Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:27, 18 September 2006

Chacor

Voice your opinion. (7/4/1) Ending 11:28, 25 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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/NSLE. – Chacor 04:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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:Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

A. Please see Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages to others outside Misplaced Pages. – Chacor 13:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See Chacor's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• Link to ArbCom's statement concerning NSLE's desysop: WP:AN/Archive45#NSLE desysopped

• 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)

Support

1. Support of course. Yey I'm first! --Alex 11:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. --Dweller 11:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
4. Support. A good editor deserves a second chance. -- Szvest 12:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign
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)

   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)

   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)

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 12:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)

Striked out my oppose to reconsider. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Opppose with regret. I do not have the facts to judge in the ArbCom case, so my opposition is not based solely on that (but I tend to take the word of folk like Mindspillage without hesitation). What I do have is this: that this user chose to oppose an impending OFFICE action in the HRE affair, and abusively swore at me for my actions in trying to carry out Danny's direct instructions, instead of (apparently) taking my word that I was acting in good faith. If this user cannot trust a fellow admin when he says Danny told him to do something, I certainly cannot trust him with adminship. Diffs coming shortly ++Lar: t/c 11:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

   I'd just like to note that other admins, and a bureaucrat, also questioned the handling of the OFFICE matter, not me alone. – Chacor 11:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

   Could you state the other adins and the bureaucrat? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

   The relevant discussion can be found here. – Chacor 11:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

   What matters to me is not that there was disagreement about the handling. What matters to me is that when I told you directly that I was acting on instructions of Danny, you chose to keep reverting, keep arguing with me about it instead of taking my word for it. My first impulse in dealing with others is to trust them. Yours apparently is not. There are other incidents of your edit warring with people to implement things as well (the Karmafist voting in Esperanza issue comes to mind) Therefore you no longer have my trust. If, perhaps, in future, after you have apologised for abusing me on IRC, (I still have that log, by the way, I log every conversation. I won't show it without permission, but if you deny that you abused me, then it's your word against mine, isn't it?) and after you have demonstrated trustworthiness, perhaps. Some places to read further: Your arguing the point on my talk that I had direct instructions to do what I did Danny directly tells you to stop reverting on your talk page RfA discussion where you accuse me of "reverting something I'm involved in" instead of acknowledging I was acting under orders I'm sorry, you don't have my trust any more, and I strongly suggest that now is not the time for you to seek adminship, you have much learning and fencemending to do first. ++Lar: t/c 11:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

   Might I just point you to my answer to question 3 where I acknowledge making inappropriate remarks and comments and apologised for them. :) – Chacor 11:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

   Many users do not find apologies during the course of an RfA, especially ones that blame other admins for your own decision not to trust other people, or to be abusive to other people, unsatisfactory and insincere. The time to mend fences with me for it to have done any good in this RfA was well prior to it, and the way was directly with me, not as a throwaway comment somewhere where I have to seek it out. When you flub up, it's important to admit it, swiftly, and completely, and ask directly for forgiveness. This is not easy, and not everyone can do it. But then, not everyone is suited to be an admin either. I am the first to admit that in this regard I am not perfect, that I do inappropriate things, but I think I'd stack my record for admitting fault and apologising against yours with no qualms. I'm sorry, and perhaps you will nevertheless be confirmed, but I have very grave reservations about your suitability for the post of admin at this time. ++Lar: t/c 12:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

   My aim of apologising during the RFA was actually that I hoped it would come across as sincere, as I meant it, as I publicly admitted my wrong. However, I respect your decision. I should also note, just for posterity, that I did notify you of my apology. Cheers, :) – Chacor 12:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

   Addendum: I believe that after Danny dropped me a note on my talk page I reverted myself on HRE's RFA. Cheers, – Chacor 12:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

   I believe that is either incorrect, or if true, not relevant to the main sequence of events, which is that it took Danny himself, you didn't trust other admins when they told you things. Trust goes both ways and you no longer have mine. ++Lar: t/c 12:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

   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)

   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)

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)

   Please maintain a more civil tone. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 13:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. 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)

   Just to note that I needed clearance to run an RFA, and not re-adminned outright. Cheers, – Chacor 12:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

   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)

2. Neutral. At this moment I cannot definitely support or otherwise. I have to think about this. — Gary Kirk // 13:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)