Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RockMFR 2


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

RockMFR
(62/10/5); Final Andre (talk) 02:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

- RockMFR has been with us since September 2006 and contributed over 13,000 edits to Wikipedia, including 7,000 to the article namespace. I believe him to be highly suited to adminship - this will not surprise those who remember that I have nominated him before. My nomination statement in March (see Requests for adminship/RockMFR) contains a pretty detailed breakdown of his contributions in various admin-related areas so I'll just summarise this time. Rock makes highly sensible comments across the range of XfDs and his deleted edits show a sound knowledge of the speedy deletion criteria. He is also a decent content writer, having helped to bring GameFAQs to FA status and a regular participant at Featured article candidates.

I was disappointed that his last nomination was unsuccessful. Opposition centred around the fact that Rock expressed himself unwisely during the DRV discussions of Esperanza. I have kept an eye on his contributions in the months since that RfA and have seen no other example of a failure to assume good faith, but I will leave him to address this point more fully. Similarly, the criticisms of his comments on other's RfAs seem to have been taken on board. I have always thought that a person's response to an unsuccessful RfA tells us a lot about them. Those whose first response is to storm off the project in a tantrum have always concerned me whereas those that knuckle down and continue quietly contributing show precisely the attitude that we should be looking for in our admins. I am please to say RockMFR proved to be in the latter category - the time since the last nom has only solidified my impression that he will make a fine admin. WjBscribe 20:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Yes. Thanks again. --- RockMFR 02:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: Besides for the various deletion areas such as prod and CSD, I intend to do work involving protected page requests (errors, etc), handling vandals, and working on various backlogs. My admin work will be an extension of the stuff I'm already normally working on now.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: My best contributions are my minor ones. Cleaning up incoming links/redirects after deletions, fixing redlink categories and incorrectly used templates, and other "gnome" work. Cleaning up minor things is an essential part of maintaining the current quality of Wikipedia. I like to think I have an eye for details.


 * 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: Yeah, I've had conflicts on talk pages, templates, guidelines, and whatnot, but most things are disagreements that don't amount to much. I don't get stressed about it. For the most part, I've observed that user talk pages are mostly unhelpful in conflicts. Keep trying to discuss things on normal talk pages, be reasonable, and just step away if the edit history contains a long string of reversions. It's best to keep the conflicts on the subject itself, rather than starting conflicts between people. Some opposes in my last RfA were caused by some incivility at DRV and elsewhere, but I don't think that sort of thing will be a problem in the future.


 * Optional question from Giggy
 * 4. Your previous RfA was opposed for several issues, most of which centred either around AGF, or (in some way, shape, or form) civility. Could you please give your opinions on both AGF and CIVIL?  I can provide relevant diffs from the previous RfA if you’re not sure what to respond too.  Thanks,  Giggy  Talk 03:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A: Both are important, extremely important. I definitely agree with and support both. Though, I think sometimes more harm can be done by citing these pages during conflicts rather than just following them. It's better to be halfway civil than to post "please be civil" in a disagreement. Nearly everyone here is civil enough, and rarely do I think anyone does not assume good faith. Searching WP:ANI for "civil" shows that there is probably too much arguing about arguing going on. Incivility is certainly destructive to the project, though I think that in all but the most extreme cases, it's just something that has to be tolerated and ignored. I guess that answers your question. --- RockMFR 04:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Optional question from Hdt83
 * 5. When do you feel that it would be okay to use Ignore all rules to justify an action?
 * A: WP:IAR shouldn't be used to justify actions. Logical arguments should be used to justify actions. But that's probably not what you're asking :P Ignoring policies and processes can be used when you believe that the community will 1) not fully revert your action and 2) agree with it. And of course, all actions should benefit Wikipedia (excluding scenarios in which Wikipedia becomes self-aware, of course). --- RockMFR 04:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Optional question from WarthogDemon
 * 6. Regarding your previous RFA where you stated that for legal/death threats you would "block indefinitely first and ask questions later", how would you handle the situation in the unlikely event that another admin was making these threats?
 * A: If such threats were made on-site and they seemed serious, I would block and make a report on ANI, along with discussing the issue with the user on their talk page (where they would be able to respond). Such a situation may perfectly well end up in the user being unblocked and everything working out fine, but that's why we block users - to prevent likely disruption to the project. --- RockMFR 04:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Optional question from Chaser
 * 7. Have you ever read User:Mindspillage/admin? What do you think of it?
