Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chacor

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Chacor[edit]

Final: (39/30/4) Ended 16:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Chacor (talk · contribs) – Hello, I'm Chacor, perhaps better known to some of you as User:NSLE. I figure it's time tagain to run for adminship. I have over 3,600 edits as Chacor and over 8,300 as NSLE. Some checkuser evidence came to light which resulted in my desysopping in June... the evidence makes it look as if I edited in an inappropriate fashion in response to outside pressure. I understand that the evidence looks compelling, and the ArbCom have sufficiently believed it to decide that it warranted a desysopping.

However, I will reiterate my point I've made countless times, that I did not do it. I can only offer to the community my own statement of innocence. I understand that this RFA will ultimately decide whether the community believes me, and also realise that this RFA is bound to attract opposes, including, unsurprisingly, perhaps from the ArbCom - who have, per Dmcdevit, not objected to my running, however.

If I am granted the tools, I shall focus on non-controversial backlogs (copyvios, especially images), and non-controversial moves. I believe my past track record as an admin will be enough to convince people. I have put the incident in the past, and hopefully others can see that.

Nowadays I edit tropical-cyclone related articles, as well as Portal:Current events. For those of you who employ 1FA, I started Hurricane Nora (1997) (although most of the work leading up to FA has been Titoxd's work), and contribute to the Featured Portal Portal:Tropical cyclones. I'm familiar with process, as an ex-admin.

See also Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NSLE. – Chacor 04:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nom accept. – Chacor 11:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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 Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: As stated above, I'd probably avoid the major areas, unlike in the past. I'd deal with backlogs, mostly moves and copyvios, and would make the occasional block and protect. I'd also deal with something I did consistently for a while but stopped doing so - clearing out CAT:CSD, which can have huge backlog at times. I also still occasionally do NPP and RCP, so the tools will help.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I've created and copyedited a lot of articles relating to tropical cyclones. I created the Hurricane Nora (1997) article, which has since been brought up to a featured article by other Wikiproject members. I'm particularly pleased with Hurricane Dot (1959) (GAN), Typhoon Kate (1970) (B-class) and Typhoon Ewiniar (2006) (GA), probably my three best written articles. I've contributed to many articles that have made Did You Know?, and have copyedited many tropical cyclone articles.
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: Conflicts in editing are bound to arise. I have dealt with many, including banned trolls (User:Rgulerdem and User:EddieSegoura stick out in memory). Ultimately, keeping a cool head prevails - WP:CIV is important. A good example of a recent one would be my merging of Tropical Storm Chris (2006). It attracted a lot of opposition, on the argument that there was no consensus, and the merge was reverted. I did revert the revert, but managed to organise everyone involved to meet on IRC in the official Tropical cyclones Wikiproject channel, where a suitable solution was discussed and reached that the article would remain merged for now. At no point did this discussion on IRC go incivil, too, which helped, showing that WP:CIV goes a long way.
The article has since been re-done, and is a Good Article nominee (Diff). Certainly, while there was opposition to my original merger, everyone keeping a cool head as in the end reaped benefits for both ourselves and the encyclopedia - I'd say the diff is quite comprehensive.
Over HRE's farcical RFA, I did blow my top before Danny stepped in to OFFICE the situation. It was - and is - rare for me to do so, but it certainly wasn't helped by the behaviour of some other admins. I think I need to take this opportunity, though, to apologise to Lar for comments made during that situation, as well as anyone else who may have been offended by any comments I have made before.
