Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TomStar81 2


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

TomStar81
[ Voice your opinion] (talk page) (22/15/3) final Andre (talk) 01:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

- Ladies and Gentlemen of the English Wikipedia, I present to you for adminship TomStar81. He has contributed over 11000 times, including over 5000 to the mainspace alone. One significant point I would like to present is the reason why his last RfA was unsuccessful. TomStar81 pulled his own RfA, accompanied by this message:

From the Desk of User:TomStar81: As most of you are no doubt wawre of, there has been an edit war between New England and oldwindybear over this rfa. I had held out high hopes that the two of them could come to an agreement over their differences of opinion, but I see that has not happened. Furthermore, I see that this edit war has driven both oldwindybear and Stillstudying to the brink of leaving Wikipedia as contributers. Two years ago, during the edit war on Iowa class battleship, I insisted on keeping one stupid line in and it cost the project a valued contributer. I absolutlely refuse to let that happen again; ever editer we lose is a loss for Wikipedia as whole. What does it profit this great encyclopedia if I recieve admin status at the cost of the perment retirement of two members of the community? We can not afford such a pyrrific vistory. To that end, I am announcing that I wihdraw my support of thenomination, and respectfully ask that it be closed. This should end the immdiate edit war problem that was plagued my rfa, and with any luck, the end of the edit war will cause Stillstudying and oldwindybear to reconsider their depature from the site. I am sorry to see that it has come to this, but I will not have another users departure rest on my concious; that number stands at one, and one is already more than I can bear.

His willingness to sacrifice his own RfA to quiet an edit war shows an exemplary care for the community that no doubt proves his capability as a potential admin.  J- stan  Talk 01:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I humbly accept this nomination for adminship. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: Since I closed my previous rfa to end the edit war and keep our contributers here I have been reading up on admin privilages and the responsibilites that come with them. Having reflected on my previous answer I see that I should have been more specific with the community: I intend to use any admin powers leant to me for the purpose of aiding the Military History Wikiproject and its accompaning tasks forces specifically, and for the purpose of bettering Wikipedia as a whole. How I go about doing this will depend on how quickly I can master the new tabs leant to me as an admin, and where and when I will commit to admin work depends on the needs of the encyclopdia at any given time.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I consider my best contributions to Wikipedia to be the Featured Articles I either brought up to Featured Status, or the articles that I had the pleasure of returning to FA status after the bar for FA articles was raised. In particular, the battleships USS New Jersey (BB-62) & USS Wisconsin (BB-64) were fun to work with because I had the honor of doing nearly all the work to get them to FA status, while my other featured articles (USS Missouri (BB-63) and Iowa class battleship) were initially improvements to FA class articles that were lacking ciations. My updating of Iowa class battleship also produced a new article named Armament of the Iowa class battleship which went featured roughly a month after being created due in large part to the research I had done. Researching these articles is a joy similar to the old special projects I and my class mates used to do back at El Paso Country Day School: long hours sifting through research material, taking notes and writing reports, only presentation to the class here means presenting information to the world. I love it, I wouldn't trade that for the world.


 * 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: Unfortunetly, I have been involved in two big edit conflicts with users in the past. In both cases I feel that I was in fact in the wrong, although I am ashamed to say that being in the wrong didn't stop me from holding my ground and resisting attempts to change the articles for the better. The first was at the end of 2004 or 2005, when the main page featured article was Iowa class battleship; I had been the point man for bring the article up to FA status then and was rather proud of having done so, but I neglected to remove a POV line comparing the class to other battleships in other navies of the world, and that led to an edit war over whose ships should get mentioned. In the process of defending the line I do believe that I caused the User:MateoP to leave wikipedia, and that has at times made me feel bad. More recently, I attempted to expand Wikipedia's coverage of the PC game Command and Conquer by creating a butload of articles on and about the series and its spin offs, which led to a rather vicous altercation between me and Proto (now Neil). At the time was pissed about having the articles I worked so hard on come under the afd umbrella, and due to a combination of hurt pride and upcoming University final exams stress I really tore into him over the dletion of the articles. As time has passed I have come to see that Neil was only doing the right thing, and as an unintended bonus (if you want to call it that) the community as a whole has been cracking down on "gamecruft" pages here. In both cases putting some time and distance between the incedents has allowed me to mature a little, I see that I need to be more open to suggestions and more observant of Wikipedia's policies. I did eventually apologized to MateoP and Neil after backing off the computer and meditating on the points presented, and I have taken the points they offered to heart. For those of you who would like to take a closer look at the conflits I will provode the links to the pages: For the Iowa class battleship conflict and related talk page discussion(s), and the C&C article delete. Other pages are in their as well; if you go to User:Neil/gc and look for anything in red with a name including units/strucutures of the Chinese/USA/GLA/GDI/Nod, then click on it and you see the accompanying afd nom. On the afd pages you can scope out my complete (and dubious) war on policy here (the link I provided specifically is the most damning, the other not so much, so you can get a feel for the rest of the pages by checking out the linked one).

