats, as long as they are competent, is not a bad thing. Camaron · Christopher · talk 23:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
105. Support based on prior good experiences with the editor that leave me confident that he will make an excellent `crat. — Kralizec! (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
106. Absolutely. Malinaccier (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
107. Support: Trustworthy, clueful, and net positive as a crat. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
108. Support: I supported his first RfB and this is just the logical followup. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 00:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
109. Support. I'd probably oppose an RFA for Julian were he to run again, for the exact same reasons I'd support an RFB. He's persnickety and obsessed with minutiae and the letter-of-the-law to the extent of sometimes overriding common sense, and will regularly make decisions against his own better judgement, because that's what he thinks the Wisdom Of The Crowd is calling for. This is extremely annoying - especially when one's on the receiving end of it - in an admin, but is exactly how a Wikipedia 'crat ought to behave. – iridescent 01:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
110. Support -- Avi (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
111. Support, I supported previously, the candidate has only improved further since then. --Taelus (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
112. Support He should have been made a 'crat a long time ago... The Thing _{Merry Christmas} 02:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
113. I stongly supported the first time around, and I unequivocally strongly support him again. –MuZemike 05:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
114. 110000 edits, nearly 2800 blocks, 16000 page deletions, thousands of AfD closes. If there were a problem, wouldn't we know by now? - Dank (push to talk) 05:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
115. Support—I'll make an exception for someone so young, since he shows a lot of maturity and is trustable. I'm not going to support anyone else this young, though. It should not be the norm. Tony (talk) 05:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
116. Support on the basis that this callow youth candidate lives life to a level of boredom that would drive a battery hen to take a night class. He's pedantic, unimaginative, inflexible and presumably awkward in the company of either gender. I suspect he smells like soup. On that basis this Adderall crazed shut-in is more than qualified to be a byoo-row-krat. For fuck's sake give him the bit and point him in the direction of Meta. East isn't it? Crafty (talk) 07:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
117. Yes, absolutely OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 08:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
118. Yes. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  11:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
119. Support and fully trust. J04n(talk page) 12:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
120. Support, and I do so strongly. Having known Julian for some time now, I am confidant in supporting this bid for "'crat". I've found him to be a joy to work with, tremendously thoughtful, and exceptionally mature when faced with adversity. I've never really understood why the 'crat bit was such a big deal, in fact I find it even less a "big deal" than the admin. bit. B'crats don't dictate consensus, they evaluate it. Since "less than 50%" and "more than 70%" isn't exactly "rocket surgery", I don't hesitate in supporting this. Julian has shown that he is quite capable of evaluating consensus; and in fact some of the opposes in his first RfB, which cited that he "did too much work" as rational, would have been amusing, if not sad. I'll admit that Irridescent's "support" made me smile, while I must admit that she brings some excellent points to light. I'm also surprised to find myself in a different section than WJBscribe - that simply doesn't happen very often. I did find one "oppose" to be heartfelt; that which states a concern for Julian's time distribution between "real-life" and the 'pedia. While that is certainly something that one must reflect upon, I don't believe it is our remit as editors to make such evaluations; rather it is something that Julian himself must consider. After considering all reasons to oppose, and after considering Julian's calm demeanor, dedicated work ethic, and his strong desire to improve our project - I am fully confidant in supporting this RfB. — Ched :  ?  14:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
121. Support. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of minors being admins. Mostly because of the issues with the uncensored content they're entrusted to manage. However, for 'cratship, there is no additional concern in that regard. Opposing on those grounds in an RFA is one thing; in an RFB, it's a moot point. That said, for a long time many editors have pointed out that there are exceptions to the rule when it comes to age and maturity. AnonDiss has been cited countless times as such an example. Julian is easily another. In all of my interactions with him, and in all I've seen from him on the project, he's handled himself well. He displays maturity and clue consistently. He's knowledgeable in all the necessary areas, dedicated, and trustworthy. This project suffers from quite a few significant issues—some more significant than others—and he has a strong grasp on all of them. So while he is young, he's also bright. Being a minor on this project forces him to have to deal with some issues older editors don't have to worry about. I'm impressed with his ability to deal with these issues gracefully. That includes keeping his cool while immature adults with poor manners refer to him as a child, for example. People often like to assume the worst. Lacking details or understanding thereof, they draw inaccurate conclusions. Julian's IRC channel is his personal public channel, something many Wikipedian's have, though quite a few are private (membership required sort of private) channels. Not only are admins, arbs, and Wikimedia chan-ops regulars there, but Jimmy Wales makes an occasional appearance as well. It's a channel of random conversation, less serious than channels such as #wikipedia-en (despite Prodego's best efforts ;)). It is for all these reasons (and adding consideration for his solid content work) that I am confident that Julian will be an asset to the project as a 'crat just as he has been with as an admin. Continue to impress us, Julian. Lara ☁ 14:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
122. Eh. I opposed last time around but the more I think about it the less I feel it was a well-reasoned oppose. Julian does a lot of work, and a lot of good work, around here and hasn't really given me any reason to suspect that he'll cause the project to explode if we give him an extra bit. He may not be the perfect candidate for the position - but then again, who of us is? He's willing to do the job and in all likelihood will do well at it. Some might choose to view his second self-nom as being overly eager for the "promotion" but I would only question the sanity of someone wanting to put themseleves through this ringer again. I hope his remains intact through this ordeal. Good luck! :) Shereth 14:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
123. After giving this a good read through, I've decided to Support. Jeffrey Mall (talk • be merry) - 15:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
124. Support - opinion still unchanged from last time. Jeni ^(talk) 16:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
125. Support He exhibits great maturity and policy knowledge needed for this position. I've had the opportunity to see how JC quickly transformed himself from newbie to competent administrator in a short time and am sure will do well in this new capacity. --Polaron | Talk 18:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
126. Support User displays the necessary maturity and I like his answers to the questions. While the backlog isn't yet unmanageable, there's nothing wrong with having another crat. The Friday may turn out to be a case of bad judgment, but we're all human here. Else, we'd have bots promoting at RFA. Julian writes those weather and road articles which are boring as hell, but this isn't about content. I trust Julian to use the bit wisely. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
127. Support - Juliancolton is an excellent administrator and user, and I believe that he has the knowledge, skills, ability and generally awesomeness that is required for being a 'crat. I trust him fully with the additional tools and responsibilities. Ale_Jrb^talk 19:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
128. Support I think Julian would be a fine 'crat. ArcAngel (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
129. Support My only reservation is age (not maturity, which I think is in ample supply), and I just can't see it as a reason to oppose. If the foundation doesn't see fit to place this limit, I have to go by Julian's activity - and that surely merits the 'crat bit.  Frank  |  talk  20:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
130. Support. I have a lot of respect for my esteemed colleagues under the Oppose heading, below, but I just can't agree that their concerns outweigh the candidate's positive contributions to the project. Lara sums up my thoughts well. As for the age issue - we need to know how mature a candidate is, and I think we have that here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
131. Support I've never seen Julian as anything but reasonable and levelheaded, two qualities which will serve him well if he is promoted. TNXMan 21:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
132. Support Has been great pretty much every time I recall seeing him, in and out of WPTC. —AySz88\^-^ 21:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
133. Support - Generally impressed by Julian overall, and none of the oppositions are compelling to me. -- Atama頭 22:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
134. Support: Very good work by this user, I'm sure they'll continue to do so as a bureaucrat. --The Evil IP address (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
135. Support --Griffinofwales (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
136. Support. As far as the age issue goes, this user is a good example of why there shouldn't be a hard-and-fast rule on it. I had slight concerns about allowing this person to exercise discretion on important calls. While I'm frankly dismayed that wikipedia policy allows for one of the articles he kept, Julian clearly made a tough but correct call there. In that case it's the policy I disagree with; the reading of it was perfect. WFCforLife (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
137. Support Opposes don't concern me at all, especially the ones about your age. From what I've seen you are very mature, respectable, and knowledgeable about policy. ThemFromSpace 00:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
138. Strong support, excellent user. Ironholds (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
139. Support I see nothing to show that Julian would be anything but a net positive to Wikipedia. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 01:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
140. Support. Fully qualified candidate, well suited for this role. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
141. Support Comments by both the opposers and supporters indicate that Julian is a top-flight admin. I think that qualifies him for 'cratship. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 03:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
142. Support - Per Lara and Dank. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 03:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
143. Support - per mazca. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
144. Strong Support. Juliancolton is a very trustworthy wikipedian. I always see him (her?) helping out. Btilm_{Happy Holidays!} 04:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

