Final (92/0/0) ending 17:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Sjorford (
talk·contribs) – Joining us in October 2003,
sjorford has been an invaluable contributor to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting, and has spent a considerable amount of time improving
football and other sports-related articles. According to Interiot's edit counter, sjorford has amassed over 15,000 edits,
[1] approximately 12,000 to the Article Namespace. sjorford also participates in discussions at
WP:AFD, page move debates, and assists with new pages and recent changes, reverting vandalism where appropriate. After reviewing all of the positive contributions this person has made over the past year, I believe that he is now ready. Please join me by supporting this candidate for adminship.
Hall Monitor 22:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Gladly accept the nomination (although I've taken the liberty of editing my full name out of the above paragraph. :) —
sjorford(talk) 21:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support
Support as nominator.
Hall Monitor 22:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Aww, not first support; superb history. smurrayinchester(
User), (
Talk) 21:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
enthusiastic support (and I'm never enthusiastic about anything). Very pleased with the spread of edits for this user. aa v ^ 22:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Everything looks in order here. Move along, move along. --
Zsinj 23:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - enthusiastic, hardworking editor.
abakharev 23:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, looks good to me. -
Bobet 23:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support: thought he was one.
Jonathunder 23:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
strong support. If I hadn't already thought he was an admin, I'd have considered nominating him myself.
Grutness...wha? 00:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support His edit counts are impressive. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)reply
We're Knights of the Round Table, our shows are formidable, we do routines and chorus scenes with footwork impeccable.
JIP |
Talk 06:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support in a pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosic manner, true
Phroziac style :-)
haz(
user talk)e 09:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, bells and whistles included. Has been an excellent Wikipedian to work with. -
Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support--
Jusjih 09:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Sjorford is a very dedicated user who has significantly improved his conduct to others. I see no reason to believe he would abuse the tools.
Rje 10:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, strongly agree with nominator.
Conscious 21:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Hesitant Support - I notice that the user has relatively few Project space edits( of course a "relative" measure is thrown off by the huge amout of Article space edits), and that they are mostly AfD votes. Still, given the number and quality of other contributions, I am going to have faith that this will improve when the user is an administrator. --
WikidSmaht (
talk) 21:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Strongesest support one of the most experienced and hardworking users.
Grue 06:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support his significant experience on Afd should give him at least some understanding of the proper deletion process - we need more admins with such knowledge
Cynical 12:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, we could always use another AfD closer. Sjorford's done good work, and shows willingness to perform maintenance tasks. --
Deathphoenix 13:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - I've seen this chap helping around a lot. Given that he has 12k edits (I didn't know that), he definitely should have been one a while ago.
Blnguyen 01:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support If he wanted to go all evil I'm sure he'd have done it by now. He's proved his dedication to the project and I'm sure he'll do a good job.
Raven4x4x 08:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. This guy should be sorted as an admin. -
Darwinek 10:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, its time for him to give him the tools. --
Terence Ong (
恭喜发财) 11:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, clearly understands Wikipedia policy and has demonstrated trustworthiness (and btw, you're hired).
Alphaxτεχ 11:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, seen the user around, doing good work.
feydey 14:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support obvious decision for me.
Gator(talk) 17:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support What, not an admin already? A wide-range of contributions shows his dedication. Hand him the mop.—LeflymanTalk 17:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support without a doubt. --
DS1953talk 04:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - I see no risk Sjorford will misuse the mop and bucket. For example, he'll make sure always to wring the mop out after each use.
FCYTravis 04:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, per above.
Hidingtalk 20:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose
Neutral
Comments
Edit summary usage: 97% for major edits and 98% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces.
Mathbot 21:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Prior RfA ended on 18:17 2005-03-19 (UTC) with a result of:
6/6/0.
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:
A. I expect to mostly help out with cleaning tasks, like speedy deletions, rollback of vandalism, page moves. I would most likely also help with closing AFDs and deleting copyvios.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Things that spring to mind include helping to sort {{sport-stub}}, and various chunks of categorisation - as for articles, I tend to do more copyediting than article writing, but of recent pages, I've done rewrites on
Bon Accord F.C. and
Out of the Trees.
