Editing stats for self at 02:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

General user info
Username: Juliancolton
User groups: abusefilter, sysop
First edit: Nov 18, 2006 22:41:28
Total edits (including deleted): 111,262
Deleted edits: 3,896
Live edits: 107,366

Namespace totals
Article	44218	41.18%
Talk	9065	8.44%
User	1872	1.74%
User talk	19642	18.29%
Wikipedia	26653	24.82%
Wikipedia talk	1907	1.78%
File	1283	1.19%
File talk	202	0.19%
MediaWiki	6	0.01%
MediaWiki talk	11	0.01%
Template	679	0.63%
Template talk	339	0.32%
Help	4	0.00%
Help talk	2	0.00%
Category	131	0.12%
Category talk	10	0.01%
Portal	1314	1.22%
Portal talk	24	0.02%

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	1428	
2008/04	1491	
2008/05	3171	
2008/06	2725	
2008/07	1777	
2008/08	2170	
2008/09	4628	
2008/10	4263	
2008/11	3725	
2008/12	3922	
2009/01	5949	
2009/02	5928	
2009/03	7212	
2009/04	8637	
2009/05	9186	
2009/06	8093	
2009/07	7024	
2009/08	4573	
2009/09	6387	
2009/10	4245	
2009/11	3022	
2009/12	3038	

Logs
Users blocked: 2821
Accounts created: 6
Pages deleted: 16666
Pages moved: 1830
Pages patrolled: 8064
Pages protected: 623
Pages restored: 284
User rights modified: 377
Users unblocked: 47
Pages unprotected: 35
Files uploaded: 56

I will likely be wikt:AFK quite a bit over the upcoming week, so I might not answer questions for several hours. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least 3 of the voters have used the word "child" in reference to a 16-year-old or 16-year-olds, perhaps unintentionally. I responded twice, and was just coming back to clarify when KC registered disapproval. I was trying to keep it short but should have said more than I said, because I don't normally respond to stuff like this at all, so that fact that I used strong language might have been felt as a slap, which I didn't intend. The issue as I see it, and I think this is well-accepted in advanced countries although different people will say it differently, is that groups will fracture along lines of age, race, nationality, class, gender, etc. unless we're diligent to stop them from fracturing. So when people say things that seem to the people on the receiving end to belittle an entire class of people ... 16-year-olds, women, Jews, whatever ... silence is not an option, people have to step in and say "no", or else things only get worse. It doesn't matter what the speakers think the words meant ... if there's a strong consensus among the targets that the chosen word or phrase is offensive, then it's offensive, end of story. 16-year-olds almost always react badly to be called "children" by people who don't know them, as a blanket term. The point that two people made that "child" can't be offensive because it's used that way in a legal sense is dead wrong, unless you mean in the sense that I (at age 52) am a "child" of my father ... that's a legally-defined term, but neither the North Carolina General Statutes nor any other U.S. state statutes that I know of define people under 18 as "children" ... the legal phrase is "minor children" or "minors", and "children" is probably avoided by legislators precisely because it can be considered offensive when applied to older minors. But I do want to apologize to the two people involved ... I should have said all this to begin with, to make it clear that speaking up is a step that I think is important as a good wiki-citizen ... I didn't in any way mean that you guys are jerks, just that the word is unacceptable to me. - Dank (push to talk) 15:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• While we're speaking of "fracturing along lines of nationality", the statutes of North Carolina or any other U.S. state are deeply irrelevant to me.  :)

  I'm rapidly nearing 39, and I have children older than Juliancolton. This hasn't stopped me supporting JC in the past, but on this occasion the combination of JC's age and a slight concern about too-swift self-renomination have moved me into the "neutral" camp.