     Him. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW, one of the support statements mentions that you are a minor. Is that true? Btilm_{Happy Holidays!} 04:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. I have a number of concerns from recent months. First, this candidate has been busy on WP:BN, finding trivial delays in bureaucrat work and blowing it out of proportion to try to create the perception that we need more 'crats (several incidents here, such as a few hours delay "disprove the myth that we don't need any more 'crats. :)" -- okay, nonsense. It's essential that 'crats have healthy perspective. It's a ridiculous, unhelpful attitude to think that these things all need to be dealt with in minutes or hours. Yet this seems a persistent belief). I think WJBScribe said it best, "I realise those who are thinking of requesting the bureaucrat flag have an interest in presenting the current bureaucrat team as short staffed, but I do find these sorts of threads a bit depressing." Also, Julian certified an RFC that I find frivolous and abusive against Friday, whom he accuses (two days ago) of not assuming good faith[1]. I don't want 'crats who have this sort of attitude toward RFA participants. Am concerned about his views on ageism. I have seen other things that have concerned me in recent months and will find if necessary. Finally -- administrator on Meta, administrator on Wikinews, administrator on Simple, "Global Rollbacker". That's the sound of the trophy collecting alarm. --JayHenry (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

   Additional concerns: Did this account need blocked? Can a reasonable person be offended by the user name holycrapwoah? --JayHenry (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

   The risk is real that when you have 44 people going one way and one person going the other way, people are so certain that the one must be wrong that they feel confident in contradicting them ... but confidence in contradicting people annoys people and generates opposition at RfA/RfB, and it's also not productive; lone dissenters often have useful things to say, and should be greeted with respect and consideration anytime they have obviously done some digging and some thinking, as Jay has here.

