Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chamaeleon

Chamaeleon

Vote here (6/7/0) ending 10:15 10 April 2005 (UTC)

Chamaeleon has been a valued editor since March 2004, clocking up some 5000 edits (many under the previous username, Chameleon). Most particuarly Chamaeleon is a polyglot and has been very useful in translating articles between the Spanish, French & Italian Wikis, as well as writing articles on the nature of language and translation (apparently he's handy in Chinese too).

Chamaeleon was largely responsible for the Featured Article, Domestic AC power plugs & sockets which can be pretty handy if you travel around a bit. For another, random, example of the sort of high quality and balanced article Chamaeleon writes, try Triquetra.

In general I find Chamaeleon to be a level-headed and well rounded contributor, who is not afraid to pitch in on POV battles (although I have seen the argument get a little heated at times). Finally he has a handy side-line in photography and illustrating articles. You can find Chamaeleon's own, more comprehensive summary of his abilities and contributions here.

Overall I would expect Chamaeleon to make an excellent admin. -- Solipsist 10:15, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's nice of you, Solipsist. Chamaeleon 12:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't expect to be promoted, but with any luck some systemic bias within Wikipedia will be highlighted. Chamaeleon 20:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Solipsist 10:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. Support. We need people like Chamaeleon to help combat certain systemic bias on Wikipedia. Ethereal 15:21, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. Support I've rarely worked with Chamaeleon but from what I've seen I'd class him as the best editor I've come across. Especially commendable is the way he has dealt with User:TDC while working on Noam Chomsky—Christiaan 18:24, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
   • I'm not sure how he dealt with TDC on Noam Chomsky, but I find some of his other dealings with TDC to be quite deplorable. For example, this comment to Che y Marijuana [1] to "trick" TDC into violating the 3RR: "Hey, don't point out to TDC that he's about to run foul of the three-revert rule. It is preferable that he does so, and then we can have him publicly condemned and perhaps blocked...". Carbonite | Talk 19:15, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
     • Good advice if you ask me. TDC deserves to be banned if you ask me. —Christiaan 20:10, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
       • I didn't "trick" TDC into doing anything. I just thought we should leave him to his own devices and not teach him to trash Wikipedia with impunity. In the end, even with Che y Marijuana's warning, he did manage to get himself blocked. Chamaeleon 20:20, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4. Support, there's plenty of POV-warriors on wikipedia, and we need more people like Chamaeleon to counter that.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 18:41, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
5. Support - good editor, adds valuable skills to Wikipedia. Guettarda 19:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
6. Support  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 19:51, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
7. RicKk 20:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

   Note that this is a brand-new user, not User:RickK. JYolkowski 20:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

