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

TeaDrinker[edit]

Final (55/0/0); Ended 01:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

TeaDrinker (talk · contribs) - I'm more than happy to nominate TeaDrinker for adminship. The user has been with us since November of 2005, shortly after I joined, and has over 14,000 edits. TeaDrinker has been a steady editor with a nice spread across project spaces ever since registering the account[1]. Participation spreads across the whole project from creating a couple pages, uploading images, vandalism reversion, Wikipedia discussion, and New Pages patrolling. The user is civil and communicative, and has never been purposefully blocked (there is an accidental one in the log). I trust the user to help clean up, and you should too. Keegantalk 03:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Co-nomination - It's with great pleasure I'm able to offer this co-nomination for TeaDrinker. I've interacted with him numerous times since I've been on the project and found his judgement excellent. He's around just about everywhere; he's a great vandal fighter and always warns appropriately (a must for any admin in my opinion) and does some great new page patrolling. I value his comments at AfD's and this shows his thorough knowledge of the inclusion critera. He also edits articles, and has a sound knowledge of how we work around here. I really think that TeaDrinker will make a fine administrator, and I ask that you support this request. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Many thanks for the kinds words of the nominators. I accept.


Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: In my time on Wikipedia, I have enjoyed working on improving articles and editing. It is necessary at times, however, to employ tools to fight vandalism and maintain the quality of the project. I have requested blocking of more than 100 individuals at administrator intervention against vandalism, and tagged many pages for speedy deletion. I would use the tools to do this more efficiently, and process backlogs in those areas as need be. I have discussed deletions at articles for deletion (and related deletion discussions), and would certainly be happy to extend my work, as needed, implementing the consensus of those discussions.
My interest is to use the tools less, rather than more. In terms of blocking, page protection, deletions, etc., I hope to continue doing what I am already doing. However with admin tools, it will not be creating work for others.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: The work that I am most pleased with is almost always actual editing. I was glad to help out editing Walrus to meet Good Article Criteria, and am glad to work on creating new articles where I have some measure of knowledge (recently I have been looking at the dismal coverage of skates and rays, improving Common skate and creating a stub on Broad skate). While the bulk of my edits come from reverting vandalism, I consider it something of a chore. While I'm glad to do it, and I think it is necessary, I am happiest to work on actual editing.
One unusual contribution which I should perhaps mention was a study on the effect of welcoming new users. Helping new users to edit is a low-cost (in terms of time required) way of improving the quality of Wikipedia. I rather enjoy welcoming new users, and more recently, answering questions on the help desk.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Of course, I always have a bit of embarrassment when I screw something up (which I do from time to time). But that comes with doing anything. I am particularly worried when what I did discourages a new editor. While to some degree it is unavoidable, as mistakes are inevitable, it is always a bit disheartening.
Occasionally I feel myself getting cynical with advertising on Wikipedia. Early in my time on Wikipedia, I found if I didn't take a firm tone with people trying to advertise, they want to go though every procedure and process to try and get their link, page, book, etc. into Wikipedia. While I think many people are honestly unclear about what Wikipedia is all about (in fact, I created the ((welcomespam)) template for such cases), I dislike being less than encouraging.
As far as edit wars or editing, I tend to prefer something I dislike being on an article, at least for a time, rather than constantly revert (provided, of course, it is not simple vandalism). I occasionally find it a bit frustrating when other users don't discuss (or only use edit summaries to discuss) controversial edits.
I should add, however, Wikipedia has never been a major stressor in my life. In fact, I think I edited Wikipedia to relax after taking my graduate school qualifying exams. While I consider my work on Wikipedia to be useful and productive, it is also enjoyable.
4(from JoshuaZ 00:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)). You've turned down offers for nominations before. What has changed now so that you have accepted this nomination?[reply]
A Thanks for the question. I am now, and have been in the past, concerned about getting too involved in projects or taking on responsibilities which I would not have time for. It was as much psychological as any real responsibility, but I felt I could more easily ignore Wikipedia when I needed to study if I were not an admin. My studies are in a research-only phase (no classes or teaching), so I have a bit more flexibility with my time. As such I am less worried about day-to-day time management. But keeping time for my "real life" is still my biggest concern.
Man, and I thought it was because of the unstoppable duo of Ryan and Keegan. Thanks for crushing my wikiego! Keegantalk 06:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC) (humor intended)[reply]
5. An administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?--MONGO 18:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: The policy is here and I certainly intend on following it. The intent of the policy is to prevent wheel-warring, which is a valuable goal. Wheel waring is destructive to the project. The only exceptions I can imagine which are not in the policy would be compromised accounts or clearly destructive behavior (such as large scale and random blocks along with other vandalism which would be indistinguishable from a compromised account, of the Robdurbar nature).
6. I noticed you said you would use your admin tools less, but can you expound upon that in this question? - Upon becoming an admin, how much time would you dedicate to exclusively administrator related duties compared to editing encyclopedic content? Thanks Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 18:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, an excellent question, I should have been more clear. To me I think admin tools should be used conservatively--to accomplish a limited purpose which can not be achieved another way. Whenever possible it is wise to use the tools available to everyone to clean up vandalism. This is something I intend on continuing. Of course, sometimes intervention by an admin is necessary, and I would be happy to fill that role as needed. But I hope to continue editing as I have always done.
Said another way, I hope to have the same mix of editing and fighting vandalism as I have been doing in the past. If I notice backlogs which need an admin to help clear, I will pitch in there, but improving articles (whether categorized as such or not) always has a huge "backlog," in that articles always can be improved. So I want to work there as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TeaDrinker (talk • contribs) 19:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. -Co-nominator. Keegantalk 20:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as co-nom. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Thank you God for making someone nominate an editor who I don't have to oppose or vote neutral on. Through Jesus Christ, Amen.--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 20:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Another very easy support per the co-nominators, and the fact that this guy seems to stay as cool as a cucumber, which is sometimes hard to do on this project. Kscottbailey21:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. A fine user. Will made good use of the tools. Acalamari 21:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Capable and articulate user. Seems unlikely to abuse the tools. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Great attitude. Trustworthy. For what more can one ask? — madman bum and angel 21:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support -Of course. Good edit history, civil, polite and I believe trustworthy with tools.--Sandahl 21:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I agonized for hours before making this, likely the most important decision in my long life Keepscases 22:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support, we need more good newpage patrol admins. Tim Vickers 22:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I've heard of this user. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. NHRHS2010 talk 23:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Absolutely This user appears to be a cool-headed vandal fighter that has a high level of experience. Bravo. Icestorm815 23:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong support I tried to nom him last year but he refused. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Nice edit history, no apparent block history. Based on some of his talk page, and other contributions he MORE than knows what he is doing. He has my vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Businessman332211 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. JoshuaZ 01:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. support - One who values the consumption of tea enough to form his identity on wikipedia based upon it, can't be bad.:)Merkinsmum 02:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support No concerns here. A great editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Coffee Support No problem with Tea though... Jmlk17 05:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support I love tea <3 Phgao 06:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support More than qualified. --Sharkface217 06:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support I've encountered TeaDrinker in a couple of places and I am sure he would make an excellent admin. CIreland 07:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - per what other people have said. Weirdy Talk 09:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - of course. Addhoc 13:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Neil ☎ 14:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Majoreditor 14:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Btw, yep. I don't believe you're a Matthew-sock... — Dorftrottel⁠ 15:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Long overdue. Húsönd 18:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. What took this so long? TD is one of the calmest and most level-headed people on the whole project. His ability to stay cool and civil in provocative situations is truly amazing. Raymond Arritt 22:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. A thoroughly wonderful editor who I've been involved with in the past! Like a cup of tea, he serves only to calm nerves, and then serves as a caffeine boost to get on with editing. Good work that man. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 00:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Not a big fan of tea, but this guy I can support. Good luck! GlassCobra 02:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 08:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support, even though he's really a sockpuppet of Jimbo – Gurch 08:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support looks fine --Herby talk thyme 13:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support File under "thought he was already an admin" (probably because he's been around so long). Level-headedness is a great quality for an admin. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support--MONGO 04:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - Has my trust. Brusegadi 08:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support even though Im a coffee guy :P Looks good to me, will do well cleaning up.
    Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 20:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support John254 03:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support I thought you were an admin already! I could've sworn I'd already voted for you... Weird. I need to lay off the sauce.  Folic_Acid | talk  03:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Good contributor. utcursch | talk 04:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support per nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - very good set of contributions and good understanding and knowledge displayed. Great user. And I must agree with you, tea is one of my more preferred beverages. ;-) Lradrama 10:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support due to huge number of edits, especially mainspace, on topics requiring expert attention. It would be very useful to have an expert biologist like this at AfD, for vandalism, etc. Bearian 15:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Solid editor. No issues. --Fang Aili talk 20:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Excellent editor, with whom I have on occasion interacted in a wholly friendly fashion. Very good experience of and knowledge of wikipedia. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support good editor will make a good admin. Carlossuarez46 03:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support, a civil user with an admirable record. --Bradeos Graphon 12:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support — Save_Us_229 17:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Trustworthy (and with a great username :) Anthøny 18:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support User has great Patience, does not bite newbies, and stands as a role model for Wikipedians he encounters as I see it. - Gilliam 07:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support As per track see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards 21:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Great job so far, definitely worthy of a higher workload of tedious tasks. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 22:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - everything seems to be in order. WjBscribe 22:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Who could object?--Bedivere 22:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Seems to make an excellent contributions, no concerns I'm aware of, a user name after mine own heart (is it too soon to blanket oppose other caffeinated-beverage-oriented user names), and I'll even forgive the redundancy of "co-nomination" as a bona fide timing issue, rather than a "pile-on". Alai 22:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
# Oppose. TeaDrinker is probably a sockpuppet of User:Matthew – Gurch 12:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, Gurch, don't be that guy. — Dorftrottel⁠ 13:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you mean "that guy"? :D – Gurch 14:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, you're a Gmaxwell-sock. I somehow knew it all along! — Dorftrottel⁠ 15:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's right, Dortroffell... or should I say Ryan Postlethwaite – Gurch 15:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've got me there. It seams to me we shouldn't use our socks just to prove a point. Ok. I think the joke is officially lying dead in the ditch. — Dorftrottel⁠ 16:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am, perhaps, missing some of the background here. But for the record, this is the only account I have ever edited from. --TeaDrinker 17:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Majorly, oppose #23. It's now acceptable to claim candidates are sockpuppets of random other people, even in the face of conclusive evidence to the contrary, and with absolutely no evidence to support said claim – Gurch 19:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that makes sense. I couldn't find any reason Matthew and I were at all similar. Thanks for the explanation. --TeaDrinker 19:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't meant it intentionally. Everything that happened above seemed to be a joke. --businessman332211 04:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was trying to make a point (no, not a point, a point), but it seems that nobody took me seriously. Evidentiy you have to be a checkuser on some other wiki in order for that to happen. Never mind – Gurch 08:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
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.
Category