Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ancheta Wis

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] Ancheta Wis

final (38/0/0) ending 16:37 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ancheta Wis (talk · contribs) – Ancheta Wis has been here since January of 2004, and has racked up nearly 10,000 edits. Wow. I can't believe I'm nominating him, because even I can't believe he's not an admin already! Great work with portals, categories, making information more useable - I have every confidence that he'll be a fine addition to admin ranks. BD2412 T 01:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
BD2412, I accept your nomination with thanks. --Ancheta Wis 09:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support. I've seen him on Philippine-related articles and he appears to be a knowledgeable and good all-around editor. --Chris S. 16:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Second person to beat the nominator support! Does fine work. —BorgHunter (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support Astrotrain 16:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Extreme I-wasn't-even-trying-to-beat-the-nominator support. Looks like a reasonable enough user, liked his answers to the questions, and, well, adminship ain't a big deal, right? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support, prolific editor. PJM 16:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support Cool headed editor I see doing fixes all over the place. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 17:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support per nom - I'm trying to start a trend of nominators letting the vote develop a bit before voting themselves. BD2412 T 17:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. X-treme right-after-the-nominator Support. --King of All the Franks 17:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  10. About freakin' time. howcheng {chat} 18:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support Great editor, would say speedy if I could! xaosflux Talk/CVU 19:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support solid contributions--MONGO 19:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  13. --Jaranda wat's sup 20:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support Nice editor, would make great use of admin tools. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 20:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support. Experienced editor. - Darwinek 20:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support. "Its no big deal!":-)Voice of AllT|@|ESP 22:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support; speedy promote. Excellent on all counts. Antandrus (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  18. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 00:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support Experienced editor. Olorin28 00:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support.«LordViD» 01:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support, and about time, too. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support. I can tell the user is a good admin material candidate, especially since has been nominated by BD2412 --BorgQueen 03:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  23. Yet another 'I would have nominated him myself' support -Support in the extreme! --Jondel 04:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support. DarthVader 08:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support. Remarkable. jnothman talk 13:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support: --Bhadani 13:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support speedy. ;) Nightstallion ✉ 16:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    Support Excellent contributions. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 19:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC) Accidentaly voted twice. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 19:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support. Looks to be a very solid user. JHMM13 (T | C) 06:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support. El_C 00:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support! Sango123 (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support --Terence Ong Talk 03:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support not already an admin? --rogerd 05:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support. You've certainly earned it. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 07:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support --NaconKantari 07:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  35. Support, that was quick :) - Taxman Talk 21:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  36. Support. What an impressive record! --Fire Star 07:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  37. Support. Edit history indicates no cause for concern. Jayjg (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  38. Support. Phaedriel 09:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

  • Everything indicates support, but I haven't personally had much contact. Have you seriously not been nominated before? I'll support, but only if you promise to find three more qualified admin candidates--though of course it's obvious you don't need my support. :) - Taxman Talk 19:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
True, I have not been nominated before. There is another agenda which I would prefer to pursue, however; I am not sure that the admin role for the people who come to my mind would agree that admin is the appropriate role for them. There was another set of users when I first entered the community who have largely been eclipsed in the growth of the community since that time, and I hesitate to lay the expectations for an admin on them. However, most of them still edit. They tend to be self-effacing but still have the success of the project at heart. I am not really sure what the name of their role would be. So you can see that I am not committed to recruiting 3 more admins; rather, I do hope to somehow retain the inhabitants of the project when it was still the size of a large-sized village. I should mention that one of them, User:jnc (Noel) is already an admin, but who has felt the strains of administering a section of an encyclopedia which is now #24 in the world. I personally have an interest in keeping somehow encouraging Noel to remain active in the project. I got a user name at the request of mav, and even mav has resigned from Arbcom, which is also worrisome to me. But the editors who I have worked with on the Cats and the Portals come to mind as possible candidates. I have not investigated this tack before now, as I had slim hopes of ever becoming an admin before this. One problem is that I do not know their preferences about adminship, so it would be rash to commit to 3. However, your obvious interest in expanding the ranks of the admins is something which I had never considered before. One possibility would be for me to moot several names offline to you and to BD2412. Again I could list a handful, but who knows what would come of it? --Ancheta Wis 20:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I think it's clear we need more qualified admins, and it can be stressful as you've noted. I also think there are plenty of qualified editors out there, and we're just not finding them fast enough. Thus the root of my request which you've obviously taken seriously. I think I've only asked one person that wasn't willing to be nominated. Every person I have nominated has been successful though, even if it has only been a few. - Taxman Talk 21:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
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 anticipate Main Page work and changes to Selected anniversaries; before access was restricted to sysops I used to work on Selected anniversaries a lot. --Ancheta Wis 09:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. See the articles to which I have contributed that were Featured on the Main Page. I came to Wikipedia to work on Scientific method; the History of science is another article which I hope to help become a Featured article. --Ancheta Wis 09:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
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. DotSix was the worst. Fortunately DotSix is now blocked. I ran a process of discovery which aided in the block. The standard procedures are actually the best way to deal with editor-stress. --Ancheta Wis 09:40, 22 December 2005 (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.