[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rockero

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Rockero[edit]

Final (52/15/10) ended 01:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Rockero (talk · contribs) – Rockero has been an active editor for six months with over 4300 edits. He has improved the content and neutrality of articles particularly concerning the Southwest U.S., Mexico, and Hispanic topics. In addition he has created new articles, spotted and repaired vandalism, worked on a range of categorization and template efforts, and helped create a new wikiproject. During this time he has followed important Wikipedia policies and norms, and interacted with other editors in a collegial manner. He has been recognized by the community with appreciations, DYKs, and barnstars. Altogether he has shown that he is a valuable and trustworthy editor who is committed to the success of this project, involved in its procedures, and who is willing to perform a variety of functions. On account of all these factors, I believe he ought to be an administrator. -Will Beback 06:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --Rockero 00:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Full Support Excellent editor. Very helpful and active in the community and WikiProjects. Always supportive and able to resolve differencies peacefully. Joelito 00:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Great work so far! DarthVader 02:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - Richardcavell 02:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Looks good. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - I guess I should get my name in here too. -Will Beback 05:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support A good editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, el Wikipedia requiro mas de adminstratores mexicanos. JIP | Talk 14:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support good editor --rogerd 15:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support good editor. Some AfD activity wouldn't hurt though. --Tone 15:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support --Jay(Reply) 17:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Wow. The oppose votes make absolutely no sense. Why has no one commented on this? KI 18:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support per KI. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 19:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support, like KI, I'm concerned at the trivial arguments being used against someone who seems to me to be a good wikipedian and quality editor. Bucketsofg 20:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Well, I dunno, I trust this guy... Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 02:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Would make a great administrator. Funnybunny 02:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I support you.--Adam (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, seems good. Kusma (討論) 04:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support--Jusjih 14:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Strong, active editor. He shows every sign of being willing to use his powers for good. Give the guy a broom. -CTSWyneken 16:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Active, experienced editor. _-M o P-_ 18:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, excellent choice. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 21:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support.  Grue  21:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Editor with good contributions to article space. Seems likely to exercise restraint in use of admin tools. I am troubled by the rationales for many of the oppose votes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support: Will Beback does not nominate editors who are not well-qualified. Jonathunder 22:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support per my criteria. Batmanand | Talk 23:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Wholehearted and unconditional support. I rarely participate in RFAs, and I have probably voted most often to oppose editors that I don't think should be administrators. I've seen User:Rockero do many fine edits on the Southern California topics that are on my watchlist. I can recommend him as an admin unreservedly because I trust his judgement. I am extremely disappointed in some of the oppose votes I see below that show the many of the voters have not really examined Rockero's edits. For all of those who are voting oppose per User:Freakofnurture, they should also be copying his Tentatively oppose. BlankVerse 03:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, fine edits on topics not always covered by biased Wikipedia, including translations from the Spanish Wikipedia on non-Mexican related areas. Mariano(t/c) 05:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support For one, there is only one admin to every ~1,220 articles and ~1430 users. I.E., they number at less than 0.1% of the total population on Wikipedia. I'd say that is too few. At least 0.1% would be adequate. An idea you should apply if deemed necessary- Watch any new admin's actions closely for the first thirty days to make sure they are fit for the job. --Shultz IV 08:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Good editor, Shyam (T/C) 11:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Calm person, good editor, thoughtful, started a WikiProject, positive energy Joaquin Murietta 14:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support WP needs more admins who specialize on a narrow range of topics. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. His work is specialized because he focuses on what he knows best, and the call for more diversity in his edits is misplaced. An editor who uses editing tools to write what he knows how to write will likely be an administrator who uses admin tools only when he knows what he's doing with them. Which is exactly what we need. --Michael Snow 21:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Tim Q. Wells 22:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support, I had a few misgivings about bias but the answers to the addition questions suffice. SorryGuy 00:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Joe I 02:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. a positive and constructive editor, unlikely to abuse sysop tools.