Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Akhilleus

Akhilleus

Voice your opinion (49/0/0); Scheduled to end 14:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus (talk · contribs) has finally accepted my unsolicited offer of a nomination. I first encountered him a year ago when he answered an RFC about the recently featured article Joan of Arc with firm good sense that ended another editor's disruptive campaign. Akhilleus followed up with several months of vandal-fighting at that high profile article even though it falls outside his main specialty (he's earned the Epic Barnstar for contributions to Greek history) and provided considerable help during the mopping-up phase of the Joan of Arc vandal investigation. I've always been impressed with Akhilleus's calm diligence - he has the traits of a good sysop that can't be taught - and at 5000 total edits since November 2005 he has enough experience for the tools. Recently I've been very impressed with his work at the suspected sockpuppets board, which is in desperate need of administrative oversight. Although investigations often get overlooked as a reason for mopification I urge fellow Wikipedians to consider Brad Patrick's words.[1] We ought to make this type of work one of the main RFA priorities in the coming months. Proudly nominating with my strong support. Durova^Charge! 13:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Dev920 (talk · contribs), 07:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I ran into Akhilleus when I saw him basically running WP:SSP single handedly, and contacted him by email to request his help. Akhilleus responded helpfully and thoroughly for what was a basic question, and I was impressed by his reply. I've looked through his other contributions, and found the same calm diligence in all his edits. Akhilleus' work on what is often a very neglected part of Wikipedia, and his peace-making efforts on various articles make him the perfect candidate for adminship. In addition to that, he makes patient and scholarly interventions on many contentious articles, such as Homosexuality in Ancient Greece, which as we all know has such a potential to be a great big mess, as well as being an active vandal fighter. I mean, really, what more could you want in an admin? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm honored by the nominations, and I accept. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I'd like to help at WP:SSP, which is perpetually backlogged. As Durova noted, I've been active there already, doing things like fixing formatting problems and making comments on cases. I've been bold in closing cases where all the accounts are already blocked, and in closing some old cases either because there's no sockpuppetry or because the case is obviously frivolous. You can see some of my actions in the March archive, which gives you a preview of what I would do if I'm given the mop.

Another area where I'd like to help out is WP:RM; I've participated in a number of RM discussions and I feel that I have a pretty good grasp of the policies in that area.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: As you can probably guess from my username, my main concern in article space is improving the sourcing and general quality of articles related to classical Greece and Rome. My article contributions have been less numerous than I'd like, but I'm happy with my contributions to Helen, Atlantis, and Pythia; the last has reached GA status since I started working on it--most of the credit, though, belongs to the other editors who have worked on the article.

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: There was a pretty bad one at Homosexuality in ancient Greece, where an editor who wanted to shape the article according to the views of some pretty fringy sources and misinterpretations of primary and secondary sources. He created an army of sockpuppets over a couple of months (12 Checkuser requests!), and finally sent a group of editors a bizarre death threat. After that, any other conflict seems like small potatoes.

My basic approach to conflict is to try to work things out through discussion. I try to bring plenty of reliable sources to the table, when possible. It sometimes takes awhile, but usually it's possible to work out a compromise everyone can live with.

4. How do you feel about Category:Administrators open to recall? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

A: If this RfA is successful I'll add myself to that category. It's important for administrators to be accountable to the community. To be honest, I have some concerns about the vagueness of the recall procedure, but it looks like it's worked well in practice so far. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See Akhilleus's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

1. Support didnt get this far without being somewhat decent Twenty Years 14:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
   • Within a span of 10 minutes, this user posted the exact same message, word for word, on 10 RFAs ([2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]).--DLand^TALK 15:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

   It's better than putting opposes on every RfA saying: "I do not know this user." :) Acalamari 20:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

   Not by much. Anyway, this vote doesn't matter THAT much, since it's supposed to be by consensus anyway. The difference between 26-0 and 27-0 is very slight. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 23:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

2. Support can't see why not. The Rambling Man 14:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Support good user, great contributions, very good behaviour in managing conflict situations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Support as co-nominator. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Support. No reason to oppose. -Mschel 15:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Support - I don't see why not, pretty much everything checks out, trustworthy nominators. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 15:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Strong support A very outstanding editor. I've been working w/ Akhilleus on Atlantis and other related articles and his work impresses me. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
8. Support Good, well-founded and original (!) answer to Q1. What's a mop in Ancient Greek? --Dweller 15:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
9. Support "'Father Zeus, watching over us from Ida, most high, most honoured: Grant that I come to Akhilleus for love and pity..." (Iliad 24:308-9). YechielMan 15:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
10. Good editor! I see no reason to oppose him:) Good luck:) James, La gloria è a dio 16:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
11. Support. I've been impressed by his work at WP:SSP. Would benefit from having the mop. ChazBeckett 16:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
12. Support Balanced and even keeled. The type of person one would hope were an admin. --Kimon^talk 16:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
13. Dang, I wanted to nominate him! Support Same as everyone else, I've been strongly impressed by his SSP work, looked at prior edits he had made, and, in short, I asked him to accept my nomination.[12] He didn't. :-(. The last guy I felt that way about was Newyorkbrad, and you know how that went. Just saying. Actually, this seems to be a pattern. Why does everyone turn don my nominations, and accept someone else's? But no matter how deeply, deeply hurt I am by being snubbed, I will get over it, and support here. Great guy. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