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 haven't been involved in any major edit or revert wars, although I have got stressed out a few times in the past, as my
previous RFA will testify. In recent months though, I've certainly been a lot more relaxed, and have tried to stick to the facts in my arguments. (I've also tried to cut down on the sarcastic remarks, as I appreciate they are easily taken the wrong way. :) —
sjorford(talk) 21:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
4. How many warnings would you give a user before blocking them?
Alphaxτεχ 09:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)reply
A. Enough, I should hope - I have done some RC patrol, so I've used the {{test}} templates, which are a good way of making sure that editors get several chances to stop mucking about before they do have to be blocked. Apart from the worst spambots, I generally believe there's nothing so urgent that it needs a block this second - once people realise their vandalism is being watched, most do just stop anyway. So it would take at least 3 warnings before a block. —
sjorford(talk) 16:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)reply
5. When would you consider it appropriate to reverse the actions of another administrator?
Alphaxτεχ 09:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)reply
A. Hopefully never... In practice, I imagine there are occasions where I would feel that an administrator has acted too hastily - for example, in speedy deleting an article that was under active discussion, or blocking a user without enough warning. As above, more discussion can't hurt, so if in doubt, err on the side of not blocking/deleting etc. But it would take something fairly serious for me to actually revert another admin. —
sjorford(talk) 16:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)reply
6. Which do you feel is more important? Process or policy?
Alphaxτεχ 09:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)reply
A. Damn, that sounds like a job interview question ;) The way I see it, processes are just a way of making it easy for everyone to follow the same policies. Not following process is generally a Bad Idea, because there's rarely a need for bucking a system which seems to work pretty smoothly. But the key policies are the most important thing - we're building a free encyclopedia, and everything else flows naturally from that. —
sjorford(talk) 16:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)reply
7. In the event of a block, users are presented with the reason for the block and the option to email the administrator who issued the block. Will you provide descriptive blocking summaries (should the need to block arise), and do you have an email address entered so that you are contactable under these circumstances?
Alphaxτεχ 09:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)reply
A. I would certainly provide blocking summaries - if it comes to the point that a user has to be blocked, they probably need it spelled out to them in words of one syllable anyway. And I do have my email address entered. —
sjorford(talk) 16:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Final (92/0/0) ending 17:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Sjorford (
talk·contribs) – Joining us in October 2003,
sjorford has been an invaluable contributor to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting, and has spent a considerable amount of time improving
football and other sports-related articles. According to Interiot's edit counter, sjorford has amassed over 15,000 edits,
[1] approximately 12,000 to the Article Namespace. sjorford also participates in discussions at
WP:AFD, page move debates, and assists with new pages and recent changes, reverting vandalism where appropriate. After reviewing all of the positive contributions this person has made over the past year, I believe that he is now ready. Please join me by supporting this candidate for adminship.
Hall Monitor 22:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Gladly accept the nomination (although I've taken the liberty of editing my full name out of the above paragraph. :) —
sjorford(talk) 21:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support
Support as nominator.
Hall Monitor 22:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Aww, not first support; superb history. smurrayinchester(
User), (
Talk) 21:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
enthusiastic support (and I'm never enthusiastic about anything). Very pleased with the spread of edits for this user. aa v ^ 22:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Everything looks in order here. Move along, move along. --
Zsinj 23:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - enthusiastic, hardworking editor.
abakharev 23:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, looks good to me. -
Bobet 23:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support: thought he was one.
Jonathunder 23:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
strong support. If I hadn't already thought he was an admin, I'd have considered nominating him myself.
Grutness...wha? 00:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support His edit counts are impressive. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)reply
We're Knights of the Round Table, our shows are formidable, we do routines and chorus scenes with footwork impeccable.
JIP |
Talk 06:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support in a pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosic manner, true
Phroziac style :-)
haz(
user talk)e 09:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, bells and whistles included. Has been an excellent Wikipedian to work with. -
Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support--
Jusjih 09:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Sjorford is a very dedicated user who has significantly improved his conduct to others. I see no reason to believe he would abuse the tools.
Rje 10:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, strongly agree with nominator.
Conscious 21:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Hesitant Support - I notice that the user has relatively few Project space edits( of course a "relative" measure is thrown off by the huge amout of Article space edits), and that they are mostly AfD votes. Still, given the number and quality of other contributions, I am going to have faith that this will improve when the user is an administrator. --
WikidSmaht (
talk) 21:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Strongesest support one of the most experienced and hardworking users.