Optional Question 4. Can you provide links or diffs to the incident that resulted in the prior controversy and desysopping, for those of us who are unfamiliar with it? Thanks. Newyorkbrad 11:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-06-12/NSLE desysopped, this, as well as my logs: NSLE (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Cheers. – Chacor 11:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should also clarify that there was a long discussion over email, which included Jimbo. Jimbo also said he believed me in this long discussion, as an interesting point to note, and to quote him directly, "I will be the first to vote to reconfirm you as sysop." – Chacor 11:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo quote struck after further email discussion. My most sincere apologies. – Chacor 15:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question 5 (Quoting from the Signpost) "As a result, NSLE was desysopped, and is not permitted to seek administrative powers again without the permission of the Committee." Can you provide a link to show that ArbCom have allowed you to run for adminship again? --ais523 11:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
A. I received the go-ahead from Dmcdevit through IRC. – Chacor 11:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll confirm that. The Arbitration Committee placed no restriction on reapplication for adminship. Dmcdevit·t 15:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not my understanding of the situation as oficially posted on AN/I. It was explicitly stated that committee approval would be required before re-application - see Optional question 12 below. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question 6 If you did not do it, we need to understand how other users could be confused with you. Can I suggest that you tell us your posting habits at the time? How many PCs did you post to Wikipedia from (home, friend, school, work, public)? What is the nature of the ISPs you used (dial up, cable, shared IPs, stable IPs, etc.)? I am no expert on such things, but if you state that someone else made posts from the same or closely related IPs as you, answering these questions should at least explain to us how it is possible that it was someone else. NoSeptember 13:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
A. I posted from two computers, my home PC and my laptop (my laptop connecting to whatever network was/is available, most often Singtel). I use multiple networks as stated above, mainly Singtel (notorious for being AOL-like and changing IPs on every page); I believe at some point Starhub (most commonly a single static IP all users are on) as well as my school's network. As I've pointed out to Jimbo, I have spoken about Wikipedia to others outside Wikipedia. – Chacor 13:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question 7 Please describe and justify all of your unprotection actions under the account name NSLE. JBKramer 14:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A. That, to me, seems ridiculous - there are far too many. What I'll say here is the unprotect in question was Daniel Brandt; I unprotected it because, as noted in my protection summary, it had been protected long enough. – Chacor 14:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question 8. The inference which can be drawn from your self nomination, which focuses on the previous removals rather than as a platform for your intentions should you get through this time, is that the checkuser process is not reliable, you're expanding on the circumstances around your own case at the moment in response to various points. Following a resolution of this RFA do you intend to take the position that checkuser is, or is not, reliable? Subject to the position that you take how would you intend to take forward that position, given that in undermining the process you should take that through to a conclusion?ALR 16:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A. CheckUser is - for the most part - reliable. However, it does not see how ISPs choose to distribute their IP addresses, and it fails to see the number of people, or which particular people/person, is/are behind said IPs. I still strongly reject the accusations. Like I noted in my self nomination, I understand the very awkward circumstances revolving around this matter, but I still believe that CheckUser here - while it has turned up technical "evidence" of alleged wrongdoing - fails to capture the physical reality of what happened. – Chacor 02:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou. If I can reflect that back, you're of the opinion that checkuser evidence is, in the main, reliable but should only be used to corroborate or otherwise inform a wider evidential picture? an interesting position, which still has implications for the future of the process, since clearly should one come up with a suitably complicated 'environment' within which that evidence is collected then one becomes an exception. I rather thank that the precedent might generate ever more complicated justifications for interesting behaviour patterns.ALR 07:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question 9. Have you been a subject of a blackmail or another form of pressure from off-Wiki sources to unblock the Daniel Brandt article? Do you think you might be a subject of similar pressure in the future? abakharev 01:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A. I would say marginally yes to the first. Definitely no to the second; I have intentions of staying away (as far as possible) from non-notable people's articles. – Chacor 02:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question 10. Even if User:BRSG was not you, you still were somehow reponsible for monitoring the Daniel Brandt article after its unprotection. The edits of BRSG consisted of removing some negative info that is probably justifiable by WP:BLP (been a wikitroll and a pest, Brandt is still marginally notable living person) and in adding an image (currently deleted). Could you describe the image? Was it a vandalism or an attack page of a sort? abakharev 01:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A. As far as I understand the image had to do with a screenshot of Wikihivemind. – Chacor 02:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was it an anyway offensive to wiki editors? Anybody could photoshop quite an offensive image and put it on a wiki like hivemand. Or was it deleted just as an advertisement to a no notable website? I am asking trying to understand quite a strong language used by some opposers. abakharev 04:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not delete the image, so I can't answer that properly. As far as I know, as said, it was a screenshot of the hivemind page. – Chacor 05:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question 11. Why do you want to be sysop? Anomo 07:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A. To help clear backlogs. Also, I've come across complicated move situations within the wikiproject I'm most heavily involved in, and the tools would be a plus. I still continue to fight vandalism, for which I revert manually (I tried running godmodelight but it wouldn't work because of my preferences), so the rollback would also help. There are also many situations in which I've felt frustrated at not having admin tools to adequately deal with, especially if there are no active admins I can find who have knowledge of the situations. – Chacor 07:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question 12. Hello Chacor, in your response to Optional question 5 you state that you have "...received the go-ahead from Dmcdevit through IRC". However, the official notice posted to AN/I by Mindspillage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee reads:
"NSLE's administrative privileges are hereby revoked. He may not reapply for them without first obtaining the Committee's approval."