General comments

 * See TomStar81's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for TomStar81:

''Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/TomStar81 before commenting.''

Discussion

 * To all those who complain about the frequency of this user's RfAs: It wasn't his fault. An edit war was getting out of hand, and so he withdrew it. Outstanding action. If the RfA was closed as unsuccessful, I would understand these arguments. Based on his actions in the previous RfA, I offered to nominate him again when he was ready, and he politely asked me to wait until the time was right. So a few days later, I received a message taking me up on my offer. He believes that he's ready, and I believe he's ready, and the timing doesn't really matter in the end.  J- stan  Talk 03:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support I supported in the RfA a few days ago, and I think TomStar's handling of the RfA's issues give even more reason to support. Captain   panda  03:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support maybe some concerns but his actions with the recent RfA is enough to show this candidate can be trusted with the mop Gnangarra 03:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC) withdrawn support, having gone further into the associations of oldwindybear and stillstudying the underlying issues of these two editors his reasoning for closing previous afd early no longer stands as a display of good judgement. Gnangarra 23:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support This candidate can be trusted in using the mop. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 04:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Won't abuse the tools, writing a number of FAs show dedication to the project, and the way he handled the edit war in his first RFA is pretty good and it wasn't his fault. We do need more article writing and specialist admins. I do agree with Xoloz above that it is too soon. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 05:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Support - user shows ample understanding of the tools, shows a need for them, and show impeccable character. Can't ask for more. --Haemo 06:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - woah, last time it was a close-run thing for me, but this time it is even more difficult to decide! My rationale for supporting last time was that 'adminship is no big deal' and 'Tom won't abuse the tools.' Whilst last time I had some concerns, this time I am very worried by the speed of the refiling - impatient if anything. Meanwhile, your response to question 1 does not seem to be much more specific - 'when and where it is needed' doesn't show any more knowledge of policy or the uses of the admin buttons. However, my comment at the previous discussion that this user will not abuse the tools still stands. I was quite impressed by your handling of your last RfA, and feel that putting the project first was a very sensible plan, in my opinion more than balancing the bad judgment displayed by refiling so fast. As I said last time, my talk page is always open if you want any advice, and (just about) I feel that you ought to be given the tools. (And if this sounds like an oppose, that's because it very nearly was!) ck lostsword•T•C 10:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong Support This user has lots of relevant experience. There are some brilliant mainspace contributions and wikipedia space contributions. This user could've been an admin months ago. (B.T.W Don't neglect the edit summary!)  Lra drama 10:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong Support - the mess last time wasn't his fault, it was due to a misapprehension over the whole question of him and oldwindybear nominating each other (which wasn't, actually, the case). He should have been an admin last time round; the short period between the noms is a pretty pointless reason to oppose, IMO. WaltonOne 15:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I am not sure that I would have walked away an admin, hence the reason why this one rfa was filed so soon after the last one. It is the fundamental question left unsolved from the previous rfa, and I (and others I'm sure) would like a difinitive answer. :) TomStar81 (Talk) 18:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Support as nom. I would have gotten here sooner, but I was away from my computer all day.  J- stan  Talk 22:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Support. I admire the integrity and character the user showed in the way he ended his previous RfA. If I had any doubts about supporting him last time, they are definitely gone now. Trusilver 15:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - no reason to believe this user would abuse admin tools. ugen64 06:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - I've run into TomStar81 on occasion and have seen mainly good stuff. --MoRsE 09:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Has done some good work as an editor and is committed to the project which is what we should want in an admin. Cla68 12:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. I have run into him, and he seems like good folk. Bearian 19:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support At the end of the day the extra buttons come down to just one thing. Trust. We can argue all day along about editcounts, writing articles, project space, name space, civility, block logs, ammount of time between RFA's, use of the tools, edit summary use etc. etc. etc. At a fundamental level the question for me is, do I trust this user not to abuse the tools. And the answer is yes. I think you shouldn't have accepted nomination so quickly, because inevitably it would attract opposes as below. When you withdrew