Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/I JethroBT

I JethroBT

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (156/0/3); Scheduled to end 22:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Nomination

I JethroBT (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate User:I JethroBT for adminship. I couldn't think of a more suited candidate. He has it all. He's got experience closing discussions (and attacking the list at WP:ANRFC), CSD tagging, AFD participation, he's got a some quality content (including working on a FAC), he is an OTRS volunteer, and he can make high quality contributions to Arbcom cases.

The first time I ran into I, JethroBT was during a WP:RFC/Username discussion here. Despite creating his account before the rule about "bot" usernames being disallowed, and despite being under the gun, he handled himself maturely and respectfully making very clear arguments in support of his username. The result was that he was allowed to keep his username. Despite that, still, he volunteered to rename it anyway. This is a guy who abhors drama and is all about putting his pride away to get the job done.

Since then, he has been a beacon of good sense and respectfulness. I cannot recall a single instance of him loosing his cool. He makes solid decisions based in policy and he can back up his own comments with quality content work. I went through an extensive review of his edits, articles created, main articles contributed to, ANI participation, CSDs, talk page, featured content, block log, edit count, deleted contributions, Gender Gap Arbcom participation, checked sourcing for plagiarism, CSD tags and RFC closures. He consistently gets it right. We're highly served by giving I, JethroBT the tools.--v/r - TP 21:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thanks for your nomination, TParis, and I graciously accept.

For participants in the RfA, as you look over how my edits are distributed, you will no doubt notice that many of them are in the User talk namespace (~30%). The majority of these contributions reflect my participation in the Moodbar Feedback Tool when it was active (2011-2013, I think?) in an effort to engage with and assist new editors. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: I'd like to primarily focus my work on closing discussions at WP:ANRFC, which has a frequent backlog and few editors working to clear it up because, let's face it, it can be very time consuming to evaluate consensus. Many requests specify for an admin close or otherwise require it just by nature of the discussion itself. Helping to resolve these discussions is important to me because when a consensus can be reached, it can improve an article and sometimes will allow editors refocus their efforts on further building the article and avoid getting caught up in the same dispute in the future (which isn't to say consensus cannot change later on).

I'd also like to help evaluate speedy deletion nominations based on my experience with them (see User:I JethroBT/CSD log). I would also feel comfortable evaluating AfD discussions after having participated in many of them ([1]) and having done some appropriate non-admin closes on my own.

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

A: If folks are looking for articles that best illustrate my labor and research, they should check out taiko, retrieval-induced forgetting, and Miss Major Griffin-Gracy. They can all definitely be improved; I am working to get them to GA or FA status (heading to the library this week for some materials for the Taiko article). Aside from article writing, this three-closer RfC on the Monty Hall problem that I completed with Eraserhead1 and Churn and change was the most involved and collaborative consensus process I've been involved with. I also have enjoyed engaging with new editors at the Teahouse, and previously at the Moodbar Feedback Tool when it was active. For better or for worse, first impressions are important, and I spend my time engaging with new editors because I want to help them accomplish their goals and show them that contributing to Wikipedia is worth their time and consideration. I believe building our encyclopedia can be a rewarding and productive experience, as it has been for me.

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: Editors can challenge RFC closes, such as in this example. In this case, the challenge did not stand up to scrutiny, but during the course of the AN discussion, another editor brought up an alternative that wasn't proposed during the RfC itself. I endorsed the idea, even though it conflicted with my close, because it appeared to resolve the main problems that initiated the RfC in the first place, which I felt was more important. Being mindful about solutions like this, even if they conflict with my RfC closes, is crucial if they can fairly resolve legitimate article issues.

Back in 2011, I also had a rough time trying to sort out complicated issues with the Heroes in Hell book series. There is too much detail to describe here (see this and this for reference), but there were publication, neutrality, and merger issues that multiple contributors to the series were involved with. A dispute resolution did not fully resolve the issues. The situation was generally frustrating because the default mode of communication was walls of text and the atmosphere was consistently hostile despite attempts to cool things down. I sometimes found myself without a good solution. In these situations, I have found it best to disengage for a time and let other editors handle it rather than escalate matters.

