Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/J.delanoy 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

J.delanoy

Final (talk page) (140/11/4); Ended Sun, 27 Jul 2008 13:14:17 (UTC)

Nomination by Dweller (talk · contribs)

J.delanoy (talk · contribs) is an experienced, civil and scrupulously ethical user and will make a fine admin.

I've come across his contribs on various occasions, and, after spotting him at Editor Review, reviewed his edit history and asked him if he'd like me to nominate him.

Because, as he'll readily admit, he's mostly a (very good) vandal basher, I suggested that he'd improve his chances of passing if he could demonstrate his comfort with deletion policy and good editing by a spurt of work at XfD and WP:PR respectively.

His reply was so good, I urge you to read it for yourself. Here is an editor who knows his limitations, is scrupulous in his behaviour and, for those bothered by these things, demonstrably not power hungry.

In past years (1FA anyone?) he'd not have passed RfA, but I think we've learned in recent times that the increasing scope of this Project demands admins of different stripes, including specialists. It makes sense for this upright vandal whacker to be given a stick to whack 'em with. --Dweller (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, and I want to thank Dweller for nominating me. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: Primarily I would take part in the admin parts of vandal-patrol, blocking repeat vandals and deleting articles that meet the criteria for speedy deletion. I also intend to review unblock requests, contested CSD tags, and edit-protected requests. I would also review requests for page protection. I plan to grant rollback rights to users who could benefit from it and will not abuse it; I have already suggested to quite a few users that they make a request for it, and if my memory serves me correctly, they were all granted rollback rights. Finally, I intend to continue commenting at WP:AN and WP:ANI, only as an admin, I would be able to help more people more effectively than I can as a non-admin.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Undoubtedly my best contribution to this project lies in the area of vandal-patrol. I have used Huggle since late February 2008, and I have made many, many reversions with that tool. I am particularly proud of my high accuracy rate while using Huggle. Looking through my talk page archives, I counted 13 legitimate complaints about my reversions since April 1. Since June 1, I have had only one legitimate "nudge" regarding any of my Huggle reversions.

I also frequently patrol Special:Newpages with the help of my piratedcopied newpage script.

I am proud of my contributions in this area because, as I see it, one of the greatest threats, if not THE greatest threat to Wikipedia is the attempts of others to degrade or destroy the content of this encyclopedia. I am happy that I have been able to do my part to keep Wikipedia's integrity intact.

My most significant contribution in the area of article writing is my expansion of John Rutledge. Although my additions were not enough to enable the article to pass a GAN, I am still proud of them as the article is, IMHO, more interesting to read and much more comprehensive than it was before.

I have, on occasion, seen articles that would benefit greatly from the addition of images. I have uploaded a number of images to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr and used them in these articles. I think that images make articles much more appealing to read, and being able to visually identify an article's subject enables readers to understand the subject much better.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: My answer to this question is largely copied from my answer to an identical question on my editor review. I have done this because, as far as I can remember, I have not been involved in any major conflicts since then. However, if I have been involved in a conflict with you or someone else that you think needs to be addressed, please let me know about it, or simply ask about it as an "additional question" below.

Unfortunately, I was involved in a rather large argument with User:John celona about Category:American criminals. Despite the fact that Celona was later indefblocked and banned as a sockpuppeter, many of my actions during the confrontation were unwarranted and I am not in the least proud of them. That encounter taught me two things: Do not let first impressions cloud my judgment and always remember to assume good faith.

That experience has helped me to (as far as I can remember) not get myself into another conflict.

I was involved in another conflict when a user accused me of sockpuppetry. The comments on my talk page, his talk page, and ANI were very interesting, to say the least. That conflict did cause me some stress, but I used "show preview" a lot more than normal, and more than once, I simply left my computer running and went to do something else before I saved the page, to ensure that I did not make a post while I was angry.

Optional question from xenocidic

4. As an administrator, you will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. You'll come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. And you will sometimes be tasked with considering unblock requests from the users you block. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond.

A: Hmmm. I really don't know exactly what I would do. I really don't have a lot of experience with such things. :P I would definitely ask another admin for advice before I acted on the request. I'm not sure what I would do. I have to go do something now, so I'll ponder this and give a fuller answer as soon as I can. I don't think he should be summarily dismissed, since he did say that he was sorry, which from my experience is very rare. I also do not think that he should just be unblocked, because that could allow him to cause further damage if he was lying. Thus, I would not simply unblock, but I would probably ask him to prove that he is really sorry, maybe with that "second chance" thingy or whatever it is.

EDIT I'm not trying to be defensive here, but I think I need to clarify what I was originally trying to say. I originally answered the question with the assumption that Xeno meant "What would I do if I encountered this situation the day after I became an admin". By saying that I would ask for advice, I am not trying to say I would try to shove off the hard stuff on someone else, I am saying that handling unblock requests is not something that I typically do, so I would ask for advice if I was unsure of something until I gain more experience. This is similar to what I did when I first started patrolling Special:Newpages and found that a lot of my tags were being declined. /EDIT

Optional questions from Rudget

5. Do you feel that administrators who are more experienced in mainspace and article work are more likely to give more accurate representations of policy relating to deletion and protection etc. or do you think that would come to all admins after some experience?

A: That depends. If someone primarily writes and expands articles, he or she will obviously be more in tune with what it requires to write an article, and thus s/he is likely to be more lenient with deletion and protections. (Which is what I assume you mean by properly interpreting the applicable policies, as it seems, even to me, that many editors and admins run fairly roughshod over these areas.) If an editor involves himself primarily in the areas of Wikipedia that do not directly involve writing articles, it is very easy for him to lose focus of why we are here. However, just because an editor is not always writing articles does not preclude an editor from understanding how to properly implement the protection and deletion policies. If an editor or admin remains focused on our true purpose for being here, which is to build an encyclopedia, and if they utilize common sense, remaining open to criticism, they will nearly always be able to properly implement all policies, not just the ones that directly affect articles.

Comment: - I would just like to acknowledge the good answer given here. Rudget (logs) 10:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

6. If your RfA were to fail, would you continue to use anti-vandalism tools as your main work ethic?

A: Yes, I would. Although I will not absolutely rule out the possibility of getting more involved in other areas of Wikipedia, as I cannot tell how my interests will change in the future, at the present, vandal-fighting is what I like doing. I really feel that at this point, if I were to get involved actively in other areas, it would only be so that I could pass an RFA. Although it would be far easier for me to be able to block repeat vandals myself and it would be nice to be able to just delete articles that clearly meet the criteria for speedy deletion, I have been doing the non-admin aspects of vandal-patrol for quite a while, and so far I think it has worked out fine. I would probably be more effective if, for example, I could just block someone who keeps vandalizing repeatedly after a level four warning rather than having to keep reloading the vandal's contributions list and rollbacking while waiting for an admin to review my report to WP:AIV. But again, it is no big deal waiting an extra 45-60 seconds for them to be blocked by someone else.

