Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rockpocket


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

Rockpocket
(42/7/2) Ended Fri, 10 Nov 2006 06:35:24 (UTC)

– Rockpocket has been editing since December 2005 and has made 4,400 edits overall, including 2,200 edits to articles, with a focus on the biological sciences, and a good balance of contributions to talk pages and project space. (Link to edit counter, but it's a bit slow.) He's an excellent editor who cares about our policies, uses sources carefully, writes neutrally, and has a calming influence on talk pages, where he tries to find a balance between both sides of any debate. I've encountered him on a number of animal-rights related articles, and although we have different views on that debate (Rockpocket opposes AR in general), he's someone whose edits I always trust because I know they'll be carefully written and well-sourced. He has also been involved in countering vandalism and in helping out on the Science reference desk, and has in general become a trusted and respected member of the community. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, with thanks. Rockpock  e  t  03:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

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:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: As with the ongoing learning process that i'm experiencing in simply editing Wikipedia, i'd envisage starting with less challenging examples of administrative duties, and progress with experience. In terms of chores, i'd be happy to some time helping out in the areas there is currently a backlog. I'd be keen to be part of the team that reviews and acts on candidates for speedy and proposed deletion. I'm also confident i could help in addressing WP:RFP requests. I would also keep and eye on the WP:AIV, WP:3RR and WP:ANI pages and assist there, if they are undermanned. I would also, though possibly only occasionally, spend some time at WP:AfD. Some of the editing areas i focus on tend to draw vandalism, so i guess the tools may help me deal with those situations more efficiently also.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: If i may mention two articles. I'm probably most pleased with chromatophore because i hope it is an example of what Wikipedia is best at: unparalleled coverage of an technical subject in an accessible format. When i finally acknowledged that i was hooked on Wikipedia, i signed up to my username and set myself a goal to find a stub with potential, and develop it to featured status. It took me 5.5 months and the helpful advice of some other editors to achieve this goal (from this to this), but i believe it was worth it. I'm also pleased with my contributions to Animal testing. I've contributed a fair amount of content and, along with a small number of other editors, have worked for some time to maintain the integrity and balance of what is an article on a highly controversial subject. I think the experience of working constructively and collaboratively with editors holding very different ideological opinions stands me in good stead for dealing with complex issues, as an administrator often does.


 * 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: I edit Wikipedia for enjoyment and, quite frankly, that day that i feel my ongoing participation here is unduly adding to my stress burden, is the day i will take an indefinite Wikibreak. In general, i find it quite easy remain objective about editing conflicts and naturally look for a middle ground in response to opposing perspectives. That said, like everyone, i have experienced a conflict of opinion while editing where, in retrospect, i reacted in a manner that suggests i probably was under stress. In particular, i was a relatively minor participant in a request for arbitration over a POV dispute about biological psychiatry. I originally became involved when i was asked to reason with another editor with whom i had worked on Anti-psychiatry. Sadly, i was unable to resolve the dispute and feel my relationship with said editor was badly soured as a result of an overactive participation at RFAR on both our parts. I learned a lot about conflict management during that process and have worked hard to re-build a working relationship with the editor in question. (Something i think i succeeded in, as we now regularly edit co-operatively without conflict).

Optional questions from 
 * 4. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
 * A: I view them both as mechanisms to counteract procedural filibustering, and a reminder that a healthy Wikipedia requires us all to be guided by rules, not enslaved by them. In a practical sense, I would apply WP:IAR when, on the face of it, a proposal or edit could appear to be in conflict with a policy, but my judgement tells me it is an improvement nevertheless. One could simply quote the shortcut and make the change, but I have found that by engaging in discussion one can sometimes find strong justification for such edits, either in other policies or simply by reasoning. I interpret WP:SNOW as attempt to discourage bureaucratic pedantry and reduce a culture of following rules for the sake of it. One example where I would apply it would be in response to the occasional demand one sees for a speedy deleted article to be reinstated because the incorrect justification template was provided. If a different process can not be expected to influence the outcome, I would reason, the process need not be repeated per WP:SNOW.


