Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chamaeleon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Chamaeleon

Vote here (13/25/5) 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)
I wasn't going to make any further comments, but there is one that has to be made. I declare that I withdraw my acceptance of the nomination. This means that any tacit licence to make Personal Attacks no longer applies. I therefore object to the various lies and incorrect statements that have recently been posted here. From this point onwards, any breaches of Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:No legal threats, and any others) will be followed up in the normal way by the official channels. Thanks.  :)Helpful Dave 12:30, 7 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. Support: I would trust Chamaeleon not to abuse admin privileges. I think this is probably a similar case to Jayjg, who can be a bit contentious at times as an editor, but is a very evenhanded admin (actually, since becoming an admins, he's mellowed a bit as an editor. I suspect the same would happen here). BTW, unmentioned by any of the above is that Chamaeleon is a very multilingual contributor, and a real go-to guy for difficult work involving Spanish or French language. - Jmabel | Talk 22:09, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Sesel 11:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. ugen64 01:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support. Wikipedia needs translators. Same as Jmabel, I trust Chamaelon not to abuse admin privileges. --Jondel 08:57, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support being opinionated doesn't mean he isn't fair and can't distinguish his own POV. SchmuckyTheCat 20:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support - Gotta love Domestic AC power plugs & sockets. Dmn / Դմն 23:47, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support Viajero 13:07, 6 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. — Dan | Talk 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. — Dan | Talk 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)
      • It's the tone of the responses, not just the fact that you feel compelled to make them. Although insisting on having the last word in a debate can also be counterproductive; sometimes you're better off letting your previous arguments stand for themselves, and trusting readers to discern whether your opponents' arguments are flawed. --Michael Snow 23:03, 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)
      • This is a good example of the problem. In fact, the New anti-Semitism article says the exact opposite; quoting from it Criticism of particular Israeli actions or policies in and of itself does not constitute anti-Semitism. Certainly the sovereign State of Israel can be legitimately criticized just like any other country in the world. However, nothing can seem to shake Chamaeleon from his view; indeed, he feels it so strongly that he put the article up for VfD[8], as, of course is his right. However, when the VfD failed by a margin of 3 to 1[9], he decided to delete the well-cited contents and re-write it himself[10], and continued to attempt to do so against the objections of a number of other editors[11] [12] [13], refusing to use the Talk: pages to try to gain consensus. These actions indicate someone who has a very poor grasp of policy, article content, and consensus building, combined with a combative manner that is entirely unsuited to becoming an admin. Jayjg (talk) 00:59, 5 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)
                • Don't believe a word of it. Please cite sources for such unsubstantiated claims. ?Christiaan 23:01, 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)
  8. A good contributor overall, but I really don't like the insults, especially recently. --Merovingian (t) (c) (w) 21:29, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose, generally a good editor, polyglots are always useful, but unfortunatly I cannot support someone who makes the comments he has. I will support next time if he mellows his language somewhat. Rje 23:22, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose, seems to be a valuable contributor, not to mention the great eyelashes; however, the pattern of abrasive, insulting interactions with other editors makes Chamaeleon an unsuitable candidate for admin. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 23:48, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. Strong oppose. He seems not to have understood Wikipedia:Neutral point of view or Wikipedia:No original research, and takes POV-pushing to extremes. He wrote today that: "I have never seen a statement from the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) condemning anti-Semitism, only ones condemning leftists," which is absurd. [14] I'm also opposing because of his combative responses to other oppose votes. People should be allowed to vote as they see fit without being challenged by the nominee. And I'm not keen on his sour-grapes-in-advance comment underneath his nomination. [15] SlimVirgin (talk) 00:58, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've changed to strong oppose, because of his comment today to Jmabel that: "Jews don't have any special right to tell people what they can joke about, even if you did have a hard time as a kid ... [W]hen I show people the slime that has been spread across Wikipedia and thrown at me, people who previously didn't care start grumbling about vicious Jews." [16] SlimVirgin (talk) 22:35, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
    Seems to me like an obvious point to make (and worth reading the whole quote, not just SlimVirgin's paraphrase). What's the beef? ?Christiaan 23:57, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. Unquestionably a very valuable editor, but perhaps a little bit too jumpy for an administrator right now. Since, according to some, "adminship should not be a big deal", I would like my opposition to be seen as a suggestion that some more time of practice of negociations and editing in troubled waters will be usefull for Chamaeleon to come to a more serene state of mind. I am confident that the "misunderstanding of the NPOV policy" will face away with a growing peace of mind. Rama 08:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  13. Oppose Chamaleon is the epitome of what is wrong with Wikipedia contributors, and to allow him or her to have admin power would set an extremely dangerous president. Please allow me to cite an example from Chamaleon?s own words:
    • For example, a couple of right-wingers can only revert an article a total of four times before violating the three-revert rule. Ten progressives each committing to voting just once can easily overcome this and more. By working together, we can stamp out certain POVs. [17]
    Working together to stamp put ?certain? POV?s is hardly the attitude we would want an Admin to have. TDC 13:57, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
