Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Daniel.Cardenas


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

Daniel.Cardenas
'''Ended (7/14/8); No consensus to promote. --Deskana (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)'''

- Long time wikipedia editor with many varied and wide contributions Daniel.Cardenas 17:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Accept. Daniel.Cardenas 17:13, 15 July 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: I’d like to help with vandalism. Temporarily semi-protecting pages and temporarily blocking anonymous I.P.  I’ve done a lot on Wikipedia, so once an admin I would look at what other admin duties need to be done.  I’ve read the admin guides, I know what can be done, I just don’t know at this point what else will interest me in the future.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I’ve done a few thousand edits on Wikipedia, not sure what would be considered best. I’ve created a dozen pages or more, such as MPEG transport stream, Toyota Camry Hybrid, etc…  I’ve enhanced many pages, mostly technical pages and green vehicles, such as battery electric vehicle where I added the table of production vehicles.  I’ve created various illustrations such as the one on gstreamer, MPEG transport stream, electricity generation, and more.  I’ve reverted many vandals’ edits.  I’ve coached users, through talk pages, and I’ve thanked users for good edits.  I’ve flagged pages for deletion which were subsequently deleted.  I tried to help Wikipedia technical issues such as server purchase tip and via IRC reviewed why Wikipedia was down (happened more in the early years, been very stable lately).  I’ve advertised Wikipedia to friends, coworkers, and families.  I had a shirt created that says “Wikipedia: The world’s best encyclopedia”.  :-)  I wore it with pride until it faded.  :-(


 * 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: Seems like a long time ago, I wasn’t happy with some edits for the ps3 article. I made my points, requested arbitration, and essentially gave up.  One of the editors some months later told me I was right.  :-)  Just a crystal ball prediction about the ps3 price, this did not prove my edits were right though.  I learned plenty through that process.


 * Questions from Chr i s  g 4. Can you give me a quick run through of the major polices and how they affect you (eg. 3RR, etc)?
 * A quick run thru on major policies? Whew, sounds like a big question.  Policies are created to promote wikipedia goals.    Major policies that effect us are described in the 5 pillars.  I'm not sure which of the policies don't effect us/me.  I don't think you want me to restate the 5 pillars.
 * With respect to the 3RR rule, you are limited to three reverts in one 24 hour period on an article. Exceptions to this include reverting simple/obvious vandalism.  People should be warned before they reached the 3RR limit.  If a user ignores this warning, then a notice will be posted on Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.  A 24 hour ban maybe imposed by an administrator.  This allows the user to "cool off".  Generally speaking 3RR violations are caused by people's passion for the article.  Passion is generally a good thing, and the people need to be treated with tender loving care, so as to channel that passion into positive contributions.  The user needs to be reminded of applicable wikipedia policies, such as no original research, cite references, no personal opinions, wikipedia is not a soapbox, neutral point of view, etc...  Users should be guided in the dispute resolution process if applicable.  The dispute resolution process involves discussing the issue on the discussion page, assuming good faith, and tagging the article as disputed.


 * 5 Also can you give me a quick run through of what admins do?
 * Admins can do similar things that other editors do. Admins have a high level of trust on wikipedia and have additional tools available to them to help in maintenance duties and enforcing wikipedia policy.  An admin thus needs to be well versed in wikipedia policy and dispute resolution process.  In my mind major admin duties include what other good editors need to do which is to educate others on applicable wikipedia policy.  Maintenance duties includes page deletions and page moves.
 * With respect to vandalism, the admin needs to be exemplorary in exposing wikipedia policy such as assuming good faith, warning the user, and follow applicable process such as noting the violation on wp:aiv, reviewing requests for temporary I.P. blocking, temporary or permanent semi page protection, and review appeals. If applicable process has been followed, such as multiple warnings then the admin should impose the remediation, such as port blocking.  I don't claim to be an expert on what all the admin does.  I do claim to be careful and study applicable best known methods before wielding admin tools.  Daniel.Cardenas 09:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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


 * Links for Daniel.Cardenas:

