Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JodyB

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

JodyB

Final (44/9/8); Ended 12:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

JodyB (talk · contribs) - I am self-nominating for my first RfA. I have been around Wikipedia for some time although my editing work really didn't begin until April of this year. Previous other-world commitments kept me from doing much more than using the 'pedia for referencing. Now that life is smoother and grad school is finished, I am devoting more time to editing. I think you will discover that I am varied in my work and have participated in numerous areas throughout the community. My personality is calm and not easily ruffled. I am not perfect and will admit my shortcomings and errors quickly and make the necessary changes.

Allow me to address the very high edit count in April. It was during this time that the Alabama project was getting off the ground. It was necessary to go through articles that were in the various Alabama categories and begin adding the project banner and assessments to their talk pages. Using AWB I was able to accomplish much in a short time. One might think that reduces the number of significant edits I have made. However I think it shows a dedication to the gnome like tasks necessary to make Wikipedia function efficiently.

Of course, gnome work is not the extent of my labors here. I also contribute heavily to a wide variety of articles; sometimes beginning new articles and at other times improving existing ones.

Please know that I consider serving as an Administrator to be just that -- service. I am happy to work behind the scenes keeping Wikipedia functioning smoothly and efficiently. JodyB _talk 17:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my own nomination. JodyB _talk 18:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: I expect to continue to engage in vandalism reversion only now being able to deal quickly and properly with those tasks I have previously left to others, I will delete and block, per policies, in such a way as to keep Wikipedia as unencumbered of the trash vandals leave behind as possible. Of course, there are the near-constant backlogs, especially at WP:CSD which I commit to tackling. There is much administrative work needed over at some of the images pages as well. I can assure the community that I will expand into the various areas as my expertise grows. Certainly there is a significant learning curve as an administrator. I don't feel like I have to become an expert on everything all at once. Indeed, I will spend considerable time reviewing policies and precedents and asking many questions of established admins. I have already completed the administrators reading list and intend to immediately review it again if selected. I expect this to be a task to grow into and I commit to doing what it takes to become respected as an administrator.

Q At CSD, what do you think is the minimum level of notability that is required to prevent deletion as "does not assert importance"? DGG 16:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

A: Actually this is an area in which I was corrected sometime ago about a comment I made in an AfD regarding notability. CSD does not specify "does not assert importance" as a reason for speedy delete. It is my thinking that an article should make some assertion of notability very early in its creation. However, as an admin, I would not speedy an article simply because it lacked such assertion. Sometimes new users may create an article which needs some cleanup and sourcing. Let's save the article if we can and properly source it RS and improve it. I hope that answers your question. JodyB _talk 17:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." (from CSD a7) Of course it does not have do use the word assert, but what is the minimum level of significance or importance? DGG 00:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I went back and reviewed CSD. From what I can tell from the page and its discussion page there is no specific minimal level proscribed. One must rely on judgment, input from more experienced users and use of guidelines like WP:N. I would look for some comment or suggestion that the article can be shown to be important via the use of reliable sources; perhaps a statement suggesting a notable accomplishment. One should consider the importance of the article to a group of readers outside the admins own area of interest. Perhaps the key is that an administrator must be aware of his own limits of knowledge and experience. If there is doubt at all, I would seek advice from another admin and would not myself delete the article. I would say that if there is any controversy (AGF), it should not be deleted but most likely moved to AfD.JodyB _talk 01:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

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

A: I am most pleased with our work at Wikipedia:WikiProject Alabama. This project is far from complete and is really still very new. However I helped get it off the proposal board and into the "wild." Many excellent editors are working hard to improve the project and I am proud to be associated with everyone of them. I am presently proud of contributions I am making to Alabama and Mobile, Alabama along with other very excellent editors. Many of my own edits are in connection with the project, especially tagging articles and trying to assess them. The use of AWB has been essential to my work there. Additionally, I have begun several articles that were needed including Alabama's 8th congressional district and Alabama's 9th congressional district. These were challenging because the districts are no longer apportioned to Alabama and information about them is rather scarce. I am proud to have completed biographical articles about many of the congressmen in some of the Alabama districts so that there is at least a start level article on all of them in the 8th district. I must also add that I am quite pleased with my RC patrol and anti-vandal work. I have also worked on some controversial articles including American Civil Liberties Union, Native Americans in the United States and Ku Klux Klan.

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: We've all had the problem of vandals attacking our user pages and that really doesn't trouble me too much. I revert the page and warning the vandal. I have worked some at WP:3O which means I have been around the conflict but never considered myself a part of it. Same goes for a case at WP:MEDCAB. The closest I have been to a conflict was when a user suggested I was using some of the semi-automated tools incorrectly. He was exactly right. However my errors were not deliberate attempts to cause problems. When the errors cropped up again a day or two later he wondered if he should AGF. I corrected every error I had made unless someone had already caught it. I said then and I believe now that I always acted in good faith and simply didn't fully understand the interface and made novice type errors. The user and I never had a conflict per se but it was a bit stressful because I don't like to make mistakes. It seems to me that honest discussion is the best way to deal with any conflict. There was some disagreement over changes I made at American Civil Liberties Union. A calm, professional discussion followed and my edit remained, largely intact.

Question from Nat.tang

4. If you ran into an extreme POV pusher and he/she was not committing any obvious, or "simple" vandalism, what steps or actions would you take to deal with this person?

A: It's my belief that reasoned, mature discussion will go a very long way in correcting such errors. Initial discussion should be calm and as private as possible. Sometimes people respond negatively out of embarrassment and a feeling that they have been challenged or called out. Some people are so passionate about their articles that they fail to see that they are pushing POV. If discussion and encouragement doesn't work, then a request for a 3o would be indicated and escalate from there. A user passionate about a subject can be a great value to the project. We would rather keep him than run him off.

A question from bainer (talk)

5. Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?

A: Of course the book answer is "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." The application can, however, be tricky. In my judgment WP:IAR should only be used in exceptional cases, not routinely. The entire community depends on rules so that we can accomplish our task which is to produce an encyclopedia. When a user finds themselves constrained by a rule, he should rule out other avenues which would produce a similar result. Finding none, he ought view the "violation" from an honest but opposing point of view. Having then examined the rule and the planned action thoroughly, he should be bold and, using his very best judgment, make the change. The editor should also expect that he will be challenged and should be prepared to defend his decision. JodyB _talk 17:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Question from Elkman

6. It looks like you've done a good job with Wikipedia:WikiProject Alabama. You've commented on a lot of RFAs, and you've done a lot of article assessments. I'd like to know about some of your more "meaty" contributions, though. Can you give an example of an article where you've put in a lot of major development, and interacted substantially with other editors to bring the article to completion?

A: Thank you for your kind words about the project, however I am only one of many working to bring it along. The American Civil Liberties Union Article was already quite full but was, in my opinion, in need of some re-writing. I posted on the discussion page that I intended a re-write of a section and a few days later did the re-write. A user was not pleased but we worked together to clean up that section without animosity or significant conflict. Critical care nursing is another into which I merged an article and am watching, and commenting. I am working on Alabama and hoping to move it to GA status soon. In most cases I am building on what others have begun. JodyB _talk 17:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Optional question by AldeBaer

7. Since we all started out as readers of this encyclopedia, I'd like to know what your three (or more) favourite reads on Wikipedia are (may be articles, or even policy pages, whatever you like), ideally with a short explanation as to what especially you like about them.

A: This may be the hardest question of all! I enjoyed a number of articles related to Cryptology. I think the reason was because the material was concise and because external links allowed me to delve deeper if I wanted to. There was an intriguing, but brief article on the Battle of Spanish Fort in the American Civil War that was interesting because of my own proximity to the area. I often enjoy going to a random article and just enjoying the tour. JodyB _talk 18:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Optional question by Jreferee

8. You hold a degree in Bible[1] and your edit count indicates that your #1 article talk page interest is Churches of Christ. I believe that Wikipedia has a special need for admins who have experience with articles that raise theology/religion issues to help assist in resolving the seemingly never ending disputes on Wikipedia in this area. Do you have any examples (diffs) of your assisting in working to resolve theology/religion disputes of others? -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 13:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

A: Thank you for your question. I have been very careful with my editing to that particular article because, as a minister in the churches of Christ, I do not want to create the appearance of WP:COI. However, on the talk page, I have attempted to resolve an issue regarding terminology used within the article. I would ask that you look here for an example of my work. You will see that it resolved nicely and I did make that agreed upon change. I am happy to assist where I can and I think my training could be useful.

