Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Beko120

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

Beko120

Final (0/4/0); ended 18:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Closure as per WP:SNOW, the candidate obviously has not shown any of the characteristics which the community seeks in a potential administrator. Physchim62 (talk) 18:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Beko120 (talk · contribs) - Hello I've been on wikipedia for 2 weeks and I been wishing to be an adimin but my first attempt failed. But I'll try again to get out of troble.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Questions for the candidate

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: Well I attend to take place in work like what User:Jimbo Wales tells me to do.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Well I have a clear sockpuppet of User:Robbie willams star 24576 that used to be Rob Lee 182.

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:No not really but if Im confident I can not include in edit conflicts somehow.

General comments

• See Beko120's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Beko120: Beko120 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Beko120 before commenting.

Discussion

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose You have only 51 edits, and even with that small sample there's cause for concern. You don't seem to understand how page protection works or when it should be done, for instance; unfortunately, I think there would be too much risk that you'd make serious mistakes due to inexperience to support you as an administrator. If you make constructive edits for a few months and gain a better idea of policy, an adminship request would be more likely to succeed. --ais523 17:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Not enough experience yet. Answers to questions don't really show understanding of admin responsibilities. Only been editing for a couple of weeks, very little work in admin-like areas. Simply put, there's not enough evidence that you understand policies and procedures. Please take a few months, contribute in places like WP:AFD, and apply for adminship again. I recommend you withdraw this RFA, but if you ever have any questions, I'm always available on my talk page. Useight 18:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose Sorry, you've only got a few edits. As both editors above me have said, you need more time to learn the ropes around here and find out what it means to be a part of the community. Good luck! GlassCobra (Review) 18:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose inexperience per edit cont and answers. Try to be more activate and participate in multiple projects such as WP:XFD. I strong suggest you to withdrawn this self-nomination and come back in 6 month. Good luck. Carlosguitar 18:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

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.