Grue 06:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support his significant experience on Afd should give him at least some understanding of the proper deletion process - we need more admins with such knowledge
Cynical 12:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, we could always use another AfD closer. Sjorford's done good work, and shows willingness to perform maintenance tasks. --
Deathphoenix 13:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - I've seen this chap helping around a lot. Given that he has 12k edits (I didn't know that), he definitely should have been one a while ago.
Blnguyen 01:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support If he wanted to go all evil I'm sure he'd have done it by now. He's proved his dedication to the project and I'm sure he'll do a good job.
Raven4x4x 08:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. This guy should be sorted as an admin. -
Darwinek 10:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, its time for him to give him the tools. --
Terence Ong (
恭喜发财) 11:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, clearly understands Wikipedia policy and has demonstrated trustworthiness (and btw, you're hired).
Alphaxτεχ 11:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, seen the user around, doing good work.
feydey 14:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support obvious decision for me.
Gator(talk) 17:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support What, not an admin already? A wide-range of contributions shows his dedication. Hand him the mop.—LeflymanTalk 17:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support without a doubt. --
DS1953talk 04:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - I see no risk Sjorford will misuse the mop and bucket. For example, he'll make sure always to wring the mop out after each use.
FCYTravis 04:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, per above.
Hidingtalk 20:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose
Neutral
Comments
Edit summary usage: 97% for major edits and 98% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces.
Mathbot 21:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Prior RfA ended on 18:17 2005-03-19 (UTC) with a result of:
6/6/0.
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:
A. I expect to mostly help out with cleaning tasks, like speedy deletions, rollback of vandalism, page moves. I would most likely also help with closing AFDs and deleting copyvios.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Things that spring to mind include helping to sort {{sport-stub}}, and various chunks of categorisation - as for articles, I tend to do more copyediting than article writing, but of recent pages, I've done rewrites on
Bon Accord F.C. and
Out of the Trees.
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 haven't been involved in any major edit or revert wars, although I have got stressed out a few times in the past, as my
previous RFA will testify. In recent months though, I've certainly been a lot more relaxed, and have tried to stick to the facts in my arguments. (I've also tried to cut down on the sarcastic remarks, as I appreciate they are easily taken the wrong way. :) —
sjorford(talk) 21:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
4. How many warnings would you give a user before blocking them?
Alphaxτεχ 09:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)reply
A. Enough, I should hope - I have done some RC patrol, so I've used the {{test}} templates, which are a good way of making sure that editors get several chances to stop mucking about before they do have to be blocked. Apart from the worst spambots, I generally believe there's nothing so urgent that it needs a block this second - once people realise their vandalism is being watched, most do just stop anyway. So it would take at least 3 warnings before a block. —
sjorford(talk) 16:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)reply
5. When would you consider it appropriate to reverse the actions of another administrator?
Alphaxτεχ 09:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)reply
A. Hopefully never... In practice, I imagine there are occasions where I would feel that an administrator has acted too hastily - for example, in speedy deleting an article that was under active discussion, or blocking a user without enough warning. As above, more discussion can't hurt, so if in doubt, err on the side of not blocking/deleting etc. But it would take something fairly serious for me to actually revert another admin. —
sjorford(talk) 16:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)reply
6. Which do you feel is more important? Process or policy?
Alphaxτεχ 09:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)reply
A. Damn, that sounds like a job interview question ;) The way I see it, processes are just a way of making it easy for everyone to follow the same policies. Not following process is generally a Bad Idea, because there's rarely a need for bucking a system which seems to work pretty smoothly. But the key policies are the most important thing - we're building a free encyclopedia, and everything else flows naturally from that. —
sjorford(talk) 16:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)reply
7. In the event of a block, users are presented with the reason for the block and the option to email the administrator who issued the block. Will you provide descriptive blocking summaries (should the need to block arise), and do you have an email address entered so that you are contactable under these circumstances?
Alphaxτεχ 09:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)reply
A. I would certainly provide blocking summaries - if it comes to the point that a user has to be blocked, they probably need it spelled out to them in words of one syllable anyway. And I do have my email address entered. —
sjorford(talk) 16:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.