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

Bookofjude[edit]

Final (141/1/0) ended 00:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Bookofjude (talk · contribs) – It is my honour to nominate Jude. Although he registered an account in 2004, he became active early this year. However, despite his relatively short time at Wikipedia, Jude has demonstrated that he has the willingness, knowledge, and temperament to be an administrator. He has over 4886 well-distributed edits, with over 2171 in mainspace. He reverts vandalism, creates, cleans up, expands, and adds references to articles, uploads pictures, and transwikis. He is also knowledgeable technically, having created ((cite paper)) and depreciated and migrated ((citepaper)), ((citepaper publisher)), ((citepaper version)), and ((citepaper publisher version)). Project-wise, Jude can be found on AfD, TfD, Category:Wikipedia references cleanup, and has recently begun assisting with the massive backlog of possible copyright violations. In my experience, Jude deals well with conflicts and stressful situations (he successfully mediated a dispute pertaining to Angelology and Zoroastrianism), and is always willing to help, both on IRC and on Wikipedia. Given the admin tools, Jude would, in my opinion, become an even greater asset to the community. Shanel § 00:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Jude (talk,email) 00:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Strong Support - Jude has been so helpful to me on the WP:CP backlog in the past 2 weeks. He is very knowledgeable in many areas of Wikipedia, and can be trusted with the Sysopmop. --lightdarkness (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. OMGZORZ SUPER SUPPER ÜBER HAPPY YATTA HEY JUDE DON'T MAKE IT BAD I LOVE N00BZ SUPPORT OF FANTABULOUS PORTMANTEAUXISMS YOU R0X MY S0X PIECE OF CAKE CLICHÉ WHAT DO YOU MEAN HE ISN'T ALREADY ALL CAPS SUPPORT Sasquatch t|c 00:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Naconkantari 00:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Extreme Jude Support, as nom.--Shanel § 00:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sleepwalking SUPPORT. And bah and hubmbug - I said I wanted to be the first support vote on this one. I'm really pleased to be able to vote for Jude at last -- sannse (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Short active tenure on my mind, but everything looks great; the nominator's description was also very convincing. joturner 00:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I still remember you from the meta cleanup project :). Yet another lame sig I came up with T | @ | C 00:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support (hyper) Helpful, extremely prolific, has my trust. - Amgine 00:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support ForestH2
  10. --Sean Black 00:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Hell yes sorry for my language but he's a must be shoo-in for adminship Jaranda wat's sup 00:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong support - Sango123 (e) 00:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. When I get to the bottom I go back to the top of the slide...Support I couldn't resist. Very helpful, civil, and funny since I've known him. And plus, the Beatles rock too, so this is a win-win. Master of Puppets Your will is mine. 00:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha, I already quoted that song in my support :-P copycat. Sasquatch t|c 01:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine. Master of Puppets Your will is mine. 02:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. STRONG STRONG STRONG STONG SUPPORT - I was going to nominate but Shanel insisted on being the nominator. We might as well strike out the oppose section as Bookofjude is a natural admin -- Tawker 01:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Lies, you just asked too late :P--Shanel § 01:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support (or rather, sopeutral). Pepsidrinka 01:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support per nom.  :) Dlohcierekim 01:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Ok. --GeorgeMoney T·C 01:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong Support I pestered Jude about going for admin only a couple weeks ago. Prolific editor, tireless vandal-fighter, and snappy dresser! Also, incredibly over-helpful on IRC to both old users and annoying newbies like myself! :D ~Kylu (u|t) 01:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support --Ixfd64 01:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support as per Sasquatch Search4Lancer 01:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. NSLE (T+C) at 01:42 UTC (2006-05-20)
  22. Darn it, I was hoping to make the first 10 on this one, missed it! More like this candidate, please!™ Support... about time this user got mopheaded ++Lar: t/c 01:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Happy Support. --Slgrandson 01:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support This is one RfA that I feel is worth voting on, seeing as I tend to vote only in times of true belief. His work on IRC and Wikipedia is amazing. --Ali K 01:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, definitely. A friendly, trustworthy, and tireless contributor and has definite use for the mop. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Obvious Support. DarthVader 02:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Nifty user. — TheKMantalk 02:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. For their foul devotion to getting things right, disgustingly nice attitude, horrendously amiable demeanour and unacceptable level of contributions, I sentence this user to the worst possible treatment Wikipedia can inflict...sysophood, the ultimate hell-hole. Rob Church (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Amen. Kim Bruning 21:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Shanel, I officially hate you for not letting me conominate :P WerdnaTc@bCmLt 03:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Strong Support Highly useful contributor. Very helpful on IRC too. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 03:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey just found ou that we both have exactly the same edit count (4992). Haha I just got ahead with this post :P. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 03:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Editcountisis :P --Andy123 talk 16:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, great user. --Terence Ong 04:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Now changed to strong support. --Terence Ong 15:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Ultra-strong support Have seen this user both on WP and IRC and have very good impressions. ((RfA-cliche1))! Kimchi.sg 04:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. RfA-clichéd support I've seen this user around Wikipedia and seems to be well-suited for admin role. Understands policy well. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 04:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. The old "I thought the user was already" trick. RadioKirk talk to me 04:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Strong Support Jude has always gone out of his way to help me. I am especially thankful for his technical help where I am quickly overwhelmed and he has been willing to tackle problems even when he doesn't intially know the solution. Besides all that I certain he will make a great admin.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 04:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Together we shall destroy the copyvio backlog! Mwa-ha! --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support, the talk for Angel (Talk:Angel#Zoroastrianism_influencing_Judeo-Christian_religions) is a model for civility and grace. We need more of such people as adminstrators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TedE (talk • contribs)
