Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NickCatal

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

NickCatal[edit]

final (4/12/3) ending 13:48 10 January 2006 (UTC)

NickCatal (talk · contribs) – I am a somewhat long time contributor (First Contribution October 10, 2004.) I set a goal for myself this year to become a Wikipedia Administrator. Not because I want the power (although I must admit the rollback feature is nice for vandalism control,) but because I think that Wikipedia only works if there are people, like me, who believe that it, by nature, has flaws but that they can be fixed as a community. I'm not amazing at what I do when it comes to contributions. Obviously many of you will scrutinize my previous contributions. I realize that I have my flaws and that I am not a perfect contributor. For example, I realize that my copyedit skills are nothing to write home about. Yet I work to improve each and every day, and I will be as careful as possible with my administrative privileges and when I do not know something, I will be the first one to go out and ask. No matter the outcome of this vote, I will continue to be a strong and consistent member of the Wikipedia community. Thank you. Nick Catalano (Talk) 13:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yes. I humbly accept my own nomination. --Nick Catalano (Talk) 13:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to withdraw my nomination... I will re post at a later date no sooner than 1 month from now... Keep the comments coming though so I get more supports the next time I try... Thanks. --Nick Catalano (Talk) 17:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to withdraw my withdraw of my nomination... Per a proposal put on my talk page so that I may get more comments and opinions... --Nick Catalano (Talk) 17:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support Use of edit summaries is overrated as almost all users who become administrators stop using them. I also find the response to NC's answer for question 1 questionable. It seems a lot like users are desperately trying to find an excuse to oppose. While a lack of communal interaction and familiarity with Wikipedia are valid reasons to oppose, I have not seen any diffs showing this user misusing Wikipedian formatting or abusing other users. KI 02:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. But please use more edit summaries. --Kefalonia 12:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. King of All the Franks 13:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I want to give him a chance. εいぷしろんγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Based on edits alone, you have very little interactive experience with Wikipedia. Only 50 project space, 1 project talk, and 6 user talk (4 of which are you blanking your own talk page...a very inexperienced thing to do, especially when you're on RfA and you make other users dig for your old information). The most important thing an admin does is interact with the Wikipedia community in some way or another, and you seem to only have written 2 things on other users' talk pages, and outside of FAC, you have practically zero experience contributing to guidelines, policies, AfD, RfA, etc. Getting out of the edits zone, your initial statement is less than comforting to those of us who might want to give you the ability to wield blocking power (and it is from that point of view that I am being such a hard ass about my guidelines here). We can't award you adminship if you have a very inconsistent (and short) track record, because good intentions aren't good enough when it comes to RfA. I agree with most of the information in question 3, but I can only find one instance in your contributions when you confronted a vandal, and even then it wasn't using proper any proper templates. You answer to question 1 looks a bit strange to me as well: "It is my personal goal to become the vain of adolescents everywhere who find it entertaining to add "l33t haxorz" to every page." Not only does it seem like you might abuse the revert powers given to you, but it also seems like you've got something against adolescent members of the Wikipedia community, considering it seems like you implied that most vandals are that way because they are young. I'm sorry to be so harsh, but with more experience (and more than 200 edits every half year), you might be a decent candidate. If you feel like immersing yourself in the Wikipedia community, please look around Wikipedia:Requests for adminship and WP:AfD for starters. Come back in a few months and try to decided then if you feel you are ready for adminship. Thanks for reading, JHMM13 (T | C) 14:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Pardon the blanking of the talk page. It was done before the nomination. I would compile them now, but I am hesitant of changing it after the nomination process has started. I am personally not a fan of the blocking feature. I find it unnecessary in all but the most extreme cases, and I would always consult with another admin before using it. I am well aware of your concerns over my first answer below, and I have updated it to better reflect my intentions. Thank you for your suggestions and I hope that I have cleared up concerns that you, and most likely others who will be participating in this process, have. --Nick Catalano (Talk) 14:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for answering and updating your answer. Generally speaking, I don't care about that kind of thing, but it seemed a bit gung-ho in the answer, so I had to address it. I still maintain my opposition to your nomination, but I sincerely hope I can help you integrate into the community in the future. Please don't let this deter you from participating...you have the attitude for adminship, just not the experience. JHMM13 (T | C) 15:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - I'll be honest that I don't dig self-nominations, but beyond that, which especially shows in your answer to question 3, all you are saying is 'if that situation came up, I would do this and that', but you obviously have little experience in the matters. It seems illogical to give admin power to someone who has like the person before me said 'little interactive experience with wikipedia'. Kusonaga 14:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Little interactive experience? Perhaps, but doing chores around the wiki is of interest to me. It isn't as if I am going to become a major community player overnight, but reviewing recent changes and addressing speedy-deletes based on previous ideas is something that I will be great at. --Nick Catalano (Talk) 14:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But a lot of people have interest in doing this job and not everybody can get it, that's why an unofficial standard is that of experience. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, after all. If you got some more experience, I'd probably support you becoming an admin. You just need to get there first. Kusonaga 15:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    By far most of those who are put up for the job of admin get the position... So lets address a few things on what I feel would make this a better place: Wikipedia needs admins with passion and a desire to work hard more than it needs admins who have done the 500 different things that those who are commenting here think they should have. Half of the things this group thinks that an admin SHOULD do is, while not falling on deaf ears, not exactly a prerequisite for the job. If the Wikipedia community wants me trolling around the AfD page for hours on end when 90% of the time a consensus is reached before I would even have an opportunity to put my 2 cents in, that is a waste of my time that could otherwise be spent... making meaningful edits to articles when I feel I have something to add? So what do I do for the next month? Pump up my edit count by reverting every single instance of vandalism I see, hoping that I can do it before someone else? What about add my vote on each and every new request for admin proposals? I am ready to make the argument that my passion for Wikipedia trumps the numbers that the rest of this group seems to feel that I lack, and because of that passion I will (maybe not this week, but sometime in the future) make a great administrator and reposition myself as an even greater asset to the Wikipedia community. --Nick Catalano (Talk) 04:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I suggest you try in a month again. You are certainly impassionate enough that I have faith in the fact that you'll get your promotion on a second try. Just get your name out there a bit, and good luck. Kusonaga 17:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose To few edit summaries. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. If you set the goal for yourself to be an administrator, I suggest that you perform some maintenance tasks allowed to non-editors and participate more in the Talk: and Wikipedia: areas. In addition, you should use edit summaries with much greater frequency and have some clear-cut goals with where you want to contribute as an administrator. --Deathphoenix 16:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose with advice: Instead of removing old messages from your user talk page, you could archive them so that other users can easily review them. --TantalumTelluride 20:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I'm opposing due to lack of experience (less than 1000 edits). I will likely support this user's next RfA if he continues on his current track. --TantalumTelluride 22:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose this time around. Nick, I don't doubt your reasons to become an admin. However, I feel that you need more experience working within the en.wikipedia community before I support your nomination. I see no particular examples of work resolving disputes or moderating issues. If there are, can you fill me in? Kingturtle 20:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose: Only around 500 edits. Too little DaGizza Chat 23:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. To little time, to little Wiki policy knowledge.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 17:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Be more active, then re-nominate yourself later. --Revolución (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose until you get more experience, especially with chores. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-06 03:03Z
  11. Oppose Inconsistant use of edit summaries, barely any use of User Talk shows little direct user interaction. xaosflux Talk/CVU 04:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. As per above. More experience needed and higher percentage of edit summaries is a must. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral Use edit summaries more often and you will gain my future support.--Alhutch 15:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Rob Church Talk 02:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. Your heart's in the right place, but perhaps later. --Chris S. 09:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 46% for major edits and 50% for minor edits. Based on the last 100 major and and 100 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and Talk namespaces. Mathbot 16:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
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. I find vandalism patrol especially entertaining. It is my personal goal to become the vain of adolescents everywhere who find it entertaining to add "l33t haxorz" to every page. (Update: Because I happen to know quite a few adolescents who will spend an afternoon vandalizing Wikipedia then telling me about it... that isn't to say that I will scare off every young contributor) I would also help with Votes for Deletion and perhaps work with the current administrators who handle the main page and featured articles in their planning for future days.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Not especially. I go to Loyola University Chicago and I am constantly thinking of new ways of expanding that page. There are just too many problems that need to be addressed. When I find the time and have access to the University Archives I will work to further improve it.
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. Not that I can remember. Obviously there have been times when I have seen a user who either does not know or does not care about proper Wiki conduct... When confronted with this situation, I would first go to the user's talk page and offer some advice about proper wiki maintenance. I may also add a short non-viewable section at the top of the page in case the user does not see the large "You have a new message on your talk page" sign. I'm a strong believer that Wikipedia should be an open platform that encourages and educates so that beginners don't feel intimidated and don't feel afraid of sharing their expertise of the project.
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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/NickCatal&oldid=1080619959"