  My position is that anyone who's offended by being called a "child" is not suitable for bureaucratship. Positions of responsibility on Wikipedia entail having a thick skin.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Normally I would eschew such discussions, but I feel compelled to speak (or rather type) in this instance. Dan and KC, and S Marshall's discussion have many valid points brought forth; and I think it well to take some of these points to task. I've been guilty of using the term "child", and even "kid" on occasion at WP, and in retrospect, perhaps I'm faulty in that regard. I'd just like to mention that the term "child" has a wide range of connotations, depending upon - of all things - age. Young persons (IIRC) can often see the term as diminutive, if not outright offensive - while those of more advanced years may not mean the term as such at all. The term "child" is often one of perspective, and indeed I've been known to refer to those in their 40s as such. In fact, I tend to equate the terms "child" and "kid" with a very affectionate feeling. In that regard, KC is spot on in regards to the use of the term(s). Julian himself has shown an uncanny reflection on the term - perhaps it comes from his extensive work in an "encyclopedic" environment, but I do find it an exceptionally mature perspective that he is not necessarily offended by it. (depending on the context of course). Most of us involved in this project are here because we value knowledge, and the years of time teach each of us many different and diverse things over the years. I freely admit that there are "young people" here that can baffle me with their ability to write code or script - many who know various policy, WP history, and general practices far better than I. I'm grateful that they generally accept me for who I am (even if there are some 9_9 rolled eyes at times), and I appreciate them taking the time to teach me what they know. Those who are wise enough to listen to "old folks" babble on, are often able to also gain a bit of knowledge by listening to some of the "elderly" folks here. A phrase that I'm quite fond of comes to mind here:

"Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth"

I realize that many of the folks who have seen a few more seasons may desire more "experience" when choosing editors for various positions of trust, that's perfectly natural. Us grumpy old men often see the failings in others that we ourselves held in our youth - and want to avoid any possible mistakes in the future. In a sense this all brings me around to this particular RfB.

The couple extra tabs/buttons/responsibilities being sought here are a follows: (from WP:CRAT)

• promote other users to administrator or bureaucrat status;
• grant and revoke an account's bot status; and
• rename user accounts.

Now, theoretically it would be possible for one who was granted such tools to go rouge and just start handing out these bits of access to anyone they wanted - but functionally, how long would such a thing last? Bad bots are going to be shut down. Bad usernames are not going to last. And, should anyone grant an admin. bit to a 40% RfA - well, I suspect they wouldn't hold that "crat" bit very long after such a endeavor. Basically a crat is tasked with evaluating consensus, and flipping a bit. Julian was granted a few tools some time back with the "admin". Has he ever violated the communities trust? Does his lack of physical age prevent him from using his brain, evaluating, thinking, and discussing things? Personally, I don't think so - but that's my own individual view. Wikipedia is a website - a top 10 website to be sure, but a website nonetheless. We're not electing the leader of a country, selecting a person to sit on some "high court", or judging who should receive what in the real world. If Julian is young and enthusiastic, GREAT! Aren't we all "enthusiastic" about this project? More power to him - isn't it a good thing that he wants to follow in the footsteps of those who came before him? Well, enough "bla, bla, bla" from me - I just wanted to comment on the age and "child" terminology thing; and I got caught up in my own thoughts. Apologies. — Ched :  ?  19:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, don't apologize - I like hearing people's different thoughts and perspectives. :) JamieS93 18:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take an issue with this, as I do not believe this is allowed. If it is, then I have a strong objection to it because you should NOT overwrite someone else's !vote with your own, as 15lsoucy did. I don't think RMHED was being totally serious. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 01:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The vote that I had deleted was under the title "Bastard," was in the "Support" section, and was one of three votes cast by RMHED. See my and Julian's talk pages. --15lsoucy ^(salve) 01:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get back to this before it closed, so I'm putting this on the talk page. Despite my attempt to get more information from Julian about this comment, I haven't gotten an answer that satisfies me. Julian did not know that there was no conflict of interest in closing a withdrawn RFA in which he had participated. I think that is pretty basic and it concerns me enough that I couldn't support this RFB. I hope that if it passes, he takes RFAs slowly and asks other bureaucrats whenever doubts arise. OK, back to my retirement...--Chaser (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that someone took my comment about irresponsible adults as an attack and I apologize if I've offended anyone. However, that wasn't an attack on the opposers; it was simply a "would you rather?" reasoning because quite a few of them are opposing purely because of Julian's age and nothing more. I hope this clears things up about what I was trying to say. Cheers, Twilight Helryx 19:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]