--cjllw | TALK 02:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Excellent editor and Wikipedian. Rockero, you have my full support. (^'-')^ Covington 02:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support a good user Jedi6-(need help?) 03:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Whilst there are a number of oppose votes there seems to be no evidence that he will misuse adminship. I'm going to Assume Good Faith. RicDod 09:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Looks like an experienced and positive editor. Thumbs up! —Lesfer (talk/@) 17:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. An experienced editor. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, I had a few doubts with regard to administrative duties, but considering that this user is very active, maintains civility, and the support from other posters whom I respect, I'm going to support.--Jersey Devil 00:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. He has been very helpful to me as a fledgling editor, and though his range of topics may appear "narrow", that is a red herring. His treatment of those topics is diplomatic, civil, and fair, and wikipedia could use an administrator with extensive knowledge on those topics. Murcielago 01:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, per Michael Snow's excellent analysis above. Some of the reasons to oppose are quite frivolous, IMO - we need more editors dedicated to particular areas of Wikipedia, not less. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support good user.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 06:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support experienced and unlikely to abuse tools. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 07:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support seems like a nice bloke. Thumbelina 17:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Nothing to disqualify. Should make a good administrator. FloNight talk 19:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. This user has my full confidence. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 20:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support -- I don't think this editor is well-qualified but he seems cool, clear, and extremely able to learn on the job. I think he'll grow into adminship nicely. John Reid 23:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Guettarda 00:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support, looks good. --Terence Ong 16:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose - A little biased. EKN 03:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)EKN[reply]
    Could you provide evidence of a bias for the benefit of voters here? Thanks. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Tentatively oppose. Perusal of his edits to article and project namespaces indicates focus on a narrow range of topics. May support in the future, if he makes a reasonable effort to branch out a bit and discover what pages lurk in other corners of the encyclopedia (or maybe if he makes a sincere commitment right now). Maybe one day a week on non-Hispanic topics, establish a rapport with a wider range of editors and administrators. — Apr. 16, '06 [05:26] <freakofnurxture|talk>
    You're voting oppose because because he edits too much on Hispanic articles...? What does the subject of the pages he edits have to do with his ability to perform as an administrator? Please explain. KI 18:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If I understand Freakofnurture, the concern here is a narrow range of editing, not the focus of that narrow range. JoshuaZ 21:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. Don't play the race card here. If all his edits were related to Martin Scorsese films, for example, I'd oppose just as strongly. And I love Scorsese films. — Apr. 17, '06 [09:43] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  3. Oppose, per freakofnurture. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 07:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Orphan pictures, barely active enough in the wikipedia community. Masssiveego 08:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please remember that all pictures used on project, user, or talk pages are listed as orphan pictures on Interiot's tool. --TBC??? ??? ??? 12:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I also fail to see why it matters whether or not someone's pictures are orphaned. Perhaps they outlived their use? Why does this cast down on a candidate for adminship? --Darth Deskana (Darth Talk) 17:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it shouldn't affect an RfA, but unused pictures (and all free pictures, really) should be on Commons, unless they're fair use, but then they can't be orphaned or they're deleted. --Rory096(block) 17:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So, if you upload a picture and someone finds a better one to replace yours in the article you are forever banned from being a sysop? I don't understand. Afonso Silva 21:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Pictures that have little use on wikipedia can be put up for deletion by the user in question. It shows the user in question has either wasteful, negligent tendencies, or an inability to understand the pictures process, which means the user cannot be trusted at this time. Please bring this topic up again in Wikipedia request for adminship talk page, or leave a message on my talk page. Masssiveego 21:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - Virtually no participation on WP:RFA, WP:AFD, WP:RFC, has also advertised his adminship on user page (Sounds like more of a peeve I know, but adminship is not a popularity campaign). --Knucmo2 13:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The lack of participation is a valid point, but having a message on his user page regarding his RFA is not. Many users encourage this. Users who interact negatively with potential admins and see the link to the RFA — Preceding unsigned comment added by KI (talk • contribs)