    I would also like to add that he or she has sunk to a new low in reverting me on a VFD page, completely eliminating my contributions,labeling them as vandalism [18]. TDC 14:01, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
    I would also like to point out that he or she is now trying to whitewash the sandpit describing the elimination of certain POV's on Wiki [19], absolutely pathetic. TDC 14:04, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
    Might I remind you that eliminating POVs in articles is an express aim of Wikipedia. I suggest you go take your pills. Chamaeleon 15:12, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Hmm, lets reflect upon that shall we? It is the mission of Wikipedia to eliminate all POV, but by your own admission, from you now altered sandbox, you are not here to eliminate all POV, just some POV. Namely POV you find less than agreeable. Now, we all have our biases, and we all have our own POV?s. One could summaries real quick like what my POV?s are simply by going to my user page, but nowhere do I state that it is my mission to band to gather with fellow apparatchiks and eliminate only the POV that I find objectionable. And that is why you are not admin material. Really there is no shame in it, I would certainly never qualify for Admin status, but for you to think you can is epitome of hubris. Toodles. TDC 15:26, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
    Here is another example of a poor grasp of policy. For some reason Chamaeleon believes that "eliminating POVs in articles is an express aim of Wikipedia". In fact, that is the exact opposite of Wikipedia's express aim, which, is, in fact, to "fairly represent all sides of a dispute", not eliminate them. Jayjg (talk) 01:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  14. Oppose, and I am considering an RfC based on actions like "this, pages like User:Chamaeleon/Sandpit5 and statements like "I suggest you go take your pills". (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. 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. I have no idea how Chamaeleon is as an editor, but from reading his responses here I can see how he'll be as a mediator. -Kbdank71 16:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. "Um, all the Jews in their big conspiracy" - An 'ironic' statement indeed. Ironic that the VfD he spearheaded against new anti-semitism utterly failed. As a left-wing POV warrior himself, I am not suprised he hates right-wing POV warriors. His atrocious attitude displayed in this RfA and elsewhere (including apple pie edit warring lame-o-rama) clearly signals the further damage he could do if given the blocking/page protection "mop and bucket". Will reconsider at the heat death of the universe. --Mrfixter 23:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    "failed"? Hardly, it's currently 18 to 10 to delete with a few days to go. ?Christiaan 00:12, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    I have no idea what VfD you are talking about, my comment was about the failed new anti-semitism VfD [20]. Hmmmm. --Mrfixter 00:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    He's talking about Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism, and the vote is 18 to 11. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:36, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
    No, he's referring to New anti-Semitism, which still slanders opponents of Israel a little. I listed it on Vfd, pointing out how unredeemably POV it was, arguing for a merge into anti-Semitism. Some people wanted to keep an article on the topic, so I tried to get a mandate to rewrite it. The general opinion was basically in favour of that. People like Jayjg pretended to be OK with that, but after the vote was over they jumped back into their trenches and are still resisting serious NPOVification of the article. Overall, it would have been preferable if it had been merged, or a more precise mandate had been given. Chamaeleon 00:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  17. Oppose, he seems to spin guidelines to suit his POV. I doubt he understands NOR, as anything but a weapon.--Silverback 00:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  18. Oppose. The thought of such a user with admin powers makes me shiver uncontrollably. Nadavspi | talk 01:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  19. Oppose. Rhobite 02:15, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  20. Emphatically oppose. Adminship is supposed to be no big deal. I fear that granting it to a user like Chameleon would MAKE it VERY big deal, as it would hand him the tools to do more easily what he already does far too much of - edit warring and reverting, with his POV. His not-too-subtle antisemitism doesn't endear him to me either. David Cannon 01:23, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • maybe I missed something, but Anti-Semitism? Because he wants to delete this, an article written to suggest that anyone critical of Israeli politics must be a raving Nazi? dab (ᛏ) 08:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  21. Strongly Oppose. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  22. Oppose. Too confrontational to be a mediator, and his political position, though not always completely coherent, is too prominent in his editing and interactions with other editors. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I should add that I don't see that he's anti-Semitic in the slightest, and that I often agree with his political views — but that isn't the point. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:27, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm no longer sure about his anti-Semitism; his behaviour at [21] might have just been insensitive and offensive rather than anti-Semitic, but he's refused to respond to my question on it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Untrue. Please also reread Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Helpful Dave 12:30, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not entirely sure what Helpful Dave is saying is untrue: my not being sure about him, or his refusing to answer my question. He is in no position to deny the former, and the latter is a matter of record [22]. He claims to have replied to me by e-mail; his e-mail read, in its entirety: “Please do not lie about me on Wikipedia. Thanks. Keep up the other good work”. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  23. Oppose. Chamaeleon states on this page that (s)he wants to be a wikisoldier. We've had wikiwarriors before. Didn't work out. Most have left now. Don't need/want new ones. See also: m:WikipediAhimsa. Say 100 hail jimbos, and try again in 3 months or so. Kim Bruning 11:33, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  24. I would vote yes but I really do not like the talks about warriors above. Wiki should stay encyclopedia, not become battlefield. Recent comment [23] says about problem with keeping trail (I don't mind language but links are missing). Some edits lack summary. Pavel Vozenilek 22:10, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Reading links above I changed my mind to oppose. Power-plays would destroy Wikipedia as it is now. (The solution to trolls is to have better technical infrastructure for contributors, IMO). Pavel Vozenilek 23:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  25. Oppose. I actually didn't plan to vote on this, but followed the discussion nevertheless. However, I've come upon several messages sent by Chamaeleon to other people (for instance User talk:Tothebarricades.tk, section Solidarity; also Che y Marijuana's talk page) whose sole purpose is to circumwent the 3R rule. I find such a behaviour very unethical and not worthy of an admin. Therefore, I decided to take part in this vote. Luis rib 21:00, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. I'll support in a couple months if Chamaeleon tones down the warrior rhetoric, which I think is quite likely.I no longer think it's likely. However, I do think it's a waste of a real good editor for him to spend time administering...I sometimes think we should make people admins as a form of punishment. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd change my vote to oppose now except it would seem like piling on. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. What he said. —Charles P. (Mirv) 01:05, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 02:03, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  4. good user, we do need to people to stand up against the pov warriors, it's just that C often seems to exhibit confusing or belligerent behaviour. So seeing that we're not desperate for more admins, at the moment, I think his promotion would do more harm than good. Admin privileges are not useful for pov issues. Rather, admins have to be able to withstand the temptation to use them inappropriately. dab (ᛏ) 07:57, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Well said Dbachmann -- Chameleon would be hindered by being admin. Go free Chameleon, run wild and frolic and so long as your fights are for the betterment of Wiki-articles; I'm somewhat ambivalent to the tone used. Sometimes folks... unwanted toes need to be stepped on; or at least have a door closed on them to see what happens. - RoyBoy 800 04:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • As "Chameleon": 3872 edits, 2120 to the main namespace. As "Chamaeleon": 1122 edits, 508 to the main namespace. Totals of 4994 and 2628. —Korath (Talk) 10:45, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC), Chamaeleon 10:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It seems there is a pattern to this. I think I've identified what is valued in an admin. I shall strive to achieve it and come back in a couple of months and try again. Chamaeleon 21:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Most of the charges leveled against Chamaeleon centres around a supposed political POV. Well, apart from the fact that Wikipedia is full of "POV warriors", everyone does have a political POV which they may or may not be open about. And as for the evidence, most point to the alleged "tone" of his words which seems to me to be quite irrelevant (many others have a secret political POV which they do not express in their messages but rather in their edits so are we encouraging hypocrisy here?). So long as he does not abuse his admin powers to further any political agenda, I see no reason why others should deny him adminship. Ethereal 02:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    That is not the only reason why people are opposing his candidacy; calling people idiots, illiterates, and suggesting that they need medication are at as important a reason, and one that should be addressed. Rje 17:33, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • As a newcomer, I have to agree with Rje. The objections that have made the largest impression on me are the ones that center on how one expresses him/herself. One thing that drove me away from Usenet is the frequent acceptance of a snide/sarcastic/combative style of disagreement. That style should have no place, especially in a serious project like this and especially coming from an Administrator. I'd hate to think that a casual user or a newcomer would get the idea that calling people you disagree with "idiots" or ?illiterates?, and calling good faith comments "bizarre" and suggesting somebody needs medication are accepted ways of communicating. Admins should be setting the best example of conduct here both in style and content. That?s my $.02 anyway. Rx StrangeLove 01:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Exactly. In future I'll deliver the required hypocrisy. Chamaeleon 10:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    The other alternative you might consider is to make an effort to communicate respectfully with others with whom you disagree. Why waste energy making enemies? --MPerel( talk | contrib) 05:00, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
If people are systematically eroding Wiki standards; someone perhaps should call them out... and if they aren't being constructive and Chamaeleon enjoys doing what he does; then its hardly a waste. He has fun... lets off some steam (ideally); and an abuse gets red flagged. - RoyBoy 800 04:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It's quite alright to tell someone who is behaving idiotically: "You are behaving idiotically". As long as you can back that up with why and how and how they can improve. IMHO anyway. There's nothing wrong with protecting wikipedia from vandals and pov and so forth either.
I'm opposing now simply because you appear to be looking at this activity in a warrior fashion.
We're not here to fight (what soldiers do), instead we're here to build (an encyclopedia). :-)
Perhaps you have the right idea, but are expressing it in a manner that confuses me. In any case, I'll definately support once you manage to express your views not on a combative basis, but rather on a constructive basis. Typically you can reach your goal both ways, just the latter course is superior IMAO :-)
Kim Bruning 11:59, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It should probably be noted that Chamaeleon has made a new account under the name of Helpful Dave. Trampled 13:39, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Chamaeleon may be a polyglot, but he has yet to learn the language of... (wait for it) diplomacy. (rimshot). Sorry, I had to. Obviously Chamaeleon's RFA will not pass at this point; he seems to respond to casual criticism with vitriolic anger, which isn't a great quality in an Administrator. Hopefully a few more months will smooth out the nerves and he can reapply then. Cheers. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:58, Apr 6, 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.