your last RFA I commented at your talk page that it was an admin quality action. I still believe it was. I therefore offer my support. Best. Pedro | Chat  08:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Moral support, and cancelling out one of the more ridiculous pile-on opposes (take a pick). —AldeBaer (c) 18:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - unlikely to abuse the tools. -- DS1953 talk 15:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Moral support à la AldeBaer. Candidate exhibits integrity, which I expect he will (one day) exhibit as an admin. Grace notes T § 19:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. I don't have any concerns about this user abusing the tools, and I'm sure they will find numerous ways to benefit the entire project. I think the situation that developed around your previous nomination was regrettable, and I find it unfortunate that events essentially beyond your control are having such a powerful effect on this nomination. Carom 22:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. Looks like a great prolific contributor who can be trusted with the tools. It's unfortunate that he had to withdraw from his previous RfA; if this were a self-nom 5 days after a previous RfA I'd be a little suspicious, but the fact that someone else offered to nominate him again after that unfortunate situation does not seem in bad faith to me.  K r  i  m  p  e  t  05:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. A great editor and his handling of the unsuccessful RFA just highlights him being ready for a mop. Kyriakos 13:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. It seems churlish to punish Tom for someone else's hamfisted error of judgement.  Very much improved from when he got really angry about Command & Conquer how to guides being deleted.  I don't think he'd abuse the tools.  Neil   ╦  13:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support per the reasons I stated in the last RFA. Tom's an excellent, mature editor and I have no doubt that he'll use the tools properly. TomTheHand 20:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Weak oppose Doesn't show that he will use the tools/knows what an admin does. You don't need to be an admin to help a WikiProject. ~   Wi ki  her mit  02:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What evidence would like to me to produce to show that I will use the tools/know what an admin does? I would be more than happy to adress you concerns, but you concern here is somewhat ambigious. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose Last RfA was five days ago; I opposed then, feeling user didn't grasp what adminship entails. This "rapid-fire" RfAing shows impatience, over-eagerness for the tools, and bad judgment.  Now I am more firmly convinced that more time most elapse before candidate can be trusted with the tools (I'm talking about a matter of several months, by the way, not less than a week.) Xoloz 04:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I expected someone would bring that up, and I have a good answer as to why this page was refiled so quickly. When I closed my original rfa the driving force behind it was to stop the edit war on the page and to keep our contributers here on Wikipedia. It does the encyclopedia no good to chase off potential contributers, that kind of thing hinders our development immensly. The closing of my rfa did solve the edit war, but it left a fundamental question unanswered: Do I have what it take to be an admin? I, for one, would like to know, so I took J-stan up on his offer to renominate me in due in large part to the fact that I hate leaving questions like this unanswered. Thats why this rfa was refiled so soon. It has nothing to do with "impatience, over-eagerness for the tools, and bad judgment", it merely reflects my desire to know conclusively how the other one would have ended if I had not closed it. And for the record: I had considered waiting until late October or early November before refiling. In this case my curiousity got the best of me. Thats all. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * With due respect, a user with good judgment should have realized that the "edit-war" was only one of many things that led your RfA to an unsuccessful conclusion. While I respect your reason for withdrawing before, you should have the foresight and maturity to live with the consequences of the withdrawl (or, you shouldn't have withdrawn in the first place.)  I'll concede that your good intentions lessen my concern with over-eagerness, but not with bad judgment, nor with impatience (which you basically admit to when you say "curiosity got the best of you".)  You were unready five days ago, and you still remain so. Xoloz 04:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion on the matter, but we are here to determine that with certainty. It may well be that by the end of this nom your take on the matter will be correct; the community will decide conclusively that I don't have what it takes to be an admin, and I will be turned down. On the other hand the community may say that I meet the requirements and do deserve the privilage of being an admin. As you have pointed out, the edit war was one of many things that users objected to last time around, but I want to know for certain what this community thinks. More importantly for me is the fact that I win no matter how this ends: if I am not made an admin then I will have a weeks worth of objections with corrosponding comments on what I need to improve on, and if I do succsede in becoming an admin then I get a mop and bucket, and the ability to help wikipedia as an admin. How can such a rewording situtation be unfavorable? You have already proved part of my point by outlining your suggestions for improvement in behavior. I garentee you that when this ends I will be a better person for having seen it through to the finish, no matter the out come. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right that the experience will be rewarding for you; that's why WP has Editor Review nowadays. Had I been in your place, after the first RfA concluded, I would have employed that avenue to obtain constructive feedback. Xoloz 05:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have an open editor review request, you are welcome to comment there if you like. BTW, thank you for the comments here, I apreciate your taking the time to write. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) As mentioned by others, you dont need admin tools to help put with a WikiProject, plus your previous RfA ended 5 days ago this is way too soon even though you withdrew it, if you weren't ready then then what makes you think you're ready five days later?  Rlest  09:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * He was ready then. He had to withdraw the RfA because of this misconception about his connection with oldwindybear, which led to an edit war and a lot of undeserved opposes. WaltonOne 15:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose really for same reason of the last RFA, still don't see the need Dureo 10:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, your comment last time was "Oppose at this time, answer to Q1, regarding admin powers, give it some time, more precisely decide what you actually need the adminship for and then come back and you'll have my support." I assume by your above statement that this remains the reason why you vote oppose, correct? TomStar81 (Talk) 18:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a correct assumption. Dureo 05:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose Nothing seems to have changed since the last RfA (only days ago) which was opposed for good reason. The refiling of a failing RfA after a few days and packaging doing so only to "benefit wikipedia" and "save others" is shifty. The constant reminders of the self made wiki-martyr bit and the combative responses to Xoloz leaves a poor taste in my mouth as well. NeoFreak 12:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't consider myself a myter, nor have I ever refered to myself as that; I am merely a User trying to do the right thing. I don't consider my responses to Zoloz's concerns "combative", although your idea of combative and my idea of combative may be at opposite ends of the definition spectrum. In either event thank you for the comments and for taking the time to comment here. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You might wish to consider that others might be put off by your need to respond in what comes off as a defensive manner to every opposition opinion. Maybe overly defensive would have been more accurate than "combative". NeoFreak 20:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I promise that I am not trying to come off either as offensive or overly defensive, and if I do appear that way than I apologize. I am trying to adress these concerns/issues, but I guess I'm not doing a very good job, am I? TomStar81 (Talk) 20:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Being an administrator demands attention to detail. I observe numerous spelling errors in both this RfA and your previous filing. Some will say that is petty but I think that we must be accurate and precise in our writing skills. One or two errors is understandable but I see too many in your writings. I also must agree with Xoloz. Your decision to withdraw was perhaps noble but you must now live with it. JodyB 13:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have never made any attempt to hide my hideous spelling; my one regret in life is that my spelling was always below average. It hasn't gotten much better since I began editting wikipedia back in September 2004, but I have tried to fix as much of it as I can, and have reworded others for the help they have leant in correcting my spelling over the years. As for your second point: I don't consider my descion to withdrawn noble, I am certain that anyone in my position would have done the same thing to stop the edit war there. I am not trying to appear greedy or arragant; I merely wish to know how it would have ended if the edit war had not taken center stage on the last rfa. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I know several admins with commendable service, commendable specific knowledge about areas which I am happy to defer to them on (and often do), and extremely poor spelling. Orderinchaos 10:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're opposing because of spelling errors? I'm sorry, but... WTF!? -- 06:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Argh, I am seeing a sea of red in edit summary usage. I suspect that he's trying to use "withdrew last RfA" to win more supporting votes for his "nobility". Moreover, starting the 2nd RfA (this one) 5 days after the 1st one indicates that you don't have a clear mind.  OhanaUnited    Talk page   18:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I find that offensive; I'm not trying to win anyone over with anything, and I am most certainly not trying to cash in on any "nobility" I may or may not have garnered for actions from the last rfa. It is true that I don't use edit summaries as much as I should; that is something I will work on from now on since its obviously a flash point for you. Thank you for taking the time to comment. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OhanaUnited If you wish to oppose on edit summary use, that is up to you of course. I assume the faith that you reviewed the very deep reasons, that go across CHECK USER, ANI, RFA and many many talk pages behind the previous decision to withdraw by this candiaidate. Should you have not had leisure to examine the convoluted history or require diffs please approach me at my talk page or simply go through the history of User:Oldwindybear, User:New England and User:Stillstudying. There is more here than meets the eye when it comes to the reasons behind the 5 days difference, and I would not like to see you oppose if you're not aware if it As I say, if you are opposing on edit summary use or other reasons then that is up to you. Best. Pedro |  Chat  19:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I hate to oppose, mainly because of what was said in the nomination. However, I just can't support considering the Q1 answer, where no admin tasks are cited.  I'm very sorry, but to support would be a bit unfair to other candidates I've opposed for that reason.  Therefore, I must.  Sorry.  Giggy  UCP 02:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Xoloz and the arrogant and aggressive responses to those taking time out to comment on this RfA. Nick 23:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I for one don't see the "arrogant and aggressive responses". ugen64 06:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Five days is too short of a time between RFAs. Furthermore, the answer to question 1 is far from satisfactory. ( [ →]O - RLY?) 00:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak oppose. I for one am confused as to why the candidate would withdraw from one RfA with seemingly noble intentions of averting problems only to throw his hat back in to the ring 5 days later.  As others have stated the rapid renomination taints the nature of the previous withdrawal.  Any disservice to the project that was averted by the previous closure only seems likely to resurface within such a short period of time.  This rather strange and conflicting behavior leaves me unable to support. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Need some more practice, doesn't have the skills it takes an admin to become admin. Abdelkweli 21:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Practice with what? How can one practice for adminship?  J- stan  Talk 21:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't you think his decision to put wikipedia above himself in the previous RfA, thus ending an edit war isnt kind of action expected of an admin. Gnangarra 01:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC) withdrawn Gnangarra 23:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak oppose Well, I'm afraid I find myself in disagreement with Walton on this one. Personally, what I look above all in a candidate for adminship is familiarity with our procedures and sound judgement. I can recall multiple RfAs and RfBs where timing was an issue and, in more than a few cases, the determining factor. I believe that it should have been obvious to the candidate that, just like in those cases, timing would be an issue here as well. Withdrawing may have been noble and possibly even the right call but  the fact of the matter is that refiling a RfA a mere five days after the previous one is highly unusual and, at least to me, is something that indicates at the very least a momentary lapse of judgement. Sorry. S up? 08:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose A bit too soon after earlier RfA.  T Rex  | talk  12:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose without prejudice (including about the quick re-nomination). TomStar not only does not demonstrate a clear understanding of admin roles and responsibilities, and indicates that he's only just now been reading up on what is entailed, he has made it clear that he will use the tools mostly or entirely in service to a particular WikiProject. Having "pet super-users" for projects is not what adminship is for.  And I can sympathize with project loyalty; I effectively "run" (as the most active participant) two WikiProjects myself, and am actively involved in over a dozen of them. I'd be happy to support in a future RfA if there's clear evidence of having done the homework, being more active in the "Wikipedia:" namespace, including XfD, and especially a broadening of Wikipedian priorities. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 22:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral. I supported this editor's earlier RfA as a long-term editor with commitment to encyclopedia building; however, I am concerned that the timing of the current application is ill judged given the concerns expressed by others over the earlier RfA. Espresso Addict 14:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral I also supported the earlier RfA, and although I understand the desire to see 'what would have happened', it would have been better to wait it out, improve based on previous RfA comments, and come back stronger. I echo the concerns of Espresso Addict above, but also want to note that I understand why you withdrew your previous RfA in the first place. You're a valuable contributor here and I hope you keep on with the dedication you've displayed. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 12:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral If the candidate had waited more than a few days, this would be a Support vote - the candidate seems qualified. However, I fear that the user has replaced a commendable act in withdrawing to prevent an edit war, to breaking the spirit of that withdrawal by nominating so soon after, and not letting the debris settle. This raises considerable questions of judgment for me, although in saying such, I recognise this is not a self-nom. If the user came back in a few months, provided his hitherto good conduct and positive contributions continue, I would not hesitate to support. Orderinchaos 10:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.