Additional question from GraniteSand

4. What's your most accomplished piece of original content contribution, as a whole or as part of a collaboration?

A: Hey GraniteSand. I think in terms of comprehensiveness and quality, I think taiko is my most accomplished work that I've worked on. That said, I didn't start the article, and there was a lot of material there already that helped shape the article. Of course, many others have improved the article as well. In terms of collaborative work, I've enjoyed building the John Robinson (aviator) with some volunteers through a GLAM project with the Pritzker Military Museum & Library. I also recently helped out remotely with an edit-a-thon in Chicago focused exclusively on creating Chicago Fire of 1874 (i.e. "The Little Chicago Fire").

Additional questions from Wee Curry Monster

5. There is a 5 year gap when your account appeared to be dormant, would you mind elaborating what you were doing in that period?

A: Thanks for asking. The time between 2006 and 2011 was time I spent finishing up college until 2008, then working full-time for a year, and was then occupied with grad school from 2009 to 2011. The reason my account was dormant during that time was because I had forgotten my password, though in all honestly my priorities were elsewhere and I had little time for Wikipedia. In 2011, I bizarrely remembered my password and started editing again because I had a little more time and found myself getting interested in how Wikipedia worked.

6. Have you ever edited as an IP editor or with another named account in that period?

A: So, I want to make very clear that it's important to me to be very transparent about this. This is my only account, and I have never created another one for any purpose. As for anonymous editing, I remember making some minor edits here and there as an IP editor during the earlier part of the period, such as spelling and simple copy-editing. I do not recall making any substantial content-related edits or venturing into the Wikipedia: or other namespaces. Once 2011 rolled around, however, it had been a while since I had edited, and I could not remember what articles I had worked on nor my IP address. In preparation for this RfA, I tried searching article histories on topics I worked on in 2006 (like Game Boy, Dragon Quest: Shōnen Yangus to Fushigi no Dungeon and Breath of Fire II), but was unable to find IPs that geolocated to where I was living at the time. I can confirm that before I created my account in 2006, I did make contributions anonymously from this IP: (Special:Contributions/68.81.141.156), and it's where my edits would have come from during this time. This is a dynamic IP, and while I don't have a strong grasp how IPs work exactly, I do understand that this IP would have changed each time I logged on, so I suspect there are some minor edits in that range I was responsible for. If there are additional, reasonable requests for information that could better clarify this, I would be happy to provide it.

Additional question from Neotarf

7. Can you clarify whether you can pass a Turing test? I'm not opposed in principle to the idea of bots as admins, but there is some similarity of your username to Asimov's I, Robot.

A: This seems as good a time as any to query Cleverbot: "Would I pass a Turning test?" Cleverbot replies, "You wouldn't pass any test if it was up to me." Wow, that's cold. That's a GLaDOS-level response. Says a lot more about Cleverbot than it does about me.

Additional question from Aerospeed

8. I've noticed that on numerous occasions, most notably on the talk pages of Formula One pages, are filled with uncivility. Simple discussions are turned into figurative fistfights, and while consensus is eventually reached, there's still a sense of anger after the arguments. If you need examples, just filter through the archives of the talk page of the 2014 season and you'll see what I mean. Have you personally been in a situation like this before? If so, what would you have done had you been an administrator in the argument? If not, what would you have done to resolve the disputes? Aerospeed (Talk) 00:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

A: So, I've briefly looked over Talk:2014 Formula One season and Talk:2015 Formula One season. If I stumbled into into the middle of a discussion where editors are talking more about each others' behavior and less about the article, I'd advise them to step away for a bit. When discussions get to this point, the relevant parties have often made their arguments pretty clear (those relevant to the proposal, that is), and it's usually best for uninvolved editors to evaluate them next. I'd also look over the behavior, particularly to see how disruptive it was, and also if there is evidence that the editors can generally work together (or not) when disagreements arise. I can't stop editors from being angry with each other, but there are ways to prevent such disruption if it is likely to continue. (As a side note, the tough part about closing RfCs is that by the time I get to them, all the argumentation has already happened weeks or months ago. All I can hope is that a fair assessment of consensus will prevent future discussions from turning into online fisticuffs— sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't.)

