Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/gromlakh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Gromlakh

Final (16/13/7); Closed as unsuccessful by WjBscribe at 02:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Gromlakh (talk · contribs) - This is a self nomination. I've been a member of Wikipedia since 2006. Well, technically, that's 2003, but if you look at my detailed edit summary you can see that I didn't really start contributing in earnest until 2006. I'm rapidly approaching 2,000 edits, most of that coming within the last six months. Update Since my nom, I have now officially passed 2,000 edits (this is, like, 2031!). So, for those of you whose Editcountitis magic number is 2,000 edits...WOOHOO! VOTE FOR ME! </sarcasm>

Disclaimer: For those who do not recognize my name, I recently underwent a user name change. My old user name was "Tuckdogg". If that doesn't jog your memory...well, then we probably haven't crossed paths yet.

My primary contributions thus far have been in Wikiproject: Mixed Martial Arts-related pages. I expect to continue my time here at Wikipedia with that as my primary focus. I may also branch out and expand my contributions to WP:LAW, as I am also a practicing attorney. Many of my namespace edits are for removing inappropriate content, such as vandalism, NPOV violations, original research, and the like. I started using popups awhile back, then East718 turned me on to Twinkle. I've been using Twinkle for the last several months to help out with the vandalism fighting, and that subsequently increased my contributions to WP:AIV and other related pages.

If mopped, I plan to participate in blocking IP vandals, page protections for current targets of vandalism, and reviewing candidates for deletion. I've often found myself out of things to do when I have time to dedicate to Wikipedia, so I also expect to continue looking around for other admin tasks where I can be of assistance. Thank in advance for your consideration/advice/help/assistance/flames/merciless mocking. Gromlakh (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: As noted above, my primary focus for now will be in looking at temporary IP blocks for repeated vandals, as well as temporary page protections for vandalism targets. This will include perusing WP:AIV to see where I'm needed, as well as whatever I come across from my own watchlist. I'm extremely hesitant to toss out a block to a registered user, unless I can tell from their contribs that it's an account used solely for vandalism. However, if I catch violations of WP:3RR, I'd be willing to throw down a 24 hour block and discuss the situation with the user.
I know there are many other admin tasks out there that I can contribute to, but I am hesitant to say right now where else I'll throw my hat in. The last thing I want to do is get mopped and start pissing people off by misusing the tools (even inadvertently), so I'll be treading lightly in my use of them until I get the hang of being an admin and can ensure that I have a handle on all the relevant policies.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I would have to say that my best contributions are in general cleanup of various MMA-related articles. The stuff we watch on WP:MMA frequently get hit with some of the worst NPOV and OR violations that I've seen. Multiple articles end up with "X fighter is the best ever, and he could totally beat up anyone!" or "Tim Sylvia is generally considered to be the most slow and boring fighter ever, and everyone agrees that he should just die." I'm doing what I can to keep that stuff out of articles, as well as trying to ensure that future contributions are properly sourced.
We also see problems with future events, as people attempt to post fight rumors and other forms of crystal balling. I started a discussion on WT:MMA to work towards standards for when fights should be posted, and I think we've come to a rough consensus because of it. That's made it easier for me to delete the rumors because I have an MMA-related consensus that I can direct people to for justification.
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: I can think of a few:
  • Working towards consensus on how to index professional wrestlers on WP:PW caused me a lot of stress. Pro wrestling fans want to index wrestlers under their character names (see: The Undertaker). I find this practice to be beyond absurd, akin to indexing Patrick Dempsey under Derek Shepherd because he's most famous for his Grey's Anatomy character. I contributed to several "Proposed Moves" discussions on wrestlers' pages, and I also contributed to WT:PW in trying to reach a consensus on how to properly index pro wrestlers. I succeeded in preventing a few moves; others (like Sting (wrestler) and The Undertaker were moved anyway. I failed in finding a consensus at all, so the current hodge-podge system remains in place. I don't really contribute to the project anymore, but I never forcibly moved a wrestler's page on account of my objections to the absurd way they were indexed and never would. I'd still like to see a consensus in place, but I don't think I have the votes to turn things the way I would like them. I don't watch pro wrestling anymore, so it's not a primary concern of mine.
  • Fedor Emelianenko's nationality. Back in June or July of last year, a user (and an anon IP or two, IIRC) were constantly changing Fedor's nationality from Ukranian to Russian. Myself, East718, and a few other users kept reverting it back, identifying it as vandalism. All of us were not paying enough attention and ended up in a revert war. The page was fully protected, and I think East718 even got temporarily blocked for a WP:3RR violation. That forced us all to the talk page, where we should have been a long time ago. After talking things out, we realized that the "vandal" was actually correct; Fedor is of Russian, not Ukranian, descent. That was a good learning experience, and I try to avoid jumping to conclusions with things that are not directly within my area of expertise. Although I'm sure I've failed at that a few times since then...
(Side note from D.M.N.) - could you possibly provide diffs for the first part of Q3. As a member of WP:PW for a year now, this discussion hasn't come up at WT:PW for a while, and consensus may of changed over time. When did the discussions with WP:PW take place? Diffs would be helpful. Cheers, D.M.N. (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
In lieu of a diff, I'll just link you to the discussion in the archives: go here. We discussed it for awhile, I tried to put forth what I thought was a good proposal, but nothing was really settled. Some people disagreed with my proposal, but nothing was really proposed in lieu of it and the conversation just kinda died off. There's also a link at the beginning of that to a side discussion that happened at Village Pump (policy), but it's dead. That discussion can now be found here. All my (long-winded) comments are under my old name, "Tuckdogg".

