Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tharnton345 3

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tharnton345[change source]

Tharnton345 (talk · contribs)

Ended: December 19, 2008 by Synergy (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • right changes) at 22:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I think I am just ready to become and Admin. I have created many pages and know all about reverting Vandalism. Tharnton345 20:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance:I accept. Tharnton345 20:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support[change source]

Oppose[change source]

1. Just ten minutes ago I reverted a rather thoughtless edit of yours to the sandbox, which you reverted with a rather unconvincing edit summary. Maturity concerns, sorry. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
   • How is that really an issue? It is a sandbox, for testing. Kennedy ^(talk) 20:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     • Quite simply, it doesn't matter where the edit is, but the fact it was done in the first place. I'd be willing to overlook if I had just reverted and he'd left it, but the fact that he reverted me shows a lack of judgement. The sandbox is for testing, not for established users to vandalise when they see fit. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
       • Did it again here. – RyanCross (talk) 08:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
         • I am not "vandalising" the sandbox. You are allowed to do anything there. Tharnton345 21:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Peter. Majorly ^talk 20:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. You've done good work on articles, but I still think that maturity needs a work. Mr. Symonds also makes a good point. Shapiros10 ^{Flap the Yap} 20:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per PeterSymonds. Also, you don't seem to participate in much discussion (WP:ST, WP:AN, etc.), so I don't know if you have the right judgment of an administrator and if you can handle issues that come up. You haven't proven that you can do that, so I can't trust you as an administrator right now. – RyanCross (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose per PeterSymonds above. Jonas D. Rand ^T 20:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose per above. There seems to be a lack of proper judgement, and like quite a number of previous failed RfAs, creating lots of articles does not automatically give you a chance for adminship. Chenzw  Talk  05:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose - you seem to be creating simply lists and lists of stubs (this, this and this - all identical articles with names changed). Some serious work is needed on your ability to write articles and communicate. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 06:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose - sorry, I just don't see you to be ready. What everyone else has said concerns me, and also (and please correct me on this) in my time RC patrolling I haven't seen (m)any qd tags or that much vandalism reversion. Thanks, BG^7even 22:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
   1. Also, I see a very low edit count, particularly in discussions. 5 Talk Page edits? Sorry, WP:NOTNOW. BG^7even 22:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC) ^7even 09:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose per PeterSymonds Beefball ^Talk 14:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose for all the valid reasons above. Definately a case of not now. -Djsasso (talk) 14:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[change source]

WP:SNOW? – RyanCross (talk) 06:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.