Username Chacor Total edits 3944 Distinct pages edited 642 Average edits/page 6.143 First edit 03:58, 14 June 2006 (main) 1705 Talk 807 User 179 User talk 512 Image 33 Template 57 Template talk 4 Wikipedia 324 Wikipedia talk 79 Portal 228 Portal talk 16
Chacor's edit summary details as of 15:05, September 18 2006, using Interiot's tool. (aeropagitica) 15:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Lar's oppose
Refactoring here to reduce the length of the main page...
- 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. –
Ch
acor
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. – Ch acor 11:48, 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)
- 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. :) –
Ch
acor
11:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Many users 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, :) – Ch acor 12:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Many users 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)
- Addendum: I believe that after Danny dropped me a note on my talk page I reverted myself on HRE's RFA. Cheers, –
Ch
acor
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)
- Might I just point you to my answer to question 3 where I acknowledge making inappropriate remarks and comments and apologised for them. :) –
Ch
acor
11:59, 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. –
Ch
acor
11:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Nilfanion gave this diff. On further inspection, accounts Chacor and NSLE both voted in the same Requests for Adminship. Not only that, but it was a such a lazy use of sockpuppets, the owner of the two accounts (for those unfamiliar, Chacor admits to being NSLE) used a sock right after his primary account. Anomo 20:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Username Chacor Total edits 3944 Distinct pages edited 642 Average edits/page 6.143 First edit 03:58, 14 June 2006 (main) 1705 Talk 807 User 179 User talk 512 Image 33 Template 57 Template talk 4 Wikipedia 324 Wikipedia talk 79 Portal 228 Portal talk 16
Chacor's edit summary details as of 15:05, September 18 2006, using Interiot's tool. (aeropagitica) 15:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Lar's oppose
Refactoring here to reduce the length of the main page...
- 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. –
Ch
acor
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. – Ch acor 11:48, 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)
- 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. :) –
Ch
acor
11:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Many users 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, :) – Ch acor 12:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Many users 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)
- Addendum: I believe that after Danny dropped me a note on my talk page I reverted myself on HRE's RFA. Cheers, –
Ch
acor
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)
- Might I just point you to my answer to question 3 where I acknowledge making inappropriate remarks and comments and apologised for them. :) –
Ch
acor
11:59, 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. –
Ch
acor
11:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Nilfanion gave this diff. On further inspection, accounts Chacor and NSLE both voted in the same Requests for Adminship. Not only that, but it was a such a lazy use of sockpuppets, the owner of the two accounts (for those unfamiliar, Chacor admits to being NSLE) used a sock right after his primary account. Anomo 20:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)