This was endorsed by 5 other ArbCom members, but not Dmcdevit. Can you provide any evidence that you have the support of the other committee members for this RfA application, or do you consider a discussion on IRC with one committee member to constitute the support of the Committee? Thanks. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A. I believe you have misunderstood Dmcdevit's comment above; from what I understand from my conversations with him he meant that after discussion, the ArbCom chose not to restrict me from reapplying (i.e., gave me the go-ahead to apply). In any case, the (albeit) opposes given below by Mackensen and mindspillage should be enough confirmation that the ArbCom allowed this RFA to go ahead. – Chacor 11:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • I think the Arbitration Committee has placed the community in a rather unfortunate position. Unlike Carnildo's RFA, where at least his behavior was publicly accessible, here the evidence is confidential. If the full checkuser record was made available, there are some editors with the technical knowledge to evaluate it independently. I understand and accept why it must remain private. But this leaves us in the position of deciding that Chacor either acted as a proxy for a banned user and is an unrepentant liar, or he was falsely accused and is all the more admirable for not retaliating, as some others have done. Given that any admin action is reversible, I am leaning just a hair toward resysopping since he had the community's trust for a long time and has behaved admirably during his "exile" so to speak. I feel handicapped by the lack of evidence, however. Thatcher131 13:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per Mackensen, whom I trust implicity, and Kelly Martin, who provided a more thorough explanation than I ever thought I'd get, I can not support resysopping. As KM said, this would certainly not be as big a deal if NSLE has admitted it, explained why he felt pressured, and sought the help of the community. Having succumbed to some kind of outside pressure once, he would be a risk to do so again. Denying it makes it worse, and the facts outlined are devastating. Deeply sorry. Thatcher131 04:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just repeat myself as I've continued to do so. Regardless of what is claimed, my conscience is clear - I didn't do it. – Chacor 05:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and I know you have done a lot of good work in the past. Wikipedia is a weird place where I have to decide which of two or three people I have never met in person (and likely never will) I should believe regarding a highly unusual set of circumstances that I will never be permitted to have direct knowledge of. I am sorry to have to adopt a negative view of your RFA. Thatcher131 11:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support a probational adminship similar to the one Carnildo was given. NSLE is a good user, but if he did do what he was accused of, then it's best to monitor him. --Rory096 15:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could go along with that, provided that one of the arbitrators or other checkusers would agree to monitor the probation. Ordinary admins just don't have the tools required in this case. Thatcher131 15:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am about to retire to bed for the night. If anyone asks a question, please don't expect an immediate reply for the next few hours. Cheers. – Chacor 16:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support of course. Yey I'm first! --Alex (talk) 11:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. --Dweller 11:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Continues to have my trust, ArbCom never held formal proceedings on the question of NSLE's desysopping, and I am hesitant to judge him based on no facts. - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. A good editor deserves a second chance. -- Szvest 12:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Second chances are important. The fact that the candidate chooses to remain after being desysopped shows dedication. Good luck. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 12:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but I feel the need to clarify something, even if it costs me your support. I ceased editing for a short while, and only returned under this account and started heavy editing in early July. I only announced that I was NSLE a short while later. Cheers, – Chacor 12:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all. The fact that you came back is what is important. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 12:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. This post by Chacor reassures me that he's an asset we could do with readmitting to adminship. Humility and a desire for exactness in process. --Dweller 14:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support unless something convince me otherwise. I have seen this user around and believed that he was, and will still be a good admin. --WinHunter (talk) 12:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support without any reservations whatsoever. Was perfectly respectable before, and my opinion of him has not changed one iota. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Support, what happened in the past is over, and I think we should move on and look at the future. With his past admin experience, he will make a good admin. --Terence Ong (T | C)