   So, to your points: I follow that if someone makes a case for more crats then runs for crat, there's a potential COI. However, Julian has been very active for years in promoting a more tolerant attitude towards anyone who runs for anything ... so personally, this seems consistent rather than self-serving to me, but YMMV. Also, the phrase he used was "disprove the myth that we don't need any more 'crats" ... which is different than saying "I believe we need more crats", and needed to be said, since there is in fact a persistent myth that we don't need more crats. I don't want to say too much about AGF at RfA at this time, that would lead us down a long and twisty road; some people people think we should say something when people don't AGF in order to try to improve the atmosphere at RFA, some think that it's pointless (because crats can weight votes appropriately) and likely to lead to tangents of recrimination and counter-recrimination (as it has above). I hope we get this resolved some day; I'll be happy to discuss the subject at length after this RfB on my talk page. I'm sorry to see ageism come up again; we've done a pretty good job keeping the lid on that box in recent months. It's just one of those subjects that makes everyone feel worse, regardless of the outcome of the conversation. - Dank (push to talk) 15:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

   Again ... my goal here is to treat Jay as the intelligent commenter that he is, and I welcome any more detail or explanation, Jay. If what happens instead is that a bunch of people jump in and say, Yeah! You're right! Jay sucks! ... then I will have failed miserably with this reply. - Dank (push to talk) 15:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks again for your polite tone, Dan. The only myth is that anyone has the attitude "who cares if we close the RfA four days late". I care a lot if we close RFAs four days late. That has never happened even once. The notion that "we need more crats" when our backlogs are dealt with extremely quickly reflects either 1) misjudgment or 2) an obsession with reckless speed. One of the links I provided is that Julian doesn't think a "stop and think" period would be useful for re-sysopping. So when I connect the dots: false sense of urgency and opposition to things like a trivially-short "stop and think" period of 24 hours (let me repeat: 24 hours is trivial), sounds like as clear a recipe for rash action as we could get. --JayHenry (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

   (As for AGF, it is kind of like The Game. The more we talk about it the more we lose. The policy should really only be linked ironically.) --JayHenry (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

   Finally, what of my concern with appointing a bureaucrat who endorsed a frivolous and misleading RFC against an RFA participant with an unpopular point of view? That's a quality I should be comfortable with in a bureaucrat? Maybe you're comfortable with bureaucrats participating in such campaigns and find that compatible with a non-toxic RFA atmosphere. But, see, I have unpopular opinions too, and a tongue that sometimes comes across as acidic, or, in the vernacular of RFA, I violate the policies of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. (The sacred bluelinks that are our Eucharist; I, a pagan, in the communion line.) How long before policy dictates that we have an RFC against me? --JayHenry (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

   Note for participants: the RFC was neither frivoulous nor misleading; that is just JayHenry's opinion. He, like some others, completely misunderstood its purpose (and clearly still does). I'll repeat it once again: it's not about the opinion, but rather, how the opinion is expressed. There are several editors who manage to oppose candidates frequently, yet manage to avoid the stick that Friday gets. Why? Because they show a smidgen of respect and courtesy. I strongly support any bureaucrat candidate who takes a stance against bullies and pessimists, who feel it necessary to belittle, embarrass, sully and insult whoever they happen to dislike. Thing is, JayHenry is a useful editor (as much as he dislikes me, for whatever reason, I hold a lot of respect for his excellent article work), and while I disagree with his tone, opinions, and pessimistic outlook on the project, it does not come up so frequently as the other editor mentioned who I felt required a discussion. Additionally, Friday is an administrator, somebody who is supposed to be in a position of trust. JayHenry is not. It is unlikely there will be any RFC against JayHenry, at least not from me. Majorly talk 18:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

   I don't have much experience with RFCCs, and I'm not willing to say who deserves one and who doesn't. The third-season DVD of The Tudors just came out, and when I saw the role the jester played in speaking truth to the king, I was reminded why we give people a pretty free hand on Wikipedia to speak freely, foolishly and ascerbically to people in power ... and who knows who's in power on Wikipedia, or what power even is? We don't have any positions of authority here, except arguably ArbCom. But Friday only got half a support in that RFCC, and my position at RfA/RfB is that I don't like to re-argue the question of whether someone was completely off-base ... if no one thought Julian was off-base at the time, then that's good enough for me; it suggests that he was taking one side of an issue rather than going off on his own tangent or showing faulty judgment. I don't think we've ever talked about why most of us don't oppose candidates if they're on the wrong side of a few issues ... that probably deserves some discussion, because it's so different from how, say, national elections proceed. In almost all U.S. two-candidate presidential elections, for instance, both candidates have received 45% to 55% of the vote ... how strange is it that everyone gets about half the vote, considering the great and awful candidates we've had? It's because there's some kind of faulty wiring in the human psyche that tries to turn any major election into a vote on the "issues", and each side tries to position their favorite "issues" as close to the center of voting spectrum as they can. If we ever do that at RfA or especially RfB, we're screwed ... no one will pass RfB if even 40% of the voters engage in divisive "issue"-politics and split 50/50 on any candidate. So: even though Julian and I don't share identical positions, I'm not going to count off for that at RfB, as long as people have generally had a positive reaction to what he's done, and they have. - Dank (push to talk) 21:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose Too much of a Wikipedia obsessive and too young. It aint healthy, he needs a better balance in his life and making him a 'crat would be detrimental to his mental health. RMHED (talk) 19:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