Optional question from RMHED

7. How old are you?

A. Well, per this, I hope you don't mind if I am somewhat vague in my answer. I am legally able to vote in the United States, but I have not graduated from college yet. (I started college the year I ended high school.)

Optional question from Tim Vickers

8. Can you think of any situations when a sysop's age is important? (assume "young adult" range rather than children). Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm might be interesting.

A. In the case of the essay you are referring to, I do not think that police would take seriously a warning phoned in by an obvious child. In areas that involve the real world, someone who is minor would not be able to be as effective simply because they are a minor, regardless of their mental maturity level. Also, in areas on-wiki that require a lot of concentrated thought, such as bureaucratship, or that carry a very large amount of responsibility, such as the ArbCom, I would not feel comfortable with anyone who is not an adult being involved. As far as young administrators go, if a candidate consistently demonstrated mental maturity in a wide range of situations and was able to keep their cool under withering fire, I would most likely not take their age into consideration. However, there is a limit; I would find it very difficult to support any candidate for adminship who is less than around 13 or 14 years old. Adminship carries a lot of responsibility and I very seriously doubt that someone who is younger than that would have the mental discipline required to avoid abusing the tools.

Question from User:TaborL

9. In your own words, why did your last RFA fail and what have you learned from it?

A. My last RFA failed because I was a n00B. Seriously. That is the best way I can think of to put it. I don't think I specifically learned anything from my first RFA. When I ran before, except for the policies that I could figure out using common sense (such as WP:CIVIL), I knew practically nothing about anything.

Optional question from User:Stifle

10. Under what circumstances can a non-free image of a building which is still standing be used on Wikipedia?

A. Per the policy on non-free content, I don't think there is any situation where we could use a non-free image of an existing building. According to the ninth paragraph of this section of Title 17, Chapter 1, §§ 102 of the US Code:

"...Where the only elements of shape in an architectural design are conceptually inseparable from the utilitarian aspects of the structure, copyright protection for the design would not be available."

If I am interpreting that correctly, the mere architectural design of a building is not copyrightable. Consequently, because of the first rule on WP:NFCC (There must be no possible way to obtain a free alternative), a fair-use photograph of an existing building would not be acceptable. (If what I said is completely wrong, please tell me. My answer here is based solely on what I was able to find through the research I have done right now. I have, for all practical purposes, zero experience in this area.)

No, you've pretty much nailed it. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from User:EricV89

11. Do you believe that an editor's ability to use a automated tool reflects the user's skills or represents the person's knowledge of Wikipedia?

A. It can, but it generally has a major effect only if the tool is used incorrectly most of the time. For example, if a user is absolutely terrible with an automated tool, (e.g. using AWB to introduce spelling errors) that would obviously have an effect on how people view that user. However, if someone uses a tool correctly, the sole fact that they use the tool has less of an effect. For example, if I use AWB to make 100000 edits correcting typos, that really doesn't tell you anything. On the other hand, if a tool is very difficult to use correctly, proper use of the tool could have an impact on other users' perception of the editor.

General comments

• See J.delanoy's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/J.delanoy
• Requests for adminship/J.delanoy 2

• Links for J.delanoy: J.delanoy (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/J.delanoy before commenting.