  9. Support No reason not to give the user a second chance, and whilst I didn't come across the user as NSLE, I've seen the candidate using "Chacor" quite a bit around Wikipedia and have been impressed with his thoughtfulness and level-headed approach. Also, he obviously has the necessary experience, so sure hoopydinkConas tá tú? 13:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Obviously not going to make the same mistake again. Try not to hold a grudge, folks. Ehheh 13:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. I think his history justifies giving him the tools again. -- DS1953 talk 14:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support all per above. Dlohcierekim 14:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Has my personal trust. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I'm not convinced he should have been desysopped in the first place. --kingboyk 15:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support, WP:OWN.--Andeh 15:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong Support - I think Chacor will be a welcomed addition back and great service to the community here at Wikipedia much like he was in the past. I too don't think he should have ever been desysopped. Welcome back hopefully. --User:Zer0faults 16:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. I refuse to do the elephant thing and go "omg NSLE is NEVER EVER ACCEPTABLE for adminship!!1111oneone" I think we don't forgive much when it comes to RFAs on Wikipedia and I think this is the best time to start. Someone actually deserves forgiveness. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 16:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support I won't say he "shouldn't have been de-adminned", but that whole matter was too "cloak-and-dagger" for it to have any bearing on my judgment one way or the other. In my dealings with NSLE, I found him a friendly editor and a competent admin. I do agree with Lar that his behavior over HRE's RfA was less-than-ideal, but that situation was bizarre for everyone, and I'm not inclined to let that mistake count for much. We need moppers, and he acted well with his previously. Xoloz 16:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support per Mike. Will (Glaciers melting in the dead of night) 17:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong Support. Chacor should not have been desysopped before. He's an excellent editor, with loads of experience as a normal user and an ex-admin, and I've worked with him a great deal. A lot of the oppose votes are unfounded (Chacor is not abusive, for instance...). --Coredesat talk! 17:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps not to you. I have an IRC log that says differently, though. It's Chacor's call on whether it's made available or not. Note that he did subsequently apologise for part (but not all) of it. ++Lar: t/c 18:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, never mind, then, I struck that part out. I still think he could be a good admin, though. --Coredesat talk! 20:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. As always, in a difficult nomination a reference to the basic principles is helpful: does the nominee need the tools and can he or she be trusted? I think there is no issue on the first point. On the second point, while there are some who do not trust the nominee, I think the fact he has addressed the core issue head-on and is willing to directly answer any questions on that point says a lot. His post-desysoping behaviour indicates that there has been active effort made to regain the necessary trust. Agent 86 18:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support: I know him as a good wikipedian, as also as a good administrator. Perhaps, I had missed to vote for him in his last RfA, being not very regular at that time perhaps on account of heavy work in my office. As regards the check user evidence, I do not have any comment to offer except AGF. However, all our processes are not infallible as I have see at least in one case: blocking of one of my close friends after hardly 10 or so edits treating him/her as a sock puppet of a banned user. Strange! --Bhadani 18:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Doctor BrunoTalk 19:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Terrific wikipedian, especially in Wikiproject:Tropical Cyclones and in counter-vandalism. Hello32020 20:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC) I do have a few problems per Hink, but not enough to keep me from supporting. Hello32020 20:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. support per Chacor. ~crazytales56297 - t-e 20:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. If RfA is not a vote why do we number these? Anyway, Chacor is just as great a guy as he ever was. Ashibaka tock 20:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong Support One of the best editors of this project and I was saddened that he got de-sysoped a few months back. Was even willing to be my admin coach as well. No doubt, he is a very helpful user. His behaviour since being desysoped is excellent. (On a personal note, although this user has never supported my previous 3 RfAs, the reasons he stated was sound and concise for his opposition) He was also a very good administrator as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 21:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong Support I've always found Chacor to be a good user, and trust him fully wth the tools. Thε Halo Θ 22:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support per Chacor's own "second chance" clause. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 22:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - I have some reservations about completely unrelated issues from the Brandt thing, but nowhere near enough to deny a support. —AySz88\^-^ 22:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Second chance thingy.