I've been busy so I regret not jumping to endorse James Duffy much earlier. In fact, I was under the misapprehension that he was a sysop already until yesterday.

I'm very disappointed and embarrassed for Misplaced Pages that there would be any opposition to his nomination. There is absolutely no gray area to debate; if he isn't an ideal candidate then nobody is.

It's almost surreal that there would be any opposition. Not to be condescending, but I can't resist a university analogy. While those opposing him on the mailing list are great contributors, many of the contributors to whom he has supposedly been "rude" would be in the same position as college students opposing tenure for a professor who teaches courses that they wouldn't have the prerequisites to be able to take in the first place. While I don't have any specific non-banned contributors in mind (well, maybe in mind, but I'd never state it), I can recall that many who have sparred with him probably wouldn't be qualified to take a course that he'd be capable of offering.

However, I do admit that I actually admire the egalitarianism of Wikipeida. It places non-specialists and specialists on an equal footing, leaving the door open for more suggestive and accessible ways of explaining concepts and a multi-disciplinary approach. However, in the end proper encyclopedic standards must be met. And nobody is more qualified than James Duffy to ensure the quality of articles in his field and well beyond his scopes of expertise. He is a professional historian and researcher, excellent writer, and his dedication to the project is exceptionally commendable.

While his talents as a researcher are well known, I'd like to use this opportunity to comment on another key exceptional talent of his that has too often gone unnoticed. His articles are beautifully written, often suitable for Britannica when he has completed them, such as Irish Houses of Parliament. Not only has he exemplified and demanded precise use of language and terminology mastered by a professional historian of top caliber, bringing a staunch dedication to proper academic standards, his contributions have always been remarkably clear and accessible to the non-specialists. And I certainly fall under the category of lay reader since his core areas are far beyond my scopes of expertise.

His articles are well-beyond readable, but a sheer pleasure to read. They're well-organized, well-laid out, and attractive. In fact, he got into a dispute with Zoe, another dedicated and competent user, over the need for images to give articles a professional, attractive, and accessible presentation.

I even enjoy simply reading his comments on my talk page, the talk pages of any user, and on talk pages for articles. He has the prodigious talent of communicating the most serious points in a very authoritative manner, presenting a thorough, but succinct, level of detail, in a manner that is also very readable and often entertaining. Even When he's attempting to explain formal terminology on a talk page, I'm often entertained or even laughing out loud.

Aside from being an excellent historian, his commitment is noteworthy. He's a perfectionist dedicated to finishing articles in a state far surpassing the dry, dense text of many encyclopedias. In contrast, I'm guilty of writing that could often force a specialist to read a sentence twice. Moreover, I'm often guilty of not finishing articles (I keep a list on my user page; they will be finished before I find away to escape this addiction!). James Duffy, however, is not. Even in stub articles, his work is immaculately written, bringing up all the key points expected in an article of any given size. He deserves praise for dedicating hours of independent research for this site, taking photos, and quite a deal of money (the Irish don't enjoy the flat rate unlimited internet access of we Americans).

I'd like to utilize this opportunity to personally thank him on behalf of myself for writing so many illuminating articles that I've enjoyed. While I could come up with many outstanding examples, I'd recommend that everyone on the mailing list read these articles to get a sense of what I'm saying, and moreover for pleasure.

http://www.wikipedia.org/Papal_Tiara

http://www.wikipedia.org/Irish_Houses_of_Parliament

Responding to some inane charges on the mailing list, I can attest to the fact that he is never rude when a stern reprimand in undeserved, but simply strict when it comes to quality. His presence simply raises standards. He can be abrupt because in real life I'm sure that he never has to deal with the kinds of trolls found haunting Wiki who'd like to make this site a forum for their narcissism or political agendas. James Duffy has only confronted users who mistake either of those two (narcissism or ideological pigheadedness) or a combination of both for expertise. Coming from a professional environment, the insistence by many users to misuse technical terms and throw out improperly placed emotive terms must certainly be maddening. Actually, the vast majority of professional academics whom I know of James Duffy's caliber would be far less tolerant of the work that James Duffy has criticized in the past, which often wouldn't even suffice as high school-level work.

Now does anyone even need to address the charges of "historical revisionism" by Fred Bauder? This charge is so absurd that I'm going to merely state that I'm both dumbfounded and amused. To address this charge and explain how asinine it is would simply be degrading. I doubt that in his entire professional career he has ever been labeled as such in the context in which I'm sure that Fred's using it.

There have been slightly more credible fears, notably from Mav, however, that he'd abuse his position in heat of argument coming. However, those fearing "abuse" have nothing to fear. He's actually quite open to diverging perspectives, never failing to grasp the alternative perspectives that underlie diverging interpretations. I've worked often and he has never squabbled with another contributor for nothing more than dedication to quality and standards. He has never challenged my work because he might have fundamentally disagreed with the perspective that I was trying to add to an article, like the Mugabe article, which I sought to balance since it was unambiguously one-sided.

James Duffy would make an excellent administrator who would set an example that all Wikipedians, including myself, should strive to reach. The opposing his nomination simply mistake his authoritative expertise in research, high standards, and altruistic dedication to the project for irritability, failing to realize that he is only challenging them to improve the quality of their contributions.