Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Letsdrinktea

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Letsdrinktea

Nomination

Voice your opinion (talk page) (11/19/4); Scheduled to end 19:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Withdrawn by candidate.--Giants27 ^T/C 23:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Links for Letsdrinktea: Letsdrinktea (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Letsdrinktea can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Letsdrinktea before commenting.

Discussion

• Amusingly, all of the supports so far have bad jokes about the candidates username. Sam ^Blab 21:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was the point. Unfortunately, the only thing it does is make the supports seem frivolous. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mine is an expression of moral support. Cuppa?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same for me. In some case I like to throw in an early support or the first one for a good faith nom before somebody comes along and closes it. Sorry if it came across as bad joke or frivolous, but I simply picked up on the image put there by the candidate. Anyways it shall count as support now. --

Tikiwont (talk) 09:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

1. I'll have a cup.--
   Tikiwont (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. Pass the sweetener. Sam ^Blab 20:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Where's my tea bag?--Giants27 ^T/C 20:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Herbal for me, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. talk) 22:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. Weak support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards as candidate has never been blocked and per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Aarons (2nd nomination) (now obviously use "cruft" is why my support is weak; however, the editor kept an open-minded and changed his stance after new information was presented in the AfD, i.e. actually approached it as a discussion rather than a vote). Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support My experiences with this editor have been good - clueful, diligent, and a fast learner. The opposing votes will point out some mistakes made in haste, but I'm of the firm (possibly biased?) belief that getting some feedback such as this is all good editors need to improve. More than absolute perfection, I'm concerned with an editor's overall character and intelligence and the ability to learn from mistakes - with Letsdrinktea I have had no reason to question it. FlyingToaster
8. Support. Looks good to me.
   talk) 03:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
   ]
9. Support. Sufficiently experienced, shows an interest in helping with administrative backlogs, no reason to think he'll delete the main page. Cool3 (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Don't forget the
    Mailer Diablo 14:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
11. I'll support and sit down. Wizardman 16:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Regretful Oppose You could use more experience in other areas of Wikipedia. I'm sure another RfA would succeed after some more work. Maybe do more work in the article namespace? -download | sign! 20:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose Good work, but you need to be around for awhile longer, in my opinion. Keep up the good work though and I'm sure you'll pass easily in a couple of months, either way (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Additionally, I think your edit summary usage (which is at 77% for major edits) needs to come up. Edits like this definitely would benefit from an edit summary. either way (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose. This account's first edits were in 2008. It was substantially inactive until Feb 2009. After a couple weeks of editing they want to be an admin. Assuming good faith, the user has insufficient experience. While anonymous editing is allowed, if you want to be an admin you need to have a transparent history that we can inspect. You say you have experience, but I am not willing to hand over the tools on your say so. How do we know that you haven't caused problems with prior accounts? Come back after you have a documented track record. Jehochman ^Talk 20:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose - While I don't necessarily doubt this candidate's anonymous past activity, adminship requires a degree of clarity and a history of perceptible editing. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose. I almost supported, but decided to check your speedy taggings just in case, and I found a number of errors in tagging (such as this and this. All can be found here). While I think you will make a good administrator in the future, I do not think you are ready yet based on the taggings. Sorry, Malinaccier (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose For someone who wants to work in speedy deletion, your speedy work is pretty bad, to say it bluntly. Let me elaborate:
   • A7 for a book (books cannot be deleted under A7)
   • A7 with claims of notability (bassist for a notable band)
   • Another A7 like that (representing a nation at the Eurovision Song Contest 2009 is a good indication for notability)
   • A7 one minute(!) after creation
   • A7 despite reliable source and experienced creator
   • A7 for a soccer player who plays for a notable club
   • A7 for a village (A7 cannot be used for geographical places and it's long-standing consensus that all towns are notable)

   The candidate lacks basic understanding of speedy deletion, especially A7. As one of those who cleans out CAT:CSD and has to decline such speedies all the time, I would advise against this candidate. He needs to work on his speedy work to avoid such blatant mistakes. SoWhy 22:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Regarding the one minute tagging - I think you'll find most speedy deletion tags are marked within one minute of article creation. If this is not acceptable, you've got the entire new page patrol workforce to notify. I also want to add that with the sheer volume of new page patrolling that users like Letsdrinktea do, there are bound to be a few mistakes. Nothing a clueful editor can't learn from and correct in my opinion. FlyingToaster 02:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I am fine with fast taggings, but they should be avoided in cases where the article is clearly still being written and where the text already indicates notability. Also, I know that people make mistakes and can learn from them, but as these mistakes are mostly from two days ago, I fail to see the necessary CLUEfulness, at least at the moment. It's fine to make some mistakes when it comes to applying a tag, but not knowing to which articles A7 cannot be applied to shows a basic lack of knowledge regarding