    The point is valid. From What RfA contributors look for and hope not to see: "Advertising" your RfA: Some editors do not like to see an RfA "advertised" by the nominee on other people's talk pages or on IRC. RfA is not a political campaign. The intent is to develop consensus. Impartial evaluation of a candidate, not how popular they are, is the goal. --Knucmo2 15:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is not valid, the quote says "Some editors do not like to see an RfA "advertised" by the nominee on other people's talk pages or on IRC." (emphasis added) There is no mention of one's talk page, and in fact given that often the users who one disagrees with have one's talk page on their watchlist, putting such a notice up is in fact anti-advertisement. JoshuaZ 15:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Even so, it doesn't invalidate my vote whatsoever. --Knucmo2 15:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally see no harm in putting up a message on one's user page. Since users click on a user page to discuss/learn more about a user, a message may attract support as well as oppose votes. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong Oppose Darth Vader said to me that I should have 1,500 edits before I should run again. So you should have about 500,000. General Eisenhower 17:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do provide reasons for opposing. As it stands it looks like a bad faith vote stemming from your failed Rfa. Joelito 17:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I read that and figured about the same thing. And no bots have 500000 edits. -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 23:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Remember to remain civil. Computerjoe's talk 19:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow! Now I'm really glad I voted against GE's nom, as if the scolding on my talk page wasn't enough. Does this sort of behaviour represent what Community Justice is all about? I'm also concerned about this Wikipedia Supreme Court you claim to be Chief Justice of... Pete.Hurd 19:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. This doesn't represent Community Justice. However, this isn't the place to criticise a third-party. Computerjoe's talk 19:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I urge you to remove this bad faith vote. It is a pretty shocking interpretation of my comment on your RfA if you are serious about your reason here. DarthVader 03:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose I have concerns regarding their judgment, though my vote is liable to change pending the user's answers to my questions. Cheerio, Oge Naws 21:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak oppose. On one side, he seems like a good editor and could be a promising janitor. I am certainly pleased about his diligence (and patience!) on answering so many questions below. On the other hand, I am somewhat concerned about the answer to questions on admin tasks below (1, 3, 4, Tigersharks question 1) below. I feel an editor should have some experience in catting, helping newbies, vandal fighting to begin with. This, perhaps, is the wider range of topics FreakofNurture would also like to see. Also, the fact that you're relatively new, and mainly make a vast number of minor edits makes it harder to read what type of admin you would be. No contributions on WP:AN/I or WP:RFC or similar pages make it harder to assess what type of judgement calls you would make, which are so vital for an admin. Feel free to comment on my vote. The Minister of War (Peace) 09:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Not sure that the candidate has made a case for needing the tools. Vandal fighting is mentioned, but doesn't appear to have made any edits to WP:AIAV (I'd like to see some experience here before supporting). Deletion is also mentioned, but I would have preferred to see more than a handful of edits to AfD pages. TigerShark 10:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak oppose, definite potential, but need to see more participation and demonstrated understanding in projectspace, per many above. No-one is questioning commitment or motivation, take it all on board and you'll be sweet in a couple of months. Deizio 23:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. Projectspace is an important aspect, because admins end up making policy.—thames 02:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins do not make poilicy they just enforce it. The community makes policy. Joelito 04:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right. However, the gulf between the written policy and the practical implementation based on admin interpretation and consensus is substantial.—thames 17:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you on that. Joelito 17:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per freakofnurture, not ready yet, nothing personal. --Cyde Weys 02:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong Oppose. The promotion to adminship could greatly sway perceptions of the Border Protests which are ongoing in America. His clear biases are self-evident that he could become dangerous when given powers above the average editor. IP Address 08:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please present evidence of his editing bias. Even though the user has clear biases in his personal life his edits clearly show his commitment to NPOV while editing this encyclopedia. Joelito 12:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, one of his gracious beneficiaries. You know damned well what I mean! For the record, I explicitly disagree with Will Beback's liberalist false presentation of Rockero. Rockero is an activist locally known from his area and Wikipedia is supposed to discourage such behaviour here. That Will Beback follows some rules and thinks it is alright to bypass others in order to press for his perceptions, is a clear example of his NPOV difficulties. I could hardly trust any nomination by him, thereby also extending my lack of consideration for Rockero. IP Address 13:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Can you give an example of a POV edit by Rockero or not? And also, please be careful of WP:NPA. JoshuaZ 18:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per freakofnurture. More