Discussion

• Just a note - Q7 is outragous considering the controversy in that area recently. I don't suggest (or assume) that the candidate answer it. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 17:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 18:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    • It's not "outrageous" per se. I can thing of a lot worse. I believe there was a long discussion about this type of question at WT:RFA, and it caused some dissent. Whether you agree with it or not, it's a legitimate query for the candidate. XP, I know how you feel considering your young age, but they can opt out. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
      • If one has to ask a user's age, it's not an issue. Those who are mature enough (or immature enough) that their age is not readily apparent don't need to disclose such information. Horologium (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I think supporting the 18 year old rule for admins is ideal per stated above in the answer to Q8.
  • Just a note: I do not have any problems with young admins solely because they are young. However, as a very gross generalization, the younger someone is, the less likely they will have the necessary mental maturity to be able to properly handle the stress and responsibility that adminship carries. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• (moved from Neutral) I personally agree with the above users. I do not believe that this user has the experience and contributions to become an administrator. It is my personal belief, and those of those appearing above, i would think, that the being an administrator on wikipedia means great responsibility and, thus requires great experience. Wikipedia, as i have seen it, is about the sharing of knowledge for anyone who wants it, that belief is all that matters. It is the administrators responsibility to uphold this integrity, and ensure that it remains intact for posterity. By allowing what many so crudely call a "noob" into the highest rank of wikipedia, would desecrate and poison the reputation, as well as the knowledge it provides for so many people. It is my firm belief that this user should remain one, and not advance to administrator, for fear he may, unintentionally or otherwise, destroy the growth and spread of the wealth of knowledge contained within Wikipedia. I hope my statement will be considered thoughtfully, especially as, although i am not logged in, i am not an ordinary user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.222.137.129 (talk) 02:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Anon editors cannot vote in RfA's! Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've moved this comment to the discussion section. GlassCobra 14:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• This would be the place for a legitimate IP opinion; however, this isn't one. It's a vandal, acting out because J.delanoy reverted him. Someone earlier deleted the comment of a sockpuppet of this user. I won't remove this comment or re-strike it since he's obviously going to pass and this comment won't affect anything, and I don't want to get into a whole thing with anyone, but I want to at least point this out for "posterity", as it were; something vaguely similar happened at my first RFA, and it's always slightly irked me that no one deleted or struck out the comments of a vandal and his sockpuppet. --barneca (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Great antivandal=Great admin. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 14:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Support - Another one I've been waiting for. Good luck! --Cameron* 14:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
3. A nice chap with common sense - will make a fine admin. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
5. I think he'll do well and stuff. Article writing experience is a little low but it's not completely absent or anything, and I think I've seen enough to conclude you're reasonable and wouldn't be a negative. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 14:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
6. –BuickCenturyDriver 14:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Having being the lead opposer at RFA 1 I'm delighted to support. I've enjoyed entirely positive interaction and J delanoy has worked hard since the last RFA to address concerns, indicating cluefullness and a desire to help. A net positive to the project by adding the bit. Good luck. Pedro :  Chat  14:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
8. I don't seem to see any problems here. Support. Mww113 (Talk) (Review me!) 15:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
9. Strong Support; I'd like to see this attitude among RFA candidates/RFA coachees more often. · AndonicO ^Engage. 15:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
10. Support, no problems here. Wizardman 15:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
11. Support, go and whack some vandals, you're good at that. Remember to ask for advice if you need to - it's what we're here for. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
12. Support - trustworthy editor and vandal fighter. PhilKnight (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
13. Support as nom - sorry, tired, in pain and out-of-character-editing-on-Sunday mean I forgot to put my support in earlier. --Dweller (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
14. Support; excellent specialized editor; exceptionally thoughtful, professional, and mature in the role he has chosen to play. The extra tools will greatly assist him in that endeavor and I have no doubt he'll be measured if he moves into other admin related activities. Kuru ^talk 16:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
15. Strong Support One of the best vandal-fighters and adopters you could hope for.:)--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 16:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
16. Support Though I recommend he take it slow before trying to jump into other "adminny things." ;) GlassCobra 16:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
17. Support - No problems here, he has enough common sense to ask for assistance if he is uncertain about anything new to him. — Realist² (Speak) 16:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
18. Support. (ec x2) I'm not the biggest fan of endless automated reverts, but he also has plenty of other work. J is experienced and knows what he's doing. His answer to Q4 shows that he won't be too trigger happy, but would consider the situation further before issuing a block. Useight (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
19. Support. A huge number of automated reverts is, in my view, a good thing when they're as almost universally correct as J.delanoy's have been. That's the area of Wikipedia he chooses to concentrate on, and damn if he's not very good at it. Clearly will make excellent use of admin tools, as far as I can see. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 16:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
20. Strong support' yes yes yes! Will make an excellent admin ——RyanLupin • (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
21. Support. I don't see how a lack of content contribution will color JD's use of the admin tools. Long interaction with this user leads me to believe he will use the block feature prudently, and will be open to comment or criticism. Tan ǀ 39 16:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
22. Support - Has a clue, especially when it comes to vandal-fighting, why shouldn't I support?! RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 17:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
23. Support - he will be a great admin. doña macy [talk] 17:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
24. Support, only good interaction with user. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 17:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
25. Support A specialist I can get behind. The key question when it comes to vandal-fighters is this: Is he (and it's usually a he) a nice guy, or a deranged hard-ass? After a look-through, seems like a nice guy. I'm slightly unsure about the possibility of RFPP work - I think that needs a surer touch with article space - but otherwise I'm all for giving him the tools. Mr. IP (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
26. Support per the answer to my question, if you'd told me to mind my own business I'd have made it strong support. Sure you're a massive Huggler but I'll try not to hold that against you. RMHED (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
27. Support - I find him to be a great user, and hope he will do well as a sysop. SchfiftyThree 18:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
28. Certainly! Coming out of wikibreak for this one. :PPerfect Proposal ^{Speak Out!} 18:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
29. Support While Rudget makes a good point, being focused on one area does not mean an editor nor admin is bad or not useful to the project. Lots of admins and editors specialize and still help our encyclopedic effort. I support this candidate but encourage him to branch out more with other parts of wiki. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
30. Support — To those who are opposing due to his initial "tentative" answer to Q4, some things you just need to learn on the job. –xeno (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
31. Support nothing but good experiences with this user, shows common sense and knows how to learn from mistakes, one of the best vandal fighters I've met on WP. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 19:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
32. Support All looks well. Húsönd 19:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
33. Strongest Support ever! effective vandal fighter. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 19:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

    Comment Adding <big> tags does not make a vote count more than any other. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 19:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

    Duh! Your point with that is?... - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 19:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

