Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Juliancolton

< Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship, request for bureaucratship, request for checkusership, or request for oversightship. Please do not modify it.
Closed as promoted: Clear consensus to promote. 15/3 fr33kman talk 02:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Juliancolton

change
Juliancolton (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • right changes)

End date: 8 November, 2009 - 02:04 UTC
Juliancolton has been an editor on simpleWP since the summer of 2008. Since that time he has been an active member of the project logging some 3448 mainspace edits (59.4%). Since the beginning of 2009 Julian has been a sysop here and has been active in protecting the wiki from those who wish it harm. He has performed 604 deletions, and 157 blocks. Both of these show that he is an active contributor to the project's goals and is an active administrator who makes use of the mop the community has given him. Juliancolton is also an administrator elsewhere in the WMF universe such as at enWP, simpleWB, simpleWQ (also a crat there), commons, enwikinews, flaggedrevs_labswikimedia, meta, and strategywiki, showing he is both active and knowledgeable in the job. Finally, Julian has shown that he is capable of understanding and weighing consensus, something integral to the role of crat. fr33kman talk 02:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: Thank you for the nomination; I gratefully accept. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 02:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

change
  1. fr33kman talk 02:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support Definitely one of the best admins of Simple. Someone whom I trust greatly. Pmlineditor ∞ 08:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Majorly talk 13:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Didn't know you were running for bship here, but I noticed your retirement from en. :( --PirateSmackKArrrr! 18:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. One good bureaucrat action is better than zero. Despite being a busy guy, I'm sure we'd all agree that if Julian (who it seems clear we all trust) made just one single useful contribution as a 'crat, then he should be a 'crat. All this "thin spreading" is all very well but, once again, we need to consider whether promoting JC would be a "net benefit" to this particular project. If anyone can offer me a single reason why promoting him wouldn't be a net positive to the project, I'd like to hear it. Right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support While I think running an RfB at this particular time was a poor choice, due to the current discussion about changing the requirements, I don't think it's a compelling reason to oppose. Also the "spread too thin", while an issue, is not critical. You're a trusted user and if you're capable of evaluating RfXs, bot requests and rename requests, that's all this flag is about. If you can get enough users to support (per our current policy), then far be it from me to keep you from being a crat on this project, too. Good luck! EhJJTALK 20:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. His other tools have shown him too trustworthy. I must therefore oppose because he cannot possibly be good enough here. Goblin 00:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]
  8. Support - Per The Rambling Man and EhJJ. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Technical support as every admin should be a 'crat Soup Dish (talk) 12:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Going with AGF. Yotcmdr =talk= 13:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Per The Rambling Man. There is not an editor I trust more than Julian. 100% net positive. All of this spreading thin stuff is bull crap. Julian's contribs look as good as ever.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 16:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong support based on positive interactions at other projects and good contributions here as well. Tempodivalse 03:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support --vector ^_^ (talk) 10:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I can understand the arguments below but who are we to say how many project adminships are too many, etc.? Can't see any reason why he shouldn't become a crat based on his past work.--Xania (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong support This kind of goes without saying. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

