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

BritandBeyonce[edit]

Final (25/18/6); Closed as unsuccessful by WjBscribe at 00:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BritandBeyonce (talk · contribs) - User:BritandBeyonce has made several contributions to wikipedia since joining in July 2007. He has mainly focused on improving the quality standards of articles relating to music and the Philippines. He has created several articles relating to the Philippines, some of which, have earned him awards. User:BritandBeyonce is also aware of the policies and guidelines of wikipedia, and is able to handle editing conflicts and edit wars with a cool head and will rarely go into heated debate with another user or a group of other users. Though he has only been an editor for a short amount of time, he has become an extremely experienced editor, and has demonstrated the skills needed to become an administrator of wikipedia. His edits have helped improved the quality standards of various articles on wikipedia, and I believe that he can put these skills to even more good use with the new functions he recieves if he were accepted as an admin. JayJ47 (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yes, I'll accept the offer.


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: I've been working on images before, so bearing the tools will be useful for me. I've been eye-ing users and IPs. Like others, they been trying to guide newbies and users who try to ruin pages, so I'm apt for that. I'm active on Philippine TfD and AfD. Also, in the future, I might enter to other arenas where admins are greatly needed. Whatever task someone might give me, I'll accept it and execute as long as I have the time. I'm usually eager to do things that it came to an extent user:Seav told me to try not to be too zealous.
Tools useful for me
Note: I am apt on doing several of the works of an Admin as stated on this: Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I don't have any created articles bearing the FA sign, but I've been editing since July 2007, and been helping bulk of pages, somehow. I do random and "subtle" but substantial edits. Been working on most music-related articles. I've been tagging images with fair use problems. There was even a user who was mad at me for bothering him about the image which apparently lacks the needed information. (S)he said, "...now go and do something productive." Anyway, I was not afraid on him/her, I just stop working on it when I realized that it's better to leave the task to bots and admins.
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: First time I had a conflict was on images when I tagged them without knowing that it was wrong. After learning it, I said sorry to the other user. On pages, I had a conflict with user:17Drew, but not much. Just misunderstandings on a certain field that later caused him to request for an infobox field removal. On talk pages, I had two instances when I acted uncivilly but not deliberately. I readily said sorry, and I will if I'm not in the right place. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. What was your justification for making this edit? Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: All I did was in compliance to WikiProject Songs. Basing on music-related FAs, their corresponding infoboxes don't bear icons. I also fixed this per project's guideline which states, Drop words like "Records" from the end of the label's name (e.g. use Universal rather than Universal Records). --BritandBeyonce (talk) 05:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, before i forgot, I removed the song in this sentence Despite positive critical response, the song failed to chart due to lack of radioplay and promotion of the song. because its redundant. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about the date formatting in the edit I linked too? Dihydrogen Monoxide 08:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My concern was that if I would read it aloud, the flow would be like this: one December two-thousand and seven. Sounds awkward. Anyway, when I knew its Australian style of writing, I did not revert it. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 06:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from F9T:

5. If you had 3 Pepsi's, and drink one, how much more of an admin are you? // F9T 09:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: Still three? --BritandBeyonce (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Simply south (talk · contribs)