34. Support. I have no problems supporting this candidacy. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
35. Support Contributions and vandalism reversion look wonderful. Leonard^(Bloom) 20:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
36. Support I've worked with J.delanoy quite a bit recently, discussing primarily copyright concerns and speedy deletions, but also other issues, and I've come to be very impressed with him and his contributions to Wikipedia. I have great confidence that he is motivated to help and more than competent enough to do so. Our conversations have convinced me that this user understands policies, knows how to work collaboratively, when to seek further opinions and when to simply move ahead. I do not believe he would abuse or misuse the tools, and I think with his thoughtful approach and interest in Wikipedia it would be a great benefit to the project to give them to him. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
37. Strong Support I've really waited for this RfA. In my opinion J.delanoy is a trustworthy, civil and polite editor and he would make a great administrator as well. —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
38. Support Does plenty of good work. Captain panda 21:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
39. Support While Rudget has an excellent point, I feel that we need vandal-fighting admins just as much as we need article-writing ones. I've conversed with this user in the past, and he always keeps a cool head. I also like how he is devoted to Wikipedia, so much that he spends hours a day reverting vandalism. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
40. Support Another name that comes up regularly, and always civil, competent and positive. Demonstrates an intelligent commitment to the project. Karenjc 21:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
41. Support keep up the good work. Beeblbrox (talk) 22:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
42. Support and very strongly agree with the nominee's stance as in the 14:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC) post. — Athaenara ✉ 22:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
43. Support Will be a good admin tabor-^{drop me a line} 22:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
44. Support - Robots are cool. So is Bender (Futurama). <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 22:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
45. Support - Garion96 (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
46. Support, definitely. I would prefer to see less automated tools though, but to me that's pretty much immaterial. —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 23:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
47. Support I thought you were an administrator at first... Would be a great admin. Good anti-vandalism work, XFD work, answers, ect. H e has my trust. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 23:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
48. Support - I couldn't possibly oppose, not even if you paid me.  Channel ®   23:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
49. Strong Support - a very trustworthy user who displays good judgment and great care and civility. He will help us improve Wikipedia - if you believe that vandal fighting isn't a critical part of maintaining Wikipedia, I suggest we stop that activity for a day and find out what happens. We need the dedicated editors like J.delanoy who are willing to volunteer their time so that the integrity of the work done by article editors is maintained. J.delanoy has proven he is willing and very capable and he will be more effective with the tools and I trust him not to abuse them. Gwernol 00:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
50. Support clearly someone we can trust not to abuse the tools, from what I've seen his temperament has been fine of recent, and policy seems pretty good. All the things I want in an admin. - Toon⁰⁵ 00:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
51. Support. Absolutely. Horses for courses, I say. Some people are great vandal-fighters, others great article-writers. Sometimes they coincide. But only sometimes. --Rodhullandemu 00:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
52. Support - dedicated muchly. Al Tally ^talk 00:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
53. Support, per a basic fulfillment of what I think being an admin requires. S. Dean Jameson 01:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
54. Strong Support - I'm amazed he wasn't made an admin sooner! CCG _(T-C) 01:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
55. Support a dedicated edit who shows a great need for the tools. No real problems. - Icewedge (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
56. Support - The only reason an administrator needs to have a background in writing articles in the first place is in order to make them popular enough to pass a Request for Adminship. Making one's edits solely devoted to fighting vandalism is fine, and in my opinion not a very good rationale to oppose. —  scetoaux (T|C) 01:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
57. Weak Support--LAAFan 02:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
58. Naerii 02:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
59. Support - Would be much better with the tools. Soxred 93 02:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
60. Support Trustworthy, clueful and courteous, has made significant contributions and will be able to do yet more with the admin bit. Acroterion _(talk) 03:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
61. Support - Good vandal fighter and editor. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
62. Familiar enough with this user to know he won't often get in over his head in unfamiliar areas, and if he makes a mistake, will fix it when told about it, and will learn from it. --barneca (talk) 04:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
63. support Looks good. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
64. Support - Dedicated, experienced, wants to help. Meets my adminship criteria ;-) --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
65. Support Will make a great admin. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 06:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
66. Support the reason why is left as an exercise for the reader. But overall good contributions, seems to have the right answer to WP:CIVIL (Q3). Protonk (talk) 06:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
67. Support Some people have brought up that this user mainly only fights vandalism, but the tools applied for are also vandalism-related (they don't help expand Wikipedia), so I support. Fighting vandalism allows other editors to expand the encyclopedia and maintains Wikipedia's image.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 11:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
68. Hell, I'll support. I am not a fan of excessive vandalism reverting as there seems to be more now than content writers, but this user shows no problems (other than that) by me. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 11:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
69. Support. The candidate is currently a highly skilled (and prolific) (!) vandal-fighter, no question. My interactions with J, however, have shown that he is a reasonable and intelligent person. Were he to use the admin tools in other areas (where there is an equal need for his skill and dedication), I have every confidence that he'd do just fine. No worries here. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
70. Support - I've seen him around he does great things. If people are complaining about us having too many "anti-vandal admins", then why don't we do a little experiment and get all of our admins to focus on article-building for a day. Where would we be then? It's a ridiculous reason to oppose to be honest. It goes in my top-10 ridiculous RfA opposes for all ridiculous things ever said in a ridiculous manner. He's great at keeping our streets clean and we should be proud to give him the buttons to do even more great things. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 14:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
71. Strong (unilateral) Support. I've never installed Huggle. Terrified of it, personally. I do find it profoundly useful, and in the right hands, profoundly effective. It has tipped the scales, we (the good editors) are winning the battle. Vandalism is still here, but it is gone withing seconds, instead of minutes, instead of hours. You, J.Delanoy, are one of the best hugglers I've ever seen. You are thorough, careful, and mature with the tool. You understand its powers and its limitations, as evidenced by your posts (mostly witnessed by me on Iridescent's page. You've witnessed and experienced the growing pains as new versions and updates have surfaced. (Gurch is a freeking genius BTW). These attributes alone are enough to get my support. I am also supporting you as a non-article writing admin. I personally have goose-eggs in the following categories (outside of copyediting others' articles): DYK, GA, FA, A-class, B-class, C-class. I am not ashamed of that. I'm a sucky writer, but I love Wikipedia. I am personally terrified of content writers. They are way way smarter than me, and as Everyme states below, "without article writers, there would be nothing to vandalize". Absolutely true (although a bit "chicken and the egg"-y...) In my honest opinion, to stretch that thought to the point of saying that "because you're not one of us, you are obviously against us and will harm us" is farcical at best, more closely a slap in the face. (that's not directed specifically at Everyme, its a general statement only). I protect article writers (and I'm damn good at it). My talkpage is filled with requests for help from article writers. Apparently, they are all misguided, as I will obviously screw it up because I haven't brought an article through an arbitrary process (namely FA)? Silly. If you were against article writers, you wouldn't be removing vandalism for the damn articles, you'd be adding it. This is a strong support, because you were here before huggle, have only made positive contributions to Wikipedia, recognized Huggle for what it was and continues to be, use it wisely, enjoy using it and want to expand your abilities with it, and refuse to change your editing styles simply to oblige some silly RFA crowd. Don't you dare go start writing articles, J.Delanoy, if you don't want to. The same people that are opposing you will oppose you again for "gaming the system." Hold your head high, keep on keepin on, and enjoy the admin tools, which I am confident you will only use for the betterment of the encyclopedia and its writers. Keeper ǀ 76 14:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

    Well said :) IceUnshattered^{[ t | c ]} 19:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

72. Support MOAR EDIT COUNT. MBisanz ^talk 15:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
73. Support. Seems like a sensible, level-headed editor. But mostly because of the honesty and common-sense displayed by this. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
74. Neutral but leaning towards support. J is one hell of a vandal whacker and as the pedia' gets bigger the need for experienced and exceptional vandal fighters increases, as does the need for capable admins. ^{Exponential growth!} I'm rather split on a few things though. Being "specialized" in only one area doesn't sound good at all on the surface, however, editors and that includes admins learn on the job all the time. I think a good question to ask is "Do I trust J not to delve into something he doesn't understand without first seeking advice or opinions?" To answer that for myself, yes I do. The only thing keeping me from supporting is the apparent lack of article contributions. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 22:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
75. Support - I dont see a problem with vandal whacking. If thats what you're good at, then thats what you're good at. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 15:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
76. After much thinking about it support - when I first saw this RFA appear, I figured that based on my interactions with JD and seeing him about the Wiki, I'd certainly support without a doubt. Reading through the edit count summary on the talk page, I was very impressed at his vandal-fighting - with over 1200 reports to WP:AIV he's clearly got that side of things down pat. Then, on reading through the replies to the questions and the opposes and neutrals, I found myself agreeing to a large degree with what was being said - although he's a strong candidate from that one perspective, from others he's very (and in some cases very very) weak. At the end of the day, though, I think I have enough trust that he isn't going to run before he can walk, will learn from new admin school, will stay away from situations that are beyond his remit, and will call upon other, more experienced, admins as and when needs be. I therefore feel safe that any risk in granting him the tools without his experience being as well-rounded as perhaps might be liked is, well, negligible. _GB^T/C 16:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
77. Weak support because I support by default, but would like to see more article work, and I suspect that he forgot something in his answer to question #8. Seems a bit pre-judgmental. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

