Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sjorford 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Sjorford

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)

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)

Support

1. Support as nominator. Hall Monitor 22:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Aww, not first support; superb history. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 21:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Support Because adminship should be no big deal righT? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Support 12K edits in over two years?!?! Good grief, yes! Xoloz 22:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Support Oldelpaso 22:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
6. 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)
7. Everything looks in order here. Move along, move along. --Zsinj 23:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Support - enthusiastic, hardworking editor. abakharev 23:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Support, looks good to me. - Bobet 23:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
10. Support: thought he was one. Jonathunder 23:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
11. 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)
12. Support. 12K ought to be enough for anybody. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
13. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
14. Support, looks good to me. --Gandalf 03:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
15. Support. utcursch | talk 04:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
16. Support --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 04:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
17. Support -- Longhair 04:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
18. Support, good record —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-08 04:36Z
19. Support The 1K edit in Wikipedia space is even more important. Dr Debug (Talk) 05:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
20. Support ---Thistheman 06:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
21. Support His edit counts are impressive. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 06:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
22. 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)
23. Support in a pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosic manner, true Phroziac style :-) haz _(user talk)^e 09:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
24. 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)
25. Support. jni 09:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
26. Support--Jusjih 09:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
27. 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)
28. Support. —A 10:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
29. Strong support Should have been sysopped a long time ago. Proto||type 12:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. Welcome aboard. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
31. Super Support Krashlandon (e) 13:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
32. Support. youngamerican (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
33. Very strong support. Solid reliable user in all my experience. David | Talk 15:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
34. Support. --Myles Long/cDc 16:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
35. Support, strongly agree with nominator. Conscious 21:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
36. 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)
37. Support --Latinus (talk (el:)) 22:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
38. Orane (t) (c) (e) 23:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
39. Support, very experienced editor, will make a good admin. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 23:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
40. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
41. Support experienced editor, will be a great admin for WIkipedia. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 00:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
42. Support. Yamaguchi先生 01:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
43. Support Mjal 02:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
44. Support of course --rogerd 04:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
45. Support yes certainly. pschemp | talk 04:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
46. Support, no reason not to. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
47. Support --AySz88^-^ 05:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
48. Strongesest support one of the most experienced and hardworking users.  Grue  06:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
49. 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)
50. 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)
51. Support Thryduulf 14:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
52. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 14:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
53. Support. Looks good. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
54. 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)
55. Support. *drew 01:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
56. Support - loooong time contributor. BD2412 T 02:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
57. Support SoLando (Talk) 08:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
58. 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)
59. Support. This guy should be sorted as an admin. - Darwinek 10:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
60. Support, its time for him to give him the tools. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 11:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
61. Support, clearly understands Wikipedia policy and has demonstrated trustworthiness (and btw, you're hired). Alphax ^τεχ 11:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
62. Support, seen the user around, doing good work. feydey 14:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
63. Support All in 15:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
64. Support obvious decision for me.Gator (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
65. Support What, not an admin already? A wide-range of contributions shows his dedication. Hand him the mop.—Leflyman^Talk 17:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
66. Support. Thunderbrand 18:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
67. Support. --Kbh3^rdtalk 19:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
68. Support --Ugur Basak 21:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
69. Support I like this guy. — Nicholas (reply) @ 00:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
70. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 02:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
71. Support. Edits seem fine, plenty of dedication, issues raised on prior RfA seem to be long gone. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 05:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
72. Support Robdurbar 10:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
73. Support. Good edit history and good answers to the questions leave no reason to object.--Dakota ~ ° 18:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
74. Support. Why the hell not? --Aaron 21:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
75. Support Mjal 21:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
76. I thought $USER was already $CLICHE - David Gerard 01:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
77. Support - should make a great admin. Johntex\^talk 04:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
78. Support Of course.--MONGO 14:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
79. Support. Punkmorten 15:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
80. Support for sure. -Aabha (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
81. Support seems like a nice person. Thumbelina 17:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
82. Support Pavel Vozenilek 17:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
83. Support - Of course! Sango123 (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
84. Support--Wedian 01:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
85. Support. He is a good user. Carioca 01:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
86. Support Good editor. FloNight ^talk 01:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
87. Support A wikipedia legend. Savidan 05:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
88. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
89. Support. Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 22:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
90. Support without a doubt. -- DS1953 ^talk 04:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
91. 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)
92. Support, per above. Steve block talk 20:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

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)
• See Sjorford's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
• 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:

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 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)

4. How many warnings would you give a user before blocking them? Alphax ^τεχ 09:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

5. When would you consider it appropriate to reverse the actions of another administrator? Alphax ^τεχ 09:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

6. Which do you feel is more important? Process or policy? Alphax ^τεχ 09:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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? Alphax ^τεχ 09:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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.