Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Juliancolton 2


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Juliancolton
Final (4/8/1); Ended 21:37, 07 May 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn by candidate

- This is a nomination per the suggestion of (on IRC), so I guess you could call this a co-nomination. He and I both think that Juliancolton has shown considerable improvement since the last RfA. This user has been very busy cleaning up articles and overall just making the project better -- I see several GAs and one FA that this user has contributed to, and a fairly healthy number of mainspace edits. Overall, I feel that Juliancolton is fit for adminship this time around. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Addition: I'd like to also point everyone to User:Juliancolton/Admin coaching. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
 * I accept, and I would like to thank TenPoundHammer and SynergeticMaggot for nominating me. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  20:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I agree with the opposes that I need more experience. I'm withdrawing the nomination so I can get some more experience. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  21:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: Anything I can. Whenever anything needs to be done, I'll be happy to help. I will probably direct some of my focus to AIV, UAA, AFD, and RFPP. But as I said, I probably won't have a limit to what I can help out with.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: It's hard to say. I am very active with the WPTC, to which I've created numerous articles and improved even more. I am most proud of my FL, which I wrote and worked on over a period of months. I also have numerous GAs, mostly tropical cyclone-related, but some of them are road articles. Whenever I get the chance, I review GANs, FACs, FLCs and such. I am also active in vandal fighting, and patrolling Newpages.


 * 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: I don't think I've ever gotten into major conflicts, but in the past, before I became experienced in Wikipedia, I admit that I did have minor civilty issues. I do specifically remember that when one of my first articles was merged (or put up for AFD, can't remember), I got slightly mad at the user. Since then, I firmly believe that I have improved, and I try to be as civil and polite as possible when communicating with other users.

General comments

 * Links for Juliancolton:

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

Discussion

 * Comment This user's first RfA was never properly closed. Could an admin please fix that? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Side comment, why isn't the admin coach, Nishkid, one of the co-noms? Does he know this rfa is live?   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  20:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to appear to be canvassing. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Julian and I have both informed Nishkid64. I don't think it's canvassing. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. No prob.  My issue then is "why isn't the admin coach nomming, as is usual practice at the end of successful admin coaching?"   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  20:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * First RfA closed and processed properly. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 20:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant comment - given that you're probably Wikipedia's leading writer on tropical cyclones, is there really not something else you ought to be writing on right now? —  iride  scent  20:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support as co nom. Beat the other nom support. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support as nom. Can't beat the co-nom since he beat me. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Moral Support, Wisdom makes a very good point. Perhaps this was an, erm, impulse decision?   weburiedoursecrets  inthegarden  20:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support -- the user may not be all too active in all areas...but he has a good edit count, good edit summary usage and good knowledge of wikipedia. I also doubt this user would abuse the tools...Best of luck! --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose - While I've come to realize article building admins are beneficial, you've stated in Q1 that you wish to work in areas you've virtually never participated in. Sorry. This likely indicates lack of policy knowledge in the project space.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 20:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you mind saying specifically which ones? Thanks, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone
 * RFPP and UAA. There are some, but, this kinda confirms what I mean:, and   Wisdom89  ( T |undefined  /  C ) 20:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, thank you for the quick response. While I admit that I am not as active with UAA and RFPP as I would like to be, I have some experience in both. Also, I'm not sure I understand what is wrong with those three examples. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone
 * UAA is extremely bitey for newbies. Admins block users for non-blatant WP:U offenses, users report for ridiculous reasons. Those three examples are indicative of your misunderstanding of said policy. I fear that if you were to work at UAA, you'd block for extremely borderline reasons, or reasons that are shoddy. Furthermore, if you're going to work at RFPP, you need to participate. I'm sorry. Good luck though mate.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 20:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Later comments moved to talk page. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I do not trust his judgment yet. There are other problems, but that is the biggest reason I am opposing. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I didn't mean to comment in this RFA as I've barely come across you but this comment posted less than 10 days ago is very possibly the worst argument I have ever seen on an XfD, and after seeing it there's no way I'd trust you with a block or delete button. —  iride  scent  20:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. Such arguments are the exact opposite of what an editor should be doing at WP:AfD.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 21:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per above. Specifically, per comment in Neutral that admins don't work on articles, and per Iridescent.  &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  21:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) (edit conflict)Conditional oppose. I'd like to hear from the admin coach; in the meantime, Iridescent has a good point.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Regretful oppose Remove my comment from neutral, as for some reason it was being edited by the nominee. Haphazard nom, from a medium we should be eliminating, not encouraging. No input from the admin coach and the AfD comment and the comments on this RfA tip the balance into oppose I'm afraid. Sorry, EJF (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose I would like to support via WP:WTHN, but I just can't. I just simply don't trust your judgment enough yet, sorry, nothing personal. :)  a s e nine  say what?  21:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - If for no other reason than just in watching this nomination. The editor appears to not be ready. Quietly, and respectfully suggest that perhaps this should be withdrawn. - jc37 21:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral - As much as I like JC enough and everything, I just do not feel there is enough Wikispace contributions, and he does have a problem with OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. He is good with vandalism reverting and such, but in my mind, its not really enough to say he's ready. Sorry man. Mitch 32contribs 20:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The majority of my edits are mainspace. If I do have a lot of user talk edits or talk page edits, then most of them are vandalism warnings and assessments, respectively. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  20:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I misunderstood what "Wikispace" meant, sorry 'bout that. Anyway, I know I'm not as active in those things as I should be, but I do a good amount. Remember, almost all of our admins are active in Wikispace and really nothing else, so I think it'd be good to have admins experienced in article writing. Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  20:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Where do you get that from? Most admins have dozens if not hundreds of articles under their belts, and some like BHG have over 100,000 mainspace edits. —  iride  scent  21:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A bit of an exaggeration, but he brings up a valid point. There are a quite a number of administrators who get so involved with the wonderful world of AN/I that they stop editing the encyclopedia. Anyway Julian, the point here is that you don't have that many edits in admin-related fields in the Wikipedia namespace (AIV, RFPP, XfD, etc.) Much of your Wikipedia namespace editing revolves around GA/FA, which is excellent, but it doesn't relate that well to adminship. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.