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

Tharnton345 (talk · contribs)

Ended: January 19, 2009

Result: Closed as not having a chance at this time. The editor is recommended to read the opposes and try again later. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request adminship because I am ready. TurboGolf 08:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance:I accept. TurboGolf 08:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Moral support. Try again in a couple of months. Keep up the good work. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. My first RfA support. TurboGolf 17:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. While you have a fairly high mainspace edit count, the others are a bit too low for my liking, and your userspace is way to high for me. I see several MySpace-y issues (see User_talk:Djsasso#Signature for the latest) and I don't think that you fully understand many of our policies that are vital for administrators to understand. I see very little discussion in key areas, such as the Wikipedia: space, and the edits I do see in the Wikipedia: space are to the Sandbox, mainly useless edits or edit that are unbecoming of an administrator. It's also only been a month since your last RfA. I can't see your QDs as I'm not an admin, but I see very little in the form of user warnings, VIP reports etc. The majority of your User talk: edits are either welcoming users unecessarily, who have not edited, and even one bot, or "myspacey" edits about signatures. Sorry, not yet. BG^7even 10:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   All deleted contributions consist mostly of (empty) categories that he has created. I don't see any QD tagging, I only see his articles being QD'ed. Chenzw  Talk  12:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for verifying that Chenzw, when taking my oppose bundle in Chenzw's comments about QDs ;) BG^7even 12:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose - Candidate shows a lack of good judgement and doesn't seem to understand policies very well ("I would like to request adminship because I am ready."). Chenzw  Talk  12:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose - Doesn't really need the tool. Not now. Kennedy ^(talk) 13:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Who really needs the tool? NonvocalScream (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose Does not demonstrate a clear understanding of Wikipedia standards and policies. I just had to tag for deletion eight articles that Tharnton345 created in the last day which were just direct copy and pastes from en.wiki. Either way (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   But they are based on the en article! TurboGolf 17:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   No, there's a difference between "being based on" and "being a copy and paste of." Either way (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I decided to base the articles because it takes to long to write my own stuff, and I don't know what to put into my articles. TurboGolf 18:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose, if not for the nomination statement alone. "I am ready" does not demonstrate a firm understanding of policy. There are other issues, as well. Juliancolton (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose per Eitherway. Majorly ^talk 17:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose, no significant change since last month, and last RfA. FOUR RfAs?! That's a lot. And my personal vote count: 4/9 have abandoned voting templates. Campaign now! </offtopic> MC8 (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Per en:WP:MYSPACEy issues and wanting adminship too much. Adminship is not a game, and it's not a big deal. Obviously, you do think it's a game with four recent RfAs. — RyanCross (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose for pretty much all the reasons above. Go ahead and "badger" me ;) -Djsasso (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose Man, I come of strong in these. But I say it as it is. Your nomination statement is not good. It does not show why you need them: to block, etc etc. Basically I don't think you understand policies well, are too eager for adminship (4th nom and too short of a time since last nom), use WP as myspace (see WP:NOT, and lack good judgement. Can we snow this please? Try in a few months after you've read our opposes and tried to fix the problems for which you were opposed. Great job otherwise! ѕwirlвoy ₪ 18:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I did it because I have been on here long enough. TurboGolf 18:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Adminship is not gained simply by being around for a set period of time, though. It requires that you demonstrate a good understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It seems to be the consensus here that you have not demonstrated that yet, Either way (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That is true. To be an admin you need to have policies down. Otherwise, how can you know when not to block/delete etc? Your poor answers to comments are even more discouraging. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 19:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I know how to block, delete, and protect. TurboGolf 19:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    But you do not know when to and not to block/delete. You know how to but not why not to. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 19:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. It looks like I'll never become an admin. TurboGolf 18:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at the oppose rationales, fix the issues, then come back after some time. I've got faith. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tharton, what was this about? "To avoid getting banned"? — RyanCross (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2009 (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.