General comments

• Links for I JethroBT: I JethroBT (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for I JethroBT can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support. Dekimasuよ! 22:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support, I've seen him at the Teahouse. Good host. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support of course! Cheers, Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 23:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support I haven't crossed paths with Jethro on pages, but I've seen them around enough to take notice and always had a good feeling about them. Looking at the stats, I see a lot of solid AFD work, plenty of article edits and creations, all the basics that show reasonable clue and judgement, plus it is pretty easy to see that he's here to build an encyclopedia. And I trust TP's vetting as well. Dennis - 2¢ 23:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Sure. → Call me Hahc21 23:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Looks like a solid well rounded candidate. A quick glance at his stats suggests that he checks all the important boxes for a prospective admin. Good luck! -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
7. Don't forget me. Support per awesome nom, he's a swell guy!--v/r - TP 23:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
8. Rschen7754 23:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
9. Support Sure! Why not? Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
10. Support I was positive he was an admin already. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
11. Support a perfect candidate! ///EuroCarGT 00:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
12. Stephen 01:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
13. Support --I am One of Many (talk) 02:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
14. Support No obvious issues. LHM^{ask me a question} 02:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
15. Support Why not?--Church ^Talk 03:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
16. Support: answers to the 3 questions seem impressive, editing history is generally excellent, and good job with that Monty Hall RfC! Thizzlehatter (talk) 05:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
17. Support I have had the great pleasure of interacting with this editor many times over the years. He is solid, mature, level-headed, knowledgeable, and fully committed to this encyclopedia. His work at the Teahouse has demonstrated, over and over again, how hard he works to assist new editors, the best of whom represent the very future of this project. I support this candidacy without reservation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
18. Support - Seen him a couple of times around WP. Contributions are usefull, seems to know what he is doing. No reason to oppose. - Taketa (talk) 06:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
19. Support - experienced editor who would have great use for the administrative tools. I agree with Thizzlehatter; the answers to the questions were great, and that I JethroBT is just a fantastic contributor overall. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 06:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
20. Support No issues.  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
21. Support Helpful, friendly and knowledgeable editor. Everything else looks good, I'm sure he will make a great admin. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
22. Support Oh hell, yes. Excellent candidate who truly has the best interests of the project at heart. About time he got the bit. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
23. Support Wikipedian 2 (talk) 09:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
24. He wasn't an admin already? cliché, I know... —Kusma (t·c) 10:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
25. Support. Content creation is a bit limited, but otherwise good contributions. Sensible. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
26. Support Thanks for volunteering. benmoore 11:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
27. Oppose per this, sorry. I suppose you were right to turn the heading into a plural but you were certainly wrong to capitalise the word "link". It is not a proper noun. Try again in six months. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

    That was intended to be humorous, right? --Biblioworm 19:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

28. Support I've never had any direct contact with IJB but I've seen him around for as long as I've been here (and he was here two years before that too). Never seen any problems. Have seen a lot of good work. Peridon (talk) 12:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

    BTW To anyone who can fix things like that, the counter seems to be stuck. Peridon (talk)