Comment I have been asked to clarify this question and I am happy to do so. The request is on my talk page [2]. I am employed by the churches of Christ as a minister. As such, I have sought to be very careful and not open myself up for a charge of COI. I think it is prudent to be very careful in editing that particular page. I have commented on the discussion page and expect to continue to do so. Many of the discussions and editing on the religion pages can be very contentious and many discussions and conflicts reach back a very long way. I have chosen to tread carefully in this area. I will continue to use caution but, because of this question and the request on my talk page, I will seriously consider becoming more involved in theological discussions although I will likely do little editing at the Church of Christ page. I do not worry much about COI as it relates to nursing because I am no longer employed in the field in any way. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify and please ask if I can answer any other questions. JodyB _talk 15:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See JodyB's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• Links for JodyB: JodyB (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Just FYI -- I am a he. JodyB _talk 14:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/JodyB before commenting.

Discussion

• (not a question relating to suitability of RfA) re "I am self-nominating for my first RfA...". First? Is there any reason you should believe that there will be more? ;~)LessHeard vanU 11:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - the user has been really active in the last three months but has shown that he is ready for adminship..He has been a great vandal fighter and his contribution to WikiProject Alabama has been excellent..Good Luck..--Cometstyles 14:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Support This user has accumulated a good range of edits, indicating a good general knowledge of wikipedia policies. I have come across her on several occasions over the last 2-3 months, and have been impressed by her skill in the project.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 14:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

   My apologies; "his". --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

3. Support - Granted, the user has only really recently been active, but I think JodyB has shown the readiness for the tools. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 14:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Support Everything seems alright.--Húsönd 14:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

   Support So far so good. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 14:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

   Changed to neutral, see comments in the oppose section. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 19:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

5. Support - Good editor, plenty of experience, no obvious problems. Walton^talk 14:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
6. Support. Candiate is a good contributor. She appears ready for the tools. Best of luck and Roll Tide. Majoreditor 14:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

   Um, yeah, he's not a "she". ;) —Anas ^talk? 17:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

   Mea culpa, Jody. Mamnunak, ya Anas. Majoreditor 05:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

7. Support. Edits look good, answers look good, and no problems apparent. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
8. Support- per all of the above. Eddie 15:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
9. Support- User seems to have a fair mind and a tireless effort for adding essential information to various articles. I know edit counts are not everything, but to see that this user got his contribution list very high, very fast (and with substance too!), I'd have to say he's ready to be an admin.The Kensington Blonde T C 19:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
10. Support Good contribs, I like the responses given to questions, should make a great admin. Ganfon 19:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
11. Support Good ole "I thought the user was one already" cliche. Kwsn^(Ni!) 21:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
12. Support. I've interacted with JodyB a fair amount, and I know, without doubt, there is zero chance for admin abuse from this editor. I find people opposing because of the information on his userpage to be strange and a bit ridiculous. Somebody has finally applied for adminship after actually reading relevant policy, and people oppose because it was "planned". What self-nom wasn't planned? I'd be much more concerned with somebody who applies on a whim than somebody who works to ensure they'll be an effective admin. There is nothing power hungry about JodyB's desire to be an admin, and while contributing to the encyclopedia is of course important, that is not the role of an admin. JodyB is unquestionably familiar with policy, and is willing to help in the tasks of administrators. - auburnpilot talk 23:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

    The stuff on xyr userpage has been there for a long while. A long time in planning, no? I don't think it's bad to be planning as such (e.g. admin coachees), but since being an admin really isn't a big deal, I think the stuff on the user page is a little OTT. It's been there as long as I can remember, and it seems to be crying out "I'm ready - please nominate me." As such, I knew this RfA would happen sooner or later, and I knew it would be a self-nom too. Majorly (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

    Comment- On April 9, 2007, JodyB posted to his user page, "Later this year I hope to see a successful nomination as an Admin." -- Jreferee ^(Talk)

    Support --> Neutral per comments above. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 19:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

