Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/TomStar81

Category talk:	1
Category:	1
Image talk:	4
Image:	925
Mainspace	5686
Portal talk:	11
Portal:	14
Talk:	737
Template talk:	16
Template:	73
User talk:	832
User:	1642
Wikipedia talk:	186
Wikipedia:	1298
avg edits per page	3.95
earliest	23:29, 3 September 2004
number of unique pages	2894
total	11426
2004/9 	177 	
2004/10 	512 	
2004/11 	165 	
2004/12 	114 	
2005/1 	259 	
2005/2 	305 	
2005/3 	394 	
2005/4 	264 	
2005/5 	232 	
2005/6 	112 	
2005/7 	297 	
2005/8 	335 	
2005/9 	399 	
2005/10 	255 	
2005/11 	220 	
2005/12 	608 	
2006/1 	539 	
2006/2 	488 	
2006/3 	299 	
2006/4 	256 	
2006/5 	360 	
2006/6 	383 	
2006/7 	422 	
2006/8 	191 	
2006/9 	357 	
2006/10 	293 	
2006/11 	357 	
2006/12 	402 	
2007/1 	412 	
2007/2 	356 	
2007/3 	501 	
2007/4 	226 	
2007/5 	342 	
2007/6 	277 	
2007/7 	317

Edit count as of 21:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC) —Anas ^talk?

Nomination[edit]

I have archived this, to prevent a conflict that is totally unnecessary. Both of you need to stop discussing the non-issue that is this thread. Relax a notch. Please. --Deskana (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

New England I don't mean to argue, but you are incorrect that Tom nominated me. He did the work in rearranging a nomination that was made by Stillstudying - please, this is very upsetting to me that a good candidate is being attacked for being nominated by me when he did not. If you look at the record, all he did was reorganize a nomination that was made by another user, who then lobbied quite hard for me. It is extremely distressing to me that this candidate is being attacked for nominating me, when he did not, all he did was rearrange a nomination that Stillstudying made - if you are going to count this as nomination, then ElinorD nominated Tom, because she helped me with the technical aspects of creating the page - which is what he did for Still. Where has trust gone? Not only is a great user accused of something in being nominated by me, he is accused of something he did not do. old windy bear 05:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't worry, if you had read my previous statement you would know I am not opposing because of the nomination thing. And the candidate himself has not denied nominating you. New England 13:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - New England I understand, and at the same time, for those not familiar with my nomination, it is important they know that this candidate did not nominate me, and his only connection was to properly format someone else's nomination, Stillstudying's. As to my election, 66 people voted for me, and NONE voted against me, so I don't think there was anything whatsoever controversial in my nomination and election as a sysop. I did notice, in the course of my election, that this candidate, a superbly qualified user, was not a sysop, which I thought was a loss to the community. So I nominated him. But there was nothing whatsoever controversial about my nomination. (nor about my election, the only usual feature of which was that not one single person opposed me) I hope that folks will look at this candidate's superb record, which frankly, is better than mine, (and I was proud of mine!) He warrants our trust. old windy bear 14:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You read to much into my statements. I never said that your RFA was in any way controversial. And, I never accused you of nominating him as some sort of reward as you mentioned on another users talk page here. I also think that by continually posting long, drawn-out responses to me, you are drawing more attention to my comment than it would have gotten by itself. New England 15:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm posting this reply here because it relates 100% to this RFA. In response to this comment on my talk page you are falsely accusing me of falsely accusing you and the candidate of making an "under-the-table" agreement. I am not accusing you of anything. I would point out though, that TomStar81 did in fact nominate you (whether of not he did it another person doesn't matter---he did call you an "excellent contributor" in his statement). For the record he told you he wasn't an admin in this diff, to which you replied immediately with this comment, then nominated him a few hours later. I also feel I should respond to this comment on StillStudying's talk page. You (incorrectly) accuse me of failing to assume good faith, when you fail to assume it in regards to me. I was merely pointing out the coincidence that occurred with your nomination of TomStar soon after he nominated. And Tom even admitted to laughing when he read that you nominated him, and seems less bothered by my comments then you are. And by your own admission you nominated Tom only because he helped nominate you. New England 17:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has gotten a bit out of hand. Although it may be tangentially relevant if Oldwindybear is nominating Tom in an effort to help him help wikipedia after Tom helped oldwindybear help wikipedia, it doesn't matter nearly as much as, say, whether Tom is a good admin candidate. Let's go back to discussing the real question and stop arguing about this minor side issue, please.--Chaser - T 20:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but the bottom line is simple: I did not ever, in any form, say that I nominated TomStar81 for any reason other than I felt he should be an admin. i was startled to find out he was not, frankly, as the page shows. I certainly never said, in any way, that I nominated him for reformatting Stillstudying's nomination. Those are totally false accusations. I don't feel this matter is appropriate for the nomination page, because they are totally false accusations which, as was noted correctly, raises issues not related to the nomination. He said himself - which is why I stopped discussing it there - that arguing about it called attention to false charges. Stillstudying not only made the original nomination, but shepherded it through the process! You will find he said, among other things, at [1] that "That level of trust is what will make him a great admin, and why I nominated him. Stillstudying 18:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)" Nor was that his only statement on his nomination of me! Yet this user continues to make totally false and unfounded accusations.old windy bear 20:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My "original false accusation" was that: "it seems a little weird that Oldwindybear nominated you soon after you nominated him." You may say he simply reformatted another users nomination, but by singning the page with his name he nominated you. The next "lie I fabricated" is that I'm accusing you two of conspiring together. Nowhere at all did I say that, but I did say that you only nominated him because of the way he handled your RFA (in other words, had you not ran into TomStar on your RFA, you wouldn't have decided him not being an andmin was a disservice to the community). Furthermore, you do not have the right to block because you dislike my comments at your buddies RFA, being a Sysop doesn't let you carry a big stick. If you accuse me of making personal attacks, you have no right to make them on me as you did here (1, 2, and 3). You still are giving my comment too much credit, there have been no opposes "per New England" New England 01:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.