Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CJMiller

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

CJMiller

Final (0/8/0); Closed as unsuccessful by WjBscribe at 23:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CJMiller (talk · contribs) - It's me, no duh. I am participating in more AfC's and AfD's than I was (as Missingno390), and if nominated, that will be my main line of work, with vandalism fighting (what else?) as my secondary line of work. CJ Miller. (^{That's my name.}_{Don't wear it out.}) 20:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accept. Nothing simpler than that.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: XfCs, XfDs, RfA, RfCUs, RfC, ArbCom, vandalism patrol, probably bit parts elsewhere.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I added a table to the page Commercial break; why not? Really, I can't think of anything better.

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: That has never happened to me before; however, if this happens to me, I will be civil and if the offending user refuses to budge, I will probably go through an RfAR.

General comments

See CJMiller's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Links for CJMiller: CJMiller (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/CJMiller before commenting.

Discussion

WP:SNOW to someone who hasn't commented now, I think. *sigh* Sorry CJMiller, and please do not be discouraged. Pedro : Chat 22:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Oppose

Oppose And suggest editor review and withdrawal. Sub 250 edits, with about 20% to your user space gives me nothing to work on. Weak answers to the questions. I admire your enthusiasm, and thank you for your work so far, but I'm afraid this stands no chance and I'd prefer you withdraw than recieve a brutal RfA experience. Also, could you endeavour to use edit summaires more - you can force them via the "my prefernces" tool. My very best wishes. Pedro : Chat 21:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I also have to agree with Pedro here. Would be best if you withdrew. Sorry buddy. Scarian ^Talk 21:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Oppose. I'd like to echo Pedro, that I admire your intentions, but I also have to suggest withdrawing this RFA. You've done good work so far, but it's a rare happenstance than an editor receive the admin tools with fewer than 2000 edits. It is difficult for the community to discern your knowledge of policies with so few edits. It is also difficult to gain the community's trust without a substantial amount of work/time. An editor review or an admin coach might be a better idea first. You'll also want to use edit summaries more, it lets other editors see what you are doing more easily. I'd also recommend taking a look over this list of policies to make sure you have a good handle on how everything works. If you ever have any questions about anything, I'm always available on my talk page. Useight (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Please withdraw and come back later. Bearian (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. You're just not experienced enough, though you're on the right lines! Please see the other reqeusts for adminship, they are all experienced. You can take those as examples, in experience needed and the way to answer your questions. Jack?! 22:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Recommend withdrawal, then some coaching. Jmlk 1 7 22:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (which makes me feel like an idiot) Needs more experience and better answers to questions. NHRHS2010 talk 22:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Icestorm815 (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

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.