Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Juliancolton 3

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

Juliancolton

Final (154/3/2); Closed by Rlevse at 15:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Juliancolton (talk · contribs) - I would like to nominate Juliancolton for adminship, who has quickly become a great editor to work with, and a likely successor for me when I reach the top and abdicate the throne :) Less than a year ago, I first encountered Juliancolton, who was annoying, a tad clueless, but was full of enthusiasm for Wikipedia and tropical cyclones in general. Right away I knew there was potential, so I helped him get his feet of the ground. Very quickly, he became a constructive editor, and this can especially be seen in the past few months. Juliancolton is now one of the head members of the tropical cyclone Wikiproject, which can be shown through his 12 FA's/FL's. But, perhaps more importantly, is his knowledge of policy. I'm sure by now he has the entire MOS memorized, and so I think it is pretty clear he is a great editor. However, we know there is more to adminship than editing.

Juliancolton is very dedicated to the project. He is active in XFD's, and tons of other stuff I don't even know about (I usually only see his great edits, but stalking shows me he is clearly busy in other areas). Does he have a spotless record? Hell no! But who among us has a spotless record? Julian is committed to the project, and has learned from his mistakes. I believe it is time for him to bite the bullet and accept this RFA, since I am positive the community will have their support in him. Here goes nothing. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, and thanks Hurricanehink for the nomination! –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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: Over the past several months, I've learned what I'm good at, and what I feel comfortable participating in. They include primarily XFD, and AIV, and that is what I will start out working on as an administrator. Granted, I will start out slow, and get a feel for the mop before I dive right in. As I become more familiar with the tools, I'll branch our into various processes, though I still indent to spend the majority of my time doing what I do know—article writing and maintenance. Of course, I'll also benefit from the tools in those areas.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Hard to say. Right off the bat I'd say my best contributions are to the WikiProject Tropical cyclones, where I've based my editing since I joined Wikipedia. I've created dozens of articles for that project, and I have either written or significantly contributed to 5 tropical cyclone-related FLs, and 5 FAs. However, my contributions are not limited to tropical cyclones. While I was more active a number of months ago, I participate in the New York State Routes WikiProject, to which I've acquired 3 FAs. Additionally, I wrote two of the four articles in the 1998 Pacific hurricane season FT. When I'm not working on featured content, I work on GAs, and as of now I have significantly contributed to or wrote 30 of them. When I'm not article writing, I usually participate in FAC or GAN reviews, or various XfDs. In addition I've started two WikiProjects, WikiProject Non-tropical storms and WikiProject Hudson Valley, the later of which is far more active than the former. However, not all of my edits are manual. I usually spend a bit of time every day fighting vandalism with Huggle or Twinkle.
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: Have I been in editing conflicts? Of course! Have they caused me stress? Hardly. I've been in a number of (minor) conflicts, though I've pretty much avoided them in the past several months. And when I do get into a conflict of sorts, I either take it to the talk page or simply leave it be. Thankfully, none of these have been of earth-shattering nature, though I have been involved in a couple talk page battles, the most substantial of which I can remember being the great green-dot debate and an ongoing discussion at WT:USRD. However, I firmly believe I've remained consistently civil through these ordeals.

Optional questions from Dlohcierekim .

4. On your previous RFA, some expressed concern over your knowledge/experience at WP:AFD. How have you improved since then?
A. While my opinion is obviously biased, I say I have definitely improved since my last RfA in the area of AfD. Since then, I've made it a daily goal to participate in at least a few deletion discussions daily, during which time I've gained a significant knowledge of the process.
5. A new editor's first edit is a stub that is tagged for speedy deletion as A7. The new editor, who has not received a welcome, reverts the change. Is it more appropriate to revert and warn, or to re-add the CSD template with a {{{hangon}}}, while typing the new editor a note explaining that one should not remove CSD tags on articles one has created?
A. If the editor is clearly new to Wikipedia and does not have an understanding of speedy deletion, the best thing to do would be to re-add the CSD template, and write the user a friendly welcome with a note not to do such, and informing them of {{hangon}}. I would leave the tagging of {{hangon}} up the original creator, as after they receive a note, they may wish to change their opinion regarding the article.
Weird optional question from User:Xavexgoem
6. If you could change one thing on Wikipedia that you think would make it better, what would it be?
A. I wouldn't. Wikipedia is clearly the most comprehensive encyclopedia in the world that covers endless topics, because of its ability for anyone to edit. Paper encyclopedias are limited in their scope; they only include the most noteworthy of topics. Wikipedia, because of its unlimited space, is open to entries on millions of topics that paper encyclopedias would never include. For this reason, Wikipedia is one of the highest-viewed websites. While Wikipedia has its minor quarks, issues, and roadblocks, the open-editing format of this encyclopedia has led to its success, and as a result, there is nothing that I see fit to change.
Totally Optional Question from Xp54321
7. Here at RfA there has been an ongoing "catfight" for quite a while over age and adminship, at various RfAs. I obviously don't want to start that massive(And I do mean massive) debate here but I am interested in your view of the topic. What is your opinion of Age + Adminship?(I am very unlikely to change my "vote" over this)
A. I have my opinion, a strong one at that, regarding the issue, but due to reasons including not wanting to start a drama, I am choosing to leave this question unanswered.
Follow up: Aha! A user with lots of WP:CLUE.:D Good choice, probably the best answer.:)--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 02:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from  Asenine 

8. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?
A: That depends. Is the information a quote or likely to be challenged? Does it violate BLP without the source? If so, despite consensus, WP:V should be followed to assure the article does not violate any core policies. If the information is suitable without a source, further discussion on the talk page should be made to try and incorporate the source into the consensus version of the article.
9. As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well, and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past?
A: I certainly take pride in assisting new users and getting them on the right track. Most recently, such can be found here, where I helped a new and upset user calm down, and help resolve the problem. Otherwise I do minor things to help, even if so small as welcoming them on their talk pages, and so big as attempting to "coach" to become a better editor.
10. Will your current activities continue if you are appointed with the mop and bucket? If not so, which will you drop/be less active in/be more active in/take up?
A: Absolutely. I love the article writing that I currently do, and even with the tools I will continue to base my contributions off article building. I'll also continue my participation in WP:FAC, vandal fighting, AFD, etc. As an administrator, I expect to become even more active in closing XfDs, and appropriately blocking vandals at AIV. As I noted in my answer to question 1, I might branch out into other areas that I currently don't have much experience in, though still have a sufficient knowledge of.

Optional question from VG:

11. Assume you are called to mediate a discussion where two groups of editors are debating a potential WP:OR issue. One group of editors insists on adding a statistic (a mean for instance) that one of them calculated from raw data contained in one of the references cited in the article. Even though the accuracy of the reference data is not disputed, the other group opposes the edit, arguing that performing a calculation constitutes original research. What would you do? VG ☎ 18:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A. First off, I would evaluate the situation by checking the article history, reading prior discussion, and checking the validity of the source from which the calculation is being attained. I would read up on both side's argument, and from there, with a neutral point of view as all administrators should have, help both sides come to a consensus based on various policies. I would have to evaluate the source, and determine if it is indeed possible to obtain such a statistic, and if the information would come across as the same to anybody who reads it. Even if it is such, the final decisions would depend on if the information is likely to be challenged; if so, a direct source would be needed. Feel free to ask any follow-up questions. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from - Jameson L. Tai:

12: What would you like Wikipedia to accomplish or change in the next five years?
A. I believe my answer to the very similar question #6 covers this, though if you want a more detailed answer, let me know. :)

Optional question from Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff)

13: What is your understanding of when it is appropriate to protect a page?
A. Page protection should only be used in extreme cases of vandalism, edit wars, or other disruptive editing. Page protection limits the ability for anybody to edit a page, thus violating one of Wikipedia's main features, and should be used judiciously. Page protection comes in various levels and types, and can limit anything from IP and un-autoconfirmed editing, to office actions that limit even administrators. Generally, semi-protection is used to prevent general vandalism, while page move and creation protections should be used in more extreme cases, and when it is absolutely necessary.
14: Follow-up question: What do you consider "disruptive editing" in terms of a page protection trigger?
A. Disruptive editing that applies to protection of items in the mainspace is mainly edit warring, page move warring, persistent vandalism, persistent addition of content that violates WP:BLP, persistent blatant copyright violates, and persistent re-creation of a deleted article.