   Ten edits as of now at this moment in time; the support vote was the fifth edit. Am I alone in suspecting sockpuppetry? Dbiv 21:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Chamaleon mentions that he would like to act as a mediator for disputes. However, his edit summaries reveal a rather abrasive editing style. Examples: "No offence, but only idiots think that reductio ad absurdum means a "silly conclusion..." [2], "Who but right-wing POV warriors trying to score points wants the long version?" [3], "are you all illiterate?" [4]. Admin must often interact with other editors and I'd like to see candidates be a bit more restrained. Carbonite | Talk 14:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
   • I'd like to comment on that. The POV warrior I referred to is not some poor Wikipedian that I might scare away, but a serious troll who is, as we speak, blocked for 3RR violation. I was asking whether anyone else wanted the long version. The "no offence" comment was not written to offend, but quite the opposite. It was for User:Tothebarricades.tk with whose edits I was in agreement, and whom I was just gently joshing for making a mistake about what Reductio ad absurdum meant. He knows I wasn't trying to be nasty to him. As for the "illiterate" comment, I must admit that I am rather annoyed with the gang who has taken over the New anti-Semitism article and who are making a mockery of NPOV there. I am so het-up about it that I have withdrawn from making anything but spelling corrections to it, of which that edit is an example. Chamaeleon 14:45, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
     • Editing articles to conform to NPOV policy is good, but the comment on your credentials page "Great work battling against right-wing POV freaks" is worrying [5]. I'm not sure if admin powers and your "battle" would mix very well. Carbonite | Talk 15:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
       • What exactly is your problem with that statement? The word "battle"? Do you think there is no battle against vandals etc on Wikipedia? "Right-wing"? I have to focus somewhere. "freaks"? C'mon, are all pejorative terms banned, even if used on one's own user subpage and not referring to anyone in particular? Chamaeleon 15:45, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
         • My problem with that statement is that it sounds as if you want to be a soldier, not a janitor. Wikipedia is not about battles and it's not about left vs. right. Adminship is about being given the keys to the mop closet, not the armory. Carbonite | Talk 15:56, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
           • You're wrong: Wikipedia does need soldiers, there are battles, and it is sadly often about left and right. You are also wrong about what I am asking for: I already have all the weapons I need (the ability to debate and edit), what I need is a mop and keys so I can do other stuff. Chamaeleon 16:08, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. The edit summaries mentioned by Carbonite are too recent to be ignored. Oppose. Mgm|^(talk) 14:27, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
3. User is too distracted by his visions of "right-wing POV warriors", "American bigotry" [6], and "Yank spellings" [7] to mediate conflict or perform sysop duties effectively and without bias. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 14:53, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
   • Visions? Are you seriously implying those things don't exist on Wikipedia? Aren't right-wing POV warriors and national bigotry in editing something to be discouraged? Chamaeleon 15:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
     • My point is that you are obsessed with these things, and so far appear unable to suppress your biases, which is vitally important for an administrator. Indeed, you are so adamant about your views as to engage in personal attacks against those who disagree with you ("Do you contribute anything, chauvinist?", in diff linked above), and to leave the project in a huff after being criticized for your hot temper. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 17:25, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
       • I would contend that being "obsessed" with countering systemic bias is at least as important as being obsessed with writing articles on Pokémon, or being obsessed about correcting spelling mistakes, neither of which would be cited here as evidence of being a bad admin. Chamaeleon 17:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
         • Yes it does seem odd to cite obsession as a reason to oppose adminship. We all have obsessions, the important thing is the outcome. —Christiaan 18:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4. His previous departure came after being inappropriately blocked by his opponent in an edit war, as I recall (before 3RR enforcement was adopted), and certainly had as much to do with that as with any criticism Chamaeleon received. The reaction is understandable and shouldn't be held against him. His overall temperament is not presently well-suited for adminship, however, and his responses in this debate aren't necessarily helping his cause. --Michael Snow 19:21, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
   • That is a rather bizarre comment. Am I supposed to meekly accept everything said about me, even if untrue, even if I can point out logical flaws in it? If that doesn't help my cause, then don't you see a flaw in Wikipedia that discourages debate? Chamaeleon 20:20, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Does not appear to have a good grasp of policy, particularly WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:No original research. Has on a number of occasions deleted properly cited content and/or inserted original research in its stead on political grounds, and then edit warred to maintain his deletions/original research in an extremely combative way without any apparent recognition of the need to respect Wikipedia policy. Not tempermentally suited to adminship. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
   • This is coming from someone who is currently defending an article (New anti-Semitism) which slanders those critical of Israeli policy as anti-Semites, and is making a mockery of the NPOV policy. Chamaeleon 20:20, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
6. Oppose, reluctantly. Edits like this one (there are others) show an understanding of NPOV which is radically different to WP:NPOV. Dbiv 19:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
   • That edit shows a good practical understanding of NPOV; i.e. that you have to accept some contributions that you think are crap in order to achieve a version that everyone is comfortable with. Chamaeleon 20:20, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
     • I am not going to get into a long debate about this, but that is not my understanding. NPOV means you accept all views on the subject are valid points of view, and include them because they are significant. It is not a matter of trading off your POV edits with opponents' POV edits, and it's precisely that misunderstanding upon which my objection is founded. Dbiv 20:32, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
       • No, you misunderstand. It is a logical fallacy to suggest that all views are "valid" if "valid" means anything. You seem to have a criterion for adminship whereby I have to hold logically absurd beliefs. Chamaeleon 20:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
         • And therefore the only logical course is to withdraw opposition. :) —Christiaan 20:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
           • As I said, I am not going to get into a long debate about this. My opposition stands, and if I may be permitted an extra comment, 'you catch more flies with honey than vinegar'. Dbiv 20:47, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
             • Sure, but it stands on a false premise. —Christiaan 20:50, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
             • Honey is good on toast, and vinegar is good for gherkins. I'm not here to be sweet. The aim is to make Wikipedia better, not to get laid. Chamaeleon 21:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Seems like a good editor, but I have to agree with Michael Snow. Trampled 20:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• Chameleon has 3872 edits, 2120 to the main namespace. Chamaeleon has 1122 edits, 508 to the main namespace. —Korath (Talk) 10:45, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. I'll help with any chores that anyone wants me to. Overall, the main thing that I would do differently if made an admin is to act as more of a mediator rather than a participant when there are disputes.

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

A. I think they are mentioned above and here.

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 will deal with it in the future?

A. Problem users such as User:TDC have caused me a bit of stress, but I have mellowed considerably compared to what I was like as a newbie a few months ago (easily provoked). I mostly just debate with them as long as it is fruitful, and ignore them if they are just trolling, without being afraid to revert a change which is clearly harmful to Wikipedia.