This page contains a bureaucrat discussion about the result of Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Juliancolton 2 and is only for comments by bureaucrats. All other editors are welcome to comment on the talk page. |
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
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
This page contains a bureaucrat discussion about the result of Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Juliancolton 2 and is only for comments by bureaucrats. All other editors are welcome to comment on the talk page. |
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
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