--Conti|✉ 23:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Yes. Sugarpinet/c 00:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support I never had reason to notice his previous admin actions, which means he was doing something right. Opabinia regalis 01:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. - Mailer Diablo 04:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Switched from neutral. Per the answers on my question I think the case is overblown and while actions of NSLE were erroneus, he did not do anything unforgivable. I am trusting him with the tools abakharev 09:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Anyone whom both Tony Sidaway and Kelly Martin oppose must be good admin material. Angr 12:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Strong support. Was a great admin and it would be good to see him with the mop again. DarthVader 12:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Strong support, was a great admin, and still is a great Wikipedian.  Grue  12:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Hell, I assume his good faith. And even not - everyone deserve a second chance. He's a nice user and I don't mind if he get his mop back. MaxSem 16:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Strong Oppose. Not enough experiance hence oppose, a history of suck puppeting gives an oppose, and less then 99% for major and minor summarys gives the strong part. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough experience? As an ex-admin? And please note that I've never sockpuppeteered - unfortunately it's just what checkuser turned up. I still do, and will continue to, reject any claims of such. – Chacor 11:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Striked out my oppose to reconsider. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose. I do not trust this editor to be a good admin. For why, or to comment further, see the talk page thread ++Lar: t/c 17:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, I'm unhappy that anyone coming up for admin should wish to focus on non contentious issues which is abrogating admin responsibilities. Admins should not be afraid of confrontation where appropriate.ALR 12:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a huge backlog at many of the areas listed above. It would be fair to say I'd avoid the iffy areas at the beginning because it was an iffy area that got me desysopped in the first place. There is nothing to say I won't be involved in contentious issued permanently. – Chacor 12:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate that there is a big backlog, but at present there is no discrimination of admins. The statement above does not fill me with confidence that you're approaching this with appropriate intentions. In particular avoiding iffy areas because that's where you caught a cold last time round. Indeed I would infer from your latest statement that the nomination is mildly specious; you're aksing for community trust based on not getting involved in contentious issues, hence you're low risk, but then you say that you anticipate moving into contentious issues in the future. It concerns me that you appear inconsistent.ALR 13:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I only begin to consider supporting if NSLE hadn't lied directly to me about his actions. Frankly, I think the boo-hoo sympathy "Oh NSLE was afraid because his personal information was being released" which has caused some folks in our project to go easy on him is a load of crap. If you can't take a few random insults from a few k00ky outsiders without betraying the communities trust, you simply have no business being an admin. I might consider buying the argument that I've heard over and over that NSLE is young and people make mistakes... but his dishonestly isn't a mistake: it is intentional and disgraceful. Even if we were to decide to ignore evidence far stronger than we use to indefinitely block on a daily basis, we're still left with an inappropriate unprotection made for personal gain. Because of this I must leave my strongest possible oppose.--Gmaxwell 12:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please maintain a more civil tone. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 13:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't spout WP:CIVIL at anyone who disagrees with you. Ral315 (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No evidence that User:RyanGerbil10 does what you accuse him/her of. ~ trialsanderrors 06:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Firm Oppose too early - the circumstances under which he changed from NSLE to Chacor are too recent. It would have been wise not to think about adminship until 2007. Also ALR makes a good point. Rama's arrow 13:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Circumstances under which I changed accounts too recent? Uh, could you please clarify that? Cheers, – Chacor 13:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO you should have not thought about adminship issues at all until 2007. You should focus on building an encyclopedia and put your energy there. These 4 months have been hard on you, but you gotta keep positive. If you had applied in March with a lot of fresh, solid work under your belt, I'd have been only too pleased at your endurance and attitude. Anyway, its just my feeling. Cheers, Rama's arrow 14:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification. Cheers, – Chacor 14:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User:NSLE created another account User:Chacor to make edits to Wikipedia. Please appreciate the fact that Chacor aka NSLE refrained from making Wikipedia space edits until he revealed his original username. Also NSLE was one of the most experienced admins Wikipedia ever had. --Nearly Headless Nick 14:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not completely correct, I did make Wikipedia-space edits before saying I was NSLe, but nothing major (ANI/AN). Mostly to do with Wikiproject tropical cyclones. – Chacor 14:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: User was blocked by NSLE back in June. --WinHunter (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Any particular reason? – Chacor 13:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the rest have expressed my reasons better than I ever could. If I provide my reasons, personal experience tells me you're likely to jump on me even more. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please learn to WP:AGF. If this is about your block, it was reviewed by other admins and deemed appropriate as disruption. To make such a sweeping statement is incivil to say the least. – Chacor 13:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. Abusive sockpuppeteers do not deserve admin tools unless they're willing to come from the cold. NSLE's persistent refusal to be held accountable for his actions makes me unwilling and unable to trust him with any position of responsibility within the project. Mackensen (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've said it before, I'll say it again - I didn't do it. Please see my reply to NoSeptember's question. Cheers. – Chacor 14:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A followup of my question 6 above... Why would someone else from your ISP be interested in the same articles you exercised admin actions on? a friend, an enemy, random chance? NoSeptember 15:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    I noted to Werdna on IRC the other day that I know of a few people, I wouldn't call them "enemies" but I wouldn't say "friends", who might want to do it. Given that many Singaporeans use Wiki, and I've spoken about it to people I know (including suspects), it's possible it's them. – Chacor 15:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The user who I believe is in question made their account exactly one minute before your unprotection. Was someone watching over your shoulder? (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=BRSG vs http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&user=NSLE&page=Daniel+Brandt) JBKramer 15:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Trust me when I say they're effectively stalkers, without doing actual physical stalking. – Chacor 15:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Precognative stalkers? JBKramer 16:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Oppose The past revert warring with Lar over actions of Danny, being desysopped and the "sockpuppets", whether it be true or not, was way too recent to be regranted adminship. His constant questioning of good faith opposers and comments made here aren't very reassuring. An admin candidate here shouldn't have to defend himself with a counter-point of view because of his actions. If he does, then it's probably too soon to get adminship. He made a fine admin in the past, but the fact remains he was desysopped and personally I lost some respect for him altogether. — Moe Epsilon 14:48 September 18 '06
    I am merely commenting on the opposes to clarify my stance, and gain information on what the opposers think is wrong with my stance. It is highly incorrect to tag this as "constant questioning of good faIth (sic) opposers". – Chacor 14:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My point exactly. You wouldn't need to clarify your stance if you were ready for adminship. IMHO, you needed to wait for this issue to pass before you to tried for adminship again. — Moe Epsilon 14:57 September 18 '06
    Well, the issue has passed. It's been three months. But undoubtedly it'd come up at any future RFA of mine, and in the end I'd still end up having to do this. Notice I've also corrected some of my supporters. I just want to be clear. Even if this one fails, I hope to have cleared a lot of things up by stating facts and stances, and if there is a need for one, the next RFA won't see this problem. Cheers for your opinion. – Chacor 15:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per Moe Epsilon and others. 1ne 19:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per lar and Moe. Bastiq▼e demandez 20:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. Not at all satisfied that this user has the trust of the community. Hiding Talk 22:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong oppose. NSLE continues to deny that BRSG was his sockpuppet, despite clearly convincing IP evidence to the contrary. Combining the IP evidence with the timing and with other evidence both private and public, and there's simply no way that his denial is even remotely credible. Sorry, no. He is quite evidently guilty of the charge that was laid before him. Really, NSLE, how many supporters do you think Brandt has in Singapore, and what are the odds that one of them (one of an empty set?) would edit his article all of seven minutes after your unprotect, from the same IP you used to do the unprotect, with no intervening edits from that IP, and no edits from that IP from any user other than BRSG until three minutes after BRSG's last edit at which point you started editing again? Your defense of "it was just a coincidence" gets sliced to ribbons by Ockham's Razor. NSLE's continued refusal to admit his actions -- which wouldn't have been that big of a deal had he admitted them -- proves his unworthiness to be an administrator, especially when combined with all the other faults cataloged above as well. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. I do not like having to oppose, I know NSLE made very good use of the tools for the most part, but I feel it would be grossly dishonest of me to do otherwise. Checkuser evidence is used routinely to link accounts, and I do not feel NSLE would have been desysopped unless the evidence was conclusive. Without a reasonable explanation, it makes it very difficult for me to believe the protestations of innocence. Ultimately I cannot support a user I do not completely trust. I believe that supporting in this instance would implicitly suggest I do not believe in CheckUseer, a tool that has led to many people being banned, this is something I am not prepared to do. Rje 22:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong oppose per Mackensen. Can not trust the nom. FloNight 22:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Tony Sidaway 22:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC) Interrupting my wikibreak to say that he will not be a sysop again. Requests for adminship is not a vote. Wikipedia cannot trust that editor.[reply]