   WP:CSD. The same goes for tagging articles that clearly indicate importance or significance. Regards SoWhy 09:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   If most speedy deletion tags are marked within a minute of creation then the entire new page patrol workforce is obviously ignoring

   Phil Bridger (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

   ]

7. Oppose -- needs more exposure in other areas of Wikipedia, and lack of A7 knowledge (which is what the editor should be able to do since that is what they planned on using the admin tools for) puzzles me.--₮RUCӨ 01:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Agreed with Jehochman, and I've posted the edit count on the talk page. - Dan
   push to talk) 01:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
   ]
9. Oppose I'm sorry, but I agree with Wisdom89. Not to harp, as personally I don't try to harp on editcount, you have only truely been active for two months. But that is not the main reason. Sorry. America69 (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose per SoWhy and Jehochman. Try again perhaps in a few months and more experience. Sorry. - Fastily (talk) 04:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose I'm generally not a stickler for edit counts, but as far as I can see, you have 1339 edits of which 1329 of them have been in the last six weeks, I just don't feel that this is enough experience. Great contributions so far, if you keep up the enthuasim you've shown over the past month and a half, I'm going to really want to support you in a few months when you have a bit more experience. Take care, Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose I'm sorry, but I will invoke
    WP:NOTNOW and advise you to come back when you have at minimum tripled your number of edits working in the areas as noted by SoWhy above. ArcAngel (talk) 06:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
13. Just a bit too soon. Your wikichecker results show that the vast bulk (all bar about 10) of your edits have been in about 3 weeks. That's just not enough experience of WP as a whole. Turn on the edit summary reminder in preferences, and work a little more on article creation. Great start though, come back in a few months and I expect to support you :) --GedUK  08:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose. Sketchy CSD work forces me to oppose, especially when the subject is clearly notable and subjects don't fall under the speedy criteria.
    Mentality 15:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
15. Oppose. I agree with Wisdom89 and SoWhy brings up some valid points, too. Useight (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose To gain my support in the future, Letsdrinktea needs to gain more experience in the fields where he/she intends to work in order to keep from making the easily-avoidable mistakes made in mass tagging pointed out by SoWhy. hmwithτ 18:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose. Limited mainspace content contributions. Letsdrinktea also requires a better understanding of the deletion process. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose - Well intentioned user, hesitant to support with so little active time editing, though. — 
    neuro^(talk) 21:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
19. You've done good work, but I'm afraid I must agree with Jehochman. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Thank you for submitting your RFA. While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid you do not yet possess sufficient knowledge/experience for the community to have confidence in your readiness to become an admin. But that does not mean that the community will never have confidence in you. Generally, It has been my experience that it takes at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to demonstrate a knowledge of policy and guidelines that is enough to attempt adminship. While it is possible to pass with below that, nominees have very rarely done so in recent times. My suggestion would be to withdraw and try again in another 4 months and 2-3000 edits. Many nominees have found it helpful to obtain an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA and after passing that benchmark. Hope this helps. Good luck and happy editing. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   I've been on Wikipedia long enough, no need for generic newby messages LetsdrinkTea 20:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Perhaps giving you my standard NOTNOW response was not the best idea; I have struck the link to

   WP:NOTNOW. In any case, however, I do not see enough experience for me to adequately check if you have the knowledge to be an administrator. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

   ]

2. Neutral leaning support - While I tend to support most RfAs per
   2216firestar 20:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. Mmm, mmm, mmmmm....I almost !voted support. I've seen Letsdrinktea around, and s/he seems to have a level head. Additionally, I can't stand raw editcountitis, and 1,000 edits is generally enough for me. However, when reviewing his/her summary contribs, I see a few things that give me pause. The percentage of Article edits is slightly lower than what I would like to see, but not significant enough to oppose. But less than 1% of his/her contribs are to the Talk namespace. That, to me, does not show enough community interaction to judge suitability for adminship. I do acknowledge that Letsdrinktea has a higher percentage of User talk edits, and maybe all issues s/he has been involved with have been resolved by communicating via that namespace. I also like to see at least six months of steady activity (not necessarily high-level activity all the time, but a minimum of 30 edits each month). All things considered, though, I cannot !vote oppose, because I have not seen anything extremely negative from the candidate to this point, but neither can I !vote support. Best of luck. Hermione1980 21:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral: You're going the right way, but you will need more experience to be an admin I think. Maybe in a few more months... Chamal ^talk 12:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.