 * 5. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
 * A: I don't believe so. In my opinion, the raison d'être of WP:BP is to protect the project. If, in receiving a block, an editor interprets this protective action as punishment then I feel there is a fair chance he or she may attempt to punish Wikipedia in return. Thus the action would be counterproductive. This is why I think it should always be made explicitly clear why a block was issued, what the blocking admin hopes to achieve with the block, and that the editor should be encouraged to return and contribute in a constructive manner.


 * 6. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
 * A: I don't recall having tagged an article under CSD:G11. However, I expect a warning flag would be raised if the article blatantly reads like advertising copy (i.e. contains superlatives and hyperbole) or mainly lists products, services, prices, external links, contact details or retail locations. Another common signal I would look for would be evidence of a text dump from a company website or promotional document (though such a copy vio may make it eligible under CSD:G12). Finally, if there is evidence the business is notable per WP:CORP, I would review the content to see if the article is salvagable.


 * 7. Review the edit history of User:81.117.200.37 and User:81.117.200.27, and any related article, document or other source. Should this IP/Range have been blocked at any point? When? Should this IP/Range be put under some sort of administrative probation? When, and of what type? Why or why not? Thank you. JBKramer 23:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A: Wow, what happened to the easy questions? There has clearly been a complex - and apparently current - dispute between JBKramer and the anonymous editor using those IPs. To be frank, I don't feel entirely comfortable commenting in such detail on such an ongoing dispute here, especially without extensively reviewing the considerable and fragmented evidence. If you would like a detailed analysis, I will try and provide one, but would ask for further time. Perhaps we could take it to a talk page? However, I will say that it appears the editor perhaps should have been blocked for a WP:3RR violation on 16 October  , after claiming a difference in opinion over content is vandalism. I think there is also an argument that the editor could have been blocked for disruptive editing, although I would not endorse such a move retrospectively without further investigation of some claims, and would certainly not have enforced one before engaging him or her in other measures to solve the dispute. Regarding probation, I believe it is within an administrator's remit to act on probationary measures set by ArbCom, but not to set probation itself. Therefore I wouldn't want pre-empt any future decision ArbCom may make by speculating on something outwith administrative duties. I appreciate this may not answer you question fully, but I hope I have given you a feel for my interpretation.


 * General comments

Rockpocket's editcount summary stats as of 09:40, November 3 2006, using Interiot's wannabe Kate's tool. (aeropagitica) 09:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * See Rockpocket's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.