  38. Support... Wait... he isn't an admin? -- Tangotango 05:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 05:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Song clichès aside, what a fantastic editor, I've been waiting for this rfA. -- Banez 06:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support great as an IRC op, have full confidence as a wikipedia op. Redwolf24 (talk) 06:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. I can't find any reason to oppose, and my every interaction with this user has demonstrated him/her to be knowladgeable, friendly, and practical. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support I can't find any reason to oppose.--MONGO 07:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, experienced user. --Tone 07:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Alphax τεχ 08:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. A no brainer, this one. Rockpocket (talk) 08:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support, Jude is kind of an obligatory admin, and I was surprised to hear a few weeks ago that he wasn't already! --Xyrael T 08:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Strong support per Sasquatch. What a kind, considerate, civil and overall, lovely editor. Just think, now we're going to corrupt him by handing him the mop. Go us! --Celestianpower háblame 09:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Strong support. Obvious. Ian13/talk 09:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. I don't normally join in with RFA pile-on's (which-ever way the pile on is going), but in this case my jaw dropped so low on seeing this here I just couldn't resist. Petros471 09:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Good editor, will make a good admin Brian | (Talk) 09:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. --Bhadani 10:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support for the same reasons already expressed. He has shown himself to be trustworthy and reliable. Rje 11:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. --Ligulem 12:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Vanilla support. Misza13 T C 12:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support --W.marsh 12:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. I beat firefox support -- Benon 13:27, 20 may '06
  58. I-beat-Benon, support, =] — FireFox (U T C) 13:28, 20 May '06
  59. 100% Support Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day_Crusher of Hopes and Dreams 14:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support strongly. An excellent, and technologically sophisticated, editor. Giving him sysop-tools will benefit the project. Bucketsofg✐ 14:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support naturally! Computerjoe's talk 15:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Wow. 61 support votes in 16 hours? He must be doing something right. Support as well. The interest in working on uncommon, but needed, tasks is a benefit to the project. --Elkman - (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Hey Jude! It's time to take a sad wiki, and make it better. I don't agree with making people admins much anymore, but you asked for it, so now you're gonna get it! :-P Kim Bruning 16:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support, of course.™ --Rory096 17:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 18:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. Looks good. — Rebelguys2 talk 18:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Monobook support Yay! ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 18:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Plain ol' Support. FreplySpang 19:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Yes --Doc ask? 20:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. Just based on what I see. :) Dakpowers | Talk 21:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support – was going to make a lame Hey Jude gag, but Kim and Sasquatch beat me to it. So, per Kim I guess – Gurch 21:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    :-P Kim Bruning 21:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    :-P :-P Sasquatch t|c 21:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to, but Sasquatch made me change it. :( Master of Puppets Your will is mine. 21:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. AWB Cabal Support: friendly and helpful. Has proven his trustworthiness with AWB, should have no problem with the mop. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 22:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. No problems here... support! Lankiveil 22:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. Of course. Shimgray | talk | 00:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Super strong amazing undonditional support. Bastique▼parler voir 00:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. I don't know Jude well enough to be more emphatic, but I have no qualms about a plain support vote. Thryduulf 01:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support without hesitation -- That Guy, From That Show! 01:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. Absolutely, you'll make a great one. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support Rama's Arrow 03:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support Joe I 04:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Puzzled Support He wasn't? *Walks away shakily* --digital_me(Talk)(Contribs) 05:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support with pleasure - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. This guy's so good, I'd have to TRY to find something in his edit history or edit trends that would tick me off. SushiGeek 08:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support, though don't let the stress get to you too much! --JoanneB 09:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support Afonso Silva 10:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support - Yes. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 11:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Extreme Sartorial Gnomic Support oh yes. --Alf melmac 11:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Strongly strong support, looking through his edits everything I've seen has been positive! // The True Sora 15:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support, gread editor, unlikely to abuse admin powers--☆TBC☆ 16:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Super strong support, Jude knows his job well, and he is one of the most friendliest users I have seen. He'll do well. --Andy123 talk 16:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. I'm a little late. All the arguments to justify supporting Jude are already in. So I'll go with the cliché: "per all the above". Redux 17:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support --Cspurrier 18:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support Was trying to wait till 100, but got impatient. Now I'll just be lost in a sea of supports. Sigh. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 20:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Cleared for Adminship Jude knows everything, senior staff on the #vandalism-en-wp channel, why shouldn't he be an admin? --Pilot|guy 23:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support, a true asset and a committed member of the community. Go for it Jude! Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 23:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support --Nick Boalch\talk 23:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 23:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Damn, I woulda been the first to support. Danny 00:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 00:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support —CuiviénenT|C, Monday, 22 May 2006 @ 00:51 UTC
  103. Support, wait weren't you already one? Give the mop!--Kungfu Adam (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 01:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Conditional support, provided he improves his taste in music. He will make a good admin, but some things are inexcusable. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 02:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support. Mostly Rainy 02:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support. No problems here. Valentinian (talk) 07:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support. Ral315 (talk) 08:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support--Jusjih 13:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support, yup. Proto||type 13:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support. Really, how could anybody object? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support ~MDD4696 16:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Suppport --Jay(Reply) 19:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  115. I dare you to give me a reason to oppose. Royboycrashfan 21:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support DGX 00:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Fish. Snoutwood (talk) 08:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support He seems to be on RC patrol everytime I look.Crazynas 09:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support Should make a great admin --Scott 09:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support. ~ PseudoSudo 09:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Strong support. Very good wikicoder, helped me sandbox a 3RR prototype. Will (E@) T 18:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Robert 22:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support per above. G.He 23:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support If you want to get to know Jude, just come on the Wikipedia IRC channel. He is willing to help you with anything and it just. plain. nice. One night I got rowdy and he had to kick me, but I wasn't bitter at all! That's the power of Jude =)
    It was JUST LAST NIGHT that I found out that he WASN'T an admin! He acts like and personifies the purest of admin qualities and he is well deserving of this nomination and adminship. --mboverload@ 00:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support per "I thought they already were!" cliche. Plus a helluva monobook that I use a fork of. Teke 02:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support Can we please give Jude 4 more support votes and push me down one more on WP:100? Jude deserves that spot a lot more than I do. JoshuaZ 02:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support - Bookofjude is awesome! Páll (Die pienk olifant) 04:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support --Cyde↔Weys 06:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support --Cat out 06:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Weak support, good candidate, but he's known to say some rather disturbing things on IRC. — May. 24, '06 [10:34] <freak|talk>
  131. sure support -- Drini 11:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Merovingian {T C @} 00:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support - a great person indeed! :) --Filip (§) 01:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support - Gee, I kinda thought he was an admin already! But anyways, it's nice to have another Christian admin around here. (From the look of his name, I assume he's Christian.) He's also a great guy to talk to on IRC. --Shultz IV 06:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support Shane smash obvious RfA! Grrrr! --InShaneee 20:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support A terribly solid Wikipedian. GChriss 23:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support a brilliant example of how calm and patient response averts confrontation. Tyrenius 01:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support, agree wholeheartedly with nom. --bainer (talk) 12:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support, quality editor. PJM 15:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support per Tyrenius, to pick one. Joe 16:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. There CANNOT be a unanimous RfA. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 00:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yes it can: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Drini -- Drini 11:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this really a valid vote? You seem to just be making a POINT. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 00:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's happened many times before. —CuiviénenT|C, Monday, 22 May 2006 @ 00:51 UTC
    Huh? I appreciate this individual's right to vote, but I don't see where it says that RfAs cannot be unanimous... also, this is very troll-like behaviour, as all you're doing is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point (I know, WP:POINT). Master of Puppets That's hot. 00:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Awww please? It'd be fun to have it unanimous! Kim Bruning 00:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Trolling vote removed by Tawker. Master of Puppets That's hot. 01:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There CAN be a unanimous RfA, if everyone voting supports the candidate and no-one decides to make a useless WP:POINT by voting against. However, I don't think the vote should be struck. You would hope this kind of vote wouldn't be considered by the closing 'crat, and therefore striking it purely has a cosmetic effect on the scoreboard. Deizio talk 01:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm willing to strike it purely for cosmetic purposes. ;-) DGX 00:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, Avilia's a little late anyway... Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BD2412... NSLE (T+C) at 01:12 UTC (2006-05-23)