   I really don't think this needs a response... but... Julian is completely sane, as shown through his on-wiki actions and even off wiki ones. ceranthor 19:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

   RHMED, it's no surprise your own RfA's were unsuccessful when you appear to lack the understanding of how this whole RfA process by providing reasonable arguments seems to work. Mkdw^talk 20:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose per response to question 12, which I find worrying. Community-based deadminship would be a huge change; treating it as relatively minor and suggesting there is a "common sense" solution (which there isn't--both sides have exhibited common sense, and yet continue to disagree) is not a good idea. I want to stress, though, that I have found Julian to be a very good admin and generally helpful in disputes, and I am opposing solely over that one issue, and by extension over the repeated attempts to bring bureaucrats into it. Chick Bowen 19:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

   I was speaking more hypothetically than anything, to be honest. As I said, the details are important, and no solution is anywhere close to being set in stone yet. I certainly don't take deadminship lightly, and in a way our current method—ArbCom—does work if utilized properly. My "common sense" statement was more in reference to the fact that admins who are no longer trusted by the community as a whole shouldn't retain the bit; not necessarily to the RFDA process as proposed. Hope that helps clear things up. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

   How do you feel about the bureaucrat role discussed in many of these proposals? Would you be comfortable, if you were a bureaucrat, in closing a deadminship request that had not gone to arbitration (understanding that the proposals are not all the same and that the details of the process would make a difference)? Chick Bowen 20:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

   It's hard to say right now. Until and unless there is strong community consensus for implementing a deadminship process akin to RfA, where the community discusses the candidate and a bureaucrat closes the debate, I would not encourage or engage in such a process. If "Requests for Deadminship" is created and put into routine usage, and made a part of the bureaucrats' job, I would have no objections. My answer to question 12 was based solely on my personal opinion of the proposal, and the fact that I do generally endorse it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

   I've created a subpage so that I could fully explain my views on this complex issue without cluttering up your RFB. It includes an immediately relevant section on "deadminship and bureaucrats." I think it's important, if CDA goes through, to have bureaucrats who are unenthusiastic about it, creating a reluctance to deadmin that will have to be overcome by particularly strong reasons to do so. Thus I'm afraid I must continue to oppose this RFB. Let me stress again, though, that I think Julian has been an excellent admin. Chick Bowen 00:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

4. I opposed last time, and I'm going again this time, for largely the same reasons. Julian seems like an excellent editor and admin. I've never seen him be less than mature or polite in his interactions, and while I'm not directly familiar with his content work, I understand that it's very solid. I'm not criticizing him as an editor or admin, but I do feel uncomfortable with supporting him for this particular role. I'm still concerned about his views on RfA and their potential impact on RfA closes. I personally don't think he's given sufficient weight to concerns about maturity at RfA, and the treatment of Friday (talk · contribs) which he's signed off on is not really exemplary of how I'd want to see these sorts of opposes handled. This looks likely to succeed, and if it does, then I hope Julian proves me to be wrong and ignorant in these concerns, but I still feel compelled to voice them - again, without taking anything away from his fine work in several other areas of the project. MastCell ^Talk 01:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose. I am sorry but I feel I must oppose. As JayHenry explains above, Julian seems to have been trying to "manufacture" a need for more bureaucrats for a while by drawing attention to backlogs that simply do not exist. He does so in his nomination - I cannot see that WP:CHU has in any way been understaffed over the holiday period. Whilst I am perfectly happy for there to be more bureaucrats, and I don't think we need backlogs to have new crats, this approach worries me. I have this thread from WP:BN particularly in mind, where Julian decided to "ruffle some feathers". The post was pointless and rude, mainly managing to antagonise those crats who Julian apparently deemed not be working hard enough. I think successful crats need a tad more diplomacy and - dare I say it - maturity.
   I am troubled by some of the answers to question 8. In particular, I find it difficult to justify the Orlady RfA being closed as no-consensus and I simply do not (as I stated in my closing rationale) see the Cirt RfA as a borderline one. Bureaucrats differ to some extent in how they approach these matters and there is no one right answer, but I find that Julian's idea of what constitutes consensus is way too far from mine. I would also point out that his analysis of the Andrevan and Riana RfBs above appears contradictory - for Riana, exceptional arguments are looked for in the opposition, yet for Andre the 12 opposers are significant as there "must be relatively little opposition".
   Finally, I agree with others above that this sort of thing doesn't show the kind of judgment I'd to see in a crat candidate. All in all, although I recognise that Julian does very good work around the wiki and is clearly very popular, I do not think his temperament is suited to the role of bureaucrat and I have issues with how he would determine consensus based on his answers to the questions. WJBscribe (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

   Sorry, but how is Friday's RfC in any way a problem? Please reply on my talk page. Majorly talk 02:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks for the feedback. If you don't mind, I'd like to try to address a few of those points. I've only known you to be very reasonable, though, so I'm confident your reasons for objecting are valid for the most part.