 * A: Now I have (I think I've skimmed it before). I strongly agree with nearly all of it, though I don't believe temporarily blocking vandals after due warning has any sort of negative effect on the site. I certainly understand her position, though. --- RockMFR 04:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Optional question by User:Vodak
 * 8. Would you please provide your most recent curriculum vitae? <-- This user has been blocked indefinitely. O yeah, and by the way, when a user is asking for credentials, it's probably a good idea to question just what credentials that user may have. Not to be pointy, but if yer gonna ask me for references, you better have your shit dialed in. the_undertow talk  10:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A: I'm a student at The Ohio State University. That's all I'll say. --- RockMFR 16:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Optional question from Jusjih
 * 9. How would you think of images considered copyrighted in the USA even if now in the public domain in their source countries due to American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term?
 * A: Our use of images should reflect the copyright laws of where the servers are located and our content should be as free as possible for as many users as possible. I wish we could change copyright law to increase the amount of content we can host, or otherwise find ways around problematic copyright laws. --- RockMFR 21:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Optional question from Hbdragon88
 * 10. You mentioned that user talk pages are generally unhelpful, that the normal talk pages are much better to keep it on the subject instead of between people. However, suppose a user doesn't respond to discussion on regular talk pages.  How do you respond to that sort of an editor?
 * A: If the dispute isn't naturally resolved (assuming it is a dispute you're talking about), post a note on their user talk page asking for their input on the article talk page. If they don't want to talk anywhere, it may be that they just aren't open to discussion. If such a dispute continues, go through the dispute resolution process. --- RockMFR 05:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Do I possibly understand you to say that as an admin, you would refuse to discuss with a user on whatever page he preferred, but would proceed to dispute resolution if he did not respond where you wished him to? (I do agree with your basic position that disputes about articles are much better discussed on the talk pages for that article, and often move or copy threads there myself.) DGG (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe you misunderstood me. If they don't want to talk anywhere, then the dispute process may need to continue. My basic point I mean to make is that it is unfavorable to have article disputes spill over to user talk pages. This is just a personal preference, however. --- RockMFR 03:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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


 * Links for RockMFR:

''Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/RockMFR before commenting.''

Discussion


Support
 * 1) Support as nom. WjBscribe 02:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Will be a good Sysop if nominated. Ha r ri s o n B  Speak! 02:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - I keep forgetting that you are not an admin already. Let's see what we can do about that. --After Midnight 0001 03:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Good track edits do not show any POV basis.Harlowraman 03:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support No major concerns here. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 03:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, fine user.  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 04:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) WJB nomination = instasupport ~ Riana ⁂ 04:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support This user appears to have improved on their pointed-out faults since the last RfA in April. (aeropagitica) 04:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Favorable impression of RockMFR, and I consider the DRV concerns in the first RfA overblown - his comments were no more hot-blooded than many others in that discussion, including some who are admins. -- Groggy Dice T | C 05:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support as before, and urge those considering this RFA to see the basis for the concerns in the previous RFA, which are weak at best. -- Renesis (talk) 05:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) I believe the concerns that led me to oppose last time (hint: search that page for Kncyu) are not valid anymore, so I'm going to trust WJBScribe's judgement in twice nominating this user. —AldeBaer 06:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) It's all about the personal touch now, isn't it? the_undertow  talk  06:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Per obvious qualities, and good answer to my question. Jmlk  1  7  06:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Great editor, strong contributer. Dfrg.msc 06:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support - excellent candidate. Addhoc 06:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 16)  Daniel →♦  06:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Support will make a good admin. — An as  talk? 09:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Support, could use the tools, don't think he's a mental, so yeah, sure. Neil   ╦  11:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. Vandalism, like pornography, is sometimes hard to define but I know it when I see it. I think RockMFR can tell the vandals from the non-vandals well enough. I'm sure that he (like everyone else who was around for it) learned from the Esperanza debacle.  A  Train ''talk 12:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Support his answers to the additional questions seem reasonable to me. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 12:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Seems okay, and I supported last time. The opposes are nonsensical lawyering so far... he's written a FA but he forgot to mention it in Q2, so oppose for not writing content? Come on... --W.marsh 12:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please consider that accusing the editors who disagree in "lawyering" is, at least, not helping the candidate you support. I might have missed something but I checked the history of the FA the candidate supposedly "have written" and I see useful minor edits, vandalism reversions, picture rearrangements but not writing. Sorry, I might have missed something and I would love to see the diff I missed and reconsider, --Irpen 16:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll thank you not to call my oppose "nonsensical lawyering". I have legitimate concerns over this user's ability to perform as an administrator, you might not, and people's opinions will always differ. Remember to be civil to other editors, I'm not sure if you're trying to discredit the opposition or what, but it's very, very rude. --L-- 16:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll thank you for choosing a non-vanity username. What an obnoxious way to start out a comment. --W.marsh 16:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stop making ad hominem personal attacks against other editors. you aren't helping your case. --L-- 16:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't even have a case... beyond the fact that ankle-biting is annoying, which you're making evident on your own. --W.marsh 16:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And for that matter, I'm not sure where the ad hominem was in all of that. Marsh referred to *your oppose vote*, not *you* in his support. Disagreeing is not attacking.  A  Train ''talk 16:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyway, Irpen's point is well taken, but I still say that shepherding an article through FAC successfully is no easy task (I personally failed the last time I tried). I think doing that shows sufficient competency with working with articles. It seemed like Irpen's oppose was more "He didn't jump through the right hoops when answering the question", I see now there was more to it. --W.marsh 17:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's all I wanted to hear personally. --L ucid 17:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support A good candidate for adminship!  Majorly  (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Good editor. Politics rule 18:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 19:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. No huge issues with this user - I agree the answer to Q1 was evasivish, but often users do not know what admin tasks they would participate in until they are promoted, and discover what they can do. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Good editor, no problems here, will not abuse the tools being entrusted. --Hdt83 Chat 21:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per Matt. - Lemonflash (chat)  21:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Unlikely to delete the Main Page; even if he does attend Ohio State. Mackensen (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. -SpuriousQ (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. I think he's safe to entrust with the tools. JodyByak, yak, yak 00:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support reasonable answers to questions, not all too concerned with question 1. Fine candidate. --Core desat 03:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Yes please Viridae Talk 06:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support - Answer to q5 shows a fairly good understanding of IAR; as the candidate says, the rules and processes should only be ignored in cases where the community is likely to agree. I think this candidate will be a safe pair of hands for the admin tools. Waltonalternate account 14:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) As a GameFAQs user with a level of "???", I support this candidate. (I don't want to be the lone GameFAQs admin anymore :P) Okay, apparently there are other GF admins. Doesnt lessen my support though. Wizardman  16:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support - I see no problems here. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support - Good candidate. gidonb 17:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support - a great user who I am sure will do well with the buttons.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  18:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 17)  Support Strong support looks like a good user. Acalamari 18:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Support as I did last time. RockMFR is an experienced user, and should not be held back by an isolated incident long ago. Shalom Hello 19:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Support-- Agεθ020 ( ΔT  •  ФC ) 20:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) I was offended by your comment at my RfA, which admittedly you later removed. Please think carefully before making contributions as an admin, sometimes you can come over too strong. DrKiernan 11:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Support after answering my question.--Jusjih 13:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. Well experienced and sensible. Some more experience with writing articles would be desirable, but the fact that he works a lot in that namespace with minor but helpful edits is quite OK. On the blocking vandals after too few warnings issue, I agree with RockMFR and respectfully disagree with those who require four warnings. The four-tier warning system is how we guide clueless newbie editors, that is those who make unconstructive test edits (such as inserting inappropriate "Wow!"-s) to an article, so that they understand the impact of what they're doing. It makes sense there to be tolerant and lenient. Requiring four warnings in order to block blatant vandals, those who make edits which are so unquestionably bad faith that no reasonable person would do something like that as a test, need firmer treatment, and running through a whole series of warnings allows them to continue for longer, adding more strain on the RC patrol, and increasing the likelihood of vandalism slipping through unnoticed. I think the candidate has enough sense to distinguish between a clueless newbie and a vandal. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) Support Answer to question four contains this phrase: "Sometimes more harm can be done by citing these pages (WP:CIVIL et al. -K) during conflicts rather than just following them." Spot on, and a good way to phrase one of the largest problems in current Wikipedia discussions. User:Krator (t c) 19:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) Weak Support - I have seen him around and I like his work, but the opposes do have some points. -- Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor  ( tαlk ) 21:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) Support I do not feel that the points raised by the oppose !voters contain enough substance to over-ride the obvious positive points which this editor demonstrates.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) Support - per Anthony.bradbury. They do have certain points, but this user is too precious to not be an admin. --H| H irohisat  Talk 07:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) I like this user's contributions. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  07:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 28) Support I think that the fact that this user will be doing more of the work that keeps Wikipedia going ("gnome work") there really aren't enough admins doing that sort of thing. •Malinaccier•   T / C  16:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 29) Support — um  drums  14:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 30) Support John254 19:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 31) Support you put your toes in a while ago at various XFD's, we'd like to see you (and everyone else who reads this) back there, mop in hand this time. :-) Carlossuarez46 23:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 32) Kusma (talk) 09:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 33) Support - 7,000+ edits to the mainspace will be vital when new users are asking for help, while being backed up by a substantial amount of Wikipedia space edits - a good candidate.  Lra drama 18:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 34) Support. I think RockMFR will make a good and responsible admin. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 05:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 35) I rememeber this user back when I tidied up GameFAQS a couple of years back, if memory serves the user was using an anon account back then. Have been impressed with the way the user has gone from anon to user, and the way the user has adapted behaviour over the years.  I don't have any serious issues with this user, no more serious than with some people who are already admins.  I trust those admin's with the bit, I trust this user the same. Sorry I missed the first nom, glad I caught the second. Hiding Talk 13:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 36) Support. A minor concern, which I share with DGG, is that the user may be trigger-happy against negligently vandalizing newbies, but I am hopeful for growth. Bearian 15:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Edited/fixed error due to edit conflict. Bearian 15:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 37) Support The editor's well articulated responses to many questions throughout this RfA, and a scan of various contributions with a mind to the prior RfA's leads me to trust you with the tools at this time. Hiberniantears 20:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 38) Weak support A bit happy on the block button, but not a disqualifier for an otherwise good candidate.--Chaser - T 22:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 39) Support, this isn't a trial and the only reason not to make someone an admin is that it is a legitimate possibility that they may abuse the tools, which this user clearly won't. Croat Canuck   Say hello   or just talk  23:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 40) Support --Aminz 01:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 41) Support I think this user will do just fine as a administrator. Captain   panda  02:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Sorry, but not only did you completely ignore the first question, but you danced around the second one, without giving a solid reasoning. If you really feel that a single edit, that was possibly just a test, is enough to warrant v4im, or be blocked for making a couple of test edits, that's really, really scary to see in an admin. Although I get the feeling that isn't what you meant to say, it's the impression you give, which does back to my main concern about you being able to communicate with other editors. Whether it's because you didn't read my entire post, because you didn't feel like answering the entire thing, or because you just forgot to include it, that is exactly the types of communication issues that can cause an editor that just made a few mistakes to leave the project. Heck, look at User:CloneDeath. Under your philosophy, he would've been blocked, and likely decided not to come back to the project. With a bit of patience, however, he is making an effort to be a useful editor, and while he's still got a lot to learn, he's editing in good faith. I'm not sure if it's because of a lack of ability to AGF or be CIV as was mentioned in your previous RFA, or if it's just a lack of effort or ability to communicate on your part, but I cannot say I'd feel comfortable having you as an admin, dealing with vandalism, or new users in general. --L-- 04:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per evasive answers to questions 2 and 3. Additionally, no mention of the involvement of content writing. Sorry, --Irpen 06:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe the last sentence of the first paragraph of the nomination deals with his article-writing efforts (namely, at least one FA).  