Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Juliancolton 2

Juliancolton

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (128/13/1); Scheduled to end 00:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

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

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

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

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:  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:  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? :-)

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)

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)

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. Sure. Despite Iridescent's support, which may very well be true much of the time, 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

RfBs for this user:

• Requests for bureaucratship/Juliancolton
• Requests for bureaucratship/Juliancolton 2
• Requests for bureaucratship/Juliancolton 2/Bureaucrat discussion

• Links for Juliancolton: Juliancolton (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• 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)

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 - Sir Arthur Williams (talk) 20:01, 28 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 ^connect|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)

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. Strong 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)

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)

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)

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