29. Support - It's rare that I vote in RfAs recently, because I don't have the time to fully investigate candidates. That said, here is a user that I've worked with in the past and have met in real life. Without a doubt I trust him to be a responsible administrator and wholeheartedly support. Worm^TT(talk) 12:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
30. Support Widr (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
31. Support--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 13:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
32. Support Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 14:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
33. Support I have seen excellent work by this candidate in several areas. Abounding in CLUE. Gap in editing history explained to my satisfaction in the [2] mentioned by the nominator (look for his reply under the Disallow !vote by Edison). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
34. Support. I've seen him around, and he has always struck me as knowledgeable, mature, and competent. We need more active admins, especially in backlogged areas. An experienced closer would be valuable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
35. Support - Jethro is a very clueful, intelligent editor who always has the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind. He does great work and should have been an admin ages ago! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 14:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
36. Support. Has been around for ages, is civil, has oodles of clue, and is not a robot. What's not to like? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
37. Happy to support this long-term, clueful editor. 28bytes (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
38. Support without a doubt, only seen good things from this user. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (tell) @ 16:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
39. Happily Support - Tremendous experience as an editor of Wikipedia! Happy to support him! Hats off to him!! Would be happy to be coached by him on Wiki-editing!-- Kunalrks (talk), 22:03, 10 November, 2014 (IST). — Preceding undated comment added 16:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
40. Support A very, very, very good candidate! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
41. Support Appears to be sane. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
42. Support I have noticed I JethroBT's work in several areas. His well-rounded and thoughtful approach to Wikipedia has been excellent. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
43. Support. Thought they were an admin already. —Neotarf (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
44. Support. Glrx (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
45. Support Haven't really seen you around but okay. Eurodyne (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
46. Secret ^account 17:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
47. Support qualified user who can be trusted with the mop. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
48. Support. With edit-count evenly split between articles, user-talk and WP-project pages, candidate has shown willingness to interact with other users. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
49. Support after reviewing his answer, no reasons not to. KonveyorBelt 18:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
50. Support A well-rounded candidate with a positive attitude who is consistently helpful toward other users. Has ample experience in performing speedy deletion nominations. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
51. Support Well rounded candidate who has satisfied me that my single worry bead was groundless with a frank and honest answer. WCM_email 19:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
52. Support, obviously. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
53. Support - yep, no concerns. GiantSnowman 19:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
54. Support Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
55. Support - This is about as perfect as a candidate can reasonably be. --Biblioworm 19:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
56. Strongly Oppose as this "User" can't even pass a simple Turing test.  ;) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

    Is that the test you take to drive a GT (Grand Turing) car? Peridon (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

    No, that would be a complex Turing test... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

57. Support Seems like a great editor. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
58. Support. Great work on the project so far + plenty of appropriate experience + bags of clue + trustworthiness + willingness to help + nice guy/gal = easy support. Good luck! — sparklism ^hey! 21:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
59. Support Why not. Looks like time to dish out another mop. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
60. Support - Sensible candidate, and valid reasons are given for the lack of this account's usage; some of the history is clearly present. Article space contributions are a little low for me, but I'm confident this candidate will actually be a decent admin. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
61. Another candidate I've seen around the place doing good work and generally thought of as being sensible. And he seemed like a nice chap when somebody introduced us at Wikimania. We need more admins (contrary to the popular meme), but we need good admins who will make efficient use of the tools and know when and, more importantly, when not to use them. I believe I JethroBT will be that sort of admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
62. [stwalkerster|talk] 23:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
63. Support - Broad range of experience, sensible type. He'll be fine with the buttons. The Interior (Talk) 00:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
64. Support, solid all-around candidate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
65. why not --Guerillero | My Talk 01:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
66. How did I not notice this had started? Strongest support in a long time -- Jethro is a fantastic editor, dedicated to the strategic goals of the project in helping new users, specifically with the mentorship project he is heading up. He will be an invaluable addition to the admin team. Go Phightins! 02:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    I think I am beginning to see a trend in the !voting... -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