Daniel →♦  06:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I double checked and might have missed something but in the history of the FA the candidate supposedly "have written" and I see useful minor edits, vandalism reversions, picture rearrangements but not writing. Sorry, I might have missed something and I would love to see the diffs I missed and reconsider. Also, I would like to see the candidate giving his own opinion on what he things he wrote well. I am not denying the vandal fighting is useful but this is not the subject of this discussion. --Irpen 16:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well looking through the history, I would say that although the original text wasn't written by RockMFR, most bits of it have been rewritten to make more sense by him at some point in the months before it became an FA. His work includesadding references, copyedits required by the FAC, rewriting a section. The history shows a lot of that spread over a lengthy period. Its usually these changes across an article that are needed to bring it up to FA - Rock isn't claiming to have written it from the bottom up, but he does seem to have significantly contributed to it getting to that status. By the way did you read his answer to Q.2 from the last RfA, which goes into more detail about his work on that article? WjBscribe 16:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please understand that I am not even close to require the admin candidates to be able to write brilliant prose. My own prose is rather poor and requires copyediting. But there is a good reason why I want to see content writing rather than wikignoming, while the latter is no doubt a useful task. Wikignoming edits are mostly never controversial and don't spill blood at the talk pages or provoke edit wars. Administrators often have to help resolve the content disputes that went awry and that sometimes takes blocking good-faithed users or steering them towards a more moderate line of behavior. Thus, administrators often have to make a subtle judgment which requires a good understanding of the concerns of the editors who write the content here. The involvement into such issues by the administrators who write little themselves tends to be very unhelpful more often than not. Additionally, adminning is frequently followed by further reduction of the participation in the content writing. I've seen excellent editors who stopped writing falling into the temptations of the WP:Adminitis. So, I am not saying that the candidate does not do a useful work or is "not a good guy". All I am saying that I do not see enough content creation that would guarantee that the candidate would understand the concerns of the editors when he is called in to sort out the mess in the article conflict. --Irpen 17:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you were more specific about which question or questions were dodged, it would allow the candidate to either respond, or to use the critique as a guideline in the future. If you feel that all were answered in an evasive fashion, which is what one could infer, then I suppose there is no reason to elaborate. the_undertow talk  07:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Elaborated per request. --Irpen 07:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool. Thanks. It is much appreciated. the_undertow talk  07:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Despite the candidate claiming that this won't the be the case, I just feel the he may be a bit too trigger happy with the block button. Probably won't count for much; this RfA should pass - but I had to voice my concern.  Giggy  Talk 03:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. The candidate dodged Q2 and Q3, and L has convinced me that RockMFR will not make Wikipedia a welcoming place for newbies.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  05:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per concerns brought up by others, but mostly because of the simplistic and/or evasive answers to questions. For example, your answer to Giggy's question did not jive with the strong understanding of the role and definition of the policies mentioned that is required of an admin. I just don't think this user is mature enough for the sysop tools. VanTucky  (talk) 23:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Because I think you will over-block. The practice at AIV is to require a full series of 4 warnings--admins there frequently decline to block if it is only the 2nd warning. And the page header there reads: "the vandal ... has received a proper set of warnings, and has vandalized after a recent last warning, except in unusual circumstances." You seem to say you think a single warning is enough even in ordinary cases. What do you understand as the present policy? I asked this yesterday under neutral, but you didn't respond. DGG (talk) 01:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am really increasingly bothered by your failure to respond here. No-one says you have to agree with me about anything, but you should be willing to reply. An admin who doesnt respond to criticism would be a serious liability to the project. DGG (talk) 08:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC) I see they have now been answered below. I am not satisfied with the answer.  I share the impatience you feel with respect to vandalism, but am much more concerned with not alienating users.  Even people who started as vandals can become constructive contributors. DGG (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you are being too harsh here. While multiple warnings are required at AIV, that's not because they are required by the blocking policy, only because the admins at WP:AIV need an easy way to determine whether the block requests are valid. The blocking policy in no way requires multiple warnings before blocking. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 11:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Answers to Q2.  