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

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

6. Oppose I recognize that this RfB will most likely pass, but I don't really feel comfortable supporting. First of all, I note that this vote is not a criticism of Julian as an editor, nor is it a criticism of Julian as an administrator; rather, I have serious concerns about Julian as a potential bureaucrat. Julian's tireless article work, evidenced by his numerous featured content credits, is truly commendable. Similarly, his admin activity shows a thorough understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, along with good consensus-judging ability. For obvious reasons, he is one of the most respected members of the Wikipedia community, and I count myself among those who respect his achievements here and on other Wikimedia projects. In spite of all this, I don't think I can support his RfB. Judging consensus in RfAs and RfBs is the principal province of the Wikipedia bureaucrat. Now, one of the things for which Julian is known is his strong opposition to ageism; on Wikipedia, ageism is an issue found almost exclusively at RfA/RfB. As detailed at WP:LAWN, there are a number of reasons why ageism is not baseless. While I don't wish to get into that whole debate here, my point is that Julian holds very, very strong views on that issue that could deeply affect his read of consensus in certain RfAs. Put simply, I'm concerned that Julian, as a bureaucrat, would discard these arguments based on his personal opinion and ignore them when judging consensus (I note that while "User is X" is an argument to avoid in adminship discussions, age arguments are not always of this type). Another area specific to bureaucrats is WP:CHU/WP:CHUU/WP:CHU/SUL. Now, while it surely wouldn't hurt to have more bureaucrats working there, and while Julian seems to have a solid understanding of the username policy, I do think he is exaggerating the nature of the backlogs there – both here and in WP:BN posts like this one. That's not to say his words in his self-nomination are cut of whole cloth – again, having more bureaucrats working there would be helpful – but I agree with WJBScribe's concern above that Julian is using backlogs that really don't exist as a reason for the community to promote him to bureaucrat status. That deeply unimpresses me. The final area bureaucrats work in is at WP:BRFA. Normally, this is not a big consideration at RfB; however, Julian stated above that he would work at BRfA. Julian is experienced with most corners of Wikipedia, it seems, but not that one, and he admits to having little technical experience. He's a good candidate for most positions, but for this one in particular, maybe not. For all of these reasons, I oppose. Sorry for the wall of text, but I felt this vote deserved a full rationale. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

   It looks like my vote here has already been rebuked by two supporters, so allow me to clarify. I don't think I'm assuming the worst of Julian here, and I'm sorry to see anyone feels that way. My feeling is that no one with such a strongly held opinion on an issue – not Julian specifically – can truly remain impartial when judging consensus on that issue. That's why we don't let administrators close XfDs they've voted in, and that's why I don't feel comfortable with Julian closing RfAs where ageism is an issue. I don't think my vote is "ridiculous." A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

   COMMENT: I also don't think the comments voiced by A Stop at Willoughby are "ridiculous". I neither agree nor disagree with the concerns at this point, but I think they are cogent and thoughtfully expressed and deserve rational and involved discussion. — Becksguy (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

   Comment I must concur with Becksguy. I do not feel that ASaW's comments are ridiculous. I may not agree with them (hence my support above), but I feel that ASaW's viewpoint is a perfectly valid one. ASaW has clearly shown that they respect Julian, but has a valid (albeit one I disagree with!) oppose criteria here. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

   I concur with all. I don't think Julian has done anything to deserve the kind of discredit that can attach when supporters can't simply support him but must discredit those who don't. I read the opposes. I don't think they contributed anything to change my vote. I said so. But I think the closing bureaucrat can simply discredit or ignore the truly discreditable votes, or I hope they can. ASaW clearly spelled out his/her concerns about this RFB and is a member in good standing of the community. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

7. Adding my voice. Julian just seems too eager to be a crat and the excuse for running now (an extremely weak claim of delays at CHU) is just a little too obvious. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
8. No. Firstly, per JayHenry and Mastcell re the Friday situation: throwing WP:AGF at his concerns was crassly condescending. Secondly, despite insistent claims of the absolute harmlessness of such activity, the principle of an Admin - let alone a Bureaucrat - hosting their own (IRC) WP-related channel makes me uncomfortable. Thirdly and this is the big one: despite the increasing complexities and demands of the roles, to me there needs still to be an identifiable motivation of "help write an encyclopedia first; insider nods and boss gongs etc second and incidental." I was around to !vote on Julian's first RfA and have seen how he rapidly became deeply engaged with the WP 'community' - to the extent that he seeks increasingly higher participation-level fixes, and his endeavours show a corresponding increasing eagerness that now come across as need - a need to get as far as possible, as 'big' as possible. Even regardless of aims and intentions, though, I worry about the perspective of someone with such an overwhelmingly singular attachment and involvement. Plutonium27 (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

   What do you mean by "hosting their own IRC WP-related channel?" This is an open to all channel? Please inform. Thanks. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

   I have a private (yet open) channel on freenode for mostly social discussion amongst Wikipedians titled ##juliancolton|webchat. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

   I understand where you're coming from. Plutonium. Admittedly, I don't have a clue about this freenode thing (I just tried logging on out of curiosity and seemed to foul it up) but it does seem to me that enthusiasm or "need" alone shouldn't be cause to oppose, at least IMO. At some point, Julian's work life will likely change so that he won't have as much time for volunteer unpaid work like this. Seems to me that while he does we'd be well advised to take advantage of it/him. my two cents, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