67. Support: Excellent candidate, surely would be a stellar user of the mop. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
68. Support Well-rounded candidate. Spencer^T♦C 02:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
69. Support -- No concerns from me. -- Shudde ^talk 02:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
70. Support - Great range of experience in content editing and in some admin areas. Also, this candidate has a very strong nomination. I've seen this candidate around and trust their judgement. - tucoxn\^talk 03:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
71. Support Good range of experience. Has worked well with others; good demeanor. Should be very helpful as an administrator. Donner60 (talk) 03:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
72. Support Good experience, level-headed, seems perfectly able to handle the admin tools. I JethroBT is a strong candidate. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
73. Support because this user cannot pass even a simple Turing test, therefore he is not a robot. Only wish he'd had an RFA earlier, like, around April Fool's? Epicgenius (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
74. Jianhui67 ^T★C 04:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
75. Support Yet another candidate that outnumbered the support !votes from my unanimous RfA within the first 36 hours of their RfA. A snow close as successful would be against process and hugely unfair, but surely the same result :) Nomination says all I need to hear. Happy to support. — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
76. It sure took you long enough, Jethro. ;) An excellent candidate, glad to support. Kurtis ^(talk) 05:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
77. Oppose —Frosty ☃ 06:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
78. NativeForeigner ^Talk 08:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
79. Support RFA is clearly broken, if nobody can find anything to spoil the victim's candidate's week. This is no fun at all. --Stfg (talk) 10:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
80. Support No concerns.--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
81. Support. Hope somebody can dream up a half-way decent reason to oppose, because this is starting to look like a Cuban election... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
82. Support. An excellent opportunity for me to admit that for once, I don't need to do any research at all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
83. Support --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 13:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
84. Support Experienced ,Level headed and feel the project will gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
85. Support. You had me at Pritzker, cognitive psych, and FAC work. - Dank (push to talk) 14:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
86. Support - Adequate tenure, clean block log, no indications of assholery. I've seen around over the last couple of years. Although WMF's Edit Count feature is down, a run of the alternative "WikiChecker" shows more than 17,000 edits with 718 of the last 2,000 to mainspace. LINK No concerns. Carrite (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
87. Oppose because it has been necessary for an admin to delete two(!) redirects he created; sorry, Randykitty, that's the very best i can come up with. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 15:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    @Randykitty: I assume you're joking, right? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    This was originally posted in the Support section, with the edit summary "Support (to be explicit)". Noteswork moved it to oppose. I've moved it back. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    Nothing says "maturity" like April Fools Jokes in November during an important vetting proocess... Carrite (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    I'm not opposed to humor, but some take it too far. P.S. Sorry Randy, I meant to ping Lindsay. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    Jeepers, relax. I suppose i should have stuck with mine original !vote: "Support, because my investigation has turned up nothing, and because i trust the nominator". Sorry you can't handle a little levity; that i can, doesn't mean i don't fully recognise and value the seriousness of this process. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 21:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    I think the displeasure above was being directed as Noteswork, not at you. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

88. Support -- Noteswork (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
89. Support -- To be honest, I thought he was already an admin. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 16:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
90. Support This is an example of the helpful approach to the less experienced user that we need: Noyster (talk), 16:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
91. Support I've seen Jethro around many times, very helpful Wikipedian. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Poke me} 16:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
92. Support Happy to support Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 17:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
93. Support. Fully qualified candidate, good responses to questions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
94. Support I objected to this editor's use of the name "I Jethrobot" back about 2011, since it might cause confusion when it looked like a bot was participating in AFDs, even though it was a clever and amusing username. After discussion at ANI the user immediately added a note as part of the signature to clarify he was not a robot, and has since changed the username to one which is is clearly not a bot. The user has been a productive editor and has been civil and helpful to others, and I have confidence he will be a fine admin. Edison (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
95. Support Great candidate for me! StevenD99 18:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
96. Support just the type of person we need. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC).
    
