Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/Juliancolton

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship, request for bureaucratship, request for checkusership, or request for oversightship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Withdrawn by nominator. -DJSasso (talk) 03:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Juliancolton

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

End date: October 21, 2009

Though I admire Julian's dedication to anti-vandalism, I do not believe him qualified to be an administrator. My reasoning? A blatant disregard for standards as written. He has admitted on his talk page that he "frankly doesn't care what the criteria say" here and also in a GA article. His talk page could be construed as indicating he believes his own standards to be superior. Therefore, he violates consensus. This is not the first time that people have complained about his misuse of the standards. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance:

Support

Support as nom Purplebackpack89 (talk)

Oppose

Oppose From everything I've seen he has been a good admin both here and elsewhere. Just using policies from simple I'd point to WP:Ignore all rules and WP:Bold and if you'd like a selection of some of my favorite essays/policies from EnWiki which I think can correlate cross wiki I'd be happy to. If you hang around long at least half of all conversations about policies seem to be about whether you should be following the policy at all and if some of THE most linked policies are the ones above telling you to IGNORE the polices. So saying that he doesn't care what the policy is isn't actually going against the general consensus at all. Juliancolton has been a dedicated member of the Wikimedia community for years (almost 100k edits at EnWiki?) and I have never seen a legitimate complain about the use of his administrative powers (over quite a few projects) and he has been an En admin for at least a year... possibly a bit more and to be honest as a very long term lurker I assumed he was an Admin long before he became one because he has always acted as one should Fair, Honest and actively interested in the betterment of the projects he works on and Wikimedia as a whole. Jamesofur (talk) 00:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, I'm retired, but I still stalk. I frankly couldn't believe this when I saw it on Recent Changes. This has got to be the most fucking ridiculous request that I have ever seen. And I've seen a lot of crazy stuff. Also, what James said. Regards, Javért ^☆ 00:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He blatently disregards guidelines, and made up a comprehensive test for GA that has no basis whatsoever in anything. At the least, he should retract his repeated comment that he doesn't care what standards are, and maybe be banned from PGA for six months. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lol. "This page is a guideline on Wikipedia. Many editors agree with the ideas on this page. It is a good idea to follow it, but it is not policy." There's a difference between a guideline and a policy. I'm not even going to respond to the rest of your silliness. PGA banned for six months? Epic lulz. Javért ^☆ 01:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Juliancolton is a very good admin as well as the others. He is also a good Wikifriend. --Bsa dow ski1 01:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I've reviewed this incident as well as JC's recent contributions. I see no reason to demote him. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Just because an article meets the criteria doesn't mean it must be promoted. Similarly, even if most people oppose this deadminship, if their reasoning is faulty, JC could be demoted. However, based on my experiences with this admin and reviewing what went on, I don't see any reason to deadmin JC. I pose this question: "If PGA is merely about determining if an article meets the promotion requirements, why is it a discussion?" If the article either meets or doesn't meet certain numerical/binary criteria, a bot could promote GAs. The point is that there are non-quantifiable properties that a good article must have to be considered "good". (Sorry, my opinion got less "simple" as I wrote it. I'm willing to repost if needed.)EhJJ^TALK 01:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you find it bad that he admits to disregarding criteria? And also that he has applied a test that has no basis whatsover in any of the criteria ever? Purplebackpack89 (talk)
No. I think you're upset because he won't lower standards to pass your GA nom(s); so you decided to get back at him with this silly request. Javért ^☆ 01:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait? His standards. The only standards we should be using are the ones on PGA, not some made-up, never-discussed, never-defined ones by a single user. Especially if he doesn't care what the standards are, and bad-mouths articles that exceed all nine pillars Purplebackpack89 (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where the hell do you see the pronoun "his" in my statement? Javért ^☆ 01:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look, the point is that he disregards standards and applies a test that has no basis. What has repeatedly happened is that he opposes articles that others have had no problems at all with based on some "comprehensive" test that is a VGA requirement, not a GA requirement. This guy blatently doesn't follow standards, and thinks there's nothing wrong with that. Why does nobody find this as abominable as I do, and instead accuses me of a personal attack? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate not being referred to as "this guy". –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bad-faith de-adminship requests should be summarily closed. This is axe grinding, pure and simple, and doesn't even deserve the amount of attention it's already been given. Julian's one of our best. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Someone please kill and bury this horse. Javért ^☆ 02:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's not if he admits to frankly not caring about guidelines. This isn't about his vandalism work, it's about his disregard for stands Purplebackpack89 (talk) 02:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've provided no evidence that his attitude is detrimental to the encyclopedia. Furthermore, that you'd jump from "I dislike your attitude about GAs" to "you should be removed as an administrator", especially when the sysop flag has no bearing in the GA process whatsoever (the argument could be made that this de-adminship request is bogus on those grounds alone), is astounding in its audacity. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is that the guy applies the standards considerably more strict than anybody else. He basically applies the VGA standards to GAs, and his standards have created a veto on GAs. In hindsight, I probably should've aired out my points a different way, but he does need to loosen his standards a little, and actually review articles that he criticize. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you used "probably" instead of "absolutely" suggests that you still don't understand that you are grossly out of line with the de-adminship request. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. LOL, wth? Nah, he's been too good an admin to be thrown overboard for something like this. --<font=Comic Sans MS>S3CR3T 02:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'm not sure what to say. Is this in regards to our disagreement over the GA criteria? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, when you said that you frankly don't care what the standards say. In good faith, I cannot support someone who admitted to disregarding standards as a sysop. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The GA criteria are not policy. They are merely guidelines, and thus it is often appropriate to disregard them if necessary. Common sense overrules all policies if applied correctly. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you said is still unacceptable, and I cannot support your adminship. Also, you continue to believe that your own "standards" (which as far as I can tell, have never been delineated anywhere) are superior to consensus. If you don't like the guidelines, you should propose changes to them, not ignore them. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines don't need to be changed if they're to be ignored occasionally. I don't believe my standards are superior to consensus; how you've determined this, I am unsure. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that you have ignored them more than occasionally, especially when you admittede that they don't care what they say. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm the first to admin that I'm more than happy to ignore certain guidelines where appropriate. See WP:IAR. I follow policies where necessary, but as I said, the GA criteria are nothing more than a series of recommendations. If you can find one instance where I have inappropriately and deliberately ignored policy, I will support your argument. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point is basically that Julian and his hoyty-toyty standards have somewhat granted him an 'unfair veto on GA. He has had tests like a comprehensive test and others, and if they aren't met, even if the article exceeds all guidelines. He has succeeded in blocking numerous articles from GA. This might be OK for one or two, but he has applied it to dozens of articles. My point is that it's completely unfair for one guy to hold up GA as Julian clearly does. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 02:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If an article is not "good", I'm going to object to its promotion to "good" article status. I don't mean to ruffle any feathers and step on any toes, but it seems fairly simple. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You define good far, far, far too strictly...stricter than any other editor on Wikipedia and with absolutely no basis whatsoever in standards you don't care about, but everybody agreed on. Just because you don't think it's good doesn't mean it's not good. You need to get more in line with the standards, or you have no business whatsoever editing PGA and PVGA. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 02:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you're saying I need to have the same opinion as all other editors. I happen to have strict standards, this is true. We're an encyclopedia and we need to keep professional standards, and to that I try my best to ensure that our recognized content is as good as reasonable possible. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that your standards are too tough and a veto on other users If you want GA to be tougher, you should change the guidelines, not ignore them every single time you edit. The problem is you're not even close to everyone else. Not by a long shot. You need to get closer to them, not necessarily the same thing, but closer. Right now, you essentially apply the VGA standards for GA, and that ain't right. Also, you rarely comment on talk pages or review articles you vote no on, and you often say "incomplete", but don't point to a single missing fact. This ain't right. Not at all. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, the GA criteria aren't strict requirements. They're recommendations for reviewers and article writers to follow. Therefore, each editor interprets them differently. If disagreement arises, the proper course of action is to have a discussion amongst the community. If consensus does not support your view, then you have to accept it and try to bring your article up to standard. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying this Purplebackpack, how is him going against an article a "veto" (bolded of course)Jamesofur (talk) 03:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm sorry this entire proposal and the responses to it do not show merit regardless of my own opinion (that Julian is a great, interwiki, admin). Your problems with him at GA and VGA not only appear to be blatant ax grinding they also don't appear to have anything to back them up in the first place even after I've gone looking for the evidence myself. If you read the top of the guidelines for GA and VGA you will see a little box that explains what a guideline is, and it is specifically NOT a policy. One person who disagrees with something does not block anything, even on a smaller wiki and if you disagree with his thoughts on an article you can either 1. take what he says and try to fix the article or 2. ignore it and talk to other articles, unless others agree with him his opinion is meh.

That being said I also don't see why this is a reason to deadmin him? Has he abused his admin powers? I can't even see something that says he has done anything that wrong as an editor let alone something bad enough to strip admin rights away. Admin rights are not special powers that make you "above" others they are tools to help you help the community, and Julian continues to use them well for that.

Because you seem to be around at the moment I'll say this: If you do not provide clear reasoning and evidence behind the request, or at least the beginning of it, I will close this request (As a NON admin) per WP:Snow as it just appears to be a bad faith request. Jamesofur (talk) 02:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, forget the request, but keep in mind that here's what happened when I was "grinding an ax". I proposed an article. All concerns in all other reviews. Julian claims the article is not comprehensive (a VGA test, not a GA test) and incomplete, but can't name one single thing that is missing. He never edited the article, and had one comment on the talk page, after the close. The article ended in no consensus. My argument is that Julian needs to at least take a modicum of the standards into account, not frankly not care and go off on a completely different tangent than all other editors. If he doesn't like the standards, he ought to request changes instead of pertually ignoring them. Agreed? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 03:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC), who had popped over to the drugstore to get some aspirin[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.