Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Antandrus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Antandrus

final (35/0/0) ending 03:50 8 April 2005 (UTC)

Antandrus has been here just a few days shy of a year now and has 7238 edits—252 of which are new articles, and loads of which are cleaning up after miscellaneous vandals. He is unfailingly courteous, reasonable, and level-headed, as well as a Ph. D., former journal editor, and current confessed Wikipediholic, and he finally came around to realizing he didn't need 10,000 edits [1] before he'd have a use for the keys to the broom closet. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:52, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Candidate please indicate acceptance of the nomination here

Thank you; I'm humbled; I accept. I promise to do my level best as an administrator, and help in any way I can. Antandrus 04:10, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:58, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. I am appalled that Antandrus isn't yet an admin. What was everyone thinking??? Grutness|hello? 05:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. I've seen good work. Meelar (talk) 07:10, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Keep up with good work. -- Darwinek 10:51, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Rje 11:58, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  6. The only reason I didn't nominate him months ago was that his user page said he didn't want to be an admin. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 13:03, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  7. of course dab (ᛏ) 13:57, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  8. Good editor, and good defender against vandalism. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:57, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  9. The musicabal strikes again! --Michael Snow 18:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  10. Merovingian (t) (c) (w) 19:30, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  11. <repeat Taco Deposit's sentiments> Tuf-Kat 19:32, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  12. <sarcasm><April Fool's>Antandrus has been here just a few days. Not enough experience; therefore, I oppose. </sarcasm></April Fool's> --Lst27 (talk) 23:27, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support. Prolific contributor who has contributed excellent articles. Dbiv 23:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support. His user and talk pages show us he works well with others, as does a review of comments left on discussion pages. Jonathunder 23:46, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
  15. Support. Excellent editor and will make an excellent admin. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:43, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support Pavel Vozenilek 01:01, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support. --JuntungWu 06:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support. jni 11:52, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support. I like his/her numerous contributions. Paradiso 13:01, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support. Fire Star 04:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support. Looks like a good user. -- Sundar (talk • contribs) 06:27, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support. Quite a few of the articles seem a bit stubbish, but there probably isn't so much more to say on many of these bios. Talk pages show character. Overall, I'm impressed. -- Solipsist 10:46, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support. Good user, good contributions. Carbonite | Talk 14:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support. Edit history indicates that Antandrus will use Admin powers in line with policy and to good effect. Jayjg (talk) 19:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support! - Lucky 6.9 02:47, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  26. Like a life without music, a Wikipedia without Antandrus would be a mistake. -- Hadal 05:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  27. Awesome editor with tons of experience. Obvious support. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:45, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support for the ARTS! - RoyBoy 800 05:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support. Adam Bishop 02:42, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support. Seen his work:Good. I trust Antandrus not to abuse admin powers.--Jondel 02:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support. Joyous 11:05, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support. With those skills, the job is yours if you want it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:28, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  33. David Gerard 23:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support Zzyzx11 02:12, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  35. Mike H 03:50, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

  • 5249 edits to the main namespace. —Korath (Talk) 04:34, Apr 1, 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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. The most obvious chore with which I can help immediately is reverting vandalism. I do some of this almost every day, and watching RC has become one of my favorite activities when I'm not quite up to writing articles. I am also more than willing to help out on the other chores which have been until now a little farther from my radar, such as cleaning out the copyright violation page.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Rather than point to any one particular article, I'll invite anyone interested to look at my contributions. When I came to Wikipedia a year ago, after getting over my initial euphoria that such a site could possibly exist (does anyone else remember that feeling?) I determined to fill out the area of my expertise, which happened to be at the time almost entirely empty. This area (early European music, from the Middle Ages to the early Baroque) contained a few stubs, as well as some articles copied from the 1911 Britannica and the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia. I thought that it would be important to try to fill this enormous gap with basic, yet sufficiently thorough articles: better than Britannica if possible. I'm still on this mission, and writing in this area, frankly, is one of the most fun things I do in my free time: after a year of writing I still have a lot of enthusiasm for the project.
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 will deal with it in the future?
A. I'm fortunate in this regard that there have been relatively few conflicts in the classical music area; overall it has been one of the most collegial and conflict-free on Wikipedia.
I consider myself to be easygoing and tolerant; I am yet to be in an edit war, not counting multiple vandalism reverts. I'm not going to be going on any campaigns to ban people or overhaul policy to my liking. It ain't broke; frankly I think it works pretty well. Look through my contribution history to see my style of interacting with other users. I am a strong believer in Wikipedia:Civility and WP:NPOV.
In "real life" I manage a department of technicians and programmers and specialists in various scientific disciplines at a big company. Conflicts are rife there: dealing with them is a large part of my job, and I think I'm pretty good at it. I'll be honest with you: I came to Wikipedia because I wanted an outlet for my years of schooling, and musical knowledge, none of which I am able to use in my day job: and I came here because it was a marvelous stress-relief from my day job. I'm not crazy about becoming involved in conflict because I deal with it all day, and generally I strive to avoid it. Yet conflict is a fact of life wherever human beings interact. I believe in solving disputes by persuading people to come together, talk to each other, and actually listen to what the other is saying, rather than by threatening them or hitting them with a hammer. Sometimes, as with persistent vandals and unrepentent POV-warriors, a hammer is a useful tool, but far less often than many suppose; the overwhelming majority of conflicts can be defanged by persistence, understanding and civility.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_Antandrus_47b1.html"