    Comment: By the way, as for the remark that "I do not think that police would take seriously a warning phoned in by an obvious child." Maybe, who knows? But if that's the case, I'd say it still qualifies as a serious no-no. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

78. Support Great experiences with J.D. Excellent vandal fighter. Spencer^T♦C 17:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
79. Strongly support: I've interacted with J.delanoy over the past few months, and I've found him to be a person who is civil, willing to learn, and not afraid to ask for help if he needs it. In addition, I granted him rollback, and he's been fine with that. He'll make a great administrator. Acalamari 17:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
80. Support - Some months ago I contacted this editor with concerns regarding one of his AIV reports [1]. His reply was both immediate and impressive in the way that he took responsibility for the mistake [2]. All too often people get defensive in situations like this, but instead J.delanoy stepped-up, admitted the error, and learned from the mistake. I have zero concerns that he would misuse the tools, and have great confidence that he will use them with the sense of responsibility and humility that many wish all admins had. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
81. Strong support. Many, many positive interactions with this user. I definitely trust him with the mop! Malinaccier (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
82. Support. I often see this editor helping the project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
83. Support Honest editor who knows his limits and his abilities. Has done an inhuman amount of work on Huggle, always beating me to the vandalism. Has experience in WP:AIV. Still wish there could be some more mainspace edits :). Overall, I firmly believe this user deserves adminship. IceUnshattered^{[ t | c ]} 19:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
84. Support. Excellent user, editor, antivandal... I trust him —C'est moi ^@enwiki _@eswiki 19:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
85. Support. Horologium (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
86. His mature responses on this RFA and to things that came up on his talk, plus a review of his contributions lead me to support. Jonathunder (talk) 22:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
87. Support. (Insert standard text expressing surprise this editor isn't already an admin.) I've encountered J.delanoy many a time in vandal fighting and never seen anything that would give me pause. Communication has always been excellent, which is a definite must in my book. Specialization doesn't worry me -- if an admin gets asked to be involved in something they aren't comfortable with or knowledgeable about, the best way to handle it is to politely say "no", and I trust J.delanoy to do just that.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
88. Support. Excellent candidate. Thought he was an admin already. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
89. Support Absolutely yes. After looking through his contributions extensively, I feel that he has proven himself to be mature, level-headed, and kind. I also see a general tendency for him to reflect on his actions—a trait that I view very highly. « D. Trebbien (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
90. Support - good vandal fighter, good answers to the questions. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
91. Support. Synergy 01:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
92. Support It's been my repeated pleasure to revert vandalism alongside him, and found his discretion and accuracy superlative. Jclemens (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
93. Support. Absolutely, without question. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
94. Support Clearly will do a good job...Modernist (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
95. Support No reason to oppose. Candidate is a hard working and knowledgeable editor; Wikipedia can only benefit from him having access to the buttons. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
96. Strong support Yes, J. is a VERY GOOD vandal fighter and have seen him on Huggle many times. I think saying no to RfA becuase of the use of an automated tool doesn't make sense. --Eric (mailbox) 16:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
97. Support Per above. →Christian.И 20:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
98. Support Level-headed, dedicated editor who I've interacted with several times in the course of vandalism issues. No issues whatsoever. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
99. Support per Keeper, as well as question responses and my own review of the candidates contributions. Vickser (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
100. Good candidate: honest, well meaning, has necessary levels of clue. Seraphim♥Whipp 21:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
101. Support Candidate = a net positive. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 01:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
102. Support - At the risk of jumping on the bandwagon, I've found this editor to be quite reasonable. Oren0 (talk) 03:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
103. Support Looks good! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
104. Support OMG, YES! Definitely has a definite need for the tools! I have been waiting for this RfA for a LONG TIME now, and I am glad to see that it is finally happening now :) Good luck! Cheers, Razorflame 06:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
105. Support, no major problems. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
106. Support - everything seems to be in order. WJBscribe (talk) 10:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
107. Strong support - I've come across this candidate many, many, many times across Wikipedia, and he works so hard to make this a better place. Excellent vandal fighter too. Will be very, very useful in that area once has the tools (rather like me! haha). Extremely honest Wikipedian, and that answer highlighted to us by the nom was just stellar. Lradrama 11:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
108. Support Will be a very productive admin. I hope this marks the end of RfA's prejudice against vandal fighters. Epbr123 (talk) 12:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
109. Support I think jd has made a massive contribution to wikipedia. Although not a significant content editor - knowing what constitutes vandalism in an article is often an art in itself, involving the exercise of discrimination and experience. I feel that he is civil, honest (with himself), has the ability to 'take a clue' and the capacity to grow into the role, and to take on more responsibilities beyond vandal-fighting. Kbthompson (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
110. Support This is my first comment on an RfA and I couldn't be happier to add my support for this candidate. JDelanoy's recent assistance with a contentious AfD showed an ability to give well-thought out opinions and insightful analysis. TN‑X-Man 14:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
111. Support No worries here. I only ask that if you have interest in helping with content disputes which may have to do with page protection and sourcing disagreements, that you get more experience writing articles. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
112. Support - Making you an admin would be a net positive. Best of luck, Steve Crossin (contact) 17:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
113. Support - nothing in my experience with this candidate gives me pause. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
114. Support based on what I know, I have no reason to belive this editor would misuse the tools. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
115. Support I believe J.delanoy would be a great addition to the administrator team, after looking through the user contribs. --Kanonkas :  Talk  21:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
116. Support -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
117. Support, because he knows his own weaknesses. He's a vandal-fighter, not an article-builder, and hasn't tried to pretend otherwise - and that should be no bar whatsoever to his becoming an administrator. Terraxos (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
118. Support -- I've worked with this user a lot in vandal fighting as well as checking recent filtered edits. Very efficient, very consistent, and I have no doubt this user will make a great admin. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
119. Support Pleasant and rational from what I've seen of him/her. Can't see any risks here. --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 14:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
120. Support—Prolific fandal fighter with a clear need for the tools. Smart enough not to go screwing around with admin actions that he doesn't understand. Honestly, probably 12-13k vandal revisions and we're suddenly afraid he's going to run around blocking users out of hand and deleting things for no reason? It's no big deal, he has a valid use for the tools, go for it. Livitup (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
121. Support While I would love to see a bit more experience in the writing arena, I am by no means opposed to a strong specialist, such as this candidate appears to be. I have every reason to believe that they will make good use of the tools. --Winger84 (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
122. Support without hesitation. Toddst1 (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
123. Support, a prolific vandal fighter (which is needed here), very thoughtful and honest regarding this process and answers to the questions, upfront with regard to his own possible limitations and willingness to seek advice when needed. Open minded and trustworthy. Accurizer (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
124. Support. I've run into J.Delanoy a few times on vandal patrol and what impresses me about him is not that he never makes mistakes; it's that he's willing to admit he makes them ([3]). Fleetflame 00:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
125. Support although it would be nice to have more experience outside of anti-vandal work, it certainly suggests they have their values in the right place for wikipedia. No convincing arguments for opposition have yet been raised --Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 02:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
126. Support I note the concerns below but i trust this user and somebody has got to clean up the junk on the wiki. Good luck Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 04:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
127. Support Absolutely shocked to find that this user isn't already an admin. (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
128. Support vandal fighter + intelligence + moderation = good admin ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
129. Support - looks good to me. Deb (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
130. Support, no reason to believe this user would misuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC).
131. Support The tools will enable this user to contribute on a larger scale. As much vandal fighting as he does, he needs them. I see no reason not to trust this user with the tools. IMHO he will make a fine administrator. Landon1980 (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
132. Support. This user is everywhere, and has worked on the project in many different aspects, also seen him at editor review where I reviewed him before my review was reviewed. ~AH1^(TCU) 18:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
133. Support everything I've seen from J. has been right and I'm sure J. will do fine as an admin. Royalbroil 21:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
134. Support - Trustworthy. KnightLago (talk) 23:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
135. Support. bibliomaniac15 03:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
136. Support - The opposes don't worry me. I've seen J around and what I see is a level-headed, solid contributor, doing important work, who has a grasp of what makes Wikipedia tick. It's all about the content, and vandalism is incompatible with that, so anti-vandalism editors are an important part of what we do. Those who do it well and thoughtfully are the ones we consider (and support) for adminship.  Frank  |  talk  04:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
137. Support - Trustworthy. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
138. Support Pile on support :)America69 (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
139. Support No reason not to. LittleMountain5 23:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
140. Support I love the answer to Q3, about walking away for a bit when anger threatens to take over. If only more people would do that. Joyous! | Talk 00:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose - Unilateral anti-vandalism work with Huggle. Per Rudget below. Weak mainspace work to boot. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

