Juliancolton
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- Archival note: Archived with user permission (open past 30 day time limit)-- Tru co 03:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Juliancolton ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) I've been an administrator since late September 2008; since then, I've completed nearly 4,000 logged actions. I'm approaching 50,000 contributions, in addition. I'd like to receive some general feedback on how I've preformed as a sysop, and how I can further improve. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Reviews
- Of course I think you've done a great job here on Wikipedia. I trust you as an administrator, I think you're a good guy, and your work is superb. My only advice to give to you is to try to create a better demeanor, because--and I'm being frank here--sometimes you act a bit too immaturely for an administrator. Maybe this happens less on Wikipedia and more on IRC, but I still think you should take this into consideration. But this is really a small point in the scheme of things. I also think you have a ridiculous number of GAs and FAs, and
maybe you should slow downthat's great. Keep up the good work, Julian. Malinaccier ( talk) 02:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, but I think most of that originates from my userpage in this this revision, so I've gone ahead and revamped it to a more professional layout. Thanks for the review, – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Dude, you're doing a wonderful job as an admin. Not only are you active where I hope to see every admin, but you're one of our leading content builders. I'm glad you're my coach! :) I wouldn't have you any other way. Sometimes, I wonder whether or not you'd make a good bureaucrat... → Dyl @ n 620 03:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback, Dylan. I would most likely fail an RfB anytime in the future, but I appreciate your confidence in me. Cheers, – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- You would definitely be a good bcrat, JC. You have more clue than most people here. Otherwise, keep up the good work :) VX! talk 03:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Julian - I would think you would be a very good bcrat and you are a very good admin. Allthough it would be nice to see you working on Cyclone Articles outside of the NHC's/CPHC's northern areas of responsibilty a bit more. Jason Rees ( talk) 03:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Your doing a fantastic job as admin and I personally don't think that your acting "a bit too immaturely for an administrator". I think everyone has to have relax, chill out and not take things to seriously, regards, Aaroncrick (Tassie talk) 09:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Julian - you're a fine user and admin and very helpful, especially in getting articles/lists to featured status. I know of no concerns or complaints about you, Keep up the outstanding work! — Rlevse • Talk • 12:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Dylan is correct, I have every confidence that you will make a good crat sometime in the future and I for my part will support you in any way possible so you can archieve this. You do a great job whereever I look. So Why 12:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Try working on something that isn't a crappy hurricane for crying out loud! Work on something that can truly be called "encyclopedic". : P Ottava Rima ( talk) 17:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- There is absolutely nothing I could say that you've done wrong. You are both a great admin and also a great Wikipedian (although you do seem to be obsessed with large wind storms) :) Keep up the good work! All the best! fr33k man -s- 06:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I like the featured article credits and that you have never been blocked. Good AfD closes and arguments include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wyatt Cain, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valerie Gray, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Seamstress (A Tale of Two Cities) (second nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabahad, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peggy Jean, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/METRO CITY, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucifer in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual deaths (fourth nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terms of endearment (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in Tin Man, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flatpoint High School (Strangers with Candy), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emperor's Children, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Harper (Two and a Half Men), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C.J. Stryver. Weak arguments include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of female television actors (bassically an WP:ITSCRUFT style of non-argument), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dr. Eggman's vehicles (if duplicative, then redirect), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harlan Rook (article was rescuable), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emperor's Children (no explanation as to HOW it fails the guideline and policy), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crisis City (essentially a WP:JNN). Definitely more positive than negatives overall and while I disagree with some of the stances in the few examples cited as weak arguments above, as an admin, I do not see any glaringly biased closes. Best, -- A Nobody My talk 20:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. I'll try to consider my AfD comments more carefully in the future. Cheers, – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm finding it hard to say anything other than what has been said before, but since I am here, I might as well have a shot. Every time I have interacted with you, I have found you to be nothing short of being both receptive and considerate both in input and output. You are sensible, have a lot of clue, and generally know what you are doing in terms of both policy and effective collaboration. Put simply, you are a friendly and caring individual that I concur would make a good 'crat at some point in the future. Keep up the good work, mate. :) — neuro (talk) (review) 04:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's all been said above (except the immature part ... I've never seen that). If you want it, run for crat when you've been an admin about a year ... or possibly at the 9-month point, on the theory that the worst that could happen is, you fail, and get the feedback you need to pass in another 3 months. - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 04:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Can't even legally watch porn for crissake. Too young to be an admin. ;) Lucifer (Talk) 21:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- citation needed – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Julian, I have nothing but admiration for your ability to balance content production with admin work. It will be interesting to see how this continues when you become crat (because you will, eventually). Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Comments
- View this user's edit count using X!'s counter
Questions
- Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- I'm rather proud of my ability to balance article-writing with administrative duties. I've written and/or contributed to nearly 30 pieces of featured content, and about 60 GAs. I'm also an extremely active sysop, being among the top contributors to WP:RFPP, WP:UAA, WP:PERM/R, WP:AIV and WP:AFD, as well as C:SD.
- Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- Conflicts are a regular part of being an en.wiki admin, and I'm no exception. These are generally minor in nature, and never cause me stress.
- I consider myself an inexperienced user. I was blocked by you last month for violating the ERR, because I was "edit'Warring" both terms and policies were new to me. You or the others editors/administrators gave me no warning that I could be blocked for such actions. When I was unblocked I placed this question in you page[ [1]] and never got an answer -- Juliaaltagracia ( talk) 03:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- You need to be a bit clearer on what u mean at times Jason Rees ( talk) 03:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well I see that Julian is seeking feedback of his performance as an administrator, and in my case he failed to warn me about the risk of being block, and when I requested an explanation, he simply ignored me. I think that new users should be given an opportunity, unless it is clear that their intentions are to vandalize articles, which is evident that it was not mine. --
Juliaaltagracia (
talk) 03:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but per WP:3RR (official policy), warnings are not necessary in the case of blatant edit warring. Also, I sincerely apologize for not responding to your query; I completely missed it. Regards, – Juliancolton | Talk 03:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well I see that Julian is seeking feedback of his performance as an administrator, and in my case he failed to warn me about the risk of being block, and when I requested an explanation, he simply ignored me. I think that new users should be given an opportunity, unless it is clear that their intentions are to vandalize articles, which is evident that it was not mine. --
Juliaaltagracia (
talk) 03:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Blatant?
Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism. Careful thought may be needed to decide whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well-intended, or outright vandalism.
I was blocked for reverting a redirected page with an incorrect spelling. I still believe that you should take more time to review things, instead of rushing to add up on your "4,000 logged actions, and your approaching 50,000 contributions" Thanks anyway for taking this two seconds to respond. -- Juliaaltagracia ( talk) 03:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Juliancolton
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- Archival note: Archived with user permission (open past 30 day time limit)-- Tru co 03:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Juliancolton ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) I've been an administrator since late September 2008; since then, I've completed nearly 4,000 logged actions. I'm approaching 50,000 contributions, in addition. I'd like to receive some general feedback on how I've preformed as a sysop, and how I can further improve. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Reviews
- Of course I think you've done a great job here on Wikipedia. I trust you as an administrator, I think you're a good guy, and your work is superb. My only advice to give to you is to try to create a better demeanor, because--and I'm being frank here--sometimes you act a bit too immaturely for an administrator. Maybe this happens less on Wikipedia and more on IRC, but I still think you should take this into consideration. But this is really a small point in the scheme of things. I also think you have a ridiculous number of GAs and FAs, and
maybe you should slow downthat's great. Keep up the good work, Julian. Malinaccier ( talk) 02:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, but I think most of that originates from my userpage in this this revision, so I've gone ahead and revamped it to a more professional layout. Thanks for the review, – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Dude, you're doing a wonderful job as an admin. Not only are you active where I hope to see every admin, but you're one of our leading content builders. I'm glad you're my coach! :) I wouldn't have you any other way. Sometimes, I wonder whether or not you'd make a good bureaucrat... → Dyl @ n 620 03:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback, Dylan. I would most likely fail an RfB anytime in the future, but I appreciate your confidence in me. Cheers, – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- You would definitely be a good bcrat, JC. You have more clue than most people here. Otherwise, keep up the good work :) VX! talk 03:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Julian - I would think you would be a very good bcrat and you are a very good admin. Allthough it would be nice to see you working on Cyclone Articles outside of the NHC's/CPHC's northern areas of responsibilty a bit more. Jason Rees ( talk) 03:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Your doing a fantastic job as admin and I personally don't think that your acting "a bit too immaturely for an administrator". I think everyone has to have relax, chill out and not take things to seriously, regards, Aaroncrick (Tassie talk) 09:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Julian - you're a fine user and admin and very helpful, especially in getting articles/lists to featured status. I know of no concerns or complaints about you, Keep up the outstanding work! — Rlevse • Talk • 12:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Dylan is correct, I have every confidence that you will make a good crat sometime in the future and I for my part will support you in any way possible so you can archieve this. You do a great job whereever I look. So Why 12:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Try working on something that isn't a crappy hurricane for crying out loud! Work on something that can truly be called "encyclopedic". : P Ottava Rima ( talk) 17:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- There is absolutely nothing I could say that you've done wrong. You are both a great admin and also a great Wikipedian (although you do seem to be obsessed with large wind storms) :) Keep up the good work! All the best! fr33k man -s- 06:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I like the featured article credits and that you have never been blocked. Good AfD closes