97. Support Of course. Why not? Good luck.--Ajeem95 (talk | bincang (ms) | cont) 21:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
98. Support I met him at Wikimania this past summer and he is more than qualified enough to be a suitable candidate to the task at hand. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
99. Support Seems like a good choice, and nothing stands out as a red flag. Further, while I'm not that familiar with this editor personally, a lot of editors whose judgement I trust support. The quality to recognize when ones judgement is not optimal and being willing to revise opinions is a valuable skill and one that I like to see in admins. PaleAqua (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
100. Saw this just in time to be WP:100. I've seen this editor's work in various parts of the encyclopedia, and a review of contributions confirms my previous impression. --j⚛e decker^talk 22:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
101. Support Just pilin' it on at this point, but Jethro is an outstanding candidate. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
102. Support I've seen the candidate around and, like others, thought he had the mop already. Willing to help in a difficult area—what's not to like? Miniapolis 00:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
103. Support - Appears to be a very knowledgeable, experienced and committed Wikipedian... He has all the attributes to make a great Admin and will be beneficial for Wikipedia as a whole. IJA (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
104. Support. For me too, this is an easy decision, based on my past interactions. Normally, I write lengthy explanations of my RfA opinions, but this time, I'll just say "per Kudpung". --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
105. Support per TParis' nomination and Kudpung's endorsement. Two days into this RfA, and I feel like I almost missed the boat. I don't know the candidate, so I did feel compelled to do a little homework; my review of the candidate's work history in AfD, PROD and CSD areas leads me to believe that he has a strong command of our deletion and notability policies and guidelines. Looks like a keeper. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
106. Support per LindsayH. Honourable mention to TParis and Kudpung's fine statements as well. Ivanvector (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
107. Support - seem like a very reasonable editor from what I have seen of them. Should make an excellent admin. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
108. Support :) Jethro is a pleasure to work with: conscientious, diligent, friendly, and always expanding his ever-growing set of offline and online skills. He is a talented and capable person, a budding project manager, and a great guy. Long overdue! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 01:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
109. Support Looks good to me. GraniteSand (talk) 03:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
110. I hate to pile on, but I support Jethrobot too for this here adminship. Have known for long time, nothing negative to report, good contributor with level head, et cetera. Looking good so far. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
111. Support Does all sorts of ADMIN stuff, which is what we need admins to do. Recent RfA's seem to mistake adminship as being a Mega-Barnstar. It is not; It is a set of tools to be used with discretion. This editor is very familiar with these tools and the processes involved, so has my support. —Gaff ^ταλκ 03:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
112. Support - no concerns whatsoever. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
113. Support Solid, reliable track record, unbiased, cool, reasonable, has decent diplomatic skills. I guess that's ample enough for me. Best.OrangesRyellow (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
114. Support I really don't specialize in anything at all, but I sort of specialize (and self-identify as a crotchety old grump) when it comes to WP:CSD tagging. (In my opinion, if someone tags an article for speedy deletion without attempting to improve it, they should be tapped with the WP:NOTHAMMER.} I've reviewed I JethroBT's CSD log looking for reasons to oppose and swim against the current. Apart from the liminal Australia women's national futsal team, I can't find any reasons at all not to support. Peter in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
115. Support—Lesser Cartographies (talk) 12:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
116. Support, everything looks good, no concerns. Nsk92 (talk) 12:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
117. Support: I seem to remember bumping into the candidate at AFD and them being a helpful, thoughtful contributor. Otherwise, I don't have any concerns. BethNaught (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
118. Support per nomination. Mkdw^talk 14:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
119. Support I've been on the fence because, when I looked at the candidate's user page, an entry caught my eye: "Engineering psychology - Mostly got involved in this one during its AfD. I initially thought it should be deleted, but I ended up cleaning it up and making fixes during the AfD and after it was kept." The candidate majored in psychology but, during the AFD discussion, they flip-flopped twice and ended up !voting to delete this notable topic. This vacillation seemed to be a sign of weak judgement but it was a while ago when the candidate had resumed editing, so perhaps they were still learning the ropes. Browsing some more, I came across a DYK which I quite like: Merz Apothecary. This is a quaint old shop and working upon such a topic demonstrates to me that the candidate's heart is in the right place. But that's not to say that they are perfect. I find that the topic can be readily improved and some might take exception to it being a commercial establishment that is a big retailer of homeopathic products. I'd better stop before I say more ... :) Andrew (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
120. Support after finding no reason to oppose and many to support. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 21:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
121. Support. No problems found, good luck with the mop! --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 00:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
122. Support should make a fine addition to the admin staff. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 00:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
123. Support No concerns. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
124. Wait, you weren't one already? Connormah (talk) 04:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
