Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chacor 2

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

Chacor

Final (49/47/11); ended 03:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Chacor (talk · contribs) - I would like to present Chacor to the community for consideration to once again become an administrator. For some of you, he needs no introduction, so you can skip the background below and go straight to my appeal for your support.

Background of Chacor

Chacor was once one of our more active and more respected administrators, under the username of User:NSLE. However, on April 28th of last year, he unprotected Daniel Brandt, and seven minutes later, a new account, User:BRSG, edited the page, removing unflattering — but sourced — material and adding a picture in a series of consecutive edits. A privately-conducted checkuser apparently revealed that this new user came from one of the IPs NSLE had used, and as a result, NSLE was later desysopped. He eventually left after an unrelated discussion, and later returned as Chacor.

My appeal

I don't see it as too serious of an offense in perspective anymore. He also has had nearly a year to think about it. We always need more administrators, and Chacor has certainly proved his competence in the past, and continues to be an active and experienced voice at WP:ANI and in many other administrative areas. Please seriously consider mopping this user again. Grandmasterka 04:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Please forgive me if this is long-winded. I'd just like to say that I take full responsibility of what happened, and apologised to Jimbo and the ArbCom in a private email in November (the text of the email will be available on the talk page). I think Grandmasterka has covered what exactly happened; more links are available at my September RFA (linked below in the discussion area).

In that RFA, a few late worries surfaced over my use of this account near the beginning of this account's "life". It is not wrong to say that I used this account separately from NSLE for a short while. This was to build up, so to speak, a "history" for this account before I eventually revealed the link between this account and the NSLE one.

I know that the community does forgive people over time, and I hope nine months is long enough for me to earn the forgiveness and earn back the trust of the community. We keep getting rants at WT:RFA over this process, I presume that my RFA will be the test whether RFA really is broken or not in some people's eyes.

I realise this isn't the best time to go about seeking renewed trust from the community, but I hope I have earned it. Lastly, my deepest apologies to anyone and everyone for lying at first about the situation involving my desysopping.

I hope that this is all in the past, and that you can trust me to use the mop and bucket well again. I understand that some of you are still hesitant to re-mop me, but I hope you will give me this chance, and I thank everyone for considering my request.

It is with some caution, therefore, that I accept this nomination, with huge thanks and gratitude to Grandmasterka. – Chacor 10:19, 8 March 2007 (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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I will be helping out mainly with the CAT:CSD backlog. CSD was one of the areas I was really active in for a while when I last had the tools, and there have been numerous complaints recently about the size of the backlog there. This will be my main task. I am also active on CN, AN and ANI, and have had AIV watchlisted since my first RFA as NSLE, and I would help with any backlog there too - I believe my timezone is a good complement to UTC and EST. I also work on the unblock-en-l mailing list, and having the tools would help.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I contribute heavily to the Wikiproject on tropical cyclones, and have (co-)written numerous good articles, including Typhoon Ewiniar (2006), Typhoon Xangsane, Typhoon Shanshan (2006) as well as started one FA, Hurricane Nora (1997). I was awarded the Wikiproject's member of the month award in February for my work with active storms and storm seasons. I take great pride in all my work. Some other examples of my work include Hurricane Dot (1959), Hurricane Kyle (2002), Tropical Storm Fabian (1991), Typhoon Kate (1970), and there are more.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Yes, definitely. As I laid out in my September RFA, I have dealt with two of the more troublesome trolls on-wiki, User:Rgulerdem and User:EddieSegoura. More recently, there have been no major editing conflicts, although there was a recent altercation where I was reported to WP:AIV for reverting a user who posted a condescending message on Essjay's talk page after he had announced his retirement from Wikipedia. (This user went on to post to the article talk page for Essjay, as well as Jimbo's talk page, before getting blocked. He was also reverted by other users.) As usual, I will try to keep a cool head and remain civil, although I recognise that I have a tendency to occasionally fall foul of that.
4. The email says "I felt I had no other choice ... I had to do what I did". a) Did you? b) If similar circumstances arose again, and they might well do, would you conclude that you had to act similarly? Splash - tk 12:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. I assume the "did you" refers to my feeling that I had no other choice. And yes, I did feel that I had no other choice, because this was a situation where personal information was involved, and firstly and foremostly I will protect myself. In response to b), knowing what I do now, and with what I've been through, I would not act similarly, but I would definitely still find a way to solve the issue, somehow or other.
5. In light of the fact that you have willfully abused asministrative tools in the past, will you agree to sign up for Category:Administrators open to recall if elected? (I realize the propriety of this question has been challenged before, but I am being bold because of the circumstances of this particular RfA.) - NYC JD (make a motion) 13:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. I would not be unwilling to do so, if asked to. – Chacor 13:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further clarification - yes, I would agree to sign up for AOR if asked to, but I would not voluntarily add myself otherwise. – Chacor 15:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this, I agree to add myself to CAT:AOR should this request be successful. – Chacor 15:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. The link above to the Signpost indicates "is not permitted to seek administrative powers again without the permission of the Committee." Has this been done? If it is referenced, I can't seem to find it. --After Midnight 0001 20:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. I ran for RFA in September, there is confirmation there. – Chacor 02:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide diffs for the approval required by this long discussion? The fact that nobody opposed your application is not the same as receiving approval for reapplication. This was pointed out in the RFA but never answered. - grubber 04:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[1]

I am currently writing up an RfA for Chacor. Can you check with the other Arbcom members and make absolutely sure that he's authorized to run? Grandmasterka 04:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

::Sure, this will be interesting. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