time to gain experience will be helpful in this instance. Xoloz 16:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose, no experience in areas where admins need experience. See above oppose votes for where you can gain such experience, and I'm sure you'll make it in a few months (if you don't this time). Proto||type 12:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral Not really pushed to support. No real reason to oppose I guess, but not fully convinced he is qualified. I might change my vote later. Moe ε 01:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral pending responses to my questions Switched to oppose TigerShark 05:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral but leaning support. The user is involved in a lot of high quality content edits but not enough of the other "policy" parts of Wikipedia. Then again, Jimbo himself says that Adminship isn't a "big deal" and in a perfect world every reasonable user with a decent knowledge of policy would have access to Admin tools. So I'm conflicted between these two rationales, but like Moe I might change my vote later seeing how things develop.--Jersey Devil 10:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Switched to Support.--Jersey Devil 00:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral but leaning oppose. He's a good editor, with many high quality edits as Jersey Devil said, but I'm a bit concerned about the administrative side of it, particularly his answer to JoshuaZ's fourth question. — FireFox • T [12:57, 16 April 2006]
  3. Neutral, perhaps later. - Mailer Diablo 14:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral pending answers to further questions from JoshuaZ below.--Jusjih 16:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral, answer to question 1 makes me think he doesn't need admin tools much. --Rory096(block) 18:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Now leaning towards oppose per revised answer to 4, BorgHunter 1 and Oge Naws 2. --Rory096(block) 22:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral not leaning to either. Computerjoe's talk 19:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral leaning towards support. Would be support except for the answer to question 4 which indicates a lack of knowledge about relevant policies. JoshuaZ 21:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Now neutral leaning towards oppose. I'm further concerned by the revamped answer to question 4. It appears that the candidate had time to see if there were any relevant policies, and basically knew that his answer was inconsistent with current policy, and yet his revised answer is still far from following policy. Furthermore, his answer to Tigershark's first question and the user's lack of visible vandal fighting (together with his intention to use his admin tools to help fight vandals) makes we worry. However, his contributions are of first class and he clearly has the right intentions, so I don't intend to oppose for now. JoshuaZ 12:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral Tempted to give support simply to offset some of the most unfair and ridiculous reasons for opposition I've ever seen. However, others got there first and my natural inclination here is to be neutral. Not particularly swayed either way. --kingboyk 23:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral leaning support per JoshuaZ and Kingboyk. No real reason to support, however, but less reason to oppose. -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 23:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral leaning to support, looks like a great editor but I have to think about it. Poke me on my talk page if I haven't changed my vote in three days time. --Terence Ong 10:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral Per Moe's comments above. Netkinetic 12:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral not sure Jaranda wat's sup 03:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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: What I'd most like to do is help new users with problems and questions. I'd like to help out with categorization some, and I can help with reversion of vandalism, article deletion, and wherever else I am needed. Now that I have discovered Wikipedia:Backlog, I can keep my eye on it and help out there.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I think I did well on Estela Ruiz, if I do say so myself. By the time I wrote it, I had enough wiki-experience to include notes and references, so it represents my first article as a well-versed editor. Although Huei tlamahuiçoltica... was one of my first articles, it is still one of my favorites. And I think I did a good job of mediating disputes between rival editors at Save Our State, which has been stable for quite some time now. I am proud of the leadership role I had taken on at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mexican-Americans/Chicanos and the efforts the team has made to expand information about this under-covered topic on Wikipedia.
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 only real conflict I have been involved in was with User:69.163.64.163 (and User:70.35.25.53, who may have been the same person) over the content of Onterio Varrio Sur. That was the one time I became frustrated. After numerous attempts at dialogue, I ended up listing the article at WP:3O. The conflict is ongoing, but I have not been heavily involved in it. Aside from this, there have been several times when I have been accused of being everything from a "Aztlan fanatic" (Talk:Bronze race) to a "Mecha member" (Talk:Reconquista (Mexico)), usually by unregistered or very new users. There are probably more examples out there. I can only assume that these editors misinterpret my zeal to provide information about an under-represented group on Wikipedia as political or ideological zeal, but I cannot speak for them. (In fact, I would prefer to not even speak for myself, but rather to allow my edits here to speak for themselves.) Despite these conflicts, I have not involved in any edit wars and have always let personal attacks slide. I hope to continue to responding in a cool-headed fashion and to use blocking privileges sparingly if at all. I will also consult with other editors and admins for advice as new situations arise.

