Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Akradecki

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Akradecki[edit]

final (42/0/1); Ended 20:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Akradecki (talk · contribs)

Co-Nomination by Lar

Akradecki first came to my attention when I was assigned (along with Guinnog (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as his coach. I am extremely impressed with this user and his contributions to the project. We've been coaching him for a while, in fits and starts, mostly because some real life things stood in the way, and because he wasn't sure if he wanted to proceed, so our coaching focused more on the "why one would want to be an admin" than the mechanics.[1] We gave him a few exercises but he flew right through those, he gets the blocking and tackling part cold. You can see more on that here: User:Akradecki/Admin coaching and here: User talk:Akradecki/Admin coaching This is a user who "gets it" [2] He is way past ready in my view and will make a superb addition to the mopwielding horde. ++Lar: t/c 20:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-Nomination by User:Guinnog

To my shame I haven't added anything of substance to Akradecki's editor review; both of us have had busy spells in the last months. In following Lar's excellent work in the review though, it became obvious to me that Akradecki is more than ready for adminship. I already knew him as a level-headed and policy-savvy editor, but I now feel confident that he has the thoughtfulness and temperament to make productive use of the tools. He will be as good an administrator as he has been an editor. --Guinnog 01:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept. Akradecki 22:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: On a day-to-day basis, I plan initially on focusing on CSD backlogs and on AIV (sometimes, when I've reported a vandal there, there's been quite a backlog, so that will always get monitored whenever I'm online). As an editor, I've had the privilege of working with several really good admins who have helped with some complex conflicts, and so I hope to return the favor and make myself available to assist other editors that I work with on a regular basis (and any others who might drop by with a request) with tasks that only an admin can perform.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: If you've looked at my user page or my contribs page, you'll see that I've started a lot of articles. I hope the articles I've started could be seen to fit into the management doctrine of Q2...Quantity and Quality. As for specifics, its hard to pick one out, but I think I'd have to say 1999 South Dakota Learjet crash. This was a fascinating - if tragic - subject to research, and I felt a little honored when it was given Good Article status with very little additional cleanup needed. Beyond that, I work heavily in Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation and, to the extend that this project intersects with Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management, I work with a couple editors there as well. Some view their WP work as an individualistic empire to build, others view it as a social club, I see it as a place where one can work as a member of a team to accomplish what no one individual can, so beyond the articles I've created or expanded, I think the best contributions I've been able to make are those where I work as a team with other editors to make this a quality product.
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: Yes and no. Yes, there have been conflicts, no it hasn't caused me stress. As to the first part, it would be hard to do any serious editing/cleaning/improving without having conflicts, especially when you run across those inevitable editors who either want to deliberately harm the project, or those who want to make it into what they believe it should be, instead of what the project really is supposed to be (an encyclopedia, and one as thoroughly compiled and as professionally written as possible). The issue, in my mind, isn't whether conflicts happen, but rather how one reacts when they do happen. My general tack is to be patient and focus on policies and guidelines. I view policies and guidelines as a good thing, because they bring a much-needed uniformity to such a large project. When needed, I follow the sequence of user warnings, until it gets to the point that an admin needs to be brought into the loop. I try to focus on the project and its needs rather than on the personalities and the egos. As for the stress issue, when it's all said and done, there will never be an edit, nor a conflict, which is a life-and-death matter. In my day job, if I mess up, someone could die. On Wikipedia, if I mess up, my mistakes can be reverted and I might owe someone an apology, but that's really the extent of it. So, stress? Not hardly.
Optional question from falsedef
4. A contentious edit is against overwhelming talk page consensus, yet is backed up by reliable sources. The talk page consensus view is intuitively seen as correct, and therefore those editors replace the edit with their own, but they no reliable sources. What sort of actions and compromises should be taken to resolve the issue?
A: Cool, I was wondering if/when I'd get an optional question! Nicely posed situation...on the surface, no easy solution (so, hope you don't mind a long answer). One could coldly refer to policy and guidelines...both consensus and verifiability are fully policy, so which takes precedence? Per Consensus, Verifiabilty does. Specifically this provision from Consensus: "Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to override consensus on a wider scale very quickly (such as content-related policies/guidelines like Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:No original research)." So, there is an answer, of sorts, provided by strict policy...but is that the end of it? If it weren't for personalities, sure. But there's people to consider, too. Stricly wielding policy will do little other than piss just about everyone off. So, first step, is to engage in a discussion, with the realization that the issue doesn't really need to be decided right now. Patience also plays a part. It might take a couple of days, or even a week. The discussion should be focused on highlighting the policy, and trying to encourage, in a positive way, the group to see that reliable-sourced material is superior to unsourced material. But, there's probably also room to step back and try to see things from the other editor's point of view. Would it be possible to write things in a way that both views are covered? Is it possible to find a ref for the unreffed material? This borders on the Law of the Third Alternative: don't make the mistake of only seeing the world as a choice between only two opposing alternatives. And, there's always the point of view to be considered that asks why I have to insist on my way? Is it really so essential to life that my addition be added, ever if it's the "better" one? One must pick one's battles carfully. Ok, but what if none of this works, and it really is important enough to make a bigger issue of? I'm of the belief that some things simply shouldn't be attempted alone. At this point my instinct would be to go get a second opinion, from another admin that I trust, and proceed from there. I know I haven't given you a succinct, straight to the point answer, but sometimes there are situations in life that simply can't be answered that way. What I hope I've provided you with instead is a glimpse at the process, the approach that I'd take, and have taken in such situations. In the end, would I get the answer right? I would hope so, but I honestly can't promise that. I try to be careful, I try to sensitive to others I work with, but in the end, I can make mistakes. And, if I do, at least I'll have another experience to learn from. Akradecki 03:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support