– Chacor 04:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion you quote is Newyorkbrad refering back to the September RFA, saying "some ArbCom members expressed at that time [on the September RFA] that there was no prohibition against his doing so." The only ArbCom member who I can find who addressed this issue was Dmcdevit, but his comment was refuted; the issue was not resolved before the RFA was withdrawn. Can you name the ArbCom members who approved your application? Diffs would be helpful if you can provide them. - grubber 04:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a look at the diff again, I believe Blnguyen has cleared this RFA with the AC members. Re. the September RFA, I would think that arbcom members themselves participating on my RFA (Mindspillage, Mackensen) was enough clearance. – Chacor 04:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. In your September RFA, you state: "I will reiterate my point I've made countless times, that I did not do it." But in your email to ArbCom et al. you apologize for your actions, saying "...you understand why I had to do what I did.". So, as a newcomer to this incident and fall-out, I am confused. My question is: Did you lie in your September RFA? Or, am I mixing up what the pronouns "it" refer to? - grubber 22:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. Please refer to my responses to Neil/Proto below. I was still keeping up the charade in the first RFA, not something I'm proud of but at that time I felt it was the only way I could handle things, even if it wasn't. – Chacor 02:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions from BigDT
8. Do you have any other sock puppets or alternate accounts? --BigDT 06:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. I do not. – Chacor 09:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Under what, if any, circumstances would you consider reversing an administrative action? --BigDT 06:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. Only after discussion with the admin who did the action. I don't like wheel wars, nor wheel warring. – Chacor
10. For what, if any, reasons might you consider speedy deleting a page not covered in WP:CSD? (As an example, some administrators speedy delete dictionary definitions and editorial rants, citing WP:NOT, even though neither of these falls under a particular criterion for speedy deletion.) --BigDT 06:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. I cannot recall if I have in the past, but I don't think so. I would only consider speedying articles that meet the criteria, although there may be borderline cases which I would still speedy delete. I suppose as long as there is an good argument that an article meets speedy criteria, I would delete it. – Chacor 09:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Highly Optional question from AstroHurricane001
Hi. It seems that you are going to bed at 7 am, if you do in fact live at UTC +8. So, because this seems strange, I wanted to ask at what time you would usually be on wikipedia at, and if this rfa succeds, when you would be using the admin tools so we know when someone could ask you or another admin for assistance. Can non-admins ask questions? Remember this is optional. Thanks. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 14:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
  • I'm taking a short 24-hour break from Wikipedia to clear my mind and gather my thoughts. Any new questions or comments will be responded to when I return. Cheers, – Chacor 09:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please refer to my rundown of incidents on the talk page of this nomination. Please ask anything you remain unsure of. – Chacor 02:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do hope that all the opposers would re-consider, purely because you will never know if someone will do something wrong until you let the person try doing it. If I mess up again, it would be as simple as Guanaco - desysop with a ban on reapplying. I'm now going to try to respond to certain points, so please bear with me. – Chacor 02:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought that a slew of "support" votes might flow in after JW weighed in. It shouldn't be that way, but it is.K. Scott Bailey 13:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