   Out of curiosity, what counts as multilateral anti-vandal work? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

   I meant the candidate has a distinct lack of versatility. This was my rationale for opposing during the candidate's last RfA. If you prefer a rewording, "Unilateral contributions, only focuses on huggle reversions..etc..etc.." The candidate also displays an inability to act independently per the answer to question four. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

   OK, I see what you mean. I don't see a narrow range of admin contributions as something that will hurt the project (as I explained below), but I can see your point of view. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

2. Weak oppose, somewhat close to neutral per [4] (somewhat odd comment; yes, I know humor is sometimes appreciated, but in these discussions, when we are considering undoing other editors' volunteer contributions, I think we owe them serious justifications for doing so), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empire of Iuz (2nd nomination) (should say why you tagged it). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

   J.d wasn't voting to undo any volunteer contributions. His vote! was Merge, which only moves the volunteer contributions to a more correct venue. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose per Rudget. Whether you like it or not, you'll be asked to handle situations out of your comfort zone. J.delanoy's lack of non-automated article work doesn't instill much confidence in his abilities to make important decisions with regards to the encyclopedia. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose - I'm sorry to oppose you (it really pains me to do so!) but because Wikipedia's primary business is writing articles, all administrators will, without doubt, encounter problems that require some background with article writing and collaboration. Thus, administrators should have reasonable experience contributing to articles, and this user appears to have next to none, with a relatively narrow scope of experience away from vandal fighting. After a few months of greater contributions to articles, I believe this user will be ready. Okiefromokla ^questions? 19:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose — Robot. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

   note - Discussion moved to talk page. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

   • Note: Discussion moved here. user:Everyme 00:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

6. Oppose Good guy, but doesn't have a whole lot going when you take away the huggling. Using an automated tool to rack up a bunch of rv's doesn't establish trust.--KojiDude ^(C) 00:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

   [5], not changing your editing patterns is A-OK and I respect that but if you're not interested in anything other than vandal fighting I have to wonder why you're here. Naerii 00:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

   I consider vandal fighting a pretty noble goal, myself. Your statement could be taken as rather insulting, Naerii, you may wish to consider striking it. GlassCobra 00:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

   I've re-read that 6 times, and fail to see anything insulting in the very least, it looks like a valid statement. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 00:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

   I said it could be construed as insulting. The validity I continue to question, though; as Erik the Red mentions below in response to Everyme and Gwernol summarizes nicely in the support section, vandal fighting is extremely important to the project. I usually would not bother to reply to Naerii's comment; however, in this context, to a candidate who obviously feels vandal fighting is one of the most important activities that can be done on the project, I felt the need to point out that he may take offense to her statement. GlassCobra 01:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

   I agree, but don't you think your questioning of the validation of Naerii's opinion could be seen as insulting? KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

   What? JD is dedicated to fighting vandalism. Naerii belittled that dedication by implying that it's not a reason to be here. Personally, I would have let this go as one of Naerii's ever-changing admin criteria and/or mentalities, but GlassCobra pointed it out. Now you're saying GC's the insulting one? What the hell...? Tan ǀ 39 01:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

   I'm saying that by following his logic it could be taken that way. In what, way, shape or form does "could be seen as insulting?" constitute me calling GC insulting. What the fuck? KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

   Mystifying. Tan ǀ 39 01:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

   In before someone says the word "mystifying" was insulting. —Giggy 02:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

   Wow. People really need to relax around here. Naerii 02:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

   Naerii, I didn't mean that you should strike your oppose; I was simply trying to express that I thought your statement came across as disrespectful. You didn't have to redact the whole oppose. GlassCobra 02:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

   I was going to make some kind of sarcastic response along the lines of "Really? You don't say?" but considering the mood around here lately I figure that would probably be taken the wrong way so - yes, I know, I just think you're right, as I couldn't come up with a defense for myself. I'm an idiot, I get this, let's move along :) Naerii 02:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

   Sure, I suppose, but with all due respect, this isn't Naerii's RfA, it's J.delanoy's. I think it's pretty impolite to come and say "I'm not sure why you're here" when clearly this candidate takes a great deal of pride in keeping our articles clean, and is now asking for tools to help him continue doing this more effectively. GlassCobra 02:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

   You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted then used against you... :p KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 02:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