Discussion

Support
 * 1) Support. My pleasure. SlimVirgin (talk)  21:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Sensible user with good judgement.   Doctor Bruno    07:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Ter e nce Ong (T 10:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, of course, this gets a big tick in my book. Daveydw ee b ( chat/patch ) 10:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Good number of edits, good editor, nice to see interest in doing some of the manual tasks that require the use of admin tools. Dolive21 11:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  11:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Strong record of worthwhile contributions; this nomination by an editor with differing personal views emphasizes that he can be trusted to work in a careful and unbiased way. Dryman 12:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support looks good. Rama's arrow  15:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support I've been looking through his logs and talk page, and he seems ok to me, will sure not abuse his adminship. Also, in the future, please remember to always capitalize I when used as a pronoun. Michaelas10 (T|C) 15:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Glad to support such a good user. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  17:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - looking through his edit history shows good contributions, as well as a decent number of edits in the Wikipedia space. 89.240.104.227
 * Sorry, IPs can't !vote. Please log in. MER-C 11:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Good editor, calm, reasonable. Unlikely to abuse tools. Jayjg (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, as per nom. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 20:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Michael 20:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. The answers to all the questions are good -- ¿¡Exir  Kamalabadi!?  00:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Well rounded and level headed editor. Would be an ideal admin as far as I can see.-Localzuk(talk) 00:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems reasonable.  Willingness to apply the spirit of our rules and not be straitjacketed by policy wonkery a plus. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC) Changed to strong oppose due to concerns about this individual's ethical sense. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support good article contributions, good answers, and best of all, common sense. "No unnecessary bureaucratic entanglements" should be a campaign platform. Opabinia regalis 02:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support certainly good enough.-- danntm T C 04:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Why not eh? Seems a well rounded fair user who is prepared to tackle problems in an open and friendly way. --Robdurbar 10:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, no big deal. - Mailer Diablo 14:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per the strong answers to the quesions. --Daniel Olsen 17:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - good editors, make good admins — Preceding unsigned comment added by T-rex (talk • contribs)
 * sorry for forgetting to sign --T-rex 04:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, knowledgeable, reasonable, polite, and understands policy. -- M P er el ( talk 03:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support an even keel.  We could use his influence in many areas.  Storm Rider (talk) 07:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per Daveydweeb and others above. The r/l situation has been explained to my complete satisfaction, and there are no wiki sitatuations of any concern that I have seen. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak support. I would prefer to see some more experience with process, but helping out at the reference desk is laudable.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  23:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per nom, satisfactory answers, comments above. I'm sure he'll bear the comments on this page in mind. Newyorkbrad 01:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per nom. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - I take an editor's actions into account more than their words. I think this candidate's actions indicate he will be an asset as an admin.  --cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support per nom. --A. B. 20:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support, per nom. AnnH ♫ 00:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support a good candidate --Steve 02:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - I've met Rockpocket on AfD and RCP a few times and have been impressed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support No cons here.-- Hús  ö  nd  18:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Merovingian ※ Talk 00:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Yes the fact that SlimVirgin is recommending him says a lot for his grasp of NPOV.--Docg 16:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support I read his explanation for the 'ethical issue', and it sounds reasonable to me. All the rest seems fine too. Crum375 15:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support I see no reason to oppose. Dionyseus 02:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support per nom. John254 05:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Candidate looks extremely mature and dedicated to the project. A pleasure to support. —Lantoka ( talk 13:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support Obviously, anyone nominated by SlimVirgin must be OK.--Poetlister 22:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support seems to be a good guy. The opposing arguments does not convince me Alex Bakharev 00:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) "Could've sworn I'd already supported" support per nom and, insofar as RP seems to be possessed of the deliberative temperament and, on the whole, cordial demeanor the presence of which in a prospective admin is quite auspicious, such that I think it altogether likely that the net effect on the project of his becoming an admin will be positive, consistent with my RfA guidelines; I do, to be sure, share in Badlydrawnjeff's concerns as regards IAR, but I rather imagine that RP's actions qua admin relative to IAR will be fairly consistent with that which I'd hope them to be. I ought also to observe that there is a sufficient history on which to base an inference apropos of the user's judgment and, most importantly, willingness to abide a community consensus that I'm not at all troubled by the "real-world ethical problem" raised by some opposing; I think it further altogether possible that one might be wholly evil off-Wiki and nevertheless, in view of any of several motivations, on-Wiki a constructive editor whom one may trust to act, for his/her own reasons, toward the betterment of the project.  Joe 06:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose
 * Yes the fact that SlimVirgin is recommending him says a lot for his grasp of NPOV.--Docg 16:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by this? -Localzuk(talk) 16:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Doc Glasgow may have meant this to go at the bottom of the support section rather than the top of oppose. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry.--Docg 01:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Weak Oppose.  I have seen some good work from Rockpocket, but on a handful of occasions I have noticed that he has a tendency to unilaterally remove information from a page rather than first challenging it and going to the talk page.  It was on minor stuff, but that is important for me in an administrator.  Also, I don't think he has enough edits to his credit yet for adminship.  I hope he will keep up the good work and come back again in a few months because I feel there is potential here.  Ludahai 06:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * For your first concern, could you please provide some diffs that illustrate the problem? As for the second, Rockpocket has well over 4,000 edits, 636 of which are in user talk and 633 in Wikipedia -- how is that not enough? Daveydw ee b ( chat/patch ) 10:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless the page is very high on traffic and/or very well developed, then it is probably better to be bold and make the change with a clear edit summary and then leaving a message on the talk page, simply because unless the page is heavily frequented, a proposal tends to just sit there with no reply. So I feel there is nothing wrong with a more assertive approach, unless it seems inflammatory. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose with reluctance Rockpocket potentially has much to offer, but as yet he has some weaknesses, as Ludahai notes.--Runcorn 20:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Since Ludahadi hasn't provided diffs as evidence yet, would you be able to? Daveydw ee b ( chat/patch ) 22:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per question four. Anyone who's going to consider discussion on issues where they think IAR/SNOW can apply as "procedural filibustering" cannot be trusted with the tools.  We work through consensus, and no single person should be trying to stop that at any point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jeff, I think Rockpocket meant that IAR/SNOW can be used to circumvent other people engaging in procedural filibustering.; that indeed is the point of the policies. Was that your understanding of what RP meant? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's how I read it, I find that interpretation disturbing and cannot trust that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That is what IAR and SNOW are for &mdash; to make sure that respect for policies doesn't turn into policy fetishism and wikilawyering. It seems harsh to oppose him for correctly interpreting the policies; even if you disagree with the policies, he does understand them correctly. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: IAR is policy, SNOW is not. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not harsh - if he shows as much practical use for them as he appears to above, he has not gained my trust to use the tools properly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, fair enough. You're entitled to vote as you see fit. Thank you for explaining your position. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I certainly didn't mean to imply that 'AR/SNOW can apply as "procedural filibustering"'. Quite the opposite, I hoped I had made it clear that I interpret them as a policy and essay, respectively, that can be applied to discourage exactly that. I apologise if my answer was ambiguous though and, of course, respect your differing opinion on the issue. Thanks. Rockpock  e  t  23:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand and respect it. However, there's a prevaling attitude amongst some that discussion and debate can equal filibustering, and those who dare question the authorities are quick to be labeled wikilawyers.  When I see someone say that it's a great policy to discourage "filibustering," that sets off about a dozen red flags, five alarms, and my attack cat.  I'm sure you're a good guy otherwise, I've never encountered you before today, but I hope you understand. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, i understand where you are coming from. No problem ;) Rockpock  e  t  00:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose. Deeply concerned about an individual who would approach a real-life ethical situation in the manner quoted below. (The full discussion is at Reference_desk/Miscellaneous).
 * "I agreed a fee of around $7000 for a service. The service was provided to my satisfaction... However, the provider did not debit my account with the amount we had agreed... Over a month has passed...I'm beginning to wonder whether they have forgotten completely and am wondering whether i should contact them to remind them or just wait and see what happens. Now, what i would like to know is this: am i legally liable for the amount i owe him forever...or at some point in time does his claim expire?"
 * "...i really don't see why i should go out of my way to help a business that can't even complete a simple credit card transaction (not to mention one rich enough that can afford to lose $7K without even noticing)..." 
 * We expect admins to have good judgement and a sound ethical sense. I'm not getting that impression from these statements. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * For those interested, i've clarified my hypothetical position here. Rockpock  e  t  01:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I recommend folks look at the entire thread. While I don't totally agree with the nominee, the comments above are a bit out of context. The issue ultimately was whether to keep a bank account open indefinitely until the suppliers debit (which had never been submitted) cleared. It was not about "stiffing" someone from what I can tell, but read it for yourself. --A. B. 20:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - as per above. --Duke of Duchess Street 21:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, leaning on support but the ethical issue concerns me.  T Rex  | talk  21:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Points above lead to reasonable doubt about this editor's suitability.--Holdenhurst 12:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Rockpocket has donated countless hours of his own time to improve and maintain Wikipedia. Consequently, I find these efforts to disparage his moral character, on the basis of an offhanded comment at the reference desk, to be profoundly unpersuasive.  Are RFA's going to be debased with the personal attacks and mudslinging that often characterize political campaigns? John254 00:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral Was on the verge of oppose per 8, but rationalle behind other opposes (buisness ethics lacking?) so weak no reason to join them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JBKramer (talk • contribs) 14:23, 6 November 2006.
 * 2) Neutral Was on the verge of support, but ethical issue has me concerned—not quite concerned enough to oppose, but certainly enough not to support. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 23:57, 7 November 2006 (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.