Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Patchouli2

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

[edit] Patchouli

Ended 23:13, 2006-08-25 (UTC)

Patchouli (talk · contribs) – I reside within Los Angeles county in California and I am in my 20s.Patchouli 07:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I started using Wikipedia in 2004 and made edits intermittently. I became much better acquainted with this collaborative project in 2005. Nonetheless, I abstained from registering which I now regret. Had I done so, then I would have more edits. Finally, I registered in March 2006.

Most of my contributions relate to society (politics) and history; albeit, I have made edits in other areas as well.

My personal interest is also mathematics. For example, I recently learned about linear differential equations; however, I try to not edit mathematics articles because I am an amateur in this area.--Patchouli 09:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination.

• Comment Previous RfA available here.  (aeropagitica)   (talk) 

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 revert vandalism, delete pages upon consensus of editors who have given valid reasons, and endeavor to maintain neutrality.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: Mullahcracy, Islamic Cultural Revolution, Iranian Senate, Wire Wager Act, Massachusetts v. Laird, some SCOTUS cases, and more subsume my contributions.--Patchouli 07:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

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: Because I maintain civility and adhere to other Wikipedia policies, I have averted animosity despite some robust discussions that have ended in a rational manner.

Last 5000 edits.Voice-of-All 09:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Viewing contribution data for user Patchouli (over the 1988 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 163 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 9hr (UTC) -- 25, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 20hr (UTC) -- 14, March, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 66% Minor edits: 38.14%
Average edits per day: 23.81 (for last 1000 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 440 edits): Major article edits: 88.89% Minor article edits: 42.24%
Analysis of edits (out of all 1988 edits shown on this page and last 52 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.1% (2)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 2.82% (56)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 27.52% (547)
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 48 (checks last 5000)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 17.28%
Special edit type statistics (as marked):
Deletion pages: 0.75% (15 edit(s))
Article deletion tagging: 0.05% (1 edit(s))
"Copyright problems" pages: 0.15% (3 edit(s))
WP:AN/related noticeboards: 0.05% (1 edit(s))
FA/FP candidate pages: 0% (0 edit(s))
RfC/RfAr pages: 0.3% (6 edit(s))
Requests for adminship: 1.61% (32 edit(s))
Identified RfA votes: 0.05% (1 support vote(s)) || (0 oppose vote(s))
Page moves: 2.21% (44 edit(s)) (28 moves(s))
Page redirections: 0.96% (19 edit(s))
Page (un)protections: 0% (0 edit(s))
User talk warnings/welcomes: 0.1% (2 edit(s))
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 539 | Average edits per page: 3.69 | Edits on top: 9.26%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 40.85% (812 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 6.14% (122 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 3.32% (66 edit(s))
Unmarked edits with no summary: 35.56% (707 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 41.3% (821) | Article talk: 12.68% (252)
User: 1.16% (23) | User talk: 7.44% (148)
Wikipedia: 27.82% (553) | Wikipedia talk: 0.15% (3)
Image: 4.83% (96) | Image talk: 2.06% (41)
Template: 1.66% (33) | Template talk: 0.05% (1)
Category: 0% (0) | Category talk: 0% (0)
Portal: 0.86% (17) | Portal talk: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0) | Help talk: 0% (0)
Mediawiki: 0% (0) | Mediawiki talk: 0% (0)

• See Patchouli's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• My edit count (Interiot's Tool) as of the time on this stamp. Patchouli (Talk) 09:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Final tally: (2/13/6)

Support

1. Support. DarthVader 07:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Support per nom.--Andeh 22:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Previous RfA closed only six days ago. Not nearly enough time between then and now to overcome the reasons for the earlier withdrawl. Try again in a couple of months.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  08:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

   I have upgraded my editing skills.--Patchouli 08:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose, you haven't even addressed the concerns of the previous rfa. The answers are still weak and there's still barely a self-description, I suggest you look at some other nominations on this very page to see what kinds of things people expect to hear about you (it's mostly about what you do in wikipedia). Furthermore, you can't just withdraw your nomination when it starts badly, start it again in a few days and expect the result to be any different. - Bobet 08:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

   I was encouraged to withdraw my nomination and I did so reluctantly.--Patchouli 09:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

   Insofar as self-description is concerned, I will answer specific questions that you ask. I am not sure if writing an autobiography is appropriate.--Patchouli 09:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

   I just made an attempt to comply to your request by adding more Wikipedia-related self-description of myself.--Patchouli 09:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose per above. I urge a b'cat to withdraw. Computerjoe's talk 09:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose, please be patient and your turn will come soon, pull up your socks. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 10:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
5. No. Far from admin standard. – Chacor 10:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose Sorry, but please do not take this personally. You have not addressed the concerns of your previous RfA and the answers you gave are very weak. Improve the quality of your edits and have better preparation of answers in your next RfA, which should be at least in three months time. In the meantime, do not give up hope! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 10:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Far too recent since previous RfA. As a side note, awfully low on edit summaries for minor edits. --StuffOfInterest 12:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose. Sorry, you haven't been there six months yet. Try again in a few months.casmith_789 14:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Address concerns raised during previous RFA and reapply again in a few months (and not days). -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Not enough time here, and the answers do not provide enough. Michael 17:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
11. oppose inexperience and, speedy renom verges on contemptuousness. Pete.Hurd 18:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Withdraw better to come after you have amassed 5000 edits. --Ageo020 18:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose Please wait another two or three months before trying again for an RfA, and familiarize yourself with more of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Also, your answers to the questions could be more forthcoming and descriptive about what you'd do as an admin. Happy editing! –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 19:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Per Siva, too soon to tell. Vice President In Charge Of Office Supplies 12:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral. The last RfA ended too recently and the user has not participated sufficiently in admin-like tasks. Only 2 user talk warnings? And the edit summaries are far too low. Give it a few months and participate in admin-like tasks. Srose (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral to avoid ppiling on Demonstrated lack of understanding of rationale for deletion. Subject of an article can be worthless to us as people and still be acceptable as an encyclopedia article. Demonstrated lack of understanding of rationale for redirect of a neologism that seems specific to a subject that already has an article. :) Dlohcierekim 14:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Merovingian - Talk 17:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral to avoid pile on I'm sorry Patchouli, you seem like a good editor, but you havn't got enough edits, and it has been too soon since your last RfA. Take some time to get to know all the aspects of the wiki, and come back in about 5 months. Thε Halo ^Θ 18:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral to avoid pile on per Halo (who said it better than I could).-- danntm ^T _C 21:50, 25 August 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.