  • I want to make sure I'm clear on this. You're now admitting that you did engage in disruptive use of a sockpuppet (or two) and did misuse admin tools despite maintaining throughout the desysopping and after that you had not? - Taxman Talk 16:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I used the BRSG account, correct, and yes, I did maintain for a period of time after the incident that I had not. I still don't believe I misused admin tools, as the only admin decision I made was to unprotect the page. The rest was just poor judgement in using accounts to edit. Otherwise, you would be correct. – Chacor 02:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Echoing Jimbo's comment's you're a valued contributor, and sticking around and still contributing and apologizing this late in the game shows guts and a sign of good character underneath the mistakes. I'm more than willing to forgive and forget once the evidence consistently supports that a person has grown enough. But repeated incidents (the unprotection and editing with BRSG) and again abusing sockpuppets with NLSE and Chacor show a pattern. Lying about it to cover it up essentially amounts to repeating the same problem behavior again. If there's anything else, I'd recommend coming clean with it now. The way I see it you've just now come clean and therefore just now get to start the process of building the community's trust again. You made your mistakes, and you need to live with them and grow from them. Do that, and that then we'll really be able to see your true character. You'll still be a valued contributor without the admin bit. - Taxman Talk 20:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I read the record correctly, Chacor strenuously [2] and repeatedly [3][4][5][6][7] denied misusing the admin tools or sockpuppeting in his RfA back in September 2006, and even came up with elaborate explanations for the evidence to the contrary.[8][9]. And, so far as I can tell, he didn't notify the community that he'd retracted the denial until 10:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC), the same minute he accepted the nomination. To quote the reasoning he gave to oppose an RfA[10] (even though his other account supported it), I'm surprised he would think that "being an admin and acting this way will help the current situation". He says above that, "I realise this isn't the best time to go about seeking renewed trust from the community, but I hope I have earned it." While (finally) coming clean may help renew trust, perhaps that process will take more than a minute. -Will Beback · † · 23:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Pre-emptive nominator support. Grandmasterka 05:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Chacor's judgement has, in my experience, always been sound. Let the past be past. – Steel 11:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. I remember Chacor's last admin stint well, and he was indeed exceptional for the most part. He made an error, and I honestly believe that he has learned from it. The community would seriously benefit from Chacor being given the admin tools once again. Chacor's error of judgement in creating a sockpuppet account was pretty serious, but I cannot really say that the edits he made in the highlighted incident compare with other high profile errors made by admins. I think we must be prepared to forgive people - something we as a community haven't always been that good at doing. Rje 11:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    They were not merely 'edits'. NSLE unprotected a page at the behest of Brandt following discussion on Wikipedia Review, then used the sockpuppet BSRG to make further edits to the page. It was an abuse of admin rights, collusion with trolls, and sockpuppetry. Mere 'edits' would not generally get one desysopped. Splash - tk 14:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe I make the same distinction. I was keen to draw attention to the fact that this case was an isolated error of judgement, and as such should not be seen necessarily to reflect on Chacor's ability. The subsequent lies, although perhaps somewhat understandable, were harder to stomach - I would not have changed my mind about Chacor's candidacy if he had not issued a sincere apology. Rje 17:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 'Support Per nom. Seivad 12:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)'[reply]
  5. Support Arfan (Talk) 12:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Despite our disagreements, his dedication to Wikipedia is excellent, and while he could be a little more "polite" to other users at times, he's a good editor who knows his stuff, and I'm sure he'll make a good admin. Majorly (o rly?) 12:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Absolutely solid user, who calls a spade a spade instead of skirting issues. No brainer support. – riana_dzasta 13:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support the re-mopping. Absolutely. Kafziel Talk 13:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - A great Editor and would make an even better Admin...--Cometstyles 13:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. People make mistakes. Live and learn. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - Mistakes are in the past now, I have plenty of confidence you will do a peachy job. Matthew 13:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong Support He's remained dedicated despite the "controversy," and the manner of his desysopping was bizarre, anyway -- the kind of act that would discourage many great editors. His perseverence is a mark of good character, and he's a thoroughly reasonable person with fine judgment. Xoloz 14:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I have a general philosophy of "do not resysop the involuntarily desysopped". I do not usually see the point: we have heaps of admins, heaps more on the way and we can live without one who has caused significant damage in the past. I also do not agree with the characterisations here as 'mistakes' - to me, that requires an accidental element, whereas here we had premeditated collusion followed by public denial (followed, incidentally, by an apology which maintained that the actions had to be taken). The particular nature of the abuse here should not be underestimated. Further, I would note that I have genuine incivility concerns, such as in the diff below. The trouble with this is that hot-headedness without buttons tends to lead to crisis with the buttons. All of this said, it has been almost a year since the events in question and civility concerns aside, I don't recall Chacor going off the edge in that time. I imagine he's a reasonably firm understanding of policy, though this is not, in fact, demonstrated by either the nominator nor the candidate statements here. The fact that NSLE/Chacor has stuck around is significant - many users have spiralled away into despair in such situations, or have tried and failed to return to community-minded working. It is this coupled with the clean(ish) sheet for the past year that persuades me to very cautiously support. Splash - tk 14:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support with the strength of Xoloz and the caution of Splash. A good editor, and glad he stuck around. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Splash expressed thoughts very similar to mine. I'm also very hesitant to resysop those who had adminship removed from them, but considering all the factors in this case, I'm willing to give him another chance. ChazBeckett 14:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support A good Wikipedian who is dedicated to the spread of free, accurate knowledge. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 14:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Terence Ong 14:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. This is a difficult one, but I think we're better off with NSLE as an admin, and it's time to put aside his only serious error (is that term more apt than 'mistake,' Splash?). The biggest thing to come out of the recent crisis is that the systems we have in place to protect our anonymity (those of us who choose to) are imperfect, and thus, people have to improvise. Like Essjay, NSLE improvised badly, though not nearly as badly in my opinion. We should all learn from his experience, not shun him for it. Chick Bowen 15:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think 'serious error' is a better term for it. Such things shouldn't be minimised, but then nor should they be dramatised. Splash - tk 16:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. I understand that user commits to never intentionally *abuse* administrative tools as he has on past occasions. I also understand that he agrees to be accountable to the community on a recall basis. On these terms, I am prepared to support. - NYC JD (make a motion) 15:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. I don't mind him having another go at it. We need more admins. Haukur 15:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Good user, and it's been long enough since those incidents. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, ditto. --kingboyk 16:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support forgiveness is key to wikipedia, and Chacor has obviously learnt from past mistakes, he will once again make a good admin Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow... I thought it was article writing! Shows what I know... /walks away in disbelief - NYC JD (make a motion) 16:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong support A very experienced, helpful and patient user. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 17:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Weak support - likely to the site's benefit. Voice-of-All 18:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Trustworthy enough to be an admin (i.e., won't intentionally work against WP), which is no big deal.--ragesoss 18:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support I'm willing to go out on a limb. After a while, the past is the past. The candidate has served his time, and has taken the time to regain the trust that he had lost. Full marks to the nominee for sticking with the project and contributing constructively despite everything else. That demonstrates a sense of character that cannot be ignored. Agent 86 19:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support like Agent 86, I'm willing to go out on a limb, I think Chacor realises that a repeat performance would result in not only desysopping but probably something worse, and he's really experienced and was really rather good when it comes to admin actions as shown by the lack of opposes from aggrieved editors who blocked out of process or where he has deleted their work out of process, suggesting his blocks and deletions were mainly all 'good'. -- Nick t 20:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Weak support This is my first time opinioning in an rfa. Prior to reading this, I had no idea that he did not just give up the old account, but he was desysopped. You know, wiki is full of surprizes. Anyway, there's a reason for my vote. Chacor is the only user I recall that has actually reverted my edits, notified me about my behaviour, or corrected my statements. So about the desysopping, that was a year ago, and he says that he did what he had to, but I don't think it was right if it was encouraged by a blocked user. Anyway, I have seen that Chacor has several times lost his cool, which resulted in many other users losing their cool. I hope this doesn't happen again too much, especially with the mops. Chacor constantly reinforces the rules, occasionally a little too much. Anyway, this user hasmade a lot more edits than I have, so is more experienced. So,I conclude my vote with a weak support. AstroHurricane001(Talk+ Contribs+Ubx) 21:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Cautious Support per Splash. In particular, I think Chacor has represented himself well as an (involuntarily) desysopped admin, and that, to me, is a good indication. -- Renesis (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Has my support. Adminship is no big deal; apology accepted. -- P.B. Pilhet 22:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support I have always enjoyed a positive relationship, even when he (justifiably, with hindsight) !voted against my own RfA. I do not think that a single stupid error of judgement should be allowed to get in the way of sysopping a useful and committed editor.--Anthony.bradbury 22:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Give him a fresh start. -Mschel 01:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Here's to second chances. I often did disagree with the user's actions prior to the desysopping in AfD and other functions, but in retrospect now having the bit I'm my personal opinion has changed, and I'm for it. Teke (talk) 06:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support He's young, he made some poor judgments under duress, he has apologized, I have accepted his apology. It looks like this RfA will not succeed at this time, but I hope that he will try again in another 6 months to a year of exemplary behavior. This is a good person, who will grow with the project, and we need people like him in the years to come. Commenting here as an ordinary editor, of course. :) --Jimbo Wales 09:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. If the person who runs this site can trust this guy, so can we. Moreover, Jimbo is in Tokyo, and if he can take time out to participate in an RfA, we must respect his inclinations. ⋆Zamkudi⋆(talk)⋆ 09:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Not at all. Jimbo said he commented as an ordinary editor; his opinion carries no more weight than anybody else's. --kingboyk 11:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support anyone else in his situation would have left or turned on wikipedia. I see a benefit to the community of having Chacor back as admin and a strenth of character as well as a love for wikipedia in his continued contribution Agathoclea 09:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Whilst he has doubtlessly made some poor decisions in the past, his recent track record shows a desire to make up for this and I do not believe that he would misuse the tools. Will (aka Wimt) 10:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Weak Support Yes, he made mistakes. Yes, he lied. However, he did make up for it. If we held this over editor's heads forever, they'd just leave. Because of a shady past, he will never have my full support, but he will get some from me. StayinAnon 11:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Apple••w••o••r••m•• 12:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. I think you're definetly worth it. But sometimes you do lose your cool a little, so watch out for that. But other than that, awesome editor and stuff. icelandic hurricane #12 (talk) 12:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - I've got on OK with this editor, and his edits to hurricane-related articles are excellent. He's a good editor, and, we all make mistakes. Let's forgive him, and let him become an admin. --sunstar nettalk 13:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. support --dario vet (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Tentative support. The oppose opinions are persuasive and the behaviour that lead to desysoping was serious- and was a missuse of admin tools as the unprotect was done solely to allow a sock to edit. Lying about it persistently was worse but was I suspect an action that resulted from panic not malice or general dishonesty. A full apology was made some months ago and I believe Chacor is truly sorry. It appears that aside from matters related to this incident he was a good admin. His style may be abrassive, but I do not find it incivil. On balance, I feel that he should have another chance. As Jimbo said above, this RfA is highly unlikely to pass. I hope however that it paves the way for a future one to be successful. WjBscribe 20:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm wondering what type of persistent lying is a reflection of general dishonesty if not this? People generally lie in order to achieve something they think generally unachievable by telling the truth, so generally I would think that this type of lying gives an insight into someone's character? Wouldn't you generally agree? —Doug Bell talk 20:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I will try and explain as best I can a distinction I see here. I have some experience of the criminal justice system IRL which leads me to conclude that in panic when caught doing something wrong, even the most deeply good and honest people will spin an elaborate fabrication to "get themselves out of trouble". It invariably has the opposite effect but every time that untruth is asserted, it becomes more difficult to retract. I don't find that course of conduct (much as it deserves censure) to be as eroding of trust as if it is proved that someone had a history of telling various lies in numerous and unconnected areas to promote their own agenda. The latter is often calm, calculating and disruptive. The former is in my opinion more understandable and more forgivable. I think it took a lot for Chacor to admit his error and subsequent lies and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt (tentatively as I qualified above) that it will not happen again. WjBscribe 21:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - It has almost been a year since Chacor/NSLE was desysopped. I'm sure that Chacor learned his lesson. PTO 21:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Forgive and forget.--TBCΦtalk? 21:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Deserves a second chance. --Carnildo 23:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support No problems with a second chance over a blemish on an otherwise good set of contributions across the project. MLA 00:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. 'Support I, too, feel he deserves a second chance. For example, Carnildo is a great asset and sysop, too, after he got a second chance, and I don't see why Chacor can't be given one also. The Evil Clown 01:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support, per the Ordinary Editor Jimbo Wales (who he?). Alai 02:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose-Uncivil to me and other editors. He also chose not to answer my question about his civility on his talk because he didn't feel like it. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 12:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure where I've been uncivil a lot to "other editors", but I understand how you feel. If I remember correctly, this is in relation to your second RFA. I did feel strongly about your comment on WT:RFA, and I apologise if I was overly abrasive, but that's my nature, and I don't disagree that at times I do lose my cool. – Chacor 13:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I must confess I have a generally rather spiky view of your phrasing; particularly on RfA, I mentally associate you with the dispensing of the label "ridiculous" to opposers too often (the diffs are in Special:Contributions/Chacor for whichever bright spark is about to ask for them). A recent example of clear incivility, would be [11]/. Please do take these concerns seriously, and into account, whether or not you are re-sysopped. Splash - tk 14:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted. Will do. – Chacor 14:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. I note that Chacor only started admitting he had been behind the sockpuppeting abuse of his administrator privileges a few months ago, and up to then had sworn blind he was entirely innocent. Per Sarah's evidence before, NSLE/Chacor saw nothing wrong with using his sockpuppet (at the time, Chacor was NSLE's sockpuppet account) to vote in RFAs that NSLE had already voted in. Frankly, I do not trust Chacor with the tools; his history of abusing the protect button to further his own article edits with another sockpuppet, BRSG, is there for all to see. If he wasn't still being so "abrasive" (read: rude) to other editors, I would be more inclined to forgive and forget, but in conjunction with the previous abuse of tools, this leads me to oppose. Neil (not Proto ►) 14:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. It's been four months since the apology, nine since my desysopping, and eleven since the incident. I really wish this was enough, but it obviously won't be for some. I am by nature abrasive, I try to keep it in check, but everyone has their bad sides. I hope I've cleared up the incident regarding double-voting on RFAs. As I said, I don't condone what I did, and I recognise (I told Jahiegel this, too, after he first asked in September) that it was a major lapse in judgement on my part. I hope you will re-consider, but I understand where you're coming from. – Chacor 15:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate you are owning up now, but those four months (late Nov - now) since your apology followed a good seven months of you insisting, over and over and over, had done nothing wrong. Why did it take you seven months to admit responsibility for your actions? Or five, if we go from when your desysopping finally took place. Neil (not Proto ►) 15:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    At first it was a matter of being scared, to be honest. What would happen? Ultimately, what would have happened (desysopping) still happened. After that it was a question of "if I admit now, how would the community react?" And once again, I will admit, I was scared as to how it would react. I finally decided it wasn't worth wasting my effort trying to worry about this, and on the other hand trying to act as if nothing happened. I don't like the way I handled it, I could definitely have dealt with it better, but this is how I did deal with it, for better or worse, and this is where we stand. – Chacor 15:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You colluded with a banned user to change an article they didn't like, unprotected it, used a sockpuppet to change it as the banned user wanted, then reprotected it. Then used another sockpuppet to vote on RFAs you had voted on. Then took seven months to admit you'd done anything, let alone anything wrong. You're right, you could have dealt with it a little better. The newly found matter-of-fact honesty is appreciated, and you're doing a great job at downplaying what you did, but I haven't seen the honesty for long enough to be convinced it's permanent. Neil (not Proto ►) 15:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe I reprotected the article after that. "16:39, April 28, 2006 NSLE (Talk | contribs) protected Daniel Brandt (protected long enough [move=sysop])" - this was edit unprotection, leaving move protection on. – Chacor 15:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the rest of it accurate? Neil (not Proto ►) 15:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As I noted, I had my (undoubtedly stupid, on hindsight) reasons at that time for double-voting on RFAs, but that summary would seem to be correct. I'm not proud of what I did, but I do honestly hope it's been long enough for the community to forgive me. Thanks again for your consideration of my candidacy. – Chacor 15:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak oppose per Teckwiz and Neil. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Chacor's recent behavior indicates to me that he is not trustworthy. I should give background here. He opposed in my RFA after this comment, which I have no problem with. But after it became an argument with other users, he removed his and everyone elses comments, twice. He removed his message about it from my talk page and from his own. To me, this is not transparent behavior and borders on dishonesty. I wouldn't trust this user with the delete button. In addition, I've found his interactions with other users to be consistently somewhat hostile, and would not trust him with the block button. delldot talk 18:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. I note with gratitude NSLE/Chacor's admission regarding the whole desysopping incident. If this was a petition by the community to say we forgive him, I'd sign it. However this is a request for adminship not a statement of forgiveness. Chacor's conduct in content disputes within his area is not that becoming of an administrator in my opinion. He has demonstrated a marked tendency to in appropriately ABF and BITE new editors (or anons) when they have a different view to him in a dispute; and he prefers not to engage in discussion. One such incident occured on Hurricane Fabian. An anon made a good faith edit that Chacor reverted. When the anon attempted to resolve the dispute on the talk page, it culminated in this accusation. This is why I think Chacor should not be an administrator; he overreacts and says things that he shouldn't, and I would not trust him to make similar errors of judgement with the admin tools. He retracted this comment after he realised it went too far (partially after discussion on IRC). However, admins should always think before they act and not the other way around. I also strongly agree with Delldot's last sentence above, I do not trust Chacor to not block certain editors in content disputes.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. I can't support someone who blatently lied in their previous AfD. In the nomination statement above, Chacor says "I hope nine months is enough...", but it hasn't been nine months since he came clean. It's been four months since the email to Jimbo and Arbcom, and as far as I am aware, this is the first public admittance that the previous statements were a lie. I'll reconsider in 2008.-gadfium 18:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't made up my mind on this yet, but I'm quite concerned by what I have been reading so far. Can you please link to where he lied in the previous AfD? Thanks, Selket Talk 19:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In the previous RFA, he says "However, I will reiterate my point I've made countless times, that I did not do it." It is now clear that he did do it; see the email on the talk page of this RFA.