This page is for discussion regarding the bureaucrat discussion. Any unrelated comments may be removed without notice. Thank you for staying focused.

I have to agree with Anonymous and Biblio... While I supported, I do not see this as a close RfB... Based upon the current expectations (which I think are too high, but they exists as such) this is not close, there is no consensus to promote.--- Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply

PS Per Rlvese's comment about ageism. The predominant concern wasn't about Julians age (although there were some to that effect) but rather towards his outspoken stance on the subject in the past. I think those are two different issues. One can be young (or old) and have a view on this subject that others find problematic.--- Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply

It's a distinction. Also, drawing conclusions about an editor based on their age, while perhaps deserving to be discounted, don't necessarily invite/justify said editor commenting about ageism in the same way opposition based on (say) race or gender would. And perception of incivility can be a reason for a strong oppose, no matter what the reason for the same (whether or not opposers, or any individual, were "right" in doing so). -- Pak aran 02:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I recused, and am commenting as an ordinary editor. I can imagine circumstances in which an RfB at 82.3% might pass, but they would have to be truly exceptional, and on some thought, I also do not see that here. -- Pak aran 02:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply

For the record, the RfB closed at 209/255 = 0.8196 => 82%. — Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 02:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Correct. I think I typoed the calculation. -- Pak aran 03:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Erm, this isn't close at all. There was no consensus pure and simple. If the crats are sympathetic to JC and wanna pass him anyway, then fine, but what was the point of the community even voting? You might as well make all future RfBs member/crat-only discussions. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 03:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply

In my own defense, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfB bar, in addition to a recent discussion at WP:BN, seemed to indicate that the lower end of the discretionary range should be 80%. Now, I fully respect that the community as a whole may not trust me with bureaucratship, but at 82% I'm not sure this RfB falls substantially short of the threshold as is the general feeling so far in this discussion. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 04:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Am I the only one who is looking at the supports? I feel like the 200+ supporters are being ignored, in favor of focusing on the strength of the opposers. I don't think that's fair, but I don't have much of a say in this, do I? iMatthew  ^talk at 15:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Nope. You don't get any say in this now, its down to the 'crats and I think we can see which way this is heading: I do feel that should be closed now as, at this stage, its only extending the inevitable and isn't really fair on JC any more. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply
    • The supports might have less passionate, eloquent, statements, but it does show that those 200+ people trust him to the point of granting him with bureaucratship, in comparison to 46 people who wouldn't. -- 15lsoucy ^{( salve. opus)} 16:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply
      • Right, but too many people rely on percentages for answers when determining consensus, which is how this RfB might ultimately fail. iMatthew  ^talk at 16:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply
      • ( edit conflict) On the other hand, you could also argue that 40 supports were cast before the first oppose and 75 supports were made before WJB's influential oppose (#4) which means that all those who !voted support before that did not take into consideration the reasons for opposing Julian's request and as such have to be deducted from the final consideration and you would only have 134 in support (disclaimer: I !voted support). The point is, numbers like 200+ !voting in support is not really a good argument to promote someone - you need to take into account why people !voted the way they did. Regards So Why 16:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply
        • Or, you could argue that people managed to get in 75 supports before the opposition got 4 votes. -- 15lsoucy ^{( salve. opus)} 16:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• In addition, the level of opposition deserves to be taken into account. Yes, there was an unusually high number of supporters, but there were also more opposers than any other RfB ever (with the exception of Julian's previous RfB, which had 67 opposers). This also had a lower support percentage than Nihonjoe's successful RfB (81.96% vs. 82.69%), and that one is considered an outlier – no other RfB has passed with less than 86%. Also, the opposition contained an unusually high number of administrators (I count 17, including one bureaucrat, plus one former administrator). With apologies to Julian, I'm not comfortable with the 'crats promoting here and setting the precedent of promoting people to 'crat when almost 20% of those voting opposed. (Disclaimer: I myself opposed.) A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 16:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Interesting how he got people so fired up, and how more people voted last time. -- 15lsoucy ^{( salve. opus)} 17:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply

FWIW, I'd rather this not be speedily closed, even though the result is all but obvious. Borderline RfBs like this are rare, and I think while we're here we might as well try to document and discuss it. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 21:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Interesting. Was it the Riana RFB talk where I asked the candidate whether they felt that they could discern consensus for their own request? I beleive it was. If, Julian, you think you see consensus here to "promote" I would say that is exactly why you should not be promoted - there is no consensus per prior discussion. Sorry my man. Pedro :  Chat  23:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think that's what JC is saying, he's saying this RFB is worth discussing; and given the precedent setting nature of the immediate prior RFB, Nihonjoe's, I happen to agree. More on this when I post next to the crat chat, which I plan to do tonight. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply
    • I disagree that this is what JC is trying to get to but my opinion is worthless around here so it really does not matter. Pedro :  Chat  23:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply
      • Rlevse is right. I don't think I should be promoted, the opposition is indeed quite strong (most of it, at least). – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 23:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply
        • And that is why you should be promoted Julian. It's like Willy Wonka but spot on. Well done sir. Pedro :  Chat  23:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I will not be able to look at this closely until Sunday. If this discussion is still going on at that time, I will make a post. Sincerely, Kingturtle ( talk) 06:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Ditto, and too late as well, but I think the proper decision vis-a-vis consensus was made; well done. -- Avi ( talk) 16:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC) reply