   I wouldn't have it any other way! Naerii 02:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

7. Per Kurt and Naerii. user:Everyme 01:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

   Without vandal fighting, Wikipedia would be just vandalism. Though article building is important, being able to block users and protect pages doesn't help you write articles. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

   Of course the tools don't help you write articles. The point is that the tools should only be used in a way that would improve the encyclopedia, and thus all uses of the tools will affect article writers. If you can't, or don't, write (not accusing the candidate; this is a general comment), you are exponentially more likely to use the tools in a way that will make life harder for article writers. —Giggy 01:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

   Giggy, I wasn't aware of this. Can you point me to the research you;ve seen that shows that admins who don't create articles make it life exponentially harder than those who do? I am honestly surprised that this is the case, and would love to see the evidence. Thanks, Gwernol 01:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

   Yeah, would definitely like to see some evidence for that statement, Gig. GlassCobra 01:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

   Why are people suddenly demanding empirical evidence for something that is clearly just an opinion? While phrased strongly, I think he is simply stating (paraphrasing now) "if you do not build content, you don't have the experience to wield the tools effectively in the mainspace" Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

   Hmm? It's on every ANI archive. Well intentioned non-content admin imposes random page protection on an article where someone familiar with content policies would have known who's in the right and removed the obviously incorrect party. Do I need to find an actual example of this? Not saying it applies to every non-content admin, though. —Giggy 02:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

   Wisdom89, I was not "demanding" anything, I was genuinely surprised by this fact, as I hadn't expected it to be the case. I was interested in seeing why he believed it to be the case, since seeing that evidence might lead me to change my thoughts on this RfA and others. Giggy, thanks for the explanation, though I'm afraid I don't find this a compelling argument. Lots of admins who contribute to article creation follow the protection rules and protect the "wrong version". I still don't see the evidence that admins who don't create a lot of articles are more or less prone to following this particular piece of policy, let along "exponentially" so. Presumably it would take a proper survey of admin activity to know whether this were true, rather than anecdotal evidence. Sorry if you felt I was badgering you, I was genuinely interested. Gwernol 02:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

   User:Erik the Red 2, without article writing, there wouldn't be anything to vandalise. Also what Giggy said. The ability to use the tools with the appropriate discretion can only come from a familiarity through experience, with the most central aspects of Wikipedia: content work and project space work. I don't mind specialists though, and should this RfA not succeed, I would almost certainly support the next time if the candidate improves their content oriented efforts to demonstrate the capability to considerably deeper judgement than what is required to recognise common vandalism. user:Everyme 05:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

   RfA should be about whether the user has earned trust that they will not abuse the tools. If one has 45000 vandal revert edits, I can trust them to know when to click the stupid "block" button. But maybe that's just me. There really is no use in arguing. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 20:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

   I agree about the trust - there is no disputing that. However, vandalism is just one particular instance when pressing the block button would be necessary. Furthermore, pressing the big red huggle revert button and having it warn an editor and then automatically reporting them after four warnings basically gives the huggle user experience in identifying obvious vandalism, but that's about it. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

   Erik, you say there really is no use in arguing. Do you mean with me, because I'd have to dispute that. Arguing (actual arguing, as opposed to exchanging opinions, which is indeed of no constructive use ever) is definitely possible with me. Consider that if you are open to actual arguing as well (which includes the prerequisite of being ready to have your arguments challenged and possibly refuted, otherwise you're not engaging in the discussion) it's definitely worth it. So let me try and respond to your point: Yes, it's true that hitting the block button is easy and there should almost certainly be no mistakes — as long as he sticks to what he knows. The problem is that there is no telling what else he may believe he can do when he clearly hasn't demonstrated that he can. The admin tools are far more universal, and I wouldn't risk giving them to someone who hasn't shown capability of sound judgement in most areas. Ergo I cannot trust J.delanoy to exercise the necessary discretion and applying use of the tools correctly in anything more complicated than blocking blatant vandals. user:Everyme 13:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

   In my humble opinion, J has demonstrated common sense, the ability to learn from his mistakes and self-confidence, qualities that an admim must have in order to use the tools for the betterment of the wiki. I don't care how he demonstrates these qualities, but he does, and that is enough for me. Do you have any worries that J will hurt the wiki without a wide range of admin edits? Admin spots are not limited, so there really is no use in opposing unless you think a user will hurt the wiki with the admin tools. If you think that is so in this case, I'm totally fine and won't argue any further. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

8. Oppose - No more "anti-vandal only" candidates. Tiptoety ^talk 00:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
9. The type of edits this user makes it hard to determine whether or not they have the proper character to be an admin. I suggest keeping up the anti-vandal work but let us know who you are as well before you run again. John Reaves 19:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

   What do you mean by "proper character?" Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 21:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

   ... what on earth do you think it means? —Giggy 23:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

   I don't like speaking for other people - but, intuitively, it seems that John is simply concerned that a proper assessment of the candidate's Wikipedian character, demeanor and behavior are masked by the numerous automated edits. Can't get a feel for them. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

10. Weak oppose - What the hell?  Asenine  22:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Needs more article building for my liking. Per Rudget.  Asenine  23:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

    Left a note on your talk page. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

11. Oppose Just don't have enough to trust the tools to you at this time, per above and per own concerns. Sorry. SashaNein (talk) 04:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. This is an RfA where I'm unsure which side to go on, do I support or oppose? J.delanoy (for the sake of convenience, I'll refer to him as J) is clearly a user who is committed and self-assigned to the task of reverting mass amounts of vandalism, has the interest of Wikipedia at heart and is civil to boot. However, for an administrator we need to see the encyclopedia-aspect of candidates, and with J that is something near impossible since most of the mainspace edits are reverts of vandalism (which are mightily good I should add) and we also need to see someone who is versatile; willing and capable to venture outside of their comfort zones to make decisions which will further the encyclopedia. With answers like that of Q4, I have doubts about J's ability to do anything of the such. As Dweller mentions in the statement, it is okay to be specialised at something, but if that is something which the user is totally focused on (and it is something which is capable by every other administrator) the magnitude of that specialism is reduced. I won't be dismissive of his candidacy just yet however, I will be back to review the RfA later on in the week. Rudget (logs) 15:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

   Applause. One of the best thought out and expanded neutrals I've seen. Although I'm in support I have to say that Rudget's summing up here is, well, spot on and will be of great use to other editors in deciding where they sit with regards to this RFA. Pedro :  Chat  15:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

