General user info
Username: Juliancolton
User groups: abusefilter, sysop
First edit: Nov 18, 2006 22:41:28
Total edits (including deleted): 84,366
Deleted edits: 2,845
Live edits: 81,521
Namespace totals
Article	34203	41.96%
Talk	7219	8.86%
User	1299	1.59%
User talk	16182	19.85%
Wikipedia	19244	23.61%
Wikipedia talk	1432	1.76%
File	64	0.08%
File talk	11	0.01%
MediaWiki	7	0.01%
MediaWiki talk	8	0.01%
Template	601	0.74%
Template talk	298	0.37%
Help	3	0.00%
Help talk	2	0.00%
Category	115	0.14%
Category talk	2	0.00%
Portal	802	0.98%
Portal talk	18	0.02%
Graph
Month counts
2006/11	50	
2006/12	6	
2007/01	5	
2007/02	4	
2007/03	3	
2007/04	20	
2007/05	10	
2007/06	9	
2007/07	11	
2007/08	2	
2007/09	3	
2007/10	104	
2007/11	506	
2007/12	1002	
2008/01	1521	
2008/02	1512	
2008/03	1430	
2008/04	1491	
2008/05	3172	
2008/06	2728	
2008/07	1779	
2008/08	2171	
2008/09	4636	
2008/10	4265	
2008/11	3732	
2008/12	3924	
2009/01	5964	
2009/02	5938	
2009/03	7313	
2009/04	8766	
2009/05	9335	
2009/06	8207	
2009/07	1891	
Logs
Users blocked: 2208
Accounts created: 4
Pages deleted: 10874
Pages moved: 879
Pages patrolled: 6333
Pages protected: 512
Pages restored: 157
User rights modified: 307
Users unblocked: 39
Pages unprotected: 29
Files uploaded: 54

Executed in 238.84 seconds
Taken 0.52 megabytes of memory to execute.

• re: oppose number 4 which states concerns in the WP:CHU, WP:CHU/U and WP:RfA:

