Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chocolateboy.09

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] User:Chocolateboy (5/5/1) Ends 14:22, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Has done excellent work from what I can see. I'm rather surprised he isn't an admin yet — he's doing excellent work maintaining Wikipedia, and adding stuff while he's at it. Was nominated in April but refused; I'm hoping he accepts now. Johnleemk | Talk 14:22, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User has made 1356 edits. Johnleemk | Talk 14:27, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Candidate has not yet accepted this nomination

• Since Chocolateboy has declined this nomination, a sysop should now remove it. Cribcage 02:38, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Support

1. Support, of course! I wanted to nominate him for adminship almost three months ago! --Lst27 23:43, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2. I've read over the contretemps (see below). It seems irrelevant to the question of whether chocolateboy will misuse admin privileges. Cyan 17:39, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
3. Support, sorry to disagree with some others whose opinions I generally respect. Yes, discussions with Chocolateboy have gotten heated in the past, even over seemingly pointless trivia and yes, his tone can be agressive. But he takes the time to argue his cases in talk pages, without reverting to name calling or what I would call verbal abuse - and in my opinion he brings up strong and good arguments. Ultimately, he has also stepped down on issues such as the Miss Kitty Fantastico "chocolate box" link. He is passionate, but in my judgement based on what I've read of his heated interactions, he does not let his passion carry him past the red lines, and he is capable of compromise. He strikes me also as intelligent and pedantic in the good sense. I see nothing in his behaviour that leads me to believe he will abuse his administrative powers, and I've seen several current administrators who are more argumentative and agressive than this user. Woggly 06:16, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
4. What Cyan said. moink 21:44, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
5. What they both said. C'mon! Sysops get in edit wars all the time; as long as they don't abuse their power, I'm fine with it. (BTW, who the hell is Kitty Fantastico?) Neutrality 01:21, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Too few edits IMO, will possibly support after 2000. blankfaze | (беседа!) 00:34, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2. Oppose. His ridiculous edit war at Miss Kitty Fantastico and abusive posts when questioned about it show he is not admin material. RickK 05:28, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Having read the rant, I can't support elevating him to admin, and feel compelled to act in opposition. (Was that humorless enough?)- UtherSRG 12:00, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
4. But can we put the Miss Kitty Fantastico edit war on lamest edit wars ever? Snowspinner 17:13, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
   • I definitely think so, and I've added it to the list. --Michael Snow 18:45, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
5. Cribcage 14:11, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Acegikmo1 15:28, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC). I'm going to refrain from voting until some disputes are resolved.

   Could you elaborate on how that discussion bears on the nomination? i.e., what does it suggest to you about the nominee? -- Cecropia | Talk 16:29, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

   It is a discussion about a Wikipedia policy. User:Chocolateboy is a principal contributor. In my view, if and how the dispute is eventually settled could indicate the user's potential competence and style in dealing with disputes as an administrator. As of now, however, I can't infer too much, which is why I am currently neutral. Acegikmo1 16:42, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

   To the best of my understanding, the issue was settled. User:Chocolateboy stepped down, which to my mind shows an ultimately mature attitude. (See Talk:Miss Kitty Fantastico). --Woggly 08:40, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

   But see Wikipedia talk:Principle of least astonishment for his most recent frothing. RickK 21:49, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

   Erm ... all I see there is you and him disagreeing on something. That's hardly a disqualification. He seems to comport himself okay now, actually - David Gerard 22:37, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comment

1. Are you the same user as User:Chocolate bar? You have a similar username and discussion pattern. Angela. 22:20, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2. In the third day of this nomination, the candidate has neither accepted nor answered any questions. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:48, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

   See User talk:Johnleemk#RFA & RFC. --Zigger 17:21, 2004 Jul 15 (UTC)

   Ah, well that doesn't help us much here. -- Cecropia | Talk 17:35, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters, if you care to respond:

1. Have you read the section on Administrators?

A.

2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?

A.

3. If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.

A.

4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?

A.

5. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Wikipedia been? (Perhaps reverting a bad stretch of vandalism, doing extensive work categorizing articles, helping mediate a dispute, or proposing policy?)

A.

6. Of your Wikipedia edits and experiences thus far, what is your biggest regret? What do you wish you'd done differently?

A.