Great contributor - untold thousands of edits either under this name or at previous name Andylehrer since March 10. He was nominated a couple of times a month or two ago, and there seems to have been a general sense that more time was needed. But many people seem to become admins after three months or so, and he's made tons and tons of edits. john k 21:53, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the nomination. I accept. AndyL 03:08, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Support

1. john k 21:53, 13 Jun 2004 UTC)
2. Support strongly. GrazingshipIV 23:04, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)
3. —No-One  Jones 23:50, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
4. 172 02:04, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
5. Danny 02:07, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
6. Snowspinner 16:50, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
7. Warofdreams 17:53, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
8. Support -- "DICK" CHENEY 18:41, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
9. older≠ wiser 18:45, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
10. Jwrosenzweig 19:10, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
11. BCorr| Брайен 17:52, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
12. Neutrality 18:02, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
13. David Gerard 19:46, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
14. Kingturtle 23:23, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
15. pir 23:32, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
16. The Undertones 07:22, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
17. Tuf-Kat 21:39, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
18. SimonP 00:18, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
19. Lst 27 03:43, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
20. Tεx τ urε 23:38, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
21. Secretlondon 01:25, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
22. Cecropia | Talk 01:47, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
23. Cribcage 03:32, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Impolite POV warrior. Generally good editor, but thats not what this job entails. Seems to have no grasp of Wikiquette nor wikipedia:civility. Sam [ Spade] 00:49, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• I'm inclined to support, given my limited contact with Andy. Sam (or others), if you believe he's been uncivil or impolite, please offer a link or two? The only times I've seen Andy even get upset are in conversations with WHEELER, and while of course it is always better to remain calm, anyone here who's worked with WHEELER knows that frustration is often a product of that interaction. I intend to support in a couple of days, but will wait to see what counter-evidence there may be -- thanks. Jwrosenzweig 16:41, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I was refering mainly to the regularly acidic dialogue on Talk:Nazism and socialism, particularly in the archives. He utilized ad hominem arguments regularly, and pressed a "socialism has never truely existed (except maybe in cuba...)" POV. Sam [ Spade] 17:50, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't recall ad hominems, and I certainly don't recall any praise of Castro's Cuba. I do remember some of the "socialism has never truly existed" stuff, but only in talk. I've had some disagreements with him over edits (at the page Sam cites, for instance), but I've always thought he's handled it pretty well. john k 19:03, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Sam, I've read through the last three archives at the page. I had to go all the way to the end of March to find behavior of Andy's that seemed at all questionable to me, and I would say that, given the context, Andy was behaving essentially like everyone else -- that is, there was a bitt of "point-scoring" and rhetoric flying around, which he took part in for a while. It isn't significant enough to cause me much concern, especially given that, since that time, he has shown a remarkable amount of calm on that page, even during WHEELER's frenzied assertions that Nazism was "LEFT LEFT LEFT!!!" Anyone who can hang on to their senses in that situation has enough patience for me, especially as I see no ad hominem attacks even in Andy's more wild discussions from late March. Andy is welcome to have opinions that I disagree with, as long as he handles himself well, and I believe he has. Jwrosenzweig