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

Discussion


Support
 * 1) Support A.Z. 01:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering this is technically not a vote, would you like to elaborate on that point?  New England  02:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, but I don't want to write a lenghty essay. If you have any specific questions, I'll answer them. Basically, adminship is not a big deal any more than editorship is. I didn't even read the candidate's statement, I just think everyone should be an administrator. A.Z. 02:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that answer is good enough for me.  New England  02:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well you aren't the closing bureaucrat, now, are you :-) ugen64 10:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free if you want more clarification, but he's essentially saying he supported since he views adminship as no big deal. Others users have done the same before.   New   England  (C) (H) 17:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm... I think Ugen thought you said "No that answer isn't good enough for me"... (It took me a few looks to get it right myself) Probably a mild misunderstanding. -- Dark Falls   talk 09:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - I'm happy with his answers. Deb 11:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Moral Support - this request will probably not pass, but I urge the candidate to try again in the future. Answer to Q1 seems fine - this candidate clearly understands the admin tools - but the opposers raise valid points about lack of experience in projectspace. Try again in 2-3 months after more participation in discussions and/or more vandal-fighting. WaltonOne 13:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support as long as the candidate listens to the concerns the opposition and neutrals have mentioned, the next RfA should pass. Acalamari 16:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support this person writes informative edit summaries (when written) and is actively contributing to 'pedia building. I can't see any examples of conflict or disruption over the last 1000 edits or so and feel the 'pedia will gain more than lose by having him as an admin. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I like his answers to my questions and I think he has a good understanding of what admins, however I'm afraid this rfa will fail due to pile on opposes, but with luck you might get some pile on support! --Chr i s  g 09:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support&mdash;the user shows a good understanding of policy, and I particularly like the points about dispute resolution ("...users should be guided through Dispute Resolution..."). All in all, I believe Daniel is ready for the Mop + Bucket ~ Anthøny 16:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose for someone who claims to want to fight vandalism, you have filed few or no reports at WP:AIV  New England  18:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As I noted below, I do not see persistent vandals. The vandalization is from seemingly random I.P. addresses. Also vandalism is not the only thing I want to do as an admin.  I've contributed in many ways to wikipedia and would continue to do so in a vareity admin ways.    Daniel.Cardenas 18:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose very few projectspace edits and contributions show litte knowledge of policy, and this is not sufficiently supported by the answers; comments and responses to oppose and neutral comments below shows a reluctance to warn users - schools get blocked as well! Excellent edits; not so sure about adminship. ck lostsword•T•C 19:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * searching thru my last 500 edits for "wp:" you will notice that I've quoted policy about 30 times. This doesn't count times I've quoted policy on discussion pages.  Yes, schools and companies get blocked but I'm not in favor of blocking so many users.  At my workplace there are 6000 employees.  I've been blocked and many others because of one single relatively trivial dispute, unrelated to our positive edits. Daniel.Cardenas 19:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - I have the strong feeling that you do not have a solid grasp on what Admins do. I have a hard time supporting a candidate who is asking for the mop to deal with vandalism issues, yet has very little experience reverting vandalism. I honestly suggest that you set aside the idea of adminship for a couple months and take the time to become better familiar with admin procedures and processes. I think you should also spend a little time each day as a recent changes patroller- which is the easiest way to jump into vandalism reverting. I will be much more open to supporting you after you have a much stronger projectspace background. Trusilver 20:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm sorry, but I must oppose per Ck lostword and Trusilver. I also believe you don't have a grasp of what admins do, and have little experience in that area.  Giggy  UCP 22:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Understood. I believe people who are granted admin rights gain experience, gain a solid grasp of the job.  Daniel.Cardenas 22:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Editors who gain the rights without the experience or grasp of the job have the potential to cause a lot of damage. I think that is the concern. Trusilver 22:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand policy, consensus, and coaching. I'm not the maverick that is going to cause damage.  I'd rather do nothing then do the wrong thing.  Evident by editing disputes that I simply withdrew from.  Its better to teach someone how to wiki, then to block.  I suggest that someone who has multiple years of contributions in a variety of ways is unlikely to cause a lot of damage, but the contrary, continue to assist.  Daniel.Cardenas 23:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I beleive you misunderstand the amount of damage an admin can do - accidentally doing something in the wrong situation can cause humongous disputes, even when you are acting in good faith. New users often see administrators as people who run the site, and therefore they believe they have a lot of power. I have a friend who I know would have been a great editor that got scared off due to trying to improve an article, and being reverted and the page protected, due to a misunderstanding of the protection policy. Same thing applies to most admin tools. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 10:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Little evidence of significant involvement in WP:NAMESPACE. This is the only guide we have with which to judge your competence in admin-related tasks. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 23:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Per Trusilver. I just really don't see the need for the tools. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (<font color="Black">ταlκ )  01:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I don't see why you need the tools. You say you will fight vandalism but you have made few or no edits to AIV I'm not sure if you even know what AIV is. Oysterguitarist 03:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. You do not seem to get that although the tools arent that bad, not having the knowledge to use them can cause damage - even if it is not immediately obvious that anything has been done wrong. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 10:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose I see that you have relatively few edits in user talk page, which means that you don't communicate with users often. And your edit summary usage makes me worried. <font color="#0000FF">OhanaUnited  Talk page  13:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Communication is the key to being an effective admin - you have to be able to transmit a clear and concise message to editors of all levels, from ten year-olds to post-Docs. Your statement, answers to questions and use of the the User Talk space doesn't reveal your abilities in this area, so I suggest that you garner more experience in interaction before attempting another RfA in the future. (aeropagitica) 15:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Sorry, I must agree with the above. You need to show some more interest in the varying districts of Wikipedia, such as a WikiProject or AIV. <font color="#000000">NSR <font color="#26466D ">77 <font color="#000000">T<font color="#26466D ">C  11:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Weak oppose sorry. I feel that you are just a little too inexperienced, and I recommend you become some more familiar with processes like AfD and vandalism patrolling. Don't hesitate to reapply when you feel ready! You may also want to try a Editor Review.  Sala Skan  17:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose &mdash; I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power-hunger. Kurt Weber 00:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose - so once an admin I would look at what other admin duties need to be done. I’ve read the admin guides, I know what can be done... This makes little or no sense at all. -- FayssalF  - <sup style="background:gold;">Wiki me up®  04:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral leaning towards oppose. On the one hand you do really good editing work, but I can't see much evidence of vandal fighting, which you claim to want to take part in. You have no edits to WP:AIV and very little user talk space interaction, so if you are reverting vandalism you don't appear to be warning or reporting users. I'd suggest returning once you're more accomplished in the fields you want to take part in. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">Zeibura (Talk) 18:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of the reverts are from anonymous edits. I don't see many vandals who are registered users.  I count around 20 reverts in the last 500 edits. Daniel.Cardenas 18:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't get what you mean there, IP addresses still have user talk pages, and should still be warned when they vandalise. There are plenty of vandalism only accounts getting blocked day in day out, such vandalism often shows up at []. Sorry, but I just don't see evidence that you understand the processes for dealing with vandalism, so can't support yet. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">Zeibura (Talk) 18:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * O.K. just that most of the people I'm aware of edit from non static I.P.s so those messages aren't often seen by the intended people. If the I.P. is static then it is part of a proxy server that serves many people.  Large employers and schools do this.  In reviewing the vandalization trends I rarely see the same I.P. causing it.  Daniel.Cardenas 18:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not true, static IP's are used for a lot of things, including home DSL lines for a lot of US customers. I have a static IP address, and so do many others. Also, broadband users Ip addresses usually only change every 48 hours, or however long the ISP sets their DNS leases for. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 10:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral leaning towards oppoose I have to agree with Zeibura 100%. Politics rule 18:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral - I have to admit Daniel is a little experienced in editing, but the opposers have some points. <font color="blue" face="vivaldi">H <font color="blue" face="Times new roman">irohisat <font color="orange" face="Times new roman">Talk 23:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral - per Zeibura. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 01:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral per all the above concerns. -- S iva1979 <sup style="background:yellow;">Talk to me 04:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral To avoid piling on. I just don't honestly see why you want/need the tools.  Jmlk  1  7  17:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral also avoiding the pile-on. You should get an understanding of what the tools do and when and why they are used, especially regarding vandalism and static/dynamic IPs. The vandalism templates are as much for us to track when, and for which edit, a vandal was notified as they are for actually warning the user. All of us learn as we go, but you've got to know the basics of mopping before you get the key to the janitor's closet. It doesn't seem that you need access to the heavy disinfectants yet. - Krakatoa  Katie  01:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral Would have been support, however few reports to AIV when claiming to want to fight vandalism is not encouraging. PeteShanosky 14:51, 21 July 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.