125. Support Dedicated editor with sound judgement and have no reason to believe they won't be even more helpful with the added tools. Calmer Waters 05:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
126. Support -- Me too have seen him in Teahouse.--The Herald 12:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
127. Support -- He have a potential to be a good administrator.Apli kasi 14:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
128. Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
129. Support, not that he needs my support. Looks like the sort of person we need. Dougweller (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
130. Support, anyone who works at WP:ANRFC and OTRS (and elsewhere) is an asset. Support. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
131. Support, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 02:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
132. Support with no concerns. ~Adjwilley (talk) 07:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
133. Support' Great candidate. Jim Carter 12:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
134. Support. Per User:HJ Mitchell, administrators should “make efficient use of the tools and know when and, more importantly, when not to use them.” Those are my criteria as well; the willingness of the user to post an actual photo of himself, and the fact that 2 endorsers have actually met him, seems to imply some level of accountability. Bwrs (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
135. Support no reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
136. Support I don't think I have anything of value to add to the above responses; I'm sure he will make productive and sensible use of the tools. Sam Walton (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
137. Support - AfD record is kinda weak, but all the miscalls are years old. CSD log is good, so I don't mind AfD so much. Spot check of edits reveals no problem. Active at teahouse is a plus. WilyD 17:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
138. Support Pile on support. Glad to see this user nominated. A look through RFA toolbox output and reading of recent edits leads me to believe this candidate is no pushover and can be trusted with a larger set of tools. BusterD (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
139. Only very very slightly weak Support - No concerns found in his AfD stats. I would like to see more editing constancy. Only approximately ten in Feb 2014 and also a small number in March. - NG39 (Used to be NickGibson3900)^Talk 02:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
140. Support Haven't seen a strong candidate like this in a long time. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
141. Support - Everything looks good to me, and the answers to the questions are satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
142. Support - Fantastic candidate with great experience, most of which I have seen at the Teahouse and the initiation of the Co-op - no concerns and confident that he'll put good use to the tools. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
143. Support - I thought you were already an admin and see no compelling reason to oppose. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
144. Support A good candidate volunteering to work in an area that can use all the (qualified) help it can get. Abecedare (talk) 08:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
145. Support. Best candidate so far. Am 99.99% sure that he will never abuse the administrator's Privilege.Wikicology (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
146. Support – Happy to pile on here. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
147. Support Per User:HJ Mitchell. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
148. Support - All right I'll bite. Been thinking this decision over for a while. But I think I can trust this editor being given the tools. GamerPro64 00:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
149. Support I believe that Jethro will show appropriate restraint where necessary and would be a net positive as an administrator. His answers seem sensible and nothing seemed to stand out about his contributions. Good luck and thank you for putting up your hand. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
150. Support No reason to think he will abuse the tools. --DHeyward (talk) 02:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
151. Support st170e^talk 15:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
152. Support Not that more support is needed at this point, but it is deserved based on contributions and demeanor. A trustworthy contributor likely to use the bit to advance the project. -- Scray (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
153. Yes. Looks very good - well rounded contribution history, intelligent, and supportive. Exactly the sort of person we want/need as admin. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
154. Support, I can, this. Antrocent (♫♬) 18:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
155. Support - NQ (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
156. Support - Glad to support. HalfGig talk 21:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Neutral

Would like to see answers to the unanswered questions before I pass judgement... Leaning towards support atm. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Technical 13: The questions have been answered. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 19:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Want to see answers for the editing gap questions, but also leaning support here. KonveyorBelt 17:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

1. Neutral so far Checking out the candidate's history and contributions. →StaniStani  05:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Neutral for now, as I don't generally side one way or another in RfAs. If Jethro does become an admin I think he would be quite sound in dispute resolutions. I will thank him for pointing out interaction banning, which was something I did not know exist until now. I'll keep his response in mind the next time I get myself caught in a dispute. Aerospeed (Talk) 13:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Neutral. Seriously, we're asking admin candidates inane questions about Turing tests and gimme questions like "what would you do if you encountered editors who were arguing?" There's not much in his answers to warrant support or opposition, but I blame that more on the questioners than I do on Jethro. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 16:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

   You do realize you can ask him better ones, since you're so disgusted by the ones currently asked of him, right? LHM^{ask me a question} 17:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)