I'm not sure I understand - do you feel there have been errors in judgment in Julians work with user names? If so, could you please elaborate - I'm not trying to badger, just curious. On the RfA issue, the only thing I could envision is that Julian often supports candidates; but to my perception he does so with solid rational and reasoning. I don't understand how that would affect his ability to discern consensus in closing an RfA he didn't voice a !vote on. — Ched :  ?  17:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only concern I would have would be as follows: Due to his youth he might not understand some of the perverted meanings that people name accounts with. Not that is necessarily a fault of his, however. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd trust most teenagers to be very conscious of such things; comes with the territory.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that would give him more of an advantage in recognizing such meanings, not less. Really, I think you learn most of that stuff in high school/college, and you tend to forget them/learn fewer new ones as time goes on past that. Matt (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For sure, you can't trust anyone to be a crat over thirty.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a number of the 'crats are >30 :) -- Avi (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think people would be surprised at how many of the 'crats are under the of 18 (at least when appointed.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Makes those of us >20 feel old :) -- Avi (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem...myself included. Matt (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm somewhere north of Julian and south of Cary, and I'd like to leave it at that for now :D -- Avi (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not only do you not remember the offensive terms as much, but the terms change. Words that I've never heard of are now offensive.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in all fairness, I'm among the top contributors to WP:UAA, so I know my way around inappropriate usernames. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rschen7754, Do you have an example of something that a younger person wouldn't understand that an older person would? -shirulashem (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that Rschen7754 prepare, as a standard RfB question, a list of (say) 20 usernames, some of which have hidden sexual meetings. Then have the candidate explain them. Fun to play along!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea. A sort of a Rorschach test. I am afraid of what might be discovered about my Id or ID. Plastikspork (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For sure. In fact, we should make ArbCom take it, and all existing admins and crats. And Jimbo. Or you block him.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For your reading pleasure, please see #10 at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Avraham 3#Questions 8-10. -- Avi (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason the order of the opposes is 1,2,3,1,2,3,4. I don't know what to do about it.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 21:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 21:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's just what happens if someone inserts a comment without a "#" in front of it or adds a new line. It can (as I have) quickly be fixed by just adding the necessary "#" or removing the new line. Regards SoWhy 21:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see the issue of ageism has come up again in one fashion or another. Being a decade older than our beloved leader, I just wanted to make an observation. For me, my views on ageism have changed so much, in so many ways, and so many times over the years. I'd have to imagine that Julians views on it will continue to change and evolve as well over the coming years. In some ways I've come full circle on the issue. I've learned so much from a generation of editors here who have yet to reach the tender age of 25, and I'm grateful for that knowledge. I think that what is more important than Julians "views" on the matter, is how he comports himself in "regards" to those matters. Perspectives will change over time, but I think that "how" a person reaches the conclusions they do is equally as important to "what" the conclusions are. I've found Julian to be thoughtful, reflective, introspective, and in possession of the ability to give due consideration to all sides of an issue - so the fact that he may not reach the same conclusion, means less to me than his ability fair and objective. Just saying. — Ched :  ?  05:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. Being 23, I sometimes feel really old here, which is definitely an odd feeling. But everyone, when growing up, feels they can do anything that an older person can do. Some are right; some aren't. But none are given the chance before certain rights are legal (driving, signing a contract, etc). That is what is different here: anybody can make their mark simply with their reputation, offering no information about themselves (or, indeed, lying so it isn't an issue). If you can prove, through your actions, that you are a respectable, dependable, civil, and rule-abiding human being, then honestly, age is one of the least important characteristics of you; it's nothing more than trivial. wadester16 06:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you in that many people of a young age are quite capable of various admin tasks. But I don't feel that admins should be underage, due to possible legal ramifications of handling deleted material. This goes double for crats, who often do renames etc related to OTRS tickets--and I'm relatively certain that OTRS members must be of legal age in either their jurisdiction or the WMF's. → ROUX ₪ 06:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS volunteers are only "strongly recommended" to be over 16. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it doubtful that there are severe legal ramifications associated with being a member of this community, sysop or not. All positions of power allow for anonymity, save for OTRS; for all we know, every single crat here (not on OTRS) is under 18 and lying about it. Highly doubtful, but possible. When joining WP, there are no terms of service that must be agreed to, no contract stating that you are responsible for your edits, no checkbox saying you read over the copyright policies of WP. You are able to truly anonymously edit here without legal obligation to do anything (good or bad). Most websites explicitly say one has to be 13 to sign up. We don't say that. Legally, wouldn't WP be at fault for anything bad, if the user did something, then never came back? wadester16 08:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If 23 is really old, I shudder to think what y'all must think of those of us old enough to be president of the United States. -- Avi (talk) 07:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant relatively speaking, of course. :-) wadester16 08:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

relatively speaking... as in the fact that I could have kids that are 23?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

meh ... you're still a young pup B-man, don't sweat the numbers. You're as young as you feel ;) — Ched :  ?  04:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come on over here, Balloonman, we'll play shuffleboard and watch the kids dance.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since there seems to be quite a bit of concern over my ability to judge difficult situations, I've decided that if promoted (highly unlikely at this point), I will initially avoid closing RfAs, and stick to WP:CHU which is one of the main reasons why I'm running. Fair enough? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that as long as you promise to participate in on-wiki crat discussions ("crat chats") in discretionary cases. You've participated in a lot of RFAs, and it would be a shame for the crats not to have access to your information. - Dank (push to talk) 14:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that'd be a real shame, Julian. You're a veteran of the RfA process, and if you are promoted, you shouldn't have to compromise yourself in this way. If your judgement were too poor to judge difficult situations, your ability to fill the position in the first place would be very questionable, the compromise above aside – I suggest that the case is simply that your judgement is good enough (hence the support). Furthermore, if you're promoted, it's a mark of the fact that a substantial majority of the participants believe you're fully qualified to make tough calls, so the compromise is extraneous anyway. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Bluntly, promises like these are seen, correctly or no, as efforts to save candidacies. They don't turn around the opposes, and they discourage the people who supported. Please take advice and reconsider.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, but I still expect to start off slow if promoted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with AnonDiss and Wehwalt. I have full confidence in your abilities to be a bureaucrat, as do 85% of the people !voting here so far. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about all these things in the opposes about an apparent knockabout style. A lot of jokers just play everything with a straight bat and lead Wikipedia into all manner of ditches, or just quietly tweak things behind the scene via the back door. I've seen heaps of "polished" high-ranking officials who make lots of decisions on whether a guy is their chat buddy, or ruffled their ego and are all very clever and pass it off as something else. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• " 36: Oppose:More experience needed. Lots of sheep voting.yousaf465' "

