Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Piemanmoo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Piemanmoo

Final (2/24/2) ended 04:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Piemanmoo (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate myself. --Piemanmoo 04:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I will accept this nomination. --Piemanmoo 04:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Username        Piemanmoo
Total edits     62
Distinct pages edited   47
Average edits/page      1.319
First edit      15:18, October 15, 2005
        
(main)  44
Talk    5
User    3
Image   3
Image talk      3
Wikipedia       4
 G.He 21:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support first vote. Mostly Rainy 06:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. I'm adding the dreaded moral support. -- Jjjsixsix (talk|review)@ 01:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose - no reasons for requesting adminship, talk page shows no activity whatsoever -- Tawker 06:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, very low level of activity (not even 100 edits!) and did not answer the questions. I recommend withdrawing this nomination before it becomes a pile-on. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose request to 'crats to close early to avoid a pile-on. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 06:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. As per others.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Speedy oppose, I think a crat should apply WP:SNOW policy. Only 37 edits in the article space, less than 100 edits abakharev 07:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    WP:SNOW is not policy. --Durin 13:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. WP:SNOW. Now. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 07:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. No. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 09:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose', please withdraw. Try again later. --Terence Ong 10:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose I would have to agree with abakharev, seems like a completely idiotic nomination--Wisden17 10:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose a) Appears to have too little experience. b) Gives no good reasons for request. BTLizard 10:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose please withdraw. Try again later. --Tone 12:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Don't-be-discouraged-but-easily-WP:SNOW oppose. No obvious knowledge of policy, including WP:FUC, and what Wikipedia is not, including self-validation. 4-6 months, maybe? RadioKirk talk to me 13:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. Please get more experience and use edit summaries much more often.--Jusjih 13:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. Fails 1FA - Mailer Diablo 13:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  15. OPPOSE per RadioKirk :) Dlohcierekim 16:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. Not seasoned enough. Jump into a controversy or two, then come back. Ted 18:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  17. Strong oppose questions not even answered. Computerjoe's talk 18:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose Fad (ix) 19:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose Sorry, but you need more experience. --Scott 20:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  20. Strong Oppose. Questions not even responded. Sorry. G.He 21:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  21. Strong oppose You didn't answer the questions or give any background information in your nomination as to why you want to be admin. SCHZMO ✍ 22:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose. I just had to add Template:Test1-n to the talk page. Edit more, learn more, then come back. --Hughcharlesparker 23:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose. No user talk edits at all. I need to see how you'd interact with others before considering you for adminship. --Elkman 01:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose, per everything above. DakPowers (Talk) 02:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral' This does not seem like a good time. Suggest withdrawal. :) Dlohcierekim 09:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Change to oppose. :) Dlohcierekim 16:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. Neutral. Please answer the questions for the candidate. DarthVader 10:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral - Piemanmoo has a good knowledge of wikicode - I wonder where he got it from, because it took me months of editing to work it out. Anyway, the user does not demonstrate an interest in administrator-type work. - Richardcavell 23:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Could a bureaucrat please end this RfA and close it already, please? This is becoming nothing short of agony, and with the current oppose votes, it is completely useless to leave it open for a minute more. Please? Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 00:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A:
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A:
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A:
The above 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.