change
Oppose - I think JC is a great editor and even greater admin. Has way too many flags on different projects to be able to focus as much as he should. While I don't believe he would misuse the flag, he neither needs it nor does the wiki itself need more crats. Since neither needs the other and I fear this is just hat collecting. I will have to with great disappointment oppose. I wish he would have waited to see if we make all admins crats. This speaks to impatience and wanting the hat now. -DJSasso (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although this likely won't mean much, I can assure you that this is not "hat collecting"; I would never undertake an action except to further the quality of a project, and I believe my reputation as one of the most prolific contributors to enwiki, among other wikis, proves this. I wasn't considering this request even last week, but after Fr33kman's generous offer I decided to go for it. As for the fact that I'm an admin on many projects, yes, this I can't deny, but I'm an active contributor to all the projects I hold special rights on; therefore while I may have an unusually large number of 'flags', I do put them to good use. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I won't deny that I am sure you will use our tools appropriately. I worry that you are spreading yourself thin, where you might make a choice faster than you should because you have stuff to do on other wikis for example. Just because you are active doesn't mean you are acting at as high a quality as you could be. It is my opinion and it is clearly just an opinion, that you already have stretched yourself far to thin, this would only add to it. -DJSasso (talk) 02:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He had same exact comment on his enwiki RfB by EyeSerene (oppose no. 19). Not sure what could've changed, but since then he has spread even more thinly. -- Mentifisto 06:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that RfB was several months ago, and I'm still running strong without issue. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 13:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps your WP:AGF has run out, DJ. As for "impatience and wanting the hat now" why not "wanting to help to project now, as opposed to waiting, particularly in light of current events" where extra 'crats could have helped out? If you can offer one negative reason for him becoming a 'crat, I'd like to hear it. In your opposition statement you sound so supportive. If he made one good 'crat decision (and as far as I can make out, you trust his judgement?) then would he not be a net positive for this project? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have assumed good faith. I have specifically said he would not act in bad faith. I can oppose the current setup of our crat situation without meaning ill towards the candidate. And no, one net action doesn't necessarily mean a net positive, I believe we currently have a situation on this wiki where there are too many admins for example, and because of such we have alot more problems than we should. I fear the same with the crat flag will become the norm now that we have almost run out of editors without the admin flag. There is a saying, too many cooks spoil the broth. I dont think having extra crats would have helped out the BG situation at all btw, what would have helped is crats voting in a timely mannor if they were going to -DJSasso (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Odd. I thought most, if not all of us, would have agreed that a net positive was a net positive. An additional 'crat assisting in a "timely mannor (sic)" may well have been a net positive to this project. As Eptalon has identified, we're already beyond the position of "too many cooks", what we should do is "trust" our regular and great editors. But anyway, I don't wish to badger your oppose. If you wish to oppose an editor who is clearly capable without real justification, that is your choice. Especially as you would advocate him becoming an 'crat without this process. How odd. Is your oppose because he "wants the hat" or because "we have too many cooks" or because "we have alot more problems than we should"? I'm not clear... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I am opposing just to give you more reasons to badger me since I disagreed with something you did? -DJSasso (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Sorry, I thought all people won't run for this position (which would imo the best idea) until the discussion on ST has ended. Nothing against you, nothing due to numbers but against the 'system'. Please wait and get the tools after the discussion ended on the perhabs easier way. Barras (talk) 10:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per DJSasso. You have enough on your plate as it is with your various flags on other projects to guarantee that you would be around enough to warrant the granting of this flag at this point in time. You are still an incredible administrator, so keep up the great work that you have done so far! Cheers, Razorflame 19:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak oppose per above. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

change

I would love to support, but I have one thing that is worrying me slightly. There has recently been a decline in your activity on EN. I don't want to know why, and honestly don't care, but before supporting, I need to be certain that you won't just become "disenchanted" with this project as well and up and leave us. I respect you as one the best admins and editors that the MFW has, but I am still concerned.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 19:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I expected this to come up, so I was thinking about a response for a while. Basically, I simply grew tired with the activities over there, and I often became frustrated and burnt out. I never really lost my cool on-wiki, but I felt that it would be best for me to take a bit of an extended break. I'd been an admin at enwiki for well over a year, written nearly 100 pieces of recognized content, and preformed 102,000 edits, so I feel that I served the project well and can safely continue with my life. That said, I'd like to issue a statement in response to the opposers; while it is true that I do contribute to multiple projects, many of which with special rights, I am not in any way spread too thinly. My current circumstances IRL allow me to spend a number of hours each day editing Wikimedia projects, and I'm quite comfortable in my position at the moment. To the best of my knowledge, the quality of my contribs has not been compromised as a result of my high levels of activity. In the rather unlikely case I become overburdened, I'll consider my options and if necessary cut back my activity on certain wikis. However, I can't foresee any such situation in the near future. I'd also like to note, at the risk of sounding arrogant, that bureaucratship is a minor technical position, and won't take up much more of my time. I'm already a contributor and sysop here, so I can't really see my promotion leading to any substantial changes in my editing pattern. HTH, –Juliancolton | Talk 20:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine for an editor to outgrow and leave a project. I myself rarely edit on enWP any more, a place I once considered my WMF home. There is nothing wrong with the project but I just find it nicer to edit here, perhaps Julian also feels the same. One good point about his retirement on enWP is that he's now spread less thinly and has more time for being here. fr33kman talk 21:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough. I really cannot talk to much about leaving a project myself, as my activities over all WMF projects are almost at a standstill at a moment. I don't think that you are spreading yourself to thin. In any case, there are very very few RfA's on this Wiki, so really Crats don't see much action. No worries on that front. Thanks for answering.-Gordonrox24 | Talk 16:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Juliancolton&oldid=8875039"