Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AndyL

User:AndyL (3/9/9); ends 04:10, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

AndyL's contributions are always scrupulously informed and scholarly. Although he hasn't been a user for a long time, he works on a daily basis and is extremely active, methodical, and efficient. His prodigious user history (almost two thousand edits in a remarkably short time span) already establishes him among the most valuable WP users in the site's history. He is so productive and such a good task manager on a daily basis that he puts to shame a sizable number of the other academics on this site (and esp. myself, I'll grudgingly admit). 172 04:10, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think the nomination is probably premature (though I'm not prepared to say if elected I will not serve:) but thanks to my nominator and thanks to people for the kind comments. AndyL 00:49, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Support:

1. 172 04:05, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
2. Support, looks like he knows what he's doing Comrade Nick
3. Danny 02:53, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC).

Oppose:

1. Although this user has made a lot of contributions, he has only been a logged in user for 18 days. I will definitely consider supporting him for adminship after more time has passed. Maximus Rex 04:15, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
2. Agreed with Mirv.....although I might have to wait till 8 weeks on principle. :-) Still, an excellent user with an incredible track record already. Jwrosenzweig 15:44, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
   • This is taking the fetishization of procedures way too far. Had he made the same number of contributions of the same quality over a period of, say two years, we wouldn't have a single vote in opposition. The short time span of his user history only proves the incredible rate which he's been working. The world's being turned upside down if this is viewed as a reason to hold off on voting for adminship. BTW, AndyL's also proven to be remarkably good at diffusing tensions on WP. On his own, I bet he would be able to prevent dozens of edit wars in the time that other users want to wait before voting to grant admin status. This is clearly an exceptional case and there are compelling pragmatic reasons to disregard how long he's been a logged in user. 172 15:53, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
     • 172, all I'll say is this. Admins need to prove they can stay out of trouble. Right now, Andy's made so many edits in so little time that I want to wait a bit to make sure I see others react to his edits, and then see how he responds to their reactions. I think he'll respond fine, but I want to wait and see. Now may my vote be considered legitimate? :-) Jwrosenzweig 16:00, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) P.S. What pragmatic reasons, may I ask? I'm very open to hearing and considering them.
3. Tεxτurε 16:19, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) - agree with Jwrosenzweig.
4. I agree, its too soon, but please try again after another six weeks. Warofdreams 18:49, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
5. Too soon -- will certainly be renominated after a bit. BCorr|Брайен 18:58, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)
6. No way. AndyL completely disrespects my work and I shudder to think of the retribution he would bring down upon me if he was an admin. TDC 21:05, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)
   1. Can we have an example of a conflict between you two to look at please? Snowspinner 22:01, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      1. I assume it's a reference to their edit war over Allegations of human rights abuses in Castro's Cuba. Niteowlneils 22:17, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
         1. There are other topics in which TDC has come to blow with Andy, and others, including me. see Talk:Fascism, for instance. john 04:52, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
            1. For the record, TDC's allegations are baseless and absurd. Yes, there have been edit conflicts between TDC and AndyL -- after all, this is Wikipedia and everyone is involved in an edit conflict with someone else! Moreover, AndyL's comments have always been well-informed, clear, and patient beyond belief. He has never been abusive or even mildly hostile (e.g. sarcasm, abruptness) to TDC or anyone to my knowledge. There is no reason at all to believe that he would bring down retribution on anywone. TDC's comment perverts the process of selecting admins. Slrubenstein
7. Andy may become a good candidate, but this nomination is premature. I concur 100% with Jwrosenzweig's comment, above. Cribcage 06:04, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
8. Rude, assumes bad faith, and appears unable to debate in a polite manner. Sam Spade 23:51, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
9. Nothing wrong with a little patience. -- Dissident (Talk) 18:31, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:

1. No-One Jones 13:50, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) If anyone deserves an early adminship, it's him; however a little bit of seasoning and experience never hurt anybody. I'll be the first to support after another six three weeks or so. [I hadn't realized how long he had been contributing as Andylehrer. Anyone agreeing with me was agreeing with a previous version of this comment] —No-One Jones 05:28, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
2. Agree with Mirv. LUDRAMAN | T 16:28, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
3. What's the hurry? Isomorphic 18:38, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
4. Slrubenstein 18:40, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) I have to agree with Mirv and Ludraman. But I urge others to keep a sharp eye on AndyL, and make him a sysop as soon as is reasonable -- thus far he has demonstrated an absolute commitment to serious scholarship, clear writing, and congeniality. I am certain that he would make a superb administrator.
5. john 04:52, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC). I'd note that while the User:AndyL has only been about for 18 days, he posted for an additional 20 days or so as User:Andylehrer before he, by his own account, forgot his password. But still, perhaps, too early - nevertheless, I think he definitely could do the job. john 04:52, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
6. Has Andy accepted the nomination yet? I hope he requests his old contributions be moved to his new username, for the purposes of future discussions like this. +sj+ 10:07, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)
7. His comments in declining earned him a lot of credit in my book, though. Meelar 02:45, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
8. Good user with excellent potential, give it time.GrazingshipIV 01:55, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
9. Lst27 20:22, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)