Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NickCatal2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that was withdrawn. Please do not modify it.

[edit] NickCatal

Final (0/6/0) ended 15:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

NickCatal (talk · contribs) – Self Nick Catalano contrib talk 12:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: (update 15:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)~) A lot of the time I am told that I have too few edits. Yeah, probably. But I’ve done a lot for this community. Look at January, I did a hell of a lot of edits then… then wikipedia left my thoughts. For the past few years I have Wikipedia a bigger part of my life, and based on my last RfA I think after 1000 quality posts I’ll be ready. On the advice of other wikipedians, I will withdraw this nomination until I reach 1000 edits and wait 1 month. I really want to be an admin, and not for the power but for my passion for this project. And soon I feel that passion will not necessarily rewarded, but at the very least acknowledged by peers who will confirm my ability to serve this community on an additional level. I may have only made 830 edits, but I bet I made at least 170 referrals to the site. I have quoted, fixed, and improved articles. I have had many others try to improve their articles, or teach others about Wikipedia. The time I have spent on Wikipedia counts for something, and I want to spend more of that time working within the Wikipedia community as a role model, something I believe I can do. Thank you. Nick Catalano contrib talk 15:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

  1. Oppose User is far to inactive to be admin. 107 edits in 3 months is far to inactive. Your opening description of yourself doesn't existent. Self isn't a very convincing description. You've been here for a long time though, but maybe more activity should be required. You've been here since 2004, but only have 831 edits to your name. I don't usually support a user that has less than 2,000. Low user talk namespace edits, only 45 total. Moe ε 14:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Reluctant Oppose It is very rare for me to oppose any RFAs. However, I have to reluctantly oppose this nomination as the user does not seem to have a STRONG commitment to Wikipedia. Although he has been here since 2004, his edit counts are way too few. Unless you can convince me otherwise, my vote shall remain oppose. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I guess if you are only counting editcounts... I thought that wasn't a quality that an administrator had. I thought it was quality of posts, not quantity. I have quality posts. Nick Catalano contrib talk 15:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose because of bad judgment. Look at this and was this necessary? - Richardcavell 15:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Point number one is that after I removed him I DID create Michael Quinlan (musician). A multimillionare philanthropist and CEO of one of the largest companies in America trump a almost nn musician, point number 2 hasn't been reverted and was unnecessary. Maybe if someone wanted to create a list, that would have been a good idea. But nobody did and it was unnecessary to prove the point. Wikipedia isn't Urban Dictionary. I stand by both. Nick Catalano contrib talk 15:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. I'm afraid I have to oppose. I usually like to see more evidence of commitment to particular articles, and, while he has been here quite a long time, the low number of edits makes me fear less familiarity with policy. — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Sorry, but the things you list in your answer #1 do not require adminship. You can be an effective vandalism patroller as a regular editor: take a look at the Counter Vandalism Unit and Recent Changes Patrol pages which detail how you can be involved and give you tools to help fight vandalism. As mentioned elsewhere here, you have very few edits. Admins need to know a lot about Wikipedia policy and need to show they can work with users to fairly and calmly apply those policies. I just don't see evidence in your edit history or answers here that you have this knowledge yet, despite your long history at Wikipedia. Your answer to question #3 is essentially empty: I would have liked to see some examples of how you deal with difficult situations as that's a core part of the Admin role. Best, gwernol 15:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per above. I strongly suggest this be withdrawn to avoid a pile-on. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. oppose. I don't want to pile on, but for next time, it strikes me that the candidate's description of his attitude towards AfDs (answer #2 below) does not seem well thought out. Bucketsofg 15:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

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: I would definitely work harder at source tagging. I’m really enjoying the new method of tagging <ref></ref> that is going down and I’ve been experimenting. I think that will be my next chore. I also want to be part of the vandalism squad. It hits me personally as there are quite a few edits of my own personal page from people who attend my high school. I don’t take them seriously, but what I do take seriously are the other edits I am told later these students are doing. Thankfully, these never reach anything more than an hour, but I think it should be less. I keep weird hours, so if someone put me on duty when they wanted to take a break, I would be more than happy to do so. RFDs are handled by other users quite a bit of the time, but I find some pride in helping by voting in that area. Some times I will do all of the RFDs I can see, so I have something to do. See #2
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: One specific example is on the bottom of #3, but read this first
Every time I vote “keep” for an article I feel proud. When it’s a decisive issue, I feel proud. I think Wikipedia is designed to be expanded, with some good and some bad articles. But I don’t think that a BAD article, be it poorly written or simply not expansive enough, is worth fixing before deleting.
I have spent some time on Loyola University Chicago but as a student I just never found a good time to go through the archives. It’s a long term goal. After my last request for adminship
Every time I do something on Wikipedia I am passionate about. I have dramatically improved my editcount summary usage since last time, and as an administrator that won’t stop. I have learned from mistakes, I have worked to follow the rules (sometimes with the help of others), and I understand that now is the time to bring this nomination back.
I’m proud of my edits on Wikipedia, and I’m proud that I am a wikipedian.
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: Of course! One thing people don’t understand is that I would rather have Wikipedia have SOMETHING rather than nothing. If I know it is factual, I’ll work to put it up. Maybe I’ll have time later, but most of the time by the time I get back what I was intending on doing is already done. It's great!
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.