and arguments include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wyatt Cain, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valerie Gray, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Seamstress (A Tale of Two Cities) (second nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabahad, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peggy Jean, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/METRO CITY, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucifer in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual deaths (fourth nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terms of endearment (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in Tin Man, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flatpoint High School (Strangers with Candy), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emperor's Children, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Harper (Two and a Half Men), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C.J. Stryver. Weak arguments include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of female television actors (bassically an WP:ITSCRUFT style of non-argument), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dr. Eggman's vehicles (if duplicative, then redirect), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harlan Rook (article was rescuable), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emperor's Children (no explanation as to HOW it fails the guideline and policy), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crisis City (essentially a WP:JNN). Definitely more positive than negatives overall and while I disagree with some of the stances in the few examples cited as weak arguments above, as an admin, I do not see any glaringly biased closes. Best, -- A Nobody My talk 20:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. I'll try to consider my AfD comments more carefully in the future. Cheers, – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm finding it hard to say anything other than what has been said before, but since I am here, I might as well have a shot. Every time I have interacted with you, I have found you to be nothing short of being both receptive and considerate both in input and output. You are sensible, have a lot of clue, and generally know what you are doing in terms of both policy and effective collaboration. Put simply, you are a friendly and caring individual that I concur would make a good 'crat at some point in the future. Keep up the good work, mate. :) — neuro (talk) (review) 04:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's all been said above (except the immature part ... I've never seen that). If you want it, run for crat when you've been an admin about a year ... or possibly at the 9-month point, on the theory that the worst that could happen is, you fail, and get the feedback you need to pass in another 3 months. - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 04:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Can't even legally watch porn for crissake. Too young to be an admin. ;) Lucifer (Talk) 21:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- citation needed – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Julian, I have nothing but admiration for your ability to balance content production with admin work. It will be interesting to see how this continues when you become crat (because you will, eventually). Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Comments
- View this user's edit count using X!'s counter
Questions
- Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- I'm rather proud of my ability to balance article-writing with administrative duties. I've written and/or contributed to nearly 30 pieces of featured content, and about 60 GAs. I'm also an extremely active sysop, being among the top contributors to WP:RFPP, WP:UAA, WP:PERM/R, WP:AIV and WP:AFD, as well as C:SD.
- Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- Conflicts are a regular part of being an en.wiki admin, and I'm no exception. These are generally minor in nature, and never cause me stress.
- I consider myself an inexperienced user. I was blocked by you last month for violating the ERR, because I was "edit'Warring" both terms and policies were new to me. You or the others editors/administrators gave me no warning that I could be blocked for such actions. When I was unblocked I placed this question in you page[ [1]] and never got an answer -- Juliaaltagracia ( talk) 03:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- You need to be a bit clearer on what u mean at times Jason Rees ( talk) 03:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well I see that Julian is seeking feedback of his performance as an administrator, and in my case he failed to warn me about the risk of being block, and when I requested an explanation, he simply ignored me. I think that new users should be given an opportunity, unless it is clear that their intentions are to vandalize articles, which is evident that it was not mine. --
Juliaaltagracia (
talk) 03:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but per WP:3RR (official policy), warnings are not necessary in the case of blatant edit warring. Also, I sincerely apologize for not responding to your query; I completely missed it. Regards, – Juliancolton | Talk 03:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well I see that Julian is seeking feedback of his performance as an administrator, and in my case he failed to warn me about the risk of being block, and when I requested an explanation, he simply ignored me. I think that new users should be given an opportunity, unless it is clear that their intentions are to vandalize articles, which is evident that it was not mine. --
Juliaaltagracia (
talk) 03:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Blatant?
Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism. Careful thought may be needed to decide whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well-intended, or outright vandalism.
I was blocked for reverting a redirected page with an incorrect spelling. I still believe that you should take more time to review things, instead of rushing to add up on your "4,000 logged actions, and your approaching 50,000 contributions" Thanks anyway for taking this two seconds to respond. -- Juliaaltagracia ( talk) 03:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.