   Could you explain why having a private IRC channel make you uncomfortable? It's a social channel, and a lot of people have private channels too.  fetchcomms☛ 19:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

   The existence of these 'social discussion' channels has lead to much concern and disagreement. I am not opposed to them in principle but I do believe that abuse - inadvertent or otherwise - has occurred, that the potential for such future occurences is self-evident and that this has to be acknowledged by those who use/support them. The views of both sides of the IRC debate have become entrenched, leading to the refusal of many afficionados to admit any possibility of negative consequences from their activities. Concerns raised have included some RfAs becoming popularity contests via slews of chat-buddies, socialites instead of editors, and the boosting of individual 'visibility' more due to chat than work. Wikipedia business should be on Wikipedia, open for all to see. That Julian views such activity as entirely harmless to the extent that he hosts his own channel shows his conviction that his 'socializing' is compatible with being an Admin and now a 'crat. I view this as naive and complacent. Good intentions can never remove the possibility of inadvertent complications. The role of a 'crat is fraught enough without the burden of speculation and suspicion that could arise over decisions made and actions taken. Plutonium27 (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

   ┌─────────────────────────────────┘
   While I understand your views, I have not seen such from this user. However, I do see the potential for such an event, and I believe that JC would not let it happen.  fetchcomms☛ 03:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

9. Oppose Since you haven't explicitly mentioned it, I'm presuming that you are still legally a child in your jurisdiction. Thus, WMF has no business allowing you to self-select for exposure to the various things administrators and bureaucrats must deal with; my rationale for opposition is unchanged since July, sorry. Jclemens (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

   I don't know any 16-year-olds who aren't offended by being called a "child" (and I think you meant "legally a minor", anyway), so I assume this was an attempt to prick him and see if he bleeds. Are you saying you consider cratship a more serious obligation than driving a car or getting married? If you were just poking fun at Julian, that would be fine with me (sorry Julian :) ... anyone tough enough to run for cratship should expect people to say things like this, and worse. But there are 16-year-old newbies on Wikipedia, and they don't deserve to be called children, and your statement did seem to apply to anyone of the same age. - Dank (push to talk) 03:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

   No, actually, I meant exactly that. A minor is a perhaps more euphemistic was of saying "legal child". No one who is legally a child should ever be granted admin rights, period. I'd be in favor of all such rights being removed from anyone who fails to assert that they are an adult and legally entitled to form binding contracts, view obscene/profane material, and the like. The WMF opens itself up to legal risk by allowing children to use the tools; the higher the tools, the greater the risk. "Maturity" is irrelevant; a child is a child in the eyes of the law. Jclemens (talk) 06:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

   Legal risk? I suggest you review the relevant law, particularly the point under US law that people like the WMF aren't liable for the postings of their users in most circumstances. Indeed, the only reason we have age restrictions in some areas is due to the availability of private data to people holding those rights, something not relevant to 'cratship. Ironholds (talk) 07:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

   And in relation to "forming binding contracts" - adults would be unable to form binding contracts in regards to WP, if you're somehow asserting that adminship is some kind of contract. It completely lacks monetary consideration on either side, and almost any court would find it void. Ironholds (talk) 07:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

   If you'd like to start a philosophical discussion on the merits of child admins and other functionaries, feel free to pop by my talk page. I've said my peace here; additional nuanced conversation is not relevant to this RfB. Jclemens (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

10. Oppose I'm concerned that he'd be more activist then I think is called for, especially his opinion about adminship being more easy come/easy go. And though he's clear about needing a community discussion first, having a bureaucrat judging the result is a bad idea. Along the same lines (Q 14), I'm not crazy about him thinking it's up to a bureaucrat (himself presumably) to judge when a discussion is no longer useful, especially against a users wishes. Running his own IRC channel is a bad idea and turns this RFB into more of a popularity contest then it should be. And while arguing that we don't need any more admins isn't valid, the same case can be made for b-crats. There are no critical backlogs, and having a smaller group of b-crats makes it easier to find consensus among them (in RFA's mostly). Once the b-crat group gets too large, consensus is harder to find and crat-chats become a smaller version of AN/I...and instead of reaching consensus, we'll end up with whoever feels strongest about an RFA closing it. So basically activism, IRC, no need for more B-crats and his age all bring me to an oppose here. RxS (talk) 04:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
11. problems with Q8. -Atmoz (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

    Could you please explain what you feel is wrong with those answers so I can address any issues if necessary? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

12. Oppose per l'affaire Friday. Very poor showing by someone whom I thought was more mature and thoughtful. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose too young, not enough maturity and judgment for a position that requires both in spades. Friday incident doesn't help in my view. Would reconsider position in about two years.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose Too young and doesn't seem to have quite the right attitude yet, per MastCell, WJBscribe and Boris. Mathsci (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
15. Very Strong Oppose Oh geez, this is User:Juliancolton. Absolutely, absolutely not. I rarely say never, but this is a never. Chutznik (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

    Got any reason behind this brilliant conclusion? JamieS93 20:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

    Yes, and per WJBscribe. Chutznik (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

    Oh, Shalom, you don't have to lower yourself to the same idiotic level as someone else. Take it out on JayHenry, not Julian. Majorly talk 00:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