6 Of your articles and contributions to Wikipedia, are there any of which you are not proud of? If so, why?

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. I have seen nothing but good from this user: I have encountered BritandBeyonce work around pages to do with Beyonce Knowles and Rihanna, and I am always impressed. BritandBeyonce's work with images and knowledge of them is good too. Don't be discouraged if this doesn't pass: some of our best admins didn't pass RfA the first time either. Acalamari 02:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per Acalamari. I think all editors on Wikipedia need to focus on improving content, as opposed to just reverting content. miranda 05:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - I'm especially impressed with your answer to question #1. I like your attitude. We need more volunteers like you. The Transhumanist 05:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - Like the question 1, and as per The Trashhumanist, a nice attitude. // F9T 11:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak Support I have a feeling that your lack of project space contributions are going to sink this RfA, as recognised by VanTucky below (though six months may be a bit too long assuming you heed some advice). The relativley low levels of contributions in this area make me nervous, hence a weak support. However, per others above, your Q1 answer is ace, and a trawl through your user talk page shows a commited and civil editor. You clearly want the tools solely to help out further, and that's what it's all about. Like I say, if this doesn't pass I look forward to some slightly broader participation and a succesful RfA in maybe three months. Very best wishes. Pedro :  Chat  13:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Seems to understand use of tools for images. As Pedro says, is civil and committed. Meets User:Dlohcierekim/standards. Dlohcierekim 16:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - most of what I have to say has already been said: Your lack of project space edits is likely going to kill your RfA. The issue there is that every RfA turns into an edit count and a "How much adminstuff are they already doing?" poll. I believe that you are an excellent candidate who will use the tools productively, and that the fact you are not just an NP and RC patroller does not pose an issue to me. Wikipedia needs more administrators who are willing to do more than blocking and deleting; admins who will work on page writing and use the tools as they see fit, not 24/7. Thus, I support this nomination and, though it likely will not pass, offer you congratulations for your work, and hope that you will continue to be such a productive editor. --tennisman 16:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support in the absence of anything damning. I believe that the experience in mainspace shows that the user has a good understanding of policy. And the general attitude convinces me that BritandBeyonce can handle difficult situations calmly. - TwoOars 18:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - this user does good work. - eo (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support, good editor. Everyking (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - I'm not concerned that this user will misuse the tools. Inxperience doesn't worry me either; the teachable attitude demonstrated in the answer to question 1 is crucial for any admin candidate. An interest in image processing, which always needs help, is a big plus. Nothing personal against the oppose voters - we've all got our own viewpoints - but I feel there's a bandwagon of "per above"s forming here based upon editcountitis. If this user has demonstrated past behavior that is contrary to good Wikipedia practice, that's one thing, but I don't see that here. There've been plenty of good admins who started with less edits than this candidate. Tijuana Brass (talk) 06:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - Nothing to oppose. Great user. NF24(radio me!) 11:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support per WP:AGF. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 22:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weak Support - The answers to the questions could have been better thought out... PookeyMaster (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - I see no reason not to support. --Peter Andersen (talk) 11:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Opposers have come up with a total of 0 reasons why he shouldn't be an admin... so I support. Majorly (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support I'm sorry, did I see someone say your edit count (6000+) was too low?!?!?!?!? People are nuts around here. Answers could have been a bit better, but the RfA process has nothing to do with edit counts. It's about whether or not you'll abuse the admin tools, and I see nothing that causes me concern. Gromlakh (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Good content contributions, won't abuse the tools, and knows what he is doing with images. Most of the opposes strike me as particularly poorly aligned with what it takes to produce good content. His answers are not bad and who cares how many edits he has in a given namespace. That's just an excuse not to review the users actual contributions to decide if they will make a good admin. - Taxman Talk 15:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support I am behind you 100%. 6000 edits in six months. That is extremely impressive after only editing for six months. JayJ47 (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Hemmingsen 07:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - Garion96 (talk) 10:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support What's there to oppose?--Bedivere (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Most of the opposer's are opposing for reasons I do not agree with. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 23:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support He is deserving to be administrator.--Joseph Solis in Australia (talk) 06:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Just what's wrong with editing stuff on female pop singers, anyway? *Dan T.* (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose per unsatisfactory responses to questions. John254 22:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose (reluctantly) This user has some really great mainspace contributions, I've mostly experienced their work through GA. However, with less than 200 projectspace edits, I seriously doubt they have the sufficient experience to deal with admin duties. Try again in six months after you've accrued a wider range of contributions, and I'd be more than happy to support. VanTucky 01:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. I would have liked to see longer and more thought out answers to the questions. I also find the lack of projectspace work troubling. I suggest that this user spends a few months working in several areas of projectspace and then tries again. Trusilver (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Weak answers lacking content. Lack of variety of editing experience.[1] No visible need for the tools. Doczilla (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose: Not enough edits outside of mainspace, and edit count is a tad too low. Answers were lacking in content for the most part, and the tools needed aren't really enough to satisfy adminship. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How many edits is an "acceptable" amount? BritandBeyonce has over 6000, and over half are to the mainspace, and nearly 3000 to other namespaces. Also, regarding "need" for tools, does that matter? Do you think he will abuse them? Acalamari 17:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is really editcountitis at its worst; the user has over 6k edits; I've seen RfAs pass with fewer than 4k. What purpose does opposing on this basis serve? And also, IMHO, it's not a question of whether they really need the tools but of whether or not they will use them wisely. If someone desires the tools, I say, (as long as they are a decent editor) give them to them! --tennisman 14:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak, Weak Oppose Per aboves. SpencerT♦C 12:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per above comments. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - per the above comments. General lack of experience. Rudget. 16:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose - though users that know image policy like the back of their hand is good, i feel like this users still shows a lack of experience. I would like to see more discussion with the community invloving policy. Tiptoety talk 20:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose - not enough experience, poor answers to questions. Bearian (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Just not quite there yet... come back in a couple months perhaps. Jmlk17 05:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Weak Oppose Can't support, sorry. GlassCobra 06:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Weak oppose per Bearian. Also doesn't seem experienced enough in all the necessary areas. Come back at a later date though and request adminship, as this user has shown some good work so far.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weak oppose Needs more exposure to areas related to being an admin. Fine otherwise. Lawrence Cohen 00:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose I would expect a candidate for RfA to make the most of themselves, and particularly in the answers to questions, I don't see that User:BritandBeyonce has done so here. This is not a criticism of him personally but the impression I get is someone with limited expertise and lacking the self-confidence to be robust when the situation requires. I am fully prepared to support candidate in the future if these issues are addressed and his experience is a little broader. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per Bearian.--Strothra (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Regretful oppose with support to this user's dedication. The oppose is due to the combined effect of two weak factors. First, with all due respect there is a certain simplicity and perhaps even lack of (wiki-)maturity to the answers to the questions. Notwithstanding supporters' assurances that BandB has shown himself able to learn (assurances I have not verified but am willing to believe), image policy is a particularly tricky part of wikipolicy combining a need for legal understanding, policy understanding, and human empathy and hence I feel a need for greater-than-usual assurance of maturity from someone who already intends to be active in this area. Second, while in itself a minor issue, I do think the BritandBeyonce username is a bit unfortunately fancrufty for an admin. I respect BandB's right to use the name and it is not contrary to username policy, but admins for better or worse represent wikipedia and I am worried about the reputational impact of someone with such a name "laying down the law" to, for instance, an experienced external expert (or upset BLP victim, or image copyright owner whose image has unfortunately been uploaded with the wrong license information) who is a wikipedia newbie and in need of guidance to avoid disruption. Martinp (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for providing thoughtful rationale; it's sad when you see one conversation so lacking in it. I too had reservations on the username—it certainly doesn't reflect maturity, but in the end I didn't feel it overshadowed the positive contributions. - Taxman Talk 01:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that. I've been thinking of changing my username but it is in that name where I found personal satisfaction (when contributing Wikipedia). Anyway, it's not that very hard to change username. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 07:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose Several of these reasons have been mentioned above, but I will also stress them. This user seems motivated and wants to help out here, which is great. However, I strongly agree with the comments about the apparent lack of (wiki)maturity. Yes, the username does add to it. I see that he's had a lot of featured article work and such, and that makes him a great editor, but not necessarily an admin. I like to see a lot of namespace edits, usually, to show an understanding of policy. Plus, I don't see a great range in his editing. He seems to mostly stick to articles relating to female pop singers. I'd like to see a broader range. I see a potential issue with username "BritandBeyonce" working on those pages. It would make Wikipedia seem biased, in my opinion. I'd likely support at a later date, once these issues are resolved. нмŵוτнτ 15:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. I am this because the answers to the questions are poor especially question 1. If this answer at least could be expanded. Otherwise your mainspace and other areas show you are experienced and that although i am not sure about 4 months experience. Simply south (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been here for almost six months. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral edit count is okay, articles are okay, too. But the answers to the questions, especially question 1, are not okay. If you would say more clearly, why you need the tools, I'll changes to Support. —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral per Simply south; from question one I'm not too sure exactly how the tools will be used. However; great mainspace work! Midorihana~いいですね？ 02:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral I don't see anything YET that indicates he is familiar with admin actions and processes like blocking and deleting, nor do I see a real understanding of what an admin does. Awaiting elaboration on answers above before making final decision, but leaning towards oppose... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral I'd like to support, but the opposes concern me. I can't decide whether to support or oppose. NHRHS2010 talk 10:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral, because you haven't actually convinced me that you need the tools. Lankiveil (talk) 12:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    Does that matter? Do you believe he will abuse them? Acalamari 17:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Intentional abuse may not be the issue. Well meaning admins can still cause lots of damage through ignorance as much as intent... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:48, 16 January 2008 (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.
Category