Optional question from Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC):[reply]

15. This one is about your choices, not reciting policy wording. A user creates a page about a fictional chracter who is within the fanbase. Despite haing many citations, it is called for deletion due to the fact that the sources are first-party (e.g. the character creator in an interiew e.c.t.). You see that both sides have a convincing argument. The deletors cite numerous guidelines and policies including Notability, and Reliable sources. The keepers say that the subject is notable for many, and that there is nowhere else to get plot info but the story featuring the character. Do you delete or keep?
A. This would depend on a number of factors. I would carefully evaluate both the article and the deletion discussion. If, indeed, all of the sources are self-published by the creator, it would violate WP:V, one of Wikiepdia's core policies. However, that in itself is not a reason to delete without further examining the situation. You say that the editors arguing to delete mention notability policy. Does the article pass notability criteria? If it fails to do so, and if the editors arguing to keep only mention that they believe it is notable without providing evidence to prove such, I would close as delete.
Followup Q from DGG
Q: a. Is notability policy? b. If the clear majority of the arguments citing policy at the AfD are for keeping the article on the grounds that it does meet notability criteria, and you think it does not, would you overrule the majority? DGG (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A. No, notability is not a policy, but rather a guideline that users should generally follow. As for your second question, if there is a consensus to delete, and the editors arguing to keep the page provide sufficient evidence as to why they want it kept, I would not use my personal opinion to override consensus. However, as I said, if there is also an overwhelming consensus to keep, but the voters do not provide sufficient evidence and rationale to do so, I would consider relisting the AfD to gain a more thorough consensus.