    Incidentally, if you want to spite JayHenry, you should probably be supporting ;) WFCforLife (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

    I think I'm mostly just flattered either way at this point. --JayHenry (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

16. Oppose, regretfully, but for the same reasons as I did in his previous RfB. Julian needs to get experience working in contentious article space and to my knowledge has not explored articles beyond cyclones. (And why haven't you chosen to work on any controversial article in the interim?) It's too easy to judge how editors should behave when one has not had frustrating experiences as an editor. Although I'm tempted to give WR the middle finger in a symbolic show for their astonishingly poor judgment in targeting him, Julian's youth is too great a concern for me to have faith in him as a judge of complex behavior. --Moni3 (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

    Just commenting on your feelings on contentious articles—I don't think we should force someone to write a FA on a topic that doesn't interest them simply because it is contentious and they need experience writing them. I like warships, so I write on them; JC likes cyclones and roads, so he writes on them; NancyHeise (talk · contribs) writes on religious articles which happen to be contentious, because that is what interests her. Just my thoughts, not trying to badger... Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

    Badger all you wish. I have prodded Julian before about his neglect of controversial articles. I agree that one should not work in areas in which one has no interest, but if Julian asserts he is interested only in cyclones, add that to my oppose because he's either lying or a very boring one-sided person. However, he has stated in response to my grievances against him that he is actually interested in many topics. So I don't understand why he does not edit in these areas. What I can only conclude is that he avoids stress like this deliberately. Yes, that can be an advantage, but he does not know what it is like for an article to be in the center of harsh commentary and aggressive editing on the main page. With so many FAs, there is simply no excuse for that. He was apparently conscientious to thank me for my oppose during his last RfB asking what he could do to gain my support. I told him, he did not do it, so I continue to oppose. --Moni3 (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

    I see; I wasn't aware that he had broader interests. Thanks for the reply. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

    I understand your concerns, but your statement that I don't work on articles outside of hurricanes isn't exactly accurate. I work on everything from NRHP listings to creeks, from salt ponds to highways, and from poems to various other things (albeit to a lesser extent). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

    "on everything from..." what does that mean? I will be happy to change my not-a-vote when you dive headfirst into Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina, Effects of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans, or something else just as potentially controversial. You choose to work on articles with obscure topics that are, I imagine, plug-ins. Same article, different storm/road. Come on, Julian. Do something challenging. Construct an article from the ground up that you know is going to piss people off. Write about a topic that Kanye West would jump in the middle of and make an ass out of himself. You can cite policy and guidelines. So what? What do you do when an RfC has been called on an article you spent months writing after 45 minutes of discussion, you're being accused of owning it, an entire section has been removed with consensus (perhaps by a group of agenda-driven editors...or just a bunch of shmoes who can't be bothered to care about reading the sources), you've reverted four times, and it's about to go on the main page in 10 minutes and you know the article you carefully and lovingly constructed, now chopped to incoherent babble with you 2 seconds from getting blocked will be reported in the press? Don't answer hypothetically...go do it! --Moni3 (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

    Well, I'm a volunteer on Wikipedia and as such I work with subjects I enjoy. I don't think it's necessary nor particularly productive to deliberately wade into controversial articles, and that's why I tend to stay away from contentious articles that will likely lead to dispute. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

    Interesting point, though, on Moni3's oppose. You do tend to stay away from, even back out of controversial situations. This isn't about editing articles you like, imo. Still, I think it's a useful quality, because it means you won't butt in and give your 2cents worth at AN/I and other places when the drama queen baits are dangled before you. Something to consider, though, how will you act when you're dealing with a contentious situation. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

    This is a poor oppose rationale. You essentially complain that the nominee avoids contentious situations at articles, but you ignore the fact that he has made more than 2,800 blocks and 16,000 page deletions, many of them coming from AfD, and assume without qualification that he makes every effort to avoid added stress? Think about that from an outsider's viewpoint; it's flat out hypocritical. This vote makes my head want to blow up. ❄ upstateNYer ❄ 02:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

    Then I can finally rest. --Moni3 (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

    Gotta hand it to ya, you made me laugh out loud there. ❄ upstateNYer ❄ 03:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

    Just pointing out that bureaucrats don't intervene on articles, so whether or not he choses to edit controversial ones is irrelevant to this position. As for dealing with stressful situations, I think he's shown on many occasions that he is capable of doing so gracefully. As for what he would do in the above hypothetical situation, it's ridiculous to suggest that everyone needs to write articles that piss people off. Worry about how he deals with contentious situations outside of article space. That's what matters for 'cratship. Lara ☁ 02:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

    I agree completely. ❄ upstateNYer ❄ 03:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

    I don't. I have my reasons, which I have stated here. I don't believe my position is irrelevant and I don't believe Lara has paraphrased my statements accurately. I have said to Juliancolton what I felt needed to be said. Others may come to my talk page to get their cranial explosions there. --Moni3 (talk) 03:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

    This is a poor reason in my view to oppose. Editors should not be encouraged to get involved in articles they are not interested in except in an incidental capacity or when called upon to be arbiters. The likelihood they lack expertise in the subject and miss subtle nuances would be higher. Juliancolton has received some criticism along the lines that he may be overeager as it is. If he had acted in the way you are suggesting inserting himself into controversial issues where he knows little then that would tend to support that argument. Thankfully he hasn't. That he has resisted such suggestion despite being prodded is good. I see the reason given as one more convincingly used in support of the candidate not opposition. Lambanog (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