-gadfium 22:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose I remember this user as abrasive, which was enough to make me do some digging. Has used the NSLE account as recently as January 2007; although that may be an aberration, it is problematic. NSLE contribs. During the Brandt wheel-war mess last month, he opened up Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (12th nomination) while the deletion review was still running, which didn't help, and if he had the administrative tools would likely have been more of a participant. AFD creation (all intermediate diffs are by Chacor). GRBerry 19:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I explicitly stated why I'd used the NSLE account in January; Chacor was on autoblock and I decided to use the secure server, but I'd forgotten my password (I use auto-login, with password remembered on Firefox). – Chacor 02:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - As per above. This user have been involved in various disputes (I have seen some of the ones noted above) in a negative way. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 19:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Because of the past protestations of innocence, pending a clearer statement by Chacor I am not comfortable with this. I have tried to go through the previous discussions to see what Chacor's "admission" actually amounts to. Even now, all I have found are rather non-specific statements. For example, in the email posted to the talk page, he refers to a "charade" and says "I hope that...you understand why I had to do what I did." The acceptance of this nomination, while claiming to take "full responsibility", twice refers to "what happened" rather than "what I did", and even when referring to what he did Chacor seems unable to actually say what it is he did. He simply endorses Grandmasterka's description, which limits itself to the facts we already knew, so it's difficult to see any change of position. I think that's why you get questions like Taxman's above. --Michael Snow 19:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. Hopefully this is clear enough. Yes, I did use the BRSG account. I maintained that I had not for the next seven months up to November, when I decided that the charade was not worth keeping up. I know that Jimbo has forgiven me for it, and now it's the community that I hope has it in them to forgive, even if they don't want to forget. Yes, I've made bad decisions in the past year or so. No, on hindsight, I don't like what I did. But it's been done. All I can do now is try to explain my actions. – Chacor 02:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a better, clearer admission, thank you. I'll withdraw my opposition at this time, though that may not make much difference. Perhaps now that we have a full acknowledgment and acceptance of responsibility, continued good work for a period of time may allow our trust in you to be rebuilt. --Michael Snow 17:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Decline per Nilfanion. Its particularly sad the way Chacor has handled the past sockpuppetry incident - I was strongly hoping that this clean period would make this RfA a success. But apparently a half-apology, half-clarification has been issued by him, thus effectively reviving what should be a dead issue. I strongly suggest to Chacor to make a lucid and succinct explanation and wait for 6 months more - bitter medicine, but I hope his commitment to WP is strong enough. Rama's arrow 19:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. I think this user's approaches to things are too wedded to policy. I'm not going to hunt for diffs, but I think that this user's officious and sometimes confrontational style are fundamentally at odds with admin status. I believe that the group dynamic in our community will be disrupted if Chacor were to gain access to sysop tools without showing a change in character over a long period of time. I think this user is great as an editor, and to change this (i. e., if Chacor were to leave altogether, or gain sysop rights), Wikipedia would suffer. Keep up your current good work. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 20:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Per previous issues I'm not sure I can ever trust him to be an administrator, but certainly not now. His apologies ring hollow; for months upon months he stressed his ignorance against all evidence. When he finally admitted that he was guilty, he did not, in my opinion, fully accept his role in the incident. This user lost adminship for doing perhaps the most shameful and disgusting thing I've ever seen an administrator do in my life — editing by proxy for a banned user. NSLE violated the protection policy, the sockpuppeting policy, and the banning policy in one shot. I understand the circumstances behind this, but to make proxy edits for a banned user with a sockpuppet account is unforgivable. Ral315 » 22:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Even if I was able to trust you again (which I'm not) after your sockpuppetry, aid for a banned editor, and misuse of admin tools, your edits made on this account have come across as incivil and unhelpful on multiple occasions. Picaroon 22:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose not sure if there ever was an apology or admission of being wrong for this [12], but it seems at odds with adminship to me. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per Canadian, per Techie, and per WP:CIVIL. Real96 23:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per a thorough perusal of the facts at hand, producing concerns similar to those raised above.K. Scott Bailey 00:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose You can't be serious. Clearcut case of abuse and misconduct. — MichaelLinnear 00:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough... But I was serious. So, what would it take you to support in the future? How much time, how much commitment? (Do you think you'll never support at all?) Keep in mind, this was nearly a year ago. Grandmasterka 01:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the incident was almost a year ago, but it took NSLE/Chacor a lot longer to come clean for his actions. As for supporting, a couple of months would certainly provide a different perspective. — MichaelLinnear 01:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose John254 00:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. This is someone who over the course of the last year has seriously abused the admin powers he had, was de-sysoped for that, maintained a blatant lie that he was innocent of what he was accused of and used that lie to try and get adminship back, and only within the last few months finally admitted that he'd been keeping up the lie so long. How can the community possibly trust this user with adminship powers any time in the near future? In my opinion, a MUCH longer period of time needs to pass before a return to adminship can be given any serious consideration for this user (and by that I mean AT LEAST another year). Dorange 01:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. I'm sorry but I have to oppose. I really did want to support, but the explanations for protection/proxying and using sockpuppets to get multiple !votes in RfAs just doesn't stand up for me. That you confessed to the ArbCom in November is very nice, but I think the apology was actually owed to the community that was repeatedly and blatantly lied to. I can't help but feel the confession in November was really just a strategy for this RfA, which comes nearly exactly three months later. During your last RfA, your apologised to Lar and some people felt that it was only motivated by the RfA. I would feel better about this if you weren't also apologising in the same breath that you're admitting to some blatant deceit and once again asking the community to trust your word. As someone said during the previous RfA, the time to mend fences with the community is well before an RfA, not at the start of one. Sarah 02:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry that you feel that way, but in no way was my apology related to this RFA. At that time I had not yet even decided when in 2007 I would run again for RFA, and indeed I was leaning more towards July. – Chacor 02:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Very reluctant oppose. Chacor is clearly committed to the project (many people would just leave the encyclopedia in a huff, leaving others to clean up their mess), and NSLE was a great administrator. But for six months, he apparently lied about what happened, and only "came clean" later. I feel uneasy about giving the tools to someone who lied to the community for so long. I feel especially uneasy because I believed him when he said it wasn't his sockpuppet, because he protested it so strongly. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to Strong Oppose, per the link provided by Alex B, below. Editor has used sockpuppets to !vote on RFA, both supporting and opposing a candidate. This indicates the editor doesn't/didn't take RFA seriously; it was just a game to him. No reason to support an RFA candidate who doesn't take RFA seriously. If even the request for adminship is a joke to him (something to be played with), I cannot see him taking his actual adminship seriously. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose for all the great work the candidate has done as Chacor, I'm afraid the deception in the first RFA and the lack of an full explanation of why he did what he did gives me too much pause.-- danntm T C 03:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose This is the first time I have opposed an RfA, and I take it seriously. I think all manner of editing violations, even the major ones (e.g., sockpuppeting or WP:POINT) are forgivable. Of course I understand that administrators make mistakes. However, I think when people use administrator tools to assist or conceal their editing violations, they have demonstrated that they should not be trusted with those tools in the future. --Selket Talk 03:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose, too abrasive for my tastes. All the other oppose votes really show something to me as well.--Wizardman 03:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose. (See Q6 above) Although I believe he is "reformed", ArbCom explicitly restricted his ability to apply for RfA. Without an explicit approval, I believe this RfA is invalid. - grubber 04:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Again I ask you to take a look at the diff I provided, with the exact quote from Blnguyen, who responded "Sure" to the question if I was authorised to run. – Chacor 05:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The rest of the discussion you quote has a comment from User:Newyorkbrad that quotes the September RFA and misrepresents is different from what it actually says. That's why I am taking this position - grubber 05:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Misrepresents" was a poor choice of word on my part. I meant to say that the two are incongruous in my mind, but I believe that the statement was an unintentional oversimplification of what the RFA said. Sorry, Newyorkbrad, for my unintended implication. - grubber 19:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Reluctantly Oppose per Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jaranda 2. As you can see NSLE/Chacor voted by both of his accounts. While the Daniel Brandt episode might be a lapse of judgement caused by external pressure, I cannot see any explanation for the second one and two episodes are a pattern. I am sorry as User:NSLE used to be a very strong and helpful admin but too risky Alex Bakharev 06:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose per Neil, Michael Snow, Ral & Alex above, have not been swayed from my position on the Sept RfA. Pete.Hurd 06:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose So confusing that I have to oppose. -Lapinmies 07:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The RfA? See Red herring. ⋆Zamkudi⋆(talk)⋆ 07:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose In December I had a conflict with this editor. We later reconciled when he offered to assist me with a template, but his actions during the dispute cause me to take great pause in considering support for his RfA. Alan.ca 10:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. We all have conflicts from time to time. Presumably, then, everybody who has conflicted with you can be expected to oppose you? Now, otoh, if you're saying his actions were particularly unsavoury, could you please tell us what they were? (Not a loaded question, as I have no idea and I'm open to changing my mind.) --kingboyk 11:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Opppose gaining forgiveness and regaining the same level of trust are two separate things. Given the issue pointed out regarding Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jaranda 2 whre both accounts vote (one support one oppose) within a short time period. 04:09 UTC Chacor opines, 05:16 UTC NSLE oppines in the opposite, given the opposite views it seems unlikely this was a genuine mistake also couple with Chacor being challenged about finding RFA and his defense of that including something at 05:22 UTC i.e. 6 minutes after NSLE had posted to the RFA page. Coupled with the long term denial of the Brandt issue this paints a picture of someone quite happy to mislead the community. --pgk 11:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose I'm glad to see responsible editing, but adminship for a user with such problems in the not so distant past would simply look bad for Wikipedia and for adminship as a trusted position. -- Infrogmation 12:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose. It seems like the editor never took responsibility for his actions, and only paid them lip service when it became clear that adminship was not forthcoming without coming clean. The fact that he tried to evade answering question #5 indicates that he is still on the same page. --Mus Musculus 15:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Absolutely not at this time. Months of denial and lying about his behavior, a maintained sense that he did not abuse admin "tools" when what he did was impossible for a normal user (even with sockpuppets), and more disturbing diffs in this RFA. Maybe in another year. Not ever again, per Alex Bakharev's evidence in the Jaranda RFA. -- nae'blis 15:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose. Has broken too many rules to be trusted with the tools again. Coemgenus 16:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose, per Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jaranda 2.--Aldux 16:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose. Mostly per the incident that got NSLE desysopped in the first place, but some concerns about behavior since. Not willing to just overlook outright deception...especially not in the current climate. —Doug Bell talk 16:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose General discomfort with approach, and the timing of this resubmission couldn't really be much worse given the ongoing debate about identity, given the history.ALR 19:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose - Serious civility issues, coming clean 1 minute before accepting this nomination and expecting immediate community forgiveness after months and months of lying shows bad judgement... and, the repeated and persistant self serving (and false) claims that checkusers are inaccurate did us all no favors. Sorry, no way and I can support at this time nor anytime soon Glen 19:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Absolutely not. — CharlotteWebb 19:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose I do not trust this user with the tools.-- Dakota 20:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Strong Oppose user can not be trusted with administrator privileges.--Jersey Devil 20:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose Incivility issues in the past as well as the desysopping worry me. —Pilotguy (go around) 21:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose Major concerns raised of sockpuppetry, incivility, lying, misuse of admin powers, and involuntary removal of adminship. Sorry for my unforgiveness, but I can't support you. Captain panda In vino veritas 21:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose, "[Administrators] should lead by example and serve as a model of the proper editing behavior to which other users should aspire." · j e r s y k o talk · 22:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose.Prior to this RfA, Chacor's last comment on this subject was "I don't see a need to "admit" anything I didn't do, WP:NOT Guantánamo Bay. – Chacor 14:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)", in chastisement of another editor's suggestion that coming clean will earn greater respect from the community than falsely maintaining innocence. It appears, after the last strategy failed, Chacor is now taking this route. Am I in violation of WP:AGF to wonder why we should believe this story rather than the last one? Such deceit is very difficult to overlook in under six months, and I don't see a huge amount in the interventing time that suggests he has earned our trust. A significant period of time (perhaps an year) of honest behaviour, during which Chacor's story stays the same, might earn support from me in future. But at the moment its very difficult to see how we can ask the community to respect the authority of an admin that has a recent track record of such spectacular deceit. Rockpocket 22:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose for now. I'm willing to forgive people after time. But that time starts when they admit they did something wrong and say they are sorry for it. You can't do something bad, deny it for 3 months, and then later say "Oh, well I've stopped denying it, so you can trust me now". It also doesn't help that you seem to think sockpuppetry to vote twice in an RfA is somehow understandable. -Amarkov moo! 00:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose. Accountability needs to mean something if adminship is to be anything other than a ticket into an insular cabal which acts with impunity. If you screw up significantly enough to get deopped, you need to be out for good. This should be a blatantly obvious rule by now. --Neurophyre(talk) 01:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose - I forgive NSLE/Chacor for what he's done in the past. I don't want to see RfA turn into a vote on whether a user deserves forgiveness. He does, in my mind. However, this sort of thing bothers me. He does this under his new account name. Also, given that NSLE was de-sysopped in relation to Daniel Brandt, I suggest he ought to stay entirely away from anything Brandt. However, he continues to participate in the ongoing AfD/DRV saga.