13. Support - seems ok. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
14. Support It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
15. Support I see no better proof that RfA is broken when people oppose on the basis that someone freely volunteers their time to take on admin chores, and makes it clear they wish to do this from early in their editing days. And contrary to popular opinion the number one thing on wikipedia is not writing articles. It's about people reading them, and if Jody can help keep the place clean for our readership then it's all to the good. Pedro |  Chat  10:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
16. Support - has helped in the dispute resolution process, also reported vandals and has sufficient experience of editing articles. Addhoc 12:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
17. Support - Trustworthy user and well read on adminship. Even if he makes mistakes using the tools, I do not believe he will misuse the tools. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 14:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
18. Support It makes no difference to me that you want to be an admin. ~ Wikihermit 18:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
19. Support I don't see anything suggesting that the editor would abuse his adminship. Pax:Vobiscum 23:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
20. Support: I believe the user's becoming an admin would only benefit Wikipedia, and therefore have no reason not to support. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
21. Support I'm familiar with JodyB at XFDs and elsewhere, and he/she seems like an ordinary user with a medium level of experience - exactly the kind of user Jimbo was thinking of in his famous "no big deal" declaration. Most of the oppose votes take the approach that "Yeah, JodyB is all right, but I'm just a little nervous about a few things." I'm not nervous. I'm confident that this is a good self-nomination. Shalom ^Hello 05:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
22. Support. A productive Wikipedian that is always there to help those in need. Highly recommend the tools for this user. Good luck JodyB! E ^talk 10:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
23. Support. Although the opposers have given excellent reasons why this candidate should not be elected presient of the United States, I am completely unconvinced that Jody will be a bad admin, especially after looking through contributions. Several reasons have been given opposing this candidate, none of which really provide a creditable reason why we as a community could expect this candidate to abuse the tools. With all due respect to those opposing, among whom are great and wise editors, the reasons for opposing this nomination are among the weakest and most questionable I have ever seen. To those who say "We can't vote for someone who wants to be an admin," who the hell are we giving the tools to? People who are unenthusiastic, uneager, and unexcited; who won't take up the tools and put them to use for the encyclopedia? RyanGerbil10(One, two, Charlotte's comin' for you) 05:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
24. Support: I can't name a place where I remember meeting Jody, but I know (s)he will make an excellent administrator. —« ANIMUM » 13:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
25. Weak Support Editor seems to be trustworthy enough but I am somewhat concerned by the inconsistent editing (4000 in one month and zero for any others) GDonato (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
26. Support we need more admins. I've decided that wanting to be a sysop won't hurt the project. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 15:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
27. None of the oppose votes actually shows me how promoting this user an admin will harm Wikipedia. There is no incivility from this user, or evidence that the user will abuse the tools. Might make a mistake or two, but who doesn't? Self-nominations also show's user's enthusiast attitute towards RfA and the williness to go through this process by himself is a plus. I'm also confused by how "power grabbing" is a bad thing, admin is never a position of power in the first place, in theory, anyone who applies or accepts an adminship nomination are interested in adminship, and I don't see the reason to oppose for that at all. I also don't see what difference it will make if administrative tasks are being done by people who were actively seeking adminship, in fact, this should be a reason to support because users who tends to seek for adminship are also more likely to be knowledable about administrative tasks than others, and I think they are also more willing to preform these tasks than others as well. As long as the user is willing to strongly contribute in the areas of administration, and not screwing up really badly that it outweights the good things he done, I am willing to Support.Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
28. Support - The activity issue gives me some pause but otherwise JodyB seems to be a good candidate. As long as he won't go "rogue", a little mopping here and there would be a benefit to the project. --Richard 08:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
29. Support Seems like a good editer. Some of the oppose votes seem to say wanting to be an admin is a bad thing. . .?--Banana 22:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
30. Support What is wrong with wanting to become an admin? It seems like a worthy goal to me. Captain panda 04:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
31. Support per above. Peacent 13:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
32. Support no evidence will abuse the tools. Davewild 17:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
33. Support, I don't have any problems with this user. Wizardman 17:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
34. Support I agree with Wizardman. Acalamari 23:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
35. Support. Looks all good to me. Shanes 00:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
36. Support After a positive exchange of communications with JodyB, I came to believe that he is an editor whose combination of intellectual curiosity, work ethic, temperament and respect for references presents the proper mix of attributes for Wikipedia adminship. —Roman Spinner (talk) 03:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
37. Weak support I don't see the opposers' concerns. AIV and AFD contribs are good. Though I saw some things in AFD that gave me pause, I trust that JodyB will learn by doing.--Chaser - T 05:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
38. Support Seems ok. Politics rule 16:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
39. Support. Loads of evidence that Jody is already active in anti-vandal and anti-spam work, AfDs, reporting to AIV, all stuff that shows readiness for the mop and a need for it. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 22:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
40. Support. I have been holding back and weighing the discussion. I would prefer to see a little more than three months of activity but on the whole I think JodyB will use the tools appropriately. -- DS1953 ^talk 22:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
41. Support I would also rather see more experience but I can't see any problems that would make me withhold support. Sarah 17:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
42. Support I don't have too much personal experience with this user, but they apparently haven't been dragged to AN/I or AN3, they actually seem to read the AfD discussions they've been actively participating in, they obviously know their way around the wiki, and they've been around since May of 2006, to boot. One image they uploaded in April was deleted, but only because it was a copy of a commons image. Mainspace edits are mainly cleaning up vandalism, by the looks, and an AWB spree back in April, but they've certainly put in good work towards cleanup and other fixes (not to mention, I'm a bit light on article work, as well, and people tend not to complain). Clean block log. Active on WikiProject Alabama. Skimming over user talk page, archives, and contribs hasn't revealed any skeletons in the closet, just yet. I don't see a reason I personally shouldn't support. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
43. Support - A solid contributor. Wikipedia would benefit from this editor having a mop.--Bryson 21:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
44. Strong Support, Whenever I have seeked advise she is someone I have always asked and has always given me her opinion, I don't always follow it, but I do feel that she has always given me un-biased advise and how to better my articles. Callelinea 03:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose — Looking at this made me feel sad and ill. This is an encyclopaedia, the mainspace is the most important thing at Wikipedia. I'm not interested in supporting people only interested in power status. Matthew 15:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