Blnguyen   ( bananabucket ) 02:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, essentially for reasons already mentioned. RockMFR seems like a good editor as far as I can tell, but I'm concerned about statements like "user talk pages are mostly unhelpful in conflicts" and his various comments on punishment. In a nutshell, I think the candidate leans somewhat on the aggressive side. His behavior is always acceptable, but I fear it may be somewhat unwelcoming to newcomers and to a lesser extend other editors as well. I also share L and DGG's concerns about less-than-comprehensive communication. — xDanielx Talk 21:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose switching to neutral - a wee bit too block-happy, I feel. This RfA is likely to pass at this stage, but I'm just weighing in here - A l is o n  ☺ 06:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose on grounds of every comment above this one. Seems a bit too laid-back for the mop  --Bennyboyz3000 22:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Too laid-back? Personally, I think being laid-back is a commendable quality in every editor in most situations. And I believe RockMFR is laid-back enough for the tools, while the above opposition you're quoting raises concerns regarding their lack of belief in Rock's "laid-backness". I'm not saying you're contradicting yourself, but you appear to be. —AldeBaer 08:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - per answer to question number two, lack of encyclopaedic contributions.--Bryson 01:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * (Changed to Oppose) Pretty much everything looks good, although I do have a couple concerns I'd like addressed before I support. First off, your talk page counts seem a bit low, but then a quick scan through your contribs shows that most of your edits seem to be quick, uncontroversial fixes. I'd just like to make sure this is the case, and you hardly ever do anything controversial enough to mention on the talk page. In addition, uw-v4im'ing this edit seems a bit WP:BITEy. The user hadn't made any serious vandalism (libel, obscene and obviously intentional blankings) - just a bit of misinformation and maybe spamming, but nothing that screams bad faith. I'd like an explanation for this, be it because it's an obvious sockpuppet, and you're basically 'warning it for the record', or because you were just having a bad day. Basically, I have some concerns about your abilities to communicate effectively with other editors, but I'd like to see your response --L-- 03:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Vandalism is vandalism, in my opinion. If an edit is made to intentionally disrupt an article, as that edit was, it can warrant a warning. If they vandalize again, they should be blocked for a short time. I don't believe in allowing users to pile up a history of vandalism. However, warnings and blockings are usually not necessary. I generally only warn when the person has previously made edits, or when it looks like they might vandalize again. --- RockMFR 04:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So if you became an admin, would you block someone for a little tiny bit of vandalism? Such as changing "because" to "becuase"?  Vandalism isn't always vandalism; I believe there is a difference between blanking/cursing vandalism, and someone making a tiny vandalism.  Jmlk  1  7  04:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. I agree that such a change does not warrant a block, but that's because it's not obviously vandalism. Users find all sorts of odd ways to test the wiki system. I'm not going to block someone for making a few test edits. But I am going to use a bit of sense and block vandals when they've been justly warned. Trust me that I'm not going to make blocks that aren't generally agreed with -- maybe I'm coming off harsher than I really am. --- RockMFR 05:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Good enough of an answer for this guy. Jmlk  1  7  06:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Dfrg.msc 06:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But the practice at AIV is to require a full series of 4 warnings--admins there frequently decline to block if it is only the 2nd warning. And the page header reads: "the vandal ... has received a proper set of warnings, and has vandalized after a recent last warning, except in unusual circumstances." You seem to say you think a single warning is enough even in ordinary cases. What do you understand as the present policy? DGG (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Appropriate warnings should be given. Warning templates should not be used mindlessly. If an edit is made in bad faith, the user should not be given the "welcome to Wikipedia! It seems you might have made a test edit!" warning. Common sense must apply. I do believe I understand the proper time for vandals to be blocked, as I believe nearly all of my past reports to AIV have resulted in blocks, though it is rare for vandals to continue to that point. --- RockMFR 02:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) The concerns that L brings up are worrying, but not enough to constitute an oppose from me. Great candidate, though, don't let this little bump along the road to adminship bring you down ;) – sebi  06:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral I like the answers to the optional questions however I've found myself half agreeing with Irpen. I don't really see how the answer to Q2 was evasive however, I don't think the candidate has sufficiently answered Q3. However, my concern isn't enough for me to believe the admin tools would be abused. He did come across as harsh when talking about dealing with vandals in general; however, he has stated that he may have come across harsher than he means to be and I think he may have accidentally given us that impression. So despite my concern with the insufficient answer to Q3, I see no reason to vote oppose, thus I vote neutral. -WarthogDemon 16:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. I'd like to support (kudos on saying that "IAR" is never a sufficient justification). However, I don't understand your answer to question 4. If something is destructive, which you admit incivility is, you can't just say "oh well" and ignore it except in really extreme cases. I really don't understand this lax (and in other cases, downright condoning) attitude towards incivility that everyone seems to have all of the sudden. -Amarkov moo! 01:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand what you mean about incivility. I dislike it as much as anyone does. --- RockMFR 03:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral - Can't decide. Ryan4314 02:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral - from oppose. His contribs and edit history are great but some of the questions don't quite do it for me. I don't believe he'll be all that trigger-happy, though - A l is o n  ☺ 07:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.