Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tharnton345 2

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.

User:Tharnton345

Tharnton345 (talk · contribs)

Candidate Withdrew. MC8 (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Hi. I've been on for nearly 4 months now, and I will want to become an admin because I've worked hardly at creating many pages. Tharnton345 06:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance:I know all the basic of adminship, because I've been granted it on other Wikis. And yes, I do accept.

Support

Oppose

He says he has made many pages, but almost all of his last 50 edits are to his userpage. The pages he has made are not very good or useful yet (eg. Dodge, Jeep). I think he needs some more time to learn how things work around here, get some more experience, get a less annoying signature, etc. Giggy (talk) 06:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There are almost zero edits to the Wikipedia namespace (apart from voting in RfAs), showing a possible lack of understanding of policies and procedures. Working hard on articles does not automatically give you adminship. Chenzw Talk 06:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - insufficient edits on this wikipedia [1] (286 edits in total of which 81 are to user space) and insufficient engagement with the community (only 32 project edits - a significant proportion of which are RfA including this one, 12 project talk edits and 21 user talk edits). I am not confident you woud understand the policies of this wikipedia as a result of your limited editing experience here. (edit conflict) --Matilda (talk) 06:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Pretty much per above and per this. You don't have a lot of recent edits to articles. Your warning to the vandal "YOU VANDAL!!!!" is not acceptable for an admin. Kennedy ^(talk) 08:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, less than 500 edits. Sorry, but the small amount of editing cannot give us a full representation of your editing habits. It might be a silly reason, but it's one that is revelant in this particular case. Oh, and Kennedy -- I fixed your link; hope you don't mind. MC8 (talk) 09:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per everyone else and this, which is not the way to warn vandals. FSM ^Noodly? 09:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very soon after your last RfA; I doubt much could've changed in that time. You need to stop trying to reach for adminship; if you're a good editor, adminship will come eventually. This does deny vandals the right to be a nuisance, and is completely the wrong tone for an administrator. Some of your actions (for example, moving James I of England to James VI of Scotland, because he was a Scottish king longer) does not indicate you understand policies, conventions, etc, which are far more important than block, delete, protect. Sorry, but I can't yet support. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 09:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per all above, and I couldn't support someone who I don't think fully understands the rules of this wikipedia. On top of that, your number of edits is in my opinion insuffiscient to be an admin. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 10:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WP:NOTNOW applies here. Shapiros10 ^{Flap the Yap} 11:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I won't vote so as to avoid a pile-on, but I also believe you need more experience to become an administrator. Malinaccier P. (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to withdraw. Too many edits on Userspace. Thar nton 345 18:00, 27 October 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.