Select Page

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Frozen4322 2

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

Frozen4322

Final (1/9/3); Ended 16:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC) (closed per WP:NOTNOW by User:Ktr101.)

Nomination

Frozen4322 (talk · contribs) – I'm Frozen4322 and I've been in and around Wikipedia for quite a while now, and I've decided to try another RfA. Frozen4322 : Chat 05:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to take part in WP:RPP, WP:AIV and WP:RFP to help deal with vandalism and decisions on who should be trusted with permissions.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'd consider my best contributions to Wikipedia to be my vigilance for vandalism and swift reversions. I'm not exactly the best at creating articles but in my opinion my best article related work is Chris Peterson (Producer) because it was something that I actually knew about.
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: As a Wikipedian, you encounter many editing conflicts. Most of the incidents I have been involved in were misunderstandings or mistakes. To help avoid conflict I try to be civil and polite towards other users and revert my own edits and leave a message on the user(s) talk page indicating that I realized I made a mistake.
Additional optional questions from Minimac94
4. Two users are engaged in a content dispute. The dispute continues. What two administrator tasks would you do?
A: The first action would be to develop a consensus about the issue, and possibly give a 24 hour block per WP:3RR should the situation become that serious. I'd stay cool and keep a look-out for personal attacks and warn users accordingly and see whether or not there is consensus for a topic ban.
Additional optional questions from ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒
5. What are the top three primary factors, according to your knowledge about the Wikipedia community, that have influenced the positive RfAs of admin-candidates in the past few years? How have you, in your opinion, rated on those top three factors?
A:
Additional optional questions from Doc Quintana
6. What's your take on IAR?
A:

General comments

  • Links for Frozen4322: Frozen4322 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
  • Edit summary usage for Frozen4322 can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Frozen4322 before commenting.

Discussion

Support
  1. Weak Support: I like what I see but the experience issue causes some concern. - Ret.Prof (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose - I don't see much, if any, change since June. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Per concerns with experience, judgment, and general lack of recent activity. Suggest early closure per SNOW or NOTNOW. -FASTILYsock(TALK) 05:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    May I ask which concerns of judgment were brought up? As for lack of recent activity, RfA is a way to find out whether a user can be trusted with the tools, not that they will use them to their full potential. Frozen4322 : Chat 06:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's quite easy actually, you don't satisfy my RfA criteria, so I !vote oppose. -FASTILYsock(TALK) 06:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose, concerns about lack of experience, as evident at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Frozen4322 2. Cirt (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose 30 edits over December 2009, January and February 2010. Just not enough recent experience. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose There just are not enough recent edits to judge whether Frozen4322 fully understands current policy. I also like to see recent interactions with other editors, this tends to be a good guide to a candidate's appropriateness for Adminship. Frozen4322 may make a good admin in the future, but we really need something to base a judgment on - 30 edits in 3 months is simply not enough. I am not looking for thousands of edits a month to make such a judgment, but clearly more than 10 is needed. Rje (talk) 08:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - Not enough experience. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. Suggest candidate withdraws, and reads Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship as a guide to why this nomination will not succeed, and what the candidate can do to improve chances next time. SilkTork *YES! 13:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Just not active enough for me to support for adminship tools. Sorry Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose - Whatever the intended area of specialisation, IMO adminship requires at least some significant experience in contributions to articles, and other maintenance tasks, in order to fully understand the challenges that article contributors are faced with, and then to apply the admin tools diligently. I oppose this AfD because I do not believe that Frozen4322 with his/her short membership and low edit count has gained sufficient all-round experience. A look at the comments Frozen's talk page and archives does not convince me that he/she is ready for the admin tools, and that the tools already available to registered users and/or rollbackers are suffient at least for a while to continue his/her valliant fight against vandalism. I too, support the suggestion of early closure perSNOW or NOTNOW. --Kudpung (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral Long experience, not sure about cooling skills. BTW, answer Q4. Minimac94 (talk) 05:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.Frozen4322 : Chat 05:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost there, but I don't call "Developing a consensus" an admin task, as it can be done by any user. Staying Neutral for now. Minimac94 (talk) 05:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral, leaning support You're a curious one. I typically would oppose someone with your level of experience in the project. However, I see very good contributions at WP:RFP WP:RFR which show strong judgement and decision making. Currently I cannot support because of your lack of demonstrated participation at WP:RPP, which is one of the areas you said you would work in, but despite your lack of edits I do see really good things coming from you. If this candidacy is unsuccessful, I look forward to a future one soon. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 08:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops, wrong link. Fixed above. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 08:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral for the moment. I don't suffer from editcountitis much, but very low edit count really does suggest insufficient experience. However, I'll stay in neutral until the candidate has the chance to answer the additional questions. I'd also like to see a more in-depth development of the answer to Q4. (The particular reason I'm interested is that I am currently engaged in a content dispute, but I wouldn't expect admin action until consensus has already failed - and it's definitely not a 3RR issue) -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I do like Q5, it's an excellent one - I look forward to the answer -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:27, 13 February 2010 (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.