   This was the only thing that gave me pause as well. However, we don't need admins who are good at everything - I never deal with image copyright or requests for page protection, for instance. Since he seems quite focussed on what he is doing and would be a bit more effective if given the bit, I see a positive result with no downside. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

   You're 100% right that we don't need administrators that are good at everything, but on the other hand we need to see candidates who are able to focus on more than one subject. As you suggest, I'm sure that his anti-vandal work when he does become an administrator (I say that because at time of posting this looks likely to succeed) will be excellent, but we can't support on that premise alone. We have to be safe in the knowledge that J can deal with a wide-range of problems that might crop-up, I don't feel that is presented here now, but I could change my mind on that aspect were I to be convinced otherwise. Rudget (logs) 15:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

   Ironically enough, similar concerns were raised in my RfA diff, with this editor raising the valid point that I had little experience of the "full range of adminny things". Experience comes with time and guidance from more experienced admins, which J.delanoy seems very open to. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

   Given that he hasn't indicated a particular intention to go jumping into admin areas beyond antivandal work, I don't see why we should require him to demonstrate a wider range of experience. He definitely appears trustworthy and could certainly make a large positive contribution through work in blocking vandals and speedy-deleting bad new pages, and as that's what he plans to do with the tools I see it as plenty of evidence. ~ mazca ^{t |c} 16:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

   I'm not requiring him to do anything, I'm merely voicing an opinion. Rudget (logs) 16:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

   And so am I. I apologise if you took it as me jumping on you, but it seemed a good place to state my view on the same kind of topic. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 16:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

   [outdent] His answers to my questions were good but unfortunately I've come to the conclusion as to stay neutral. I do feel compelled to mention that I have in fact supported candidates of J's background before at RfA, but all for different reasons. [As the only thing I knew J for was anti-vandalism work, I felt I needed to do a more thorough search of what my personal criteria are and how the nominee checks against them]. I've endorsed those other candicacies because of contributions (some of them major) to say requests for approvals for bots, account creation, AfD work etc. In these sorts of situations we get to understand and both recognise the full able potential of judgement from the nominee, with J, I don't see these sorts of activities, its just plain vandal fighting; there's little to no work elsewhere in proportion to what is his main work ethic, which is disappointing given his sincere attitude and approach to work on en.wp. Reverting vandalism is important, of course it is, but as Everyme says above "there would be nothing to vandalise without content editors". People seem to easily forget you can easily do a lot of damage with the tools when an administrator, hence why I've written such long statements here - note: I'm not suggesting that J will misuse the tools. As Giggy suggests above we need to be able to be fully sure that we can have faith in an administrator to perform their tasks with common sense and with adherence to policy, whilst also being able to communicate with users in disputes, debates and other discussions. To have these qualities we need to see experience of mainspace collaboration; this is the only place you'll retrieve true wisdom and on the whole the best area to get good representations of the community as a whole. With hours and hours of of vandalism work it seems to me there is little in the way communication with others and little to no improving your own knowledge. Its like as if VF is the 'be all and end all', so to speak, you can start of as a vandal-fighter but you'll ultimately be the same after 5 or 6 months. You won't gain anything apart from some good relations with other people in the same area. I sympathise with J's continuing and long dedicated work for the encyclopedia, but being in an area where we there is the opportunity to replace (and I must add that there is bots currently operating in this area) that task with say a bot, I'm not really sure what the whole point of that person being there is. Could I also ask why some here who usually oppose for lack of mainspace contributions are supporting now? Rudget (logs) 18:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

   Perhaps for the heartening reason that editors are not judging him in a vacuum, and are considering his talents and what he plans to do with the tools. I'm not saying this as a rebuttal or to discredit your neutral !vote; I am seriously proud that some people are not just holding him up to the light of non-flexible personal admin criteria. Tan ǀ 39 18:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

   I find that response acceptable, frankness is a virtue that's all too often lacking. Rudget 18:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

2. This is a tough one and I don't know yet. I'm pretty familiar with J.D from hanging out around the altnernative AN/I, so I figure I know him pretty well. In judging his work I'm trying not to put aside my natural instinct, which I'm sure some are familimar with but others will get offended by, which is that vandal fighters are good but don't need adminship. But that said I have seen issues with his work before - I haven't gone and gotten the detail yet, because I'm lazy and have articles to write - but I don't think I could comfortably support. And while he has started doing some article work, tentatively taking on board the advice I gave last time, though there are still issues. Then I noted he lacked understanding of the MoS. Now, per Talk:John Rutledge/GA1, is he competent on NPOV and V/RS? I don't feel comfortable giving him tools with which he can affect article writers in these current circumstances, but I am not yet opposing. I might change; we'll see. The response to this comment will definitely influence me. —Giggy 01:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

   I'm afraid I am not exactly sure what you are asking me. Can you be more specific? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

   I'll try to blabber less. How do you feel about being given content-influencing tools considering your (IMO) shakey hold on some content policies/guidelines? (Or do you contest that it's shakey?) —Giggy 08:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

   Per my answer to Q5, I do not believe that not being a content editor precludes having a good grasp of the policies surrounding deletion and protection, which as far as I can see, have more influence on the content part of the encyclopedia as a whole than anything else. I will not reiterate my opinions on this here, as they are all stated above.

   To answer the second part of your question, I do not think that I have a bad grasp on the policies about reliable sources and neutral writing. I took most of my expansions for John Rutledge from a term paper that I wrote a little while ago. A term paper generally has a different tone than an encyclopedia article, and I thought that I had done a fairly good job of making my content encyclopedic; apparently I was wrong. Before writing on Rutledge, I never really sat down and wrote on Wikipedia before. When I saw that one of the problems with the article was POV, I went through and removed all the POV I could find. Rectifying the other issue, the recent, reliable source part, was not so easy, and I was unable to obtain access to the book mentioned before the GAN was failed. After that, I just kind of let the article slip from my mental desk, so to speak. I will probably give the article another go at some point in the future, but at present, I am most interested in vandal-fighting. I hope that helps. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

3. I know and understand that J. delanoy will not abuse adminship rights. However, I think if you dropped all his revert edits, he'd be a weak editor. I would like to see J. delanoy improve upon article building, because I already know he knows what to revert and what not to. So I'll stay with neutral. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 12:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Not convinced yet. Article mainspace experience, I think, is only necessary as far as gathering experience, particularly on how editors will respond to certain things that are said or done (as an action) by admins. It's also to draw a distinction between content and conduct, and you need to know enough about content policies first, and how to apply them. I think it's difficult to resolve doubts on this. However, I would like to ask for more Q&A to help make a decision either way. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.