Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Patchouli 3


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

Patchouli
Final (2/17/6); Ended Sat, 03 Feb 2007 02:01:47 (UTC)

- I am interested in helping out.Patchouli 02:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I do certainly accept my own nomination.--Patchouli 02:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

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 participants:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A:I can welcome new users, revert vandalism, help with page protections and deletion. I would most likely participate in other activities if asked to.--Patchouli 03:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have made several thousands of edits, many of which have been brand new articles. Quite a few of my edits relate to the Middle East, particularly Iran, and current events.--Patchouli 03:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel that new administrator tools will enable me to save time and add to my contributions.--Patchouli 03:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A:I am most proud of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Iran and its counterpart at Wikisource. I felt that there was a vacuum and eliminated it.  I have also made numerous other original contributions.--Patchouli 03:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Other articles that were primarily developed by me include Basic Law of Saudi Arabia, Template:Clips of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Supreme National Security Council, and other Iran-related articles as I mentioned previously.--Patchouli 03:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is my latest work at Template:Ruhollah Khomeini.--Patchouli 12:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 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:I have been blocked for inadvertently violating the 3RR at Ali Khamenei. At the time, I was reverting the blanking of sourced statements.  However, you can see that I have explained myself thoroughly on the talk page.

The discussion pertaining to my 1st 24-hour block is at Talk:Mohammad Khatami's reforms. Beware that there is a lot of content-free discussion on that talk page. I respect Etiquette and follow it along with other policies & guidelines.--Patchouli 03:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * General comments


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


 * 2 previous RfAs can be found here and here. riana_dzasta 08:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion



Support
 * 1) Support The answers maybe short - but I would much more quickly support an editor who has quality edits and gives short answers that answer the question simpily rather than an editor with low-quality edits that gives long answers that are 99% BS.--DanielFolsom T|C|U 04:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Short or long does not matter. Accuracy is what matters. A native English speaker can explain some thing with one sentence where a non native one may need several sentence to explain the same thing.Fooladin 10:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support per Danielfolsom  Kamope ·  talk  ·  contributions   21:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. I find your answers to the questions unsatisfactory.  bibliomaniac  1  5  03:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Overeager with no need for tools. No understanding of policy as shown by past reports on ANI re. this user. – Chacor 03:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Seemingly a great editor. The answers are too short however. Low edit count on Wikipedia talkspace is also a problem. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 03:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Answers to questions are dinky, and my experiences interacting with you make it a bit hard to trust your judgement. -Amark moo! 03:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per edits such as this  (not only a totally false claim, but also not-so-veiled attack against Iranians) and others which a cursory examination of their contribs will reveal, as well as this highly controversial and virulent attempted move. He has a very strong anti-Islamic POV, and specifically against the regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran. That's all very well and fine, but his POV is very strong and his edits often violate WP:NPOV. There are already too many admins on WP who do not have a strong enough grasp of this core policy, and I cannot stress how vital it is that admins - more so than ordinary editors (who very often have a poor understanding of the core policies) - have a strong understanding of what WP:NPOV means. I think Patchouli simply needs more time to really let their POV cool down, thus allowing for the proper standard of neutrality which all admins should be required to abide by. Khodavand 03:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 13th Imam is Imam Zaman. There is no POV.  See http://www.irib.ir/worldservice/Etrat/English/Imam12/Birth.htm and many people do believe Khomeni was Imam Zaman .  This is not somthing I have made up.  Perhaps I should have put it in a section at the bottom of the article with an explantion.  Other users of Iranian descent could elaborate more.--Patchouli 04:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Blocked twice in the last two months for 3rr violations .--Zleitzen 04:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Two blocks for 3rr within the last two months does it for me. Sorry.--Jersey Devil 04:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Edit count not really a problem, but the opposes above me pretty much show you should probabyl withdraw.-- Wizardman 04:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose for jumping in and aggressively defending yourself above, rather than gently taking it to the talk page of the article in question --Steve (Slf67)talk 04:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose, not ready for adminship imo. There are some concerns over the ANI and 3RR reports. Terence Ong 09:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose: The user has repeatedly violated wikipedia policies as 3RR. The User's contribution are far less that wikipedia quality standards. He/She insults other users on their talk page and does not assume good faith. A brief look at his/her contribution lists and his notes on the talk pages clearly indicates that he/she is not qualified as a good user let alone as an admin. Fooladin 09:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose - The 3RR violations, inability to assume good faith as pointed out by Fooladin and what I feel are rather unsatisfactory answers to the questions - especially the first one - make me feel that this user isn't ready just yet-from  K37  11:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose I suggest withdrawal. -- A nas '''  Talk? 13:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose per all the above-mentioned concerns, suggest withdrawal. - Mailer Diablo 14:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose I worked with this user 1.5 month ago on President Khatami's page. Upon my request the user was blocked for 24 hrs and also a page was protected due to the user's constant attacks, vandalisms and pov pushings. The user also made many POV articles that have been deleted soon afterwards. The user violates the Wiki policies, although he is aware of the rules. The user has been working for a long time on wikipedia and had several times request for adminship. Still this is the article he is most proud of!! If such a user become an admin then he may use his power for POV pushing. Monfared 17:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose per poor answers to questions (and no need for the tools) and the above the opposers. Cbrown1023 talk 22:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose - if I was in your position I'd withdraw for the moment; I don't doubt your good faith, but we do need somebody familiar with policy - a description which I'm afraid you don't fit the bill for. Don't be disheartened - just stick in, be civil and enjoy wikipedia: being an admin is *no big deal* (to quote Jimbo.) Regards, Anthony cfc  [ T &bull; C] 23:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral Please indicate acceptance of nomination with a word. Xiner (talk, email) 03:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I don't think getting blocked is a deal-killer, but it's too recent for my tastes.  I think a few more months and some good experiance in AFDs and other administrative-related tasks would do you good. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 08:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral 3RR really doesn't do it for me, and you should have mentioned your 2 previous RfAs. As JS says, a few more months experience with administrative tasks could do the trick. riana_dzasta 08:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral per J.S. I think some more time and experience is needed. Cheers, S .D. ¿п?  § 12:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral please withdraw, and spend time getting more expereience.-- danntm T C 15:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral I suggest that you withdraw this nomination as soon as possible. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  18:11, 2 February 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.