    Please be civil. Also, your comment is self-contradictory since it does not explain why not, and thus is essentially a vote. --Coredesat talk! 23:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't spout WP:CIVIL at anyone who disagrees with you. Ral315 (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No evidence that User:Coredesat does what you accuse him/her of. ~ trialsanderrors 06:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. per above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose - I wouldn't have put it has hard as Mackensen did, but even the simple possibility he lied is a danger to high to make him admin. I'm sorry Chacor, I know you may be innocent, but I feel I can't take the chance.--Aldux 22:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. per above - too soon. --Mcginnly | Natter 23:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Stike oppose vote - voted twice, apologies. See below.--Mcginnly | Natter 14:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. There is no way in hell that I'd trust NSLE with the sysop bit ever again. There's simply no nicer way I can put this. Ral315 (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. Simply put, I don't trust NSLE. Will not support now or in the future. Sorry, but not everything lost can be regained. SuperMachine 01:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. I'm afraid I am still very skeptical about the unprotection incident. Combine that with the incident mentioned by Lar and I cannot support. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand, I'd just like to note that the HRE RFA was a one-off. As Xoloz mentioned above, I believe everyone was under undue stress due to the awkwardness of the situation. Thanks for your opinion, anyhow. :) Cheers, – Chacor 03:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Many excellent contributions in namespace can still be achieved without admin tools, which I think at this time should not be given to this nominee.--MONGO 04:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose per the HRE incident and Lar's evidence on this nomination's Talk page. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 05:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose as per Mindspillage, Lar, Mackensen, Kelly Martin, Tony Sidaway, et alia. The original incident leaves a really hinky feeling, the denials ring hollow, and not withstanding the apparently remarkable candor given by the edior in the answers to the optional questions, I cannot trust with the tools. Pete.Hurd 05:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong Oppose per Kelly Martin, Ral315 and recent IRC discussion with Jimbo Wales. As much as it hurts me to oppose this user, the evidence from Kelly is very convincing — she's done her homework and she's trustworthy. Checkuser evidence like that states that it would have to be an impossible coincidence. I like this user, but the evidence against him is far too strong, and a refusal to admit it is troubling. — Werdna talk criticism 06:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose. Too many unanswered questions here, and any user desysopped by ArbCom is going to have to cross many more hurdles before I could consider them for resysopping. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 06:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. No way. El_C 06:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Firm Oppose He claimed to take a wikibreak and came back on a sock puppet, Chacor. That's a vandal tactic. This person should not even have been allowed to run again. If NSLE voltunarily disclosed he was Chacor later, then he gets good points, but I suspect that someone with CheckUser found him out or maybe it was his IP given away on IRC or just him doing something to give himself away that did it (like disclosing his real name, or some kind of interests about himself like his high school). And he's always seemed mean, especially as a sysop. He also refuses to admit guilt in sockpuppetry and apologize. Really now, if CheckUser catches him using a sockpuppet it's like if you catch a roach in your kitchen--there's not just one. So if CheckUser catches him using a sockpuppet, then he's likely got hundreds that aren't caught because they were through proxies. Also, NSLE/Chacor is only 17 and needs to grow up to gain more maturity. Anomo 07:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please avoid ageism. I consider "NSLE/Chacor is only 17 and needs to grow up to gain more maturity" to be a personal attack. Secondly, I stopped editing totally as NSLE on July 4. I edited with Chacor in good-faith. Please see WP:SOCK - this account is not malicious. "I suspect that someone with CheckUser found him out or maybe it was his IP given away on IRC or just him doing something to give himself away that did it" <--- please note that the alleged sockpuppet in question here is not Chacor. "And he's always seemed mean, especially as a sysop." <---- uh, what? "Really now, if CheckUser catches him using a sockpuppet it's like if you catch a roach in your kitchen--there's not just one. So