17. Oppose Per Bali ultimate's concerns regarding problems with maturity and judgment. Warrah (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
18. Oppose due to Friday RFC linked above. Skinwalker (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
19. Oppose - while I have a generally positive opinion of him, I didn't feel comfortable with him in this role even before I came here. I also think that enough concerns have been raised in this section to solidify my concerns into an oppose. Guettarda (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
20. Oppose per WJBscribe. I must register my disagreement with many of the other opposers here, particularly RMHED, Plutonium27, and Moni3; however, the issues that have been raised regarding RFA conduct and the bit about the RFC are unsettling. GlassCobra 04:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
21. Strong oppose The candidate has a recent history of submitting poorly written articles (actually glorified stubs) at WP:FAC and then aggressively countenancing objections by arguing that the FAC criteria have not been formally violated. I can't imagine how he would be on the side of improving standards of Wikipedia featured articles should ArbCom be asked to deliberate on it or on a related issue. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

    I'm sorry, but what does bureaucratship have to do with ArbCom, Arbcom have to do with FAC, or FAC have to do with RfB? NW (Talk) 04:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. @harej 16:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

   iMatthew ^talk at 16:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

   -- ¿oʇsıɟ ıʇuǝɯ '00:81 62 ɹǝqɯǝɔǝp 9002 (ɔʇn)

   Uh...why are you guys just posting you sigs here? If harej is being neutral, s/he may want to state why.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 19:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

   Because some Wikipedian's have a sense of humor, as shown above. You don't need to state a reason for being neutral, Coldplay. iMatthew ^talk at 19:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

   What if I were // to make my comment // inside my signature? // 19:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

   That would be ^{pretty cool, Coffee!} 19:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

   Oh dear.  GARDEN  20:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

   FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

   Couldn't resist. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 22:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

   Polargeo (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

   ┌─────────────────────────────────┘
   Ha.  fetchcomms☛ 00:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

   --McJombo Sails // ... // past great blue whales // 02:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

   Ikip 21:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC) this is fun, albeit my signature is the most drab here :(

   Agreed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

   Is voting neutral without any comment like voting "Present"? Valley2city^‽ 23:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

   Eh, it counts as as a vote on the RfA history tool. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

   And yet not on the User:X!/RfX Report (as can be found transcluded on many of our admin dashboards). For some reason the neutral column always reads zero. Valley2city^‽ 02:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

   ┌─────────────────────────────────┘
   It's supposed to I think, because it doesn't make any difference in the outcome. (I saw that somewhere last week.) ({{od}} is fun!)  fetchcomms☛ 19:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

   "Present." ResMar 20:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

   Actually the bot is slightly borked. It's supposed to list the neutrals as well. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 20:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

   Borked bot? Is that like boneless pork butt? Where am I? How does this thing work? (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

   Reminds me of User:How do you turn this on. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

   Here! Wrelwser43 (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

2. Neutral too!--AtlanticDeep (talk) 02:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral - I don't know if I can't support this time around. My reasons aren't enough to oppose, but I do feel they need to be expressed. Julian can be a great person all and around, but one, I agree with some of the opposing editors that the reason that this RFB came up in the first place is not a good excuse. Backlogs are backlogs. You don't need to be a bureaucrat to complain. Help advocate for more cleanup. Get other bureaucrats to wake up. Going for it because of it is too weird and a bit on the power hungry side. My other reason for this is that I do feel in the last year, that Julian's writing skills have caused the idea of making FA more of a "game" or "mediocre rank". I will use two examples: Tropical Depression Ten (2005) and New York State Route 311. These both are Featured Articles of his. Tropical Depression Ten, in my honest opinion, shouldn't even exist. Its only claim to fame is the predecessor to Hurricane Katrina. I've opposed the existence since day one, but taking a mediocre storm and mediocre rank (against a consensus made in 2006, when they originally was around). This thing shouldn't be featured, and is really not worth the Featured Article project's time. The second one, NY Route 311, was a well-written and really well detailed FA that definitely deserves what it got, Featured Article status. I don't think we should be sending "mediocre" articles to the best of the best. Again, I don't feel this is an oppose-worthy vote, but I think this should be aired. I do think we're letting him get FAs way too easy. Look at the FAC for Hurricane Nate (2005) - Three flimsy supports and flimsy reviews. I know having lots of tropical cyclone articles can get boring, but not reviewing fairly doesn't help.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 21:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

   What does FAC have to do with RFB? --Rschen7754 00:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

#Neutral Certainly won't oppose, may switch to support based on the answer to question 20. WFCforLife (talk) 11:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Need to think about it. Julian's a decent guy, but I've still got a few nagging worries about giving him the crat flag. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Related pages

• Requests for self-de-adminship can be made at m:Steward requests/Permissions.
• Requests to mark an account as a bot can be made at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.
• Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship - Requests for comment on possible misuse of sysop privileges, as well as a summary of rejected proposals for de-adminship processes and a list of past cases of de-adminship.
• Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship