Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/J.delanoy 2

J.delanoy

Voice your opinion (talk page) (47/5/2); Scheduled to end 14:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Nomination by Dweller (talk · contribs)

J.delanoy (talk · contribs) is an experienced, civil and scruplously 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.

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.

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)

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)

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 [1] (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)

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)
7. [2], 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)

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)

2. 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)