  1. First one's free. Per nom. ++Lar: t/c 04:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support This editor looks entirely qualified for the admin tools. A good spread of edits across the main spaces & no problems as far as I can see in any of the random diffs that I chose to examine. (aeropagitica) 04:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - no signs of abusing the tools..Goodluck..----Cometstyles 05:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Completely qualified as stated above; the right fit for the job! Jmlk17 07:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Clearly cool-headed and does good work. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 08:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Should do a good job-—arf! 11:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. -- Y not? 13:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support user has a good record of activity in all different spaces, has shown maturity in editing. He seems dedicated, let's give him a mop. —Anas talk? 13:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Fly like an eagle! :-) Abeg92contribs 14:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Has a good grasp of Wikipedia policy. Will do well with the extra tools. FloNight 15:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. I'm convinced that he will do a great job as admin. Phaedriel - 15:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, as co-nom. --Guinnog 17:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong Strong Support - I have worked very closley with this editor through WP:AIRCRAFT and WP:AVIATION. Great collaborative spirit, great knowledge of policy and an amzingly civil editor in difficult situations. If I knew he was going for RFA, I would have offered to co nom. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Quality contributor, solid knowledge of policy. JavaTenor 18:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Kusma (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Rettetast 20:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - Bueno. Georgewilliamherbert 20:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support in agreement with the above. Acalamari 21:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support I agree with Chrislk02: Akradecki is an active, balanced, civil, and constructive editor and would be a creditable addition to Wikipedia's administrator ranks. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support: While user has plenty of experience and edit summary usage is also excellent, user seems to have a firm knowledge of the policies and will make a fine administrator.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 23:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support of course. KrakatoaKatie 00:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Ready for the mop. Gutworth 02:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support per noms. – Rianaऋ 09:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Already an crew member, it is time to give him wings! gidonb 13:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support A fine looking user. Captain panda 21:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong and serious support Yes. NHRHS2010 Talk 01:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Q3 rocked. the_undertow talk 05:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support A 'pedia builder. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 11:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Good editor, not afraid to remove information when necessary too. (An unsourced edit may be "true" but it's still unsourced.) Anynobody 23:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Good editor, good attitude, hard worker. Modernist 11:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - looks ok --Herby talk thyme 10:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose! Not enough portal talk edits!!! Walton Need some help? 18:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just kidding. Walton Need some help? 18:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Seems versed in policy and experienced in editing, with uses for admin tools. I don't think burnout is much of an issue. falsedef 18:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support seems like a good candidate --rogerd 02:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Default support. —AldeBaer 12:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support per excellent answers PeaceNT 18:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Joe I 05:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Get on it! Dfrg.msc 08:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Strong Support– I was very impressed by his answers to his admin coaches. He does clearly "get it" and he's not a yes-man either. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 14:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Terence 14:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support per noms. Sarah 17:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

  1. At 30-40 edits per day, I'm afraid this user will burn out. I appreciate the number of contributions, but adminship is not a prize for making lots of contributions. I would prefer we promoted admins who are more representative of normal editors. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, 30-40 isn't so bad really, I know people who make over a hundred - come to think of it, I probably racked up 50-60 a day before I was an admin, and can sometimes get about 150-200 these days. But it's your call :) – Rianaऋ 09:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, rspeer / ɹəədsɹ , for you input, it actually raises a good point, one that I discussed a bit during the coaching phase, specifically time management. I'm blessed with a job wherein there's "down" time during the day when I can relax in front of the computer. I'm also blessed with a wife who loves jigsaw puzzles, so I have more time that I get to devote to the project (ok, so sometimes my teenage daughter will say "put down the computer, its my time!). I fully realize that if I get the tools, my focus will be shifting to maintenance work rather than so much research, and that should actually be fun. If I feel "burned out" on a particular day, I can always spend a few hours writing an article to refresh myself. As for my current edit count levels, given the large number of articles on my watchlist, a lot of what I do everyday is simply revert vandalism and warn vandals...that can easily eat of 15-20 edits, or half my daily output. Anyway, thanks for bringing up a valid subject to discuss. Akradecki 13:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ This sort of introspection is exactly what I think admin coaching is good for, more than for practice and rote memorization of mechanical stuff
  2. ^ for example, look at his answer to the User:CatherineMunro#Why am I here? essay question. in the Reading list discussion section of his coaching.
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Akradecki&oldid=1147980030"