General comments

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

Really hope you pass, dude. —Sunday +speak+ 16:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Call me crazy but I like that weird optional question and I hope the candidate answers it. :) Protonk (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I've always thought it was an interesting question, especially since it's so open-ended and people come up with unique answers. Jamie☆S93 18:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. :) (And thanks, to the above comments) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to say that I really liked your answer to that question. Very, very well thought out. J.delanoygabsadds 03:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to make my answer to question #6 more clear. Of course there are bugs and nitpicks that need to be worked out, but overall, Wikipedia is succeeding. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pssss, I would reword that internal link on the #6 to "success". :D - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 16:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, grammar nerds. ;) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:100! ;) iMatthew (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Comment Strong series of yea, very few nae. Someone welcome him to the team already.--Tznkai (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So, you support him, but not in the support column? What am I missing? Keeper ǀ 76 21:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think so that there won't be as much pile-on voting, but then again no one really calls pile-on voting unless they're oppose votes :D - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 00:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    i can haz pile-on voting? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know Julian enough to vote yea or nay, I'm just noting that this RfAr seems to have tripped the magical line that says "close it early as success." IMO anyway.--Tznkai (talk) 04:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Support as nominator. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent nomination, by the way. « D. Trebbien (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Juliancolton has done some outstanding work. AdjustShift (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Another on my short list that definitely deserves the tools. Wizardman 15:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak Support Yes, definitely. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 15:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC) Change to weak per this quote: "Endorse block, possible ban. Kurt has shown bad behavior, poor judgment, incivility, and most of his comments, posts, and RfA !votes are solely to prove a point. We welcome good-faith contributors, but Kurt was anything but, and was clearly not here to build a better encyclopedia. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)" Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 15:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Good user, and I trust him with the tools. Plasticup T/C 15:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Julian has done some great work here, and I definitely trust him with the tools. Qst (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Just looked through your diffs (I see you everywhere). You are an excellent and clueful writer, you understand the work that goes into creating and maintaining articles. Your FA work and your huggle/vandal work attest to your dedation to a clean and accurate product. I focused my research into you on your "Wikipedia:" edits and your "User:talk" edits. You come across as intelligent and civil, huge assets that are hard to come by - you seem to possess them naturally. Excellent candidate HH, simply excellent. Keeper ǀ 76 15:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Good luck. i really hope you pass this time! —§unday [+++] 15:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Wow. Yes. Your friend Eddy of the wiki[citation needed] 15:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Might well hit WP:100 - maybe in the 120's? Valtoras (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Suppport based on my own check of the contribution history, including recent talk page comments and warnings to other editors, and the fact that the nominator opposed this candidate twice previously. Jehochman Talk 15:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support — Twelve FA/Fl? Wow. I'll support pending no major opposes just for that :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose, imitates me on IRC. (just kidding) Support – Besides fantastic mainspace contributions, I think that Juliancolton has enough quality experience at AIV and AfD to make good decisions and use the tools well. I've also followed a lot of his interactions with others, and he has consistently demonstrated civility and level-headedness, which is essential for an admin. I don't have any concerns here, and really have to agree with what Keeper said. Good luck with your mop! Jamie☆S93 16:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support based on the fact that every single dealing I've had with Julian has been pleasant & positive and he is clearly committed to improve Wikipedia. His promotion would be a clear net gain for the project. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Hello, can i get a fake ID? I need it for going...damn, wrong queue. Seriously, this one's for you, bud ;) Shapiros10 contact meMy work 16:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support All of my interactions with Juliancolton and his contributions make me believe he is mop-worthy. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support — superb content contributions, excellent contributor, civil, and insightful. sephiroth bcr (converse) 16:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support has a great deal of clue and his mainspace contributions are quite impressive. I cant say that I am that particularly pleased with his AfD !voting as the majority of it comes in the form per WP:X and user:Y (eg.[1][2][3][4]), sometimes within a minute of his previous edit, but occasionally he does make more insightful votes which seem show show that he does know how to think critically during an AfD, even if he does not often exercise that ability. - Icewedge (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support You mean to say that you aren't an admin?!?! And I've been nice to you all these months thinking you were. ;) I support any candidate whose demeanor leads me to believe that they already had the mop almost automatically. Protonk (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - Surely. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Absolutely. bibliomaniac15 17:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strong support (ec) user has brilliant contributions to the enecylopedia--Serviam (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong support per my nothing but excellent experiences with this user. We need more admins with a sense of humor! ;) Oh an per Jamie! iMatthew (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Why not Support. America69 (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Definitely support. Committed, responsible, can be trusted with the additional tools.   user:j    (aka justen)   17:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. A strong overall record and the AfD concerns from the previous RfA have been addressed. Nsk92 (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support per all the above. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong Support Good interactions with user on RfA(Or is my memory faulty...:P)--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 17:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support It says a lot when editors who opposed in his previous 2 RFAs are now supporting and one is the nominator. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support definally. Does good work at AfD, also good article building at WP:WPTC. RockManQ (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. I was wondering just the other day if you were going to run for RfA - this is a pleasant surprise. From all I've seen of Julian's editing he is nothing less than civil, helpful, and hard-working. Obviously trustworthy. naerii 17:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. ...wait, so Julian wasn't an admin already? I'm not just invoking the cliche, for the very first time, I honestly thought that the candidate already was an admin. Nousernamesleft (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - nice contributions. macy 18:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - On every occasion I have interacted with Julian there has been a consistent and refreshing positivity in his attitude. Through observation, he is thorough is most areas and when editing has insight, exploring every possible avenue of possibility; the opportunities for wikipedia once he becomes an admin, are endless. A great candidate. Caulde 18:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Oh, and give him a real life already! He does so much work here, thousands of edits and I have not seen a bad one. SoWhy 18:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Without question one of the best editors on Wikipedia. Thingg⊕⊗ 18:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support: Excellent. — Realist2 18:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Will be a net positive to the Community. Good luck! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support --Admrboltz (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Trustworthy and has more than enough experience, I believe. Best of luck, —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 20:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  41. Support Easily has enough experience (more than 20,000 edits) to be an admin. Also, 5 FAs and 5 FLs are incredibly impressive. I'm surprised that no one nominated him before. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - Good contribs on the cyclones articles among other places. And since Hurricanehink nominated you, here is my trust. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 20:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, no reason not to. Stifle (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - nothing but awesome interactions with this user. Will definitely be a net positive to this community. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 20:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Lookin' good Gary King (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Strong Support Juliancolton has been an amazing contributor to the project. Deserves it. Good luck! RedThunder 20:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Seen him in action, is trustworthy. MBisanz talk 21:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Julian really blows me away with his contributions :D Also, he is friendly and stern in cases where he needs to be and can tell the difference. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Going through Juliancolton's contributions extensively, I think he has done good work in a number of different administrative areas and I like the fact that he is active in WikiProjects, GA noms, and AfD discussions. He has written nicely for a number of articles, too. Juliancolton uses Huggle extremely effectively, but Huggle edits are not his most substantive contributions. Some edits I saw at the beginning of my search are particularly noteworthy for being typical of minor edits: [5] (spot on), [6], [7], and [8]. I see no reason why not. « D. Trebbien (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support I find this editor trustworthy enough to use the tools. SchfiftyThree 21:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Definitely. LittleMountain5 review! 21:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - I've came to know this guy pretty well. Brilliant article work with the Tropical Cyclones WikiProject, level headed and I have the utmost trust in him. Will make a great admin. Sunderland06 (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Strong Support As Julian's admin coach, I believe he is a highly trustworthy candidate for adminship. I planned on co-nominating Julian, but due to my busy schedule, I couldn't find the time to write a nomination statement. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Hello, I'm Dorothy from Kansas and I'd like to sell the Tin Man for scrap metal -- oh, wrong queue. But while I am here -- Support for a great editor. (Say, is there a circus around here where I can sell the Cowardly Lion?). Ecoleetage (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Excellent editor, should do a great job with the tools. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. User has matured very well. DiverseMentality(Discuss it) 23:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Strong Support Very trustworthy user, who does great work. —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - no worries the user would abuse the tools. Only concern is that admin duties might take him away from creating more hurricane FACs... oh, wait. Nevermind, no concerns at all! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. I've found him to be quite reasonable, and as an added bonus, he's good at writing articles. Support. —Animum (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support he has the one feature I find the most important in an admin candidate, he is already an admin. He acts like one and has the trust of the community that an admin needs, thus going through an RfA is only a formality to give him a title that he already deserves. In other words, wow, I thought you were an admin.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 00:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Strong Support - I support his adminship all the way. He's made many valuable contribs, has a good attitude, and I know that he is also skilled at keeping his cool. Sure, he may have a couple faults behind him, but, don't we all? -[[Ryan]] (my desk) 01:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Strong Support I've been waiting for this one. I would have offered to nom/co-nom, but I suck at writing noms. Balloonman pretty much sums it up: Julian already is an admin. All we need to do here is make it "official". J.delanoygabsadds 03:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Brianherman (talk) 04:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. I've admired the candidate's contributions for some time. Julian works well with others and knows policy. He will make a great admin. Majoreditor (talk) 05:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Cold Support - per me having a horrible, wretched, and disgusting cold. Oh and this user will be a great admin. --Coffee // talk // ark // 05:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Better answers this time round. Julian has a better understanding of the deletion process. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support per all the other comments. abf /talk to me/ 10:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Srong Support He wasn't one already? Give him the mop! SpecialK(KoЯn flakes) 10:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. So strong support that I have broken a tv with the strongness Itfc+canes=me (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. I've asked about 10 people to help me some time ago, this guy was the only one who helped me. And he did it during the next few hours and he did it very well. Except for that I can see that his work on Wikipedia is better than excellent. It is admin-like. Cheers--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 11:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support This is one user I have witnessed grow from the beginner that we all start out as, to a very mature and experienced editor. I can speak from my experiences of working with this editor at WP:TROP that he has the ability to learn, and more importantly the ability to learn from his mistakes. This is undoubtedly a vital skill and one that will serve JC well in his tenure as an admin. I wish him good luck with the tools. Seddσn talk Editor Review 12:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support 100%! The Helpful One (Review) 12:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 13:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support - no-brainer support. Gazimoff 13:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support per nom and article work. This user has a WP:CLUE (even when I don't). Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Somebody worth trusting.--KojiDude (C) 14:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support - Of course. Good luck, CL — 15:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support seems to have a good grasp. — Jojo • Talk • 17:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. · AndonicO Engage. 18:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support (can't think of anything else to say) -- Scorpion0422 18:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Suppport Seems Fine To Me :) II MusLiM HyBRiD II 22:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support - Julian is an excellent editor and would be an excellent admin. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Cabal Support ahh There is no cabal support \o/ ..--Cometstyles 23:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Strong Support. Sorry, but I didn't have internet access, or I would have nommed. Congrats! :) Malinaccier (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Of course! Though, candidate has no chance. Just kidding. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 00:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Yes. Bstone (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Strong Support - Per all the comments above. ~~ ĈĠ ☺ Simple? 02:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support: Hard to believe there are so many votes in such short time. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Strong support A very hard worker thats made so many contributions. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 02:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support - good Wikipedian merits the tools. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support clearly a net positive. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support per last time (co nom). Synergy 04:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support This user. rootology (C)(T) 05:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. Recent interactions with and observations of this candidate lead me to being very pleased to support. A definite net positive to Wikipedia! --Winger84 (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support. Bwrs (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Weak support. I am a bit worried by statements like his answer to question 6, i.e. assertions along the line that "Wikipedia is perfect". I can understand his reluctance to state anything that is wiki-politically controversial, which also may explain his answer to 7. On the other hand, based on answers to 8 & 11, Julian doesn't seem prone to applying WP:Rules without careful consideration of the context, so I think he'll do fine as an administrator. VG ☎ 14:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that answer shows confidence in the project. Believing we are perfect is the first step to making it so. It also calms people down a lot.--Serviam (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite right. VG ☎ 10:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support -- how do you turn this on 14:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support - despite weak answer to q6. ϢereSpielChequers 16:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support -- a bit opinionated, but highly qualified and meets my standards. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support per many of the above. A fantastic user who can do well with a few extra tools. I've read the opposes, but they don't concern me. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support No reason for alarm, I believe the project will benefit from candidate's access to extra buttons. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support. Writes featured articles, no history of problematic behaviour. WilyD 18:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support more enthusiastic than anyone else's could possibly be. Although we've never met in person, Julian and I live in the same region of New York and often edit articles on many of the same subjects, some of which (OK, two state roads) have reached FA. I have been impressed by his skill, dedication and patience, particularly in taking on the responibilities of being de facto coordinator of WikiProject Hudson Valley. Julian is a deserving candidate for adminship; Wikipedia needs people like him with the tools. I would feel remiss if I had not added my support and he got them, which looks very likely. Daniel Case (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support because Juliancolton will be an excellent. I don't feel Juliancolton is very likely to prove to be inept or the like. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support. Congratulations.--MrFishGo Fish 22:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support. :D ≈ MindstormsKid 23:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support. FA writer, see no serious issues here. Jayjg (talk) 01:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support Excellent editor, not likely to abuse the tools. Orderinchaos 01:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support : Prince of editors, I have to trust you with the tools. One of the biggest things I learnt from my experience in wiki is to control impatience. If somebody has similar concerns about it for you, prove them wrong. But don't hesitate to 'block a malicious vandal' ! Let not the extra button hamper your writing skills. Best wishes. -- Tinu Cherian - 05:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support: Even from very limited interactions, I have a very positive impression of Julian. Adminship is no big deal, especially for someone who so clearly shows good judgment. I do find Erik the Red's concern a tad troubling, and would be interested if Julian cares to comment. But it's not nearly enough for me to oppose; I don't believe there's anything approaching a pattern along these lines. Keep up the good work, and thank you using your real name in editing Wikipedia -- may many others follow your example :) -Pete (talk) 06:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Pile-on Support. A very rare thing from me indeed. Kafziel Complaint Department 07:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  112. I don't see any serious obstacles. Everyme 12:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support - for all your hard work including multiple FA's and GA's --Superflewis(talk) 12:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Strong Support seems to be a very good editor look at those FA anominations ;) Alexnia (T) @ 17:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support From all appearances, a well-rounded experienced candidate. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support Good editor, good answers, good admin potential. Good luck! ;-) gidonb (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support - one of those folks who should have been given the bits donkeys ago. —— RyanLupin • (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support Good editor, helper and good person. No major reasons not to support in my eyes. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 19:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Weak support as likely to do a fine job as admin and trustworthy. Do take to heart the concerns about acting a little quickly brought up in the opposition, though, particularly when you are tasked with determining consensus. Cheers, Shereth 20:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  120. SupportI have no doubts that this editor will use the tools wisely. BigDuncTalk 20:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support My interactions with the candidate have been positive and I don't have any concerns. Enigma message 22:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support. Impressive mainspace edits. - Darwinek (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support - I find myself very rarely supporting admin candidates these days, but I am happy to support this one, I mean finally not a "anti-vandalism only" candidate. I just hope that the admin tools will not get in the way of all of his great article work. Tiptoety talk 22:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support Everything that I have seen is good and article contributions are excellent. Opposes don't worry me because I don't think to Julian will be involved much in these areas very much. I hope that you don't end up using the tools much but you keep your focus on improving articles. Royalbroil 23:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Congratulations - per WP:SNOW. The Transhumanist 00:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support. Good editor. --Carioca (talk) 00:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support. All Seems good to me. - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 00:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support Certainly trustworthy. Steven Walling (talk) 02:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  129. —Dark talk 07:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support levelheaded, would be an excellent addition to the admin pool. DurovaCharge! 11:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  131. support not that my vote is needed at this point.... GtstrickyTalk or C 14:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support I read all the RfAs but don't pitch in as I'm new 'round here :). Seeing as my opinion in this case (a solid yes) has proved very nearly unanimous, I feel it's safe to add my support, albeit late and unneeded! Maedin\talk 18:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support I've interacted with Julian at FLC and IRC. Both places he has proved himself kind, courteous, and helpful. He'd be a great addition to the list of admins. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support - I don't see any reason he shouldn't be an admin.   jj137 (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Excellent candidate.--LAAFansign review 22:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support I'm new here, but seeing your interview and you're contributions, I think you'd make a great editor, though I don't exactly agree to you on question 6. Good luck. Flffy'd (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flffy'd (talk • contribs) [reply]
  137. Support Sure. Wikipedia builder with a big footprint. Will make an excellent admin. --Regents Park (one for sorrow) 22:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support have done some work with Julian in the NRHP project and elsewhere, no issues. Seems like a solid editor. TravellingCari 00:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support – Very dedicated and trusted editor to Wikipedia. Has done a lot to help Wikipedia, and has definitely improved from his last RfA. Will do just fine as an administrator. The opposes brought up below don't concern me, therefore, I support. – RyRy (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support Best candidate I've seen in some time. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 05:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Excellent candidate, I'm pleased to support. east718 // talk // email // 06:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support. An excellent positive contributor to many areas of the project. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 09:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support - One of the most able candidates I have seen in months.  Asenine  12:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support as a patient and approachable candidate. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Strong support great user. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Strong support Very good article writer, knows what he's doing, etc. etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 12:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support - Garion96 (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support - Definitely trusted, would be a good admin. --Aude (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support. Candidate does seem a wee bit block happy, and his XfD votes can seem a little drive-by and shallowly considered, but overall I think he's a big net win for the admin camp. And I think he's responsible and responsive enough to take to heart editors' (comparatively minor) concerns here and improve in these areas. Good luck. Ford MF (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support. No concerns here. Lucifer (Talk) 20:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support Appears extremely unlikely to use the tools inappropriately. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support Yep, he's ready. Epbr123 (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support. I'm very glad I didn't miss this RfA. This user has contributed a huge amount of work and encyclopedic value to the project, especially within the scope of tropical and non-tropical cyclones in particular. Also does all that work in an incredibly short amount of time. ~AH1(TCU) 01:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Stronger support - Being of Julian's best friends, its hard not to vote. I know him well, and he knows all policies well. Even though I wanted to do the nomination, Hink beat me to it.Mitch32(UP) 14:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Julian seems to be impatient at times. That's not a big deal, but when a prospective admin declares a consensus one hour after a discussion starts, on a issue that is not time critical (and develops further in multiple directions) its worrying. I'm concerned he may act too fast on the speedy delete finger, close discussions early and so on generating needless drama. A lack of understanding of the etiquette surrounding images is also an indication of things left to learn.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Points well taken, and I apologize if you feel that I've been impatient at times. I simply felt that particular case was a rather minor one, despite it's effect on several hundred articles, and that when several users supported the change, it was a clear consensus. I will make sure to allow such discussions to remain open before making a decision from this point on. Cheers, and thanks for your participation, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you do take this on board. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of storms in the 2002 Atlantic hurricane season is an example of you rushing into something way too quickly, the wikiproject is still debating the ideal approach; and those supporting that layout to the articles do not think that that is a "final" version. Editorial matters rarely are time critical (WP:BLP is the only cause that springs to mind).