if CheckUser catches him using a sockpuppet, then he's likely got hundreds that aren't caught because they were through proxies." Please do not make unfounded statements against me. This oppose is ridiculous and unfounded. Don't attack me for something I haven't done, don't accuse me of something I didn't do. – Chacor 07:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SOCK used to let people have all the socks they want and now it's really picky. It says you can't unless either you're using a second account from an unsecure area, to hide real life personal information, and avoiding your family catching you editing in ways they don't like. Account NSLE stopped at the July 4, [1], but account Chacor began on June 14 (before NSLE's desysopping) and did a few edits and then right on July 9, and picked up again [2]. Anomo 08:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please get your facts right - I was desysopped June 11. My edits as Chacor have all been in good faith. – Chacor 08:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, the July 4 thing threw me. WP:RFDA said June 10, so you made Chacor after the desysopping. Still, you claimed a wikibreak only to use a sockpuppet. I would like to know how Chacor was discovered to be NSLE, if you told them voluntarily, if you had to because people suspected, or someone else exposed it? Anomo 08:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be correct to say that I voluntarily disclosed I was NSLE; as far as I am aware no-one KNEW it was me. Cheers, – Chacor 08:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose. Sorry, but i'm going to have to trust the people with the "overwhelming evidence" in this one. too risky. --heah 07:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose. Per Lar - Trust and character worries. --Mcginnly | Natter 10:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User has voted twice in this RFA. Leaving notice on their talk page. Syrthiss 14:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC) Has been corrected. Syrthiss 14:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. I'd like to give Chacor the benefit of the doubt. However, with so many lingering issues concerning NSLE, I don't feel comfortable giving him the tools, at least not this soon.-- danntm T C 14:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose. I find the whole desysop affair bizarre, but I think only two possibilities are reasonable: either NSLE is lying on the sock issue, or Kelly Martin is. I'm inclined to trust Kelly here, seeing as Chacor is prepared to say untruths. If BSRG was his sock, I'm prepared to forgive and forget; but only after an admission of guilt. However, I am not opposing Chacor due to that event but on his editing since. I feel he gets offended too easily and also seems to bite relative newcomers (see Talk:Hurricane Kyle (2002)#Todo). With this in mind I fear he may inappropriately block a good-faith editor. Chacor: Chill out a bit and in a few months I'll be happy to support (irrespective of the sockpuppetry incident).--Nilfanion (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral I would like to see further evidence besides IRC that indicates that Jimbo and the arbitration committee agree that you are cleared to be re-adminned.--MONGO 12:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that I needed clearance to run an RFA, and not re-adminned outright. Cheers, – Chacor 12:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand, and that is what I meant, sorry for the confusion. I do, of course trust the arbcom and Jimbo, but will wait to see if any of them chime in here as an endorsement.--MONGO 12:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral. At this moment I cannot definitely support or otherwise. I have to think about this. — Gary Kirk // talk! 13:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. I initially thought I was going to support it, but I'll have to think about it. He would be great with the admin tools, though he has done a few things that prevent me from supporting. I don't support the way he handled the Chris thing. Being bold is a good thing, some times, but redirecting an article without any support for it was not a good thing. The community collaboration he hoped would happen if we worked on it in user space didn't happen. I personally rewrote much of it, with a little help from one or two users. The same thing could have happened if we left the article in existence. Chacor has done similar actions throughout the WPTC in the past. He constantly discourages users in making current articles, including earlier today when someone wanted to make an article for active Hurricane Gordon. I don't think that's good admin behavior when people actually want to do things. I don't know, maybe it's just a lot of small things, but I'm neutral for now. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral I remeber NSLE as very active and helpful admin who might be very useful for the project if resysopped. But I still not sure I completely understand the incident leading to NSLE desysopping. My vote will depend upon the answer on my questions. abakharev 01:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC) Switched to support abakharev 09:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Merovingian - Talk 06:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral - I've decided to switch neutral, mainly because of the sock-puppetering and the damning evidence presented, if you where to just admit it i'm sure I and maybe others would be willing to give you a second chance and support your RFA. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for reconsidering. I don't see a need to "admit" anything I didn't do, WP:NOT Guantánamo Bay. – Chacor 14:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Chacor&oldid=1182055861"