Questions from JoshuaZ

1. Please discuss a bit more your work with Wikipedia:WikiProject Mexican-Americans/Chicanos.
A: As a member of the Wikiproject, I filled in the project page after it was created by User:Joaquin Murietta and have participated in discussions about what direction the project should take. I have formatted and expanded articles falling under the project's purview, and created several new ones. I have attempted to encourage the participation of other project members by recognizing their contributions.
2 Are there any admin powers that you would like to give to all users? Why or why not?
A: It doesn't seem to me that granting all users admin privileges would be particularly beneficial to the wikipedia. If the purpose of this question is to assess whether I take this adminship seriously, the answer is yes, I do.
3 If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
A: If I had any fantastic ideas about how to improve WP, I would propose them in the appropriate places. I have my criticisms, but don't we all?
4 Under what circumstances will you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
A: None. I said "none" because at this point I wouldn't feel comfortable blocking anybody. Not until I get in the trenches and learn a little more. Now that I have done a little bit of reading (although much more remains to be done), I suppose I would indefinitely block in cases of gross violation of NPA without direction from ArbCom. It's sort of the same reason I have mostly Hispanic articles--just a comfort level. As I learn more, I become more comfortable. That is, I won't access admin powers I don't feel comfortable using. If the community dares entrust me with a mop and broom of my own. (updated 02:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC))

Further questions from JoshuaZ

5 What would you say to concerns that your editing has been in a narrow range of articles? JoshuaZ 14:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Well, we write about what we know. I write mostly about Mexican-Americas issues because that's my field of expertise IRL, because there is a need for it, and because many of the articles on that topic are inaccurate or otherwise lacking. However, I have edited many other articles about which I know nothing for grammar, spelling, formatting, and especially adding categories. I have also created articles outside of my "narrow range" to quicken redlinks, chimed in on talkpage debates, and helped out other WikiProjects. If I haven't deviated greatly from my preferred topic, it is because there remains so much work to do there.
6 What would you say to concerns that you have strong biases about a variety of Mexico related topics? JoshuaZ 14:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: I'd like someone to point out an example of when I have demonstrated a bias. True, I work mostly on Mexican- and Mexican-American articles, but I also strive to adhere to the NPOV policy. I do not whitewash the history about which I write. The example that comes to mind is my biography of Rodolfo Gonzales. The violence in Denver is not mentioned in any of the biographies on him, which leads to a more heroic image for the man. But I included all the information I found in my research, even though it impacts the image of a man many in the community venerate as a hero. My bias, if I have one, is toward accuracy and good writing. I think it is unfair to accuse me of bias without providing an example or an explanation. (It gives nothing specific to respond to and leaves me with this label of "biased" and no way to shake it).

Questions from TigerShark

1 Why would you be a good administrator?
A: I don't know if I'd be the best administrator. As I mention on my userpage, my focus is on content-generation. And as some have noted, I am not that involved in th "Wikipedia community" (Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces), which is what is expected of sysops. What I do know is that I want to help this project, and that I can follow rules and be fair about applying them. If the community feels that granting me sysop tools will be beneficial to the project, then I will do my best to use them for that purpose. If I find they don't help or I'm in over my head, I'll renounce them.
2 You recently reverted content here. Could you please explain why this was definitely "nonsense" (I genuinely do not know enough the about the subject to verify this), and give your thoughts on the suitability of that edit summary in this instance?
A: Where do I begin? This is one of the many articles I have on my watchlist that is in need of rewriting, verification, and some purging. Like most of what I have on my watchlist, I'd like to improve the quality of this article at some point, but for now I keep my eye on it for vandalism, which tends to be racist. When I read the latest edit, the first sentence seemed like it might provide some good information, but what followed was just racist stereotyping. Calling the names Jaquanda and Deshaun "ghetto" is utterly racist, and the statement "another term for this ehavior [sic] is 'keepin it real.'" is just nonsense. Does it purport that "keepin' it real' is another term for this stereotypical behavior? And what relation, if any is there to the word "homie"? As to the question of whether there is racist stereotyping associated with the word "homie", the answer is probably yes. But simply reproducing those stereotypes is not the best way to go about it. Upon reflection, I probably should have asked the anonymous contributor to provide some verifiable source for the claim. Or maybe I should have copied the addition to the talkpage. But as the article is in need of revision anyway, I didn't see much harm in simply removing the addition. Can we really fish every worthy idea from every contribution and appropriately adapt it to the structure of an existing article so that it still makes sense and reads like an encyclopedia? Ideally, yes, and when contributions are helpful, that's precisely what I try to do. But in all practicality, it's just not possible with every contribution. I beg your pardon if I was rash, but I really don't have the time to be that meticulous. I find it better spent doing comprehensive improvements on single articles at a time and monitoring others for vandalism and other new changes.
Hi Rockero. Thanks for the answers. I have to admit that I made a bit of a mistake here as I only saw the AC/DC to Metallica change and completely missed the rest of the content that you reverted (that'll teach me to edit so early in the morning) :) I hope that makes a bit more sense of why I raised it. Anyway, thanks for the balanced answer to what must have seemed a slightly strange question. I am going to stay neutral for the time being, just while I give your nomination a bit more consideration. Cheers TigerShark 11:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? "associated with wearing lots of cheap, gaudy jewelry bling bling" can it get any more subjective.... this revert wasn't even worth the question and so obvious i would even start to believe.....nahSlicky 01:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Slicky. Please see the explaination I originally posted above. Cheers TigerShark 10:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Oge Naws