    Oppose. Too obscure. Solensean 15:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC) He made the song better. Solensean 02:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The irony is that your oppose vote seems quite obscure! Could you please elaborate and/or provide any diffs for your comment? Thanks. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 16:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps he feels that the candidate needs to take a sad song and made it better. --W.marsh 16:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Remark: This user has less than 250 edits on this wiki. Claims to be an admin on the French wikipedia on his user page. I propose to ignore this user. --Ligulem 16:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User by that username is a sysop on fr.wiki although this vote makes no sense whatsoever, there has been pratically nil activity from this user in days, this RfA oppose just came out of the blue -- Tawker 17:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh I thought the vote was obviously a joke... --W.marsh 17:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Duh, of couse it is a joke cf. Jude the Obscure--Doc ask? 20:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. User does not have experience in handling disputes and is making an effort in avoiding them (per his words). I believe any admin should be willing in dealing with disputes. Admin privilages exist in dealing with disputes and disruptions assuming diplomacy (mediation etc) fails. --Cat out 19:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC) --Cat out 06:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment:You don't need to be an admin to deal with disputes. Certainly there are people who use admin privileges in this capacity, but others may see it as a technical position, which, I think, is Jude does. I prefer not to get involved in disputes because I usually am not knowledgeable about the topic or backgound of the dispute, but I don't think it makes me a bad admin. I had never had any dispute experience prior to my 2nd RfA either, and I certainly tried to avoid them (I still do).--Shanel § 20:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... I didnt look at it that way... I still feel more admins should be looking into disputes (in light of wikipedia policies of course). --Cat out 06:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: The beauty of this candidate isn't the fact that Jude hasn't had conflicts, it's the manner in which he's dealt with the conflicts to defuse them before they've become arguments and otherwise have had to be dealt with. Check above where this Talk:Angel#Zoroastrianism influencing Judeo-Christian religions occurs. I doubt I could've handled the situation with as much grace, though I'd like to be able to. It seems silly to me to oppose a candidate on the grounds that he's had the ability to avoid confrontations instead of letting them ferment into negativity. Diplomacy only fails when you stop trying. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Comments 

Username Bookofjude
Total edits 5092
Distinct pages edited 3004
Average edits/page 1.695
First edit 04:49, August 23, 2004
 
(main) 2278
Talk 141
User 975
User talk 788
Image 34
Template 120
Template talk 28
Category 211
Wikipedia 504
Wikipedia talk 13
 G.He 23:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All user's edits.Voice-of-AllTalk 01:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

--Viewing contribution data for user Bookofjude (over the 4986 edit(s) shown on this page)--  (FAQ)
Time range: 605 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 1hr (UTC) -- 20, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 8hr (UTC) -- 23, August, 2004
Overall edit summary use: Major edits: 96.53% Minor edits: 99.52%
Article edit summary use: Major article edits: 93.75% Minor article edits: 99.4%
Average edits per day (current): 8.24
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/major sourcing): 2.03% (101)
Unique pages edited: 2836 | Average edits per page: 1.76 | Edits on top: 16.11%
Breakdown of all edits:
Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 40.85%
Minor edits (non-reverts): 30.37%
Marked reverts: 27.04%
Unmarked edits: 1.74%
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 44.75% (2231) | Article talk: 2.71% (135)
User: 19.15% (955) | User talk: 15.5% (773)
Wikipedia: 9.81% (489) | Wikipedia talk: 0.24% (12)
Image: 0.64% (32)
Template: 2.41% (120)
Category: 4.23% (211)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.56% (28)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1.What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I like to involve myself in a little bit of everything. I try to patrol recent changes on at least a regular basis, and I flick through my watchlist looking for possible vandalism every time I click on it. I've recently been helping User:Lightdarkness with the copyright violation backlog, which is, thankfully, slowly starting to shrink back down into something that's manageable. I also try to regularly participate in Articles for deletion, and, although not as regularly, its various incarnations (Templates for deletion, etc), and also transwiki'ing to Wikisource articles that fit Wikisource's inclusion criteria.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am, for the most part, pleased with all of my contributions, though I tend towards more minor edits than major, sweeping changes. User:Seqsea and I have been trying to keep Category:Wikipedia references cleanup to a managable level, and it is currently at sixteen articles, as compared to the sixty or so articles when we started. I'm also proud of my work to the Angelology section of Angel, relating to a dispute about whether or not information in it should be included in the lead paragraph. I also do a bit of work with templates, and I was quite proud of ((cite paper)), which Shanel already mentioned. More recently I created an article for Michael Moorcock's book, The City in the Autumn Stars, which I'm quite pleased with.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I try to avoid all types of conflict, as I find that it detracts from the object of writing an encyclopedia, so, to that extent, the only conflicts or disputes that I've become involved in have been relatively minor. As I mentioned in the previous question, I was involved as a third party in a dispute on Angel, regarding whether or not a few sentences about Zoroastrianism's influence on Angelology should be included in the lead paragraph. I suggested on the talk page that a section be created in the article where the topic could be treated neutrally, and had a hand in the development of that section. Asides from that, I think the majority of misunderstandings I was involved in were resolved quickly and left everybody happy.


The above 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.
Category