[13] - Richardcavell 02:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral for now but still hoping to support. Chacor, I would dearly love to support your RfA, particularly now that you have confessed your actions that led to the desysopping. However, I recall there was also concern raised about your corrupting at least two RfAs by participating with both your NSLE and Chacor accounts. I'm sorry if this has been dealt with elsewhere, and I fully recognise that this happened many months ago and that you have done a lot of work to recover the communitity's trust since then. I believe wholeheartedly in redemption and second (third, fourth, etc) chances and I would really love to come back and change to support but I feel that your use of the Chacor and NSLE accounts needs further clarification. Are your edits to those RfAs, coupled with the incident leading to your desysopping, a pattern? Is it a reflection of how seriously you take the project? Diffs: NSLE supports Jaranda 2&diff=prev&oldid=60293526 , Chacor opposes Jaranda 2&diff=60286415&oldid=60284260. NSLE and Chacor make edits only six minutes apart. 2&diff=60294086&oldid=60293458. NSLE opposes Jeff [14], Chacor supports Jeff. [15]. Sarah 14:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Changing to oppose sorry. Sarah 02:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Those edits are completely unrelated to my desysopping, and as I expressed above in my candidate statement, at first I thought of establishing some kind of account "history", so to speak, for this account, before I decided to reveal that I was NSLE (which occured a couple of weeks later, if I recall correctly). I don't condone what I did, but I hope it's understandable - at that point I still had no intention of revealing who I was. – Chacor 14:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Was covered here btw. – Chacor 14:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    <after ec>Okay, thank you for your response. I just want to clarify that I understood that they were not related to the desysopping and I didn't mean to imply that they were (if I did). I just recall them being raised as a concern at some point...perhaps at your last RfA or on ANI or something. Cheers, Sarah 15:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    They were brought up near the end of my last RFA. – Chacor 15:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but I have to oppose. I do believe that there is redemption and forgiveness for everyone, but I think you will only find it when you seek it because you think it is the right thing to do and not because you want the community to give you something. Just my opinion. Sarah 02:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - placeholder !vote, pending further look at contributions. Think enough water has gone under the bridge since desysopping and believe user to be an excellent contributor, but have some concerns I wish to check before supporting. --Dweller 17:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Thinking about it more, I am going neutral. He would use some of the admin tools well, though others I'm not so sure of, based on his past with some users. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. I would love to support, as edit-wise, Chacor is an excellent candidate, and I would forgive him for the problems in the past (that he apologized for). However, he still has problems with WP:AGF, WP:CIV, and WP:BITE, and these problems need to be addressed before I can support a RfA. Keep in mind, I supported the previous RfA, but I was unaware of the full extent of the issues at that time. This is a neutral and not an oppose because I have the idea that these problems are a result of all the past issues, and I think Chacor could be a good admin if these problems are solved. --Coredesat 20:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral per Sarah and Coredesat. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral - I believe he has learned from the "incident", but some of the other concerns brought up by opposers have me unsure if I can give my support at this time. VegaDark 23:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral not comfortable supporting with all the issues raised in the oppose and neutral votes above. - Anas Talk? 23:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral. I'd like to wait a little longer. bibliomaniac15 03:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral - I'd really like to support this, but I just can't find enough trust yet. Sorry. I won't oppose, but I suggest you try again in a few more months. Once this is a bit further behind you, if you continue to be a good and thoughtful editor, I'll support. Metamagician3000 12:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral and willing to step down/recalled from adminship if the community decides, the reason why chacor voted twice in my rfa was my fault and I apologize for this, Chacor contacted me in IRC right after he opposed my rfa via his NSLE nic, he was that I'm in rfa again, and I was thinking about the chacor account being strange as a new editor finding RFA so quick, I guessed NSLE was chacor so he said don't tell anyone and that he will use his NSLE account to support and cancel out the vote, I should have declined, but i wasn't really paying attention to the rfa anyways (had major arm surgery a few days back and was under the effect of painkillers and typing with one hand) so I ignored it, i wasn't following the rfa much thinking it was going to be another failure, it was nothing to do with blackmail and that kind of crap, it was Chacor decision. Sorry about this and I'll be willing to step-down from adminship and try again in several months if asked. Jaranda wat's sup 20:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to say this is pretty weak reasoning. Without expressing an opinion on whether you should step down, I have to say it was extremely poor judgement to recommend condone something deceptive when a straight-forward withdrawl of the original !vote would have sufficed. This does not refect well at all on you I'm afraid. —Doug Bell talk 20:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I never recommended that chacor should use his NSLE account to cancel out the vote, it was his decision. I can't not even understand what I wrote up there, another reason of possibly stepping down, i likely have the worst communication skills out of all the admins. Jaranda wat's sup 21:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Cross out above, I don't mind being recalled for knowing that chacor voted twice in my rfa, but the comment above is asking me for a recall, which I don't really want nither. Jaranda wat's sup 21:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The main reason why he did the double voting was so that the community won't make it obvious that chacor was NSLE. NSLE wanted to quietly forget his past and restart over using chacor, I was the first one to notice that and he did the double vote mainly to keep his identity a secret. (He later admitted that he was chacor, I think because other users started to get suspictious but I'm not that sure) I want some of the oppose voters to consider that. NSLE/Chacor is a very dedicated memember of the community that wrote several FAs and GAs, and is an active defender against trolls and banned users who attack wikipedia [16], [17], [18], [19], helps new users out [20], active in WP:AN, and WP:AN/I [21], [22] and actively fights vandalism [23], [24], [25]. Chacor regaining the admin tools will be a strong benifit for the community. I was going to nominate him, but Grandmasterka beat me to it and I have a sprained shoulder so I can't type much. I would have been glad to supported him, but an obvious WP:COI would make me neutral. For some of the oppose votes, please reconsider as everyone deserves a second chance. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 23:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Experienced user, and this user seems to deserve a second chance for the desysopping incident which happened months ago, but neutral per Coredesat because of WP:CIV issues. Will reconsider in another few months if this is worked on. Insanephantom 23:41, 9 March 2007 (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.
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Chacor_2