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

Dannyboy1209[edit]

Final 0/14/0. Closed as unsuccessful per WP:NOTNOW by --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Dannyboy1209 (talk · contribs) – Can be very useful in just the right situations drt2012 (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Blocking users, protecting articles, etc
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Various places
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 conflicts, future ones will be sorted out peacefully

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]


Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose Largely per WP:NOTNOW. I'm sorry, but a review of your contributions and your Talk page seem to indicate you haven't a lot of experience here, and that you're still learning the ropes. I do applaud you for your boldness in running for Adminship, and your apparent desire to help the Encyclopedia, and I hope you will feel free to call on me as you continue to gain experience and knowledge here at Wikipedia. --joe deckertalk to me 19:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I also note that you have not formally accepted the nomination, if you did not wish to run for adminship, please let us know ASAP. --joe deckertalk to me 19:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's a self-nom, where acceptance is assumed. But, that's hard to tell since his signature bears no resemblance to his username. -Scottywong| spill the beans _ 19:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose WP:NOTNOW, strongly suggest withdrawal. You only have 232 edits, of which about half are to your user page. For an RfA to be taken at all seriously you would need at least several thousand. This isn't exactly admin-type behaviour either. Hut 8.5 19:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Per nomination statement, lack of experience, edit warring, edit summaries and this.[1] --Tikiwont (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Strong oppose - WP:NOTNOW doesn't cut it when you issue death threats. Closer to indefblock than adminship. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Oppose - While it is admirable to want to assist with administrator tools, there is not nearly enough experience shown by the edit count, or edits in areas relevant to adminship (such as AfD) to support this nomination at this time. Statements on your user page claiming copyright protection for your user page and sandbox [2] are also concerning. Rlendog (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Oppose Per everyone above. Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Oppose per the hosting of non-free images on your Sandbox and the false "copyright" declaration on your userpage. An admin needs to understand the licenses the site operates off of. Achowat (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Oppose per Reaper Eternal, and WP:NOTNOW.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Strong Oppose per Reaper Eternal — the death threats and this. Also, WP:NOTNOW. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 19:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Oppose - Nowhere near enough experience, and I have strong concerns regarding maturity. This and this are certainly concerning (the edit warring in the latter is more problematic than the actual comment, which might be excused as poor judgement). ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Strong Oppose With a total of 240 edits (including deleted), no experience in administration related areas of the project, answer to question number 2 and also due to serious concerns shown by users above shows that the user is clearly not ready and maybe does not even know what being an Administrator is all about. They need to read the policy Wikipedia:Administrators and understand what administrators do and what are the requirements of becoming one. This RfA needs to be closed early as per Wikipedia:Snowball clause. TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Oppose - Failed test #1 (correctly transcluding his own RfA). -Scottywong| soliloquize _ 19:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I was the one who ended up transcluding the RFA. Dannyboy1209 just typed on the RFA page 'Dannyboy1209' - which seemed odd. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 19:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Oppose log(edit_count)>3.5=false.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Oppose per death threat. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Neutral — You seem to not have many edits, and almost half in your userspace. WP:NOTNOW. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[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