    Administrative matters work within a strict schedule, but just because a AFD was due to be closed 5 minutes ago does not mean you should rush to close it. Its much better you make a well-considered decision after 30 minutes than a knee-jerk reaction after 30 seconds. Rushing into things is a bad thing for an admin to have, with that mindset I could see you blocking someone on the basis of IRC discussion.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully understand what you're saying. I was not fully aware of the discussion, and because I had only read it at a glance, I thought it only applied to the 2005 list. That aside, I assure you I would never take administrative actions for anything based on an IRC decision, and I will make a point to let other editors examine a situation before I make significant decisions. Again, thank you for your opinion and suggestions. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, I am sorry, but I don't think Juliancolton has the right mindset to be an admin. He threatened (on IRC) to withdraw this RfA due to the above oppose, which indicates that he's unable to handle opposition and resistance well enough to be able to fulfill his admin duties without generating drama. I sincerely dislike opposing an excellent article writer, but keep in mind that there is no need to be an admin to continue writing articles. I also agree with Nilfanion's concerns regarding impatience, and he also does seem a little too block happy (potentially related to the aforementioned impatience). --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 09:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well for the "block happiness", he explained blow (in neutral) already that this was several months ago and does probably not reflect his current knowledge of policy. As for the IRC threat, could you provide us with the relevant logs about that, if you have them? Just the part that you are referring to and what is connected to that would be nice. Regards SoWhy 09:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I was looking forward to support the candidate, but then this is a serious accusation by an admin which cannot be ignored as bad faith. To be fair to Julian , we would like to see any logs if possible and may be also reply by Julian -- Tinu Cherian - 09:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't intend it as a "serious accusation". In reality, it was only a brief discussion, where Juliancolton was convinced in the end not to withdraw his RfA (of course). However, the idea of withdrawing ones RfA over *one* oppose indicates to me that the user is not yet ready for adminship, as explained above. As for logs, I don't have access to the relevant logs where I currently am, although I suppose Juliancolton would be able to confirm it. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 10:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess that was a fair reply. " He threatened (on IRC) to withdraw " may look very serious to others like me. -- Tinu Cherian - 11:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm terribly sorry, that idea was completely sarcastic, and I didn't think anybody would take it seriously. Apologies, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I don't think I can argue with that - it seems I'm not as good at recognising sarcasm as I though I was. I apologise. However, my oppose still stands due to the other issues I mentioned. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 13:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If the oppose was the one it seems to have been, then i think that wondering whether to get involved with that kind of opposition is not necessarily petulance. DGG (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. In the question I asked, he basically recited policy. It seems obvious that he just chose the "correct" answer, for the sake of becoming an admin. He has yet to learn that adminship is not a trophy, and not something one can get merely be reciting policy. [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tutthoth-Ankhre (talk • contribs) [reply]
    Yes yes. Heaven forbid our admin candidates understand policy, and know where to find answers when they are asked questions. We wouldn't want that. </sarcasm> Keeper ǀ 76 15:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought policy is what administrators are supposed to know? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is, Juliancolton hasn't earned my trust. He just seems too perfect. [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect your opinion, but isn't being a good candidate a reason to support, or at least not oppose? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, wait, wait, wait, I know this one: A man walks into an office to apply for a job, and the man at the desk asks him if he's qualified. When the man answers yes, the man at the desk tells him that the job isn't for him. When the man asks why, the other man replies that he hates qualified people because they make him feel bad. The next day, the man learns that the company he applied to sued for bankruptcy. Or something like that. I might have messed up the punchline. :) Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral - may be a little to block happy[9], however I am assuming the candidate has learned in the months since then so no oppose from me. --T-rex 20:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No offense, but I found that link quite funny. ;)--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 23:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL, a month for 3RR. That is awesome. Perhaps just a touch excessive. "Julian, here is another scenario, a user makes a personal attack against a newbie--no, Julian, you aren't allowed to reach through the internet and punch them. How about a 24 hour block?" :) Protonk (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed! :) That was several months ago, however, and I've since read up on the policies that I lacked knowledge of then. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, lol! —Sunday [+-+-] 00:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    lawlerz! - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 01:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, think of it this way. They probably wouldn't violate 3RR again after THAT :P Wizardman 18:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I have been impressed with Juliancolton's work at FAC and his knowledge of content policies. I am concerned, however, that he is an active user of IRC. I am a firm believer that wikipedia should be policied from wikipedia, and I hesitate to give the tools to someone who does not necessarily see the same value in that. I will not oppose because Julian and I were on opposite sides of an IRC-related dispute yesterday, and that conflict of interest means it is not appropriate for me to do so. Karanacs (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To quote something made very poignant in various IRC channels: "On-wiki actions which cannot stand on their own merits should not make reference to, or be instigated by, IRC discussions." Julian knows to do nothing solely because there's a positive attitude toward it in Internet chatrooms that wouldn't garner favorable consensus on the wiki. —Animum (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when is wikipedia "policed" from IRC? It's a chat channel, I'll show you some logs:
    [21:32] <USER1> Clock Crew
    [21:32] <USER2> wtf is that
    [21:32] <USER3> Someone register ##Clock_Crew
    [21:32] <USER1> organisation on Newgrounds
    [21:32] <USER1> the leader is a dude called Strawberry Clock
    [21:32] <USER1> and their God is in the shape of a huge B
    [21:33] <USER5> yeh clock crew
    [21:33] <USER5> is old school
    [21:33] <USER5> newgrounds
    [21:33] <USER1> they own
    [21:33] <USER1> newgrounds owns
    As you can see msot of it is just harmless nonsense, and occasionally we have serious discussions about happenings on wikipedia etc, but never any "policing".--Serviam (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't call IRC a place for "policing," more like a more direct and instantaneous method of contact. Wikipedia does use its IRC channels when it is experiencing errors. During its off-hours, I see IRC more of a "horsing" around place than "policing". Usage of official channels in using Wikipedia talk pages are generally followed to the dot. I wouldn't exactly recommend replacing talk pages with IRC chats, but I certainly wouldn't discount an editor because he opened up an alternative method of contact online. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 21:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Juliancolton_3