   How is JodyB only interested in power status, Matthew? Could you elaborate or explaination of what you stated? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nat.tang (talk • contribs) 17:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

   Look at JodyB's userpage. Seems like xe's planned to become an admin, thus making xem interested. Majorly (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

   I see. Ya...it does look like he was gearing himself to become an admin. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 19:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

   I have to say I find this line of opposition/neutrality a little bewildering. We seem to be looking for a legion of heroic admins who reluctantly put down their plow to pick up the admin bit at the urging of The People. That's a great ideal, but not realistic for meeting the needs of the site at its current size and messiness. I see someone who's interested in becoming an admin and is taking the time to figure out what would make him most effective, and I'm not clear how this has become a negative. I've definitely seen candidates come through whom I'd oppose on grounds of "power-hungriness", status-seeking, or being overly political at the expense of encyclopedia-building, but this isn't one of them. But that's just me. MastCell ^Talk 00:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose per Matthew. I too aspired to be an admin. I had less than 200 edits. I would have sucked. Prodego, an administrator warned me that if I continued, My RfA would not pass because editors would post things about being more concerned about status than Wikipedia. Give it some time. Focus on wikipedia, not status. J-stan 22:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Matthew and J-stan. His edits are unconsistant, and most of it are from vandalism reverts. Hirohisat ^{Freedom of Speech} 03:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

   Oh no, someone changes their editing patterns and helps keep the encyclopedia free of vandalism. Let's ban them! --Rory096 13:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose per the previous opposers. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 04:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC) Switched to Support Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 15:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose In a case of reverse editcountis, I feel that there has been too many edits over too short a period for me to believe that this editor is properly prepared for adminship. While this quantity is excellent for a dedicated editor, and to Wikipedia generally, it doesn't appear to offer the evidence of using judgement regarding nuances of WP policy, rules and guidelines. I would prefer JodyB spends a little more time around the various policy and admin talkpages to get a feel of the role. LessHeard vanU 12:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)(edit for typo. LessHeard vanU 13:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC))
5. Oppose. Sorry, but LessHeard vanU's rationale is close to my own. I'd like to see some evidence of sustained (and sustainable) efforts to contribute. Also, after such a short period, I'm afraid there is no chance to estimate your mid- and long-term position on various issues. You appear to be on the right way, but it's too early to support. —AldeBaer (c) 12:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
6. AldeBaer sums up where I sit on this candidacy at this stage. Daniel 22:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose Although everyone should take wiki-breaks, I'm afraid this editor's history of contributions is too inconsistent to demonstrate the necessary commitment, per LessHeard. Xoloz 15:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose people who seek power should never be given it. --Fredrick day 18:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