• I can imagine that one might be able to infer a bit of offense at this comment. I don't believe that simply because an editor may share similar views with another, that we should be referring to them as "sheep". Of course, given that we have plenty of "per ABC" in the oppose section as well, ... Just saying. — Ched :  ?  23:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It was hard not to make a note of the irony in that comment. iMatthew ^talk at 23:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't want to be 36th in line for anything when referring to people as sheep. Law _{type! snype?} 01:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking my comments back. I didn't had the intention of hurting others. I really apologize for it. yousaf465

I saw quite a few people opposing for lack of experience, and I thought it would be interesting to do a bit of a check on the successful bureaucrats and see how many months they had as administrators before they became bureaucrats Remember though, months as sysop =/= experience. After I ignored RfBs from 2004 as well as Cecropia's reconfirmation RfB, this is what I got:

Interesting spread here, but I am not sure if there is really enough data to analyze anything out of this. Make of it what you will. NW (Talk) 03:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This would only be meaningful if it included failed RfBs and tenure. → ROUX ₪ 03:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Coming up. NW (Talk) 04:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ones since 2007 here; I'm too tired to do the rest. NW (Talk) 04:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. I'm going to crunch some numbers here. Back in a bit. → ROUX ₪ 04:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mmkay. Average tenure for the successful RfBs above is about 16.03 months, while the average of unsuccessful RfBs above is 14.5 months. The overall trend is generally upwards in length of tenure for both successful and unsuccessful RFBs. → ROUX ₪ 05:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the averages are misleading. The successful "16.03" number is hugely inflated by Andrevan's and Avi's who both have had 34 months (2 years and 10 months!) of adminship before their successful RFBs. If one calculates without those 2 RFBs, the number drops to 13.6 months, which comes close to the "one year of adminship" requirement some !voters have at an RFB. Regards SoWhy 08:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I did say it was rather back-of-the-envelope! :P → ROUX ₪ 08:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All my fault, eh? 8-) -- Avi (talk) 08:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

R² of around 17% time against tenure (corrreleation of ~41%). Not very compelling, I would think. -- Avi (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another way of looking at it. Since January 2007, 2 out of 18 (11.11%) candidates with less than 1 year as an admin have succeeded; 8 out of 31 candidates with more than 1 year (25.81%) have been successful. Naturally correlation does not imply causation, but it is hard to ignore the fact that candidates with 1 year or more of experience as an administrator are more than twice as likely to succeed when going through an RfB. I also took a brief look at the 16 failed candidates with less than a year as an admin. Of those, 7 (43.75%) seemed to have "lack of experience" as one of the arguments used by the opposition. It is my suspicion that lack of experience as an administrator does not necessarily mean someone will be opposed as a candidate, but rather the lack of experience in an administrative capacity leads to certain errors in judgement that opposers will pick up on; someone who has had more time with the mop has had more time to refine how they use it and thus less likely to have recent mistakes that are dug up during the course of discussion. Shereth 15:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Janurary 20007? Boy, time sure flew by fast... :P Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 16:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boo. See, in the future we add a lot of extraneous R's to our months ... Shereth 16:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]