    If it makes you feel any better, I suggested nomination back around December. He's mine I saw him first. ;) Although I have cordial feelings toward any mouse who mentions WP:NAM at RFA. Durova^Charge! 16:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

14. Support No signs of abuse, experianced, already doing thankless sysop type work and has proven himself capable of handling both articles and fellow wikipedians. Cheers! NeoFreak 16:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
15. Support Having read through significant information, I am pleased to offer my support for an editor with such impeccable credentials! --Lmcelhiney 17:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
16. Support. --Bhadani (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
17. Support per Durova's nom. · j e r s y k o talk · 17:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The following vote should be viewed with caution. Such vote may represent improper and unethical behavior on the part of Jersyko. The candidate for adminstratorship is expected to be active on the SSP board. Jersyko currently has a complaint under active consideration on this board. Jersyko's improper vote came several days after his complaint. For this same reason, I have abstained from voting for this application to avoid the appearance of trying to influence complaints that I have a part in and which the candidate (Akhilleus) is expected to handle.Dereks1x 23:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Support semper fictilis 18:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Support Yes. - Denny 18:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Support. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Support good, all-rounded user. Give him a mop. - Anas ^talk? 19:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Suppport. Michael 19:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Support. Well-rounded editor, with some quite excellent contributions to various articles relating to ancient history. What's the closest equivalent in Ancient Greek for "mop"? -- Kyoko

   And here I thought I was being original with the "mop" comment, but it's also in support #8. Kyoko 18:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

7. Support per Tachikoma/Kyoko. Acalamari 20:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

   A bit of explanation for closing bureaucrat: as of this writing, I am currently awaiting completion of my name change from User:Tachikoma to User:Kyoko, so my comments here and elsewhere may refer to my original account name during this timeframe. --Kyoko 07:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

   Okay; I thought your signature was different to your actual name. My mistake. Acalamari 18:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

   Whenever this username usurpation goes through, they'll be the same. I just got tired of being called "Tachikoma", you know? It's just not me. Kyoko 18:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

8. Support looks excellent.-- danntm ^T _C 20:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
9. Support as I can see no reasons why Akhilleus can't be trusted with the additional responsibilities. Twiddle the bit. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
10. Sing, Goddess, Akhilleus' rage / Rouge and murderous, that cost the puppets / Incalculable pain, pitched countless souls / Of vandals into Hades' dark, / And left their bodies to rot as feasts / For dogs and birds, as Zeus' will was done. [Iliad 1.1, tr. Lombardo, adapted by Sandstein 21:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)]

    O tempora, o mores ... (grin) Valentinian ^{T / C} 23:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

    I would have quoted something from the Odyssey, but your namesake there is deceased, and that doesn't augur anything good for your RfA. Kyoko 18:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

11. Support. Calm when faced with nonsense + does thankless work + experienced editor = Excellent candidate. Valentinian ^{T / C} 23:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
12. Support Good editor, great admin. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
13. Support A fantastic contributor. Great work on WP:SSP Gutworth 02:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
14. Support Looks like a great contributor who could certainly use the tools to aid in their SSP work (and other areas). Cbrown1023 talk 02:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
15. Strong support posting here because bots aren't particularly smart. Durova^Charge! 03:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
16. Support; good editor, good work, I expect similar quality adminning. Antandrus (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
17. Support; helpful and calm concerning contentious issues with Surrealism pages. --sparkit^TALK 04:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
18. Support Quality candidate. --Folantin 07:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
19. Support per above. Modernist 10:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
20. Terence 14:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
21. Support Excellent candidate; superb addition to admin corps. Xoloz 15:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
22. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
23. Support Rational antinationalist editor. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
24. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
25. Virulently Firebrand Support - a fantastic wikipedian, he's always impressed me for his devotion and rigour. I was thinking myself of nominating him, but Durova' been faster than me! ;-)--Aldux 21:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
26. Support - Per nom. Lakers 01:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
27. Support I wish you would have considered this sooner. Anynobody 06:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
28. Support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
29. Support Solid editor, no issues.--MONGO 12:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
30. Support - if only to get some more admin help at WP:SSP. Good candidate in general. -- Jreferee 16:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
31. Support. Zaxem 23:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
32. Support. WjBscribe 23:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral