The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

For information about discussions such as this one, see Wikipedia:Bureaucrat discussion.

This is a very close discussion, and so I believe this decision needs to be made by discussion rather than just one person interpreting the consensus here.

One of the main reasons for opposing was the opinion that age/maturity (or lack thereof) should be a determining factor in whether someone should be trusted with the additional tools used by bureaucrats. In addition to the opinions given within the main discussion, there was also a brief discussion on the talk page as well. It is definitely important for a bureaucrat to show maturity when making decisions. As was mentioned in the discussion, however, there is nothing in any of the policies or guidelines which states that bureaucrats and admins have to meet specific age requirements. While the concerns concerning age are definitely valid for those holding the opinions, we need to make decisions based in policy, and opinions which express a concerns or a reason for opposing which is not based even slightly in policy must therefore be considered with that in mind.

The concerns regarding maturity are, in my opinion, much more relevant than any concerns regarding how old a particular candidate is. Due to the trust held in the position, a bureaucrat candidate must be trusted by the community to make correct assessments of RfA/RfB discussions. While there were a fair number of participants who expressed concern regarding Juliancolton's ability to make mature decisions, a significantly larger number expressed confidence that he could make mature decisions, even difficult decisions. A small number of people also expressed concern about his ability to interpret consensus based on his closure of some AfDs.

The other significant issue raised by those opposing this candidate was that he was attempting to manufacture a need which he wished to fulfill. I don't know if that was Juliancolton's initial intent, but the candidate statement indicates that WP:CHU has gotten increasingly backlogged recently, which doesn't appear to be the case from what I can tell as most cases are handled within 24-48 hours, and those requiring more time (usually due to dialogue with the submitter of the request) are generally cleared within about 7 days. There is also this thread which was brought up in October 2009 as an example of this alleged manufacturing of this need. Again, I don't know if this was the candidate's intent (based on other interactions), but rather an expression of concern that requests might be taking too long.

It should also be noted that one editor's opinion was used by others as reasons for opposing, when that editor subsequently switched his opinion to support.

At this point, I am still unsure on how this should be decided, and I invite other bureaucrats to express their opinions so that we can figure this one out in a timely manner. We wouldn't want Juliancolton to suffer in suspense for too long. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to ponder this some. My initial thoughts are: a) we have two active crats younger than JC and one inactive one who was younger than JC when that user became a crat, b) I find some of the opposes very weak and the way I look at it, that puts JC's RFB right where NihonJoe's was, c) several crats participated in the RFB- Pakaran, MBisanz, Avi supported; WJBscribe opposed; AnonDiss asked a question but never voted. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminarily, I feel it is worth pointing out that opposing JC based on his age, and opposing him based on his accusing his opponents of agism during the RfB are two distinct issues. Oppose votes 5, 23, and 27 stand out as perhaps more based on the later than the former, and I'm not sure they should be discounted as heavily. A majority of the opposition is based, in part or in whole, on issues of manufacturing a need and being too eager (and that sentiment strengthened during the run, in part due to JC's becoming involved on BN). The support seems uniformly strong, but I am not convinced that this overrides a reasonably strong presumption of no consensus due to the raw percentage. I'm going to look over the RfB in more detail shortly. -- Pakaran 02:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be mindful, Pakaran, that you are not impartial, having placed a support vote. I'm confident that you'd be able to view the candidacy dispassionately, but your assessment cannot – for the sake of form – be used in determining the outcome. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, of course. I was careful not to draw a direct conclusion, and I will recuse from further involvement. On glancing back at the bureaucrat discussion for Nihonjoe 4, it appears clearer that there's a strong precedent, though not a requirement, to recuse entirely (including, to paraphrase that discussion, from deciding "what the community decision is"). I have no objection to my comment, and AD's reply, being removed, if he doesn't. -- Pakaran 02:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not necessary. As long as it's viewed in the correct light, your comment is fine. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't really see this as borderline, and I don't think a bureaucrat discussion was required. The RfB falls significantly below the traditional threshold, and the opposition presents a valid case underpinned by the arguments of such commentators as JayHenry and WJBscribe. Nihonjoe's case was an outlier, and it must be viewed as such. There, the opposition was almost entirely rooted by a concern the bureaucrat body felt was weak. Here, we have multiple concerns, most of which represent reasonable viewpoints: maturity, judgement, ability to interpret consensus, and supposed desperation to become a bureaucrat. I cannot find a consensus for promotion. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot find a consensus to promote either, nor did I view this as borderline. bibliomaniac15 02:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I supported so I'm going to keep my mouth shut here. MBisanz ^talk 04:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see this as borderline at all and I find no consensus to promote here. Andrevan@ 05:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ditto. Not really borderline, and having reviewed all the opinions provided, I can't help but agree with WJB's oppose, so I guess that's no consensus to promote for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I see no consensus to promote. While a majority are clearly in favour, this falls short of the level of consensus expected in an RfB. I'd expect to see some really exceptional circumstances in order to consider this as borderline, and I don't see anything exceptional here. Warofdreams talk 13:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• While I still see it as somewhat borderline (as described above), after further review I agree that there isn't consensus to promote here due to lack of any exceptional circumstances and the general solidness of most of the oppose opinions (oppose opinions based solely on age aren't grounded in anything solid, IMHO). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• My initial reaction to the RfB (which I've been following off and on since it opened) has been that there isn't consensus. As has been pointed out, Nihonjoe's RfB, which is similar in percentage, was very dissimilar in the tone, which is why it got a significantly higher degree of granular scrutiny. I will say, however, just for the sake of transparency, that I personally like Julian and think he could be a good 'crat at some point, but I don't feel that the community consensus is there at this time.
  I'm also inclined to call for the 'crat chat to be closed; pretty much every non-recused 'crat here has voiced a "no consensus" statement, and we'd need a lot of inactive 'crats to come out of the woodwork to change that. Joe, since you opened it, it'd be best if you closed it (versus the 'crat chat for your RfB, where it was opened and closed by different people). EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rlevse has indicated to me that he is thinking about things and will likely be making additional comments here. I'd like to wait for that, at least. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Here are my final thoughts on this. I in large part agree with Nihonjoe and EVula. I have no problem with Nihonjoe having a crat chat and he should be the one to close the chat; in fact I may well have done a crat chat too. IMHO, this RFB, coming on the heels of NJ's precedent setting one, with superficially similar results, justify it. NJ's set a precedent on the heels of signifcant talk about RFB bar being too high. Then we get JC's right after it and it has similarities, though there are also significant differences. That alone makes it worth discussing. We now have a better idea of where the community wants the "new" RFB bar. We also want to ensure we make the right decision. I realize some of my crat colleagues feel this was an obvious "no consensus" but as I said, I'm not so sure it was so obvious. I agree with EVula that JC will be a great crat one day but now he needs more seasoning. JC is a great editor and admin. And re EVula, I also like JC. It is obvious the community and crat consensus is not there for this promotion. I feel with a more time and seasoning JC will be there. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Final comment from me: I agree with Rlevse above. Although I don't think a bureaucrat chat was entirely necessary here, it did allow for useful discussion about how bureaucrats exercise their discretion. To paraphrase WJBscribe on the BN, Nihonjoe's RfB demonstrated that RfBs with a support ratio of approximately 4:1 can pass, but not that every such RfB will do so. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promote[edit]

No consensus[edit]

1. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Warofdreams talk 19:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Andrevan@ 23:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Angela. 23:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recuse/Abstain[edit]

1. WJBscribe (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has now been closed as unsuccessful. Thank you for participating in this discussion. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.