1 In your opinion do personal attacks including civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, be construed as personal attacks or is a statement regarding the actions of the user not a statement about the user? Cheerio, Oge Naws 21:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Remarks about an editor's behavior written in a civil tone should not be considered personal attacks. Of course, there is not always a clear line between remarks about a person and those about a person's behavior. More than just the words used must be taken into consideration, including the context in which they were used, the situation leading up to their use, and concerns about sensitivity towards others.
2 Expanding on question 1, how much of a difference, if any, do you see between a user stating "You are a troll" and "You are acting like a troll" and how would you demonstrate this in your decision to block? Cheerio, Oge Naws 21:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: The example given is a case in point. Accusing someone of being a troll is not much different from accusing someone of behaving like a troll, since a troll is defined only by their actions. In either case, I think the simple use of the word "You" gives both statements an accusatory tone, which is not the most civil tone to use. As in marriage counseling and conflict management, "I" statements are to be preferred. Credit should be given to users for attempting to refrain from attacks and remaining civil, but when there are multiple indications that an editor has acted in bad faith or maliciously, they will weigh more heavily in blocking decisions than the aforementioned attempts.

Questions from :IO

1 Are you quick to delete articles, revert sections without first discussion or giving someone the benefit of the doubt?

Foremost, do you rather delete or revert rather then verify and contribute?

A: I believe I have answered this somewhat in my answer about Tigershark's question about a reversion. I adhere to Wikipedia's AGF policy as closely as possible. If there is a way to include anyone's contribution, even if it requires some creativity, I prefer to do so, as it minimizes the chances that the article will be vandalized.

Question from BorgHunter: (This seemed like a pretty important question so I thought I'd drag it here from ny talkpage.)

1 Regarding your answer to Question JoshuaZ-4: Can you define "gross violation"? Also, would you do it to a first-time offender with no block history? I'm also concerned that you say "much more [reading is] to be done", yet you accepted your RfA...shouldn't admins already be experts at Wikipedia?
A Ideally, yes, administrators should be experts. But since policy is always growing and changing, it's virtually impossible to be an 'expert'. I don't exactly know all the policies. I think this is actually an good thing, because I will have to look up everything before taking any action, which will guarantee that everything I do is according to the rules. If I am granted administrative capabilities, does that necessarily mean that I have to start using them immediately? As far as a gross violation of the NPA policy--it seemed like the most important instance in which to use the block. I suppose I'd call a "gross violation" an extremely harsh or a repeated attack. If the attack met these qualifications, I would temporarily block them regardless of whether the user had been blocked before.

Question from American Saga:

1 How would you resolve the following conflict: A new user edits an article which leads to a revert war with a member of the arbitration committee. You think that the new user's edit improves the article. Neither party will yield, compromise or give you any additional information. Do you side with the new user or with the member of the arbitration committee?
A: It depends on the situation, but in theory, I suppose it would depend on the grounds on which I thought the new editors edit was helpful. If it was because of Wikipedia policy, I'd favor the new user. If it were some other reason, I'd probably side with the ArbCom member. But somehow I doubt that this situation would come up.
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Rockero&oldid=1125660052"