Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Juliancolton 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 205.200.18.71 (talk) at 00:07, 22 September 2008 (Whoops.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Juliancolton

Voice your opinion (talk page) (85/1/1); Scheduled to end 15:02, 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 succeeding, 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. :)

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]


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 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. 205.200.18.71 (talk) 00:07, 22 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]
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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Juliancolton_3&oldid=240118243"