   Aha! You've discovered the solution to RfA! Since everybody who accepts a nomination should be denied adminship, there's no need to even go through RfA! We can just reject everyone who applies for adminship, and then we won't have to have these unnecessary discussions to shoot them down! You, sir, are a genius! --Rory096 13:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

   Mate, can you cool down on the sarcasm? Everyone has their own opinion, whether it is ill-guided or not. Thanks. --Dark Falls ^talk 03:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

9. Oppose. Promising work, but too little experience and substantive article editing to support fully at this time. Espresso Addict 01:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral You are a good contributor but your contribs have not been consistent. It was in April 2007 when you editted heavily. Admins need to be more involved. Are you sure you won't go inactive for some time in the future? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

   Since when do we require volunteers to work. Admins do not need to be involved. --Rory096 14:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

   I just prefer admins to be involved in maintaining and solving problems in Wikipedia. We already have enough inactive and semi-active admins. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

   The April edits, as I explained in my nom, were gnome edits, quick edits to add project banners to various pages. As for the future - well, I don't expect to become inactive and I commit to do my best to avoid inactivity. But real life must take precedence. I live on the U.S. gulf coast and hurricanes are a reality. As a husband with a beautiful wife and three wonderful children I may have to pause to care for them but I do not expect to become inactive at any point. That's the best I can say. JodyB _talk 15:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

2. Neutral I dislike the idea you have clearly planned to become an admin (as shown on your userpage). While this is done in good faith, I don't think I can support someone who edits in order to become an admin - we're here to build an encyclopedia, not become admins. But since you have done article work too, I won't oppose you because of this. Majorly (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

   I absolutely respect your right to approve or disapprove based on your own set of requirements. But let me at least respond and hopefully offer my thoughts. Yes, I have desired to be an admin and I have sought to prepare myself accordingly. I think it is incorrect to say however, that I edit "in order to become an admin." I edit because I enjoy it and will continue to do so regardless of the outcome here. My preparation has included reading the pertinent policies and observing admins in action dealing with the various issues. I have tried to involve myself in a variety of areas far beyond the mainspace because I think such an understanding is vital to someone who wishes the tools. There is no question that the mainspace is the most important area here but I wanted to be as prepared as possible should the community entrust me with the tools. To some extent, every admin planned to become one at some point even if it was at the last minute. I appreciate the fact that you did not oppose me but I would hope you, and others would consider what I have said. JodyB _talk 20:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

   I'll definitely have a think about it, JodyB, in light of your detailed response. Majorly (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

   Background - On April 9, 2007, JodyB posted to his user page, "Later this year I hope to see a successful nomination as an Admin." -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 13:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

3. Support --> Neutral per comments above. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 19:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral. Per above Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral. We can't go around promoting people who want to be administrators, can we? After all, it can only be evidence of power hunger, and not an indication they'd actually be good at the job, right? – Gurch 10:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

   Indeed, we should only promote those who have blood and splinters under their fingernails from being dragged to the mop cupboard; sysop being short for "Stop, Yes, Stop, Oppose Promotion!" after all! ;~) LessHeard vanU 16:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

6. Neutral I'm sorry, but your edits and editing are just too inconsistent for me to support. Jmlk17 22:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
7. Editing needs to be more consistent for proper evaluation. - Mailer Diablo 12:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
8. Neutral though favorably predisposed to this RfA. I like everything Jody's done here. I see no red flags in his history, I think his answers to the Q's are solid, and I like his dedication and interest to learning more about the responsbility he's seeking. I don't see anything that concerns me regarding "power-hungriness" etc, though I can understand why this might be a concern for some. I think he will be a great admin. That said... I do feel like a slightly longer track record would be helpful. I know that there were a lot of things about Wikipedia that I didn't grasp until I'd been around a while. If Jody keeps doing what he's been doing and builds up a lengthier track record, I can see enthusiastically supporting him for adminship. At this point, though, in spite of my very favorable impression of him, I have to stay on the fence (though I feel petty doing so) based on the relative brevity of his history to this point. MastCell ^Talk 17:10, 3 July 2007 (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.