Optional Question by D.M.N.

4. This is partially to do with your answer to Q1. If you noticed a vandal was causing a bit of bother for several different users, for instance making personal attacks towards other user, would you block the user for a short period of time, or would you attempt to work with the user to try and make them into a better Wikipedian? Please explain your reason. D.M.N. (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
A:Step one would be to talk to them and try to make them a better user. I would try to point out the relevant policies to them, such as WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, and offer to discuss the situation with them. If they persisted in making personal attacks and vandalizing, I'd try a short block (maybe a day or so) to protect the site while they cool off. If that didn't work, then it might be time for an indefinite block depending on the circumstances.

Optional Question(s) from Malinaccier.

5. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
A.A "ban" is a formal revocation of some (or all) of a user's editing privileges on Wikipedia. Bans may as a result of the dispute resolution process. For example, a request for mediation dealing with a user who is not necessarily generally disruptive, but is very much disruptive on a certain set of articles. That user may ultimately be "banned" from editing those articles for a period of time. Bans are used to punish disruptive users.
A block, on the other hand, is a technical measure used to prevent damage or disruption by disallowing editing of Wikipedia by certain users, IP addresses, or ranges of IP addresses. The intent of a block is to prevent further damage or disruption, not to punish the user, although blocks can be used to enforce bans.

Questions from Avruch

6. If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included- what do you do?
A: First step would be to discuss it with the admin who removed it in the first place. Through the discussion, they might understand that the material does not violate WP:BLP and so choose to let it come back in. Or, I might understand that I need to brush up on BLP a bit because they were right. If we cannot agree after discussing it, I'd submit a request for comments to get other viewpoints on it as a next step. I would not engage in a wheel war under any circumstances.
7. If you wish to close an AfD that is still open after 7 days but you believe the consensus is against current policy, what action should you take?
A: Voice my concerns over where I see the consensus is heading by contributing to the discussion. Assuming I've already done that at some point and consensus is clearly against me, I'd close it in favor of whatever the consensus was. I might not agree with it, but there's a substantial chance that either: 1.) my understanding of current policy is mistaken, since I seem to be in the minority of advancing that position; or 2.) I'm "right" on the policy, but this is a situation where the consensus is to ignore the rules for the good of the encyclopedia.
8. What is your opinion on administrator recall?
A: I like the concept of a mechanism for recalling or otherwise demoting admins. However, I do not believe that doing a second RfA is the way to do it. If there is a problem with the way I'm using the admin tools and it's brought to my attention by other admins, then I will take that as a note to adjust my approach and re-read the relevant policies. If I still can't do it right, then I'd just ask to be demoted. I don't think I need another RfA for that. I don't really have strong feelings on it one way or another, and if others want to participate in that, then that's fine with me. But I don't plan to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gromlakh (talk • contribs) 00:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Questions from east.718

9. What is your interpretation of ignore all rules?
A: I consider WP:IAR to be, first and foremost, a reminder that we are building an encyclopedia. We as a community can design, revise, and build as many rules as we want to further that goal, but our imperfect rules may not always be the best way to achieve that goal. That Wikipedia is, at its heart, an encyclopedia, trumps all rules and policies that have ever been made or ever will be made.
For us as experienced editors, that means two things primarily. First, it means there will be times when the policies and guidelines say to include (or exclude) something from Wikipedia, but going contrary to the rules will make the site a better encyclopedia. In that case, ignore the rules and do what's best. Second, it also means no wikilawyering. The spirit of the rule trumps the text of the rule, so ignore the text if it produces an absurd result that is contrary to what the rule is looking for.
WP:IAR is not, however, a trump card to be pulled out to justify any action taken. An editor cannot make any edit they want (such as vandalism and spamming), then say "WP:IAR! Ha! I win" and expect that to be the end of it. All edits must still be productive towards the goal of making a better encyclopedia. If the editor cannot show that their edits are productive and encyclopedic, they still must go.

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:

    Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Gromlakh before commenting.

    [edit] Discussion

    [edit] Support
    1. Support - perhaps not the most experienced user, but no warning flags. Anyway, a self-nom is proof of being bold and that is a good trait in an admin. Looks good. EJF (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    2. Support - as above. Sure thing, good luck. Rudget. 22:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    3. Conditional support I have no doubt you'll make a good admin once you have more experience, and you haven't any big muck ups so I see no reason to deny you the tool, however, I am supporting under the condition that you watchlist WP:AN and WP:ANI and respond to posts on those boards, and close some WP:XFDs before this RFA comes to an end.--Phoenix-wiki 22:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
      To clarify - you want him to close some XfD discussions prior to the conclusion of this RfA? Avruchtalk 23:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
      WP:AN and WP:ANI watchlisted, although as Avruch pointed out, I may have some trouble closing out some WP:XFD's before getting the mop...*twiddle* Gromlakh (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
      You can close them if there is a consensus to keep; see Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions. Rigadoun (talk) 07:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
      Yes, I close them as keep almost daily and relisting discussions where no consensus has been reached is also good.--Phoenix-wiki 17:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    4. Support per answers to questions. A little light on experience, but some folks learn faster than others. Avruchtalk 03:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    5. Support, looks like a stable, level-headed user. No editcount elitism here. MichelleG (talk) 03:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC).
    6. Support. Would be more than a satisfactory addition to the admin corps. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 08:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    7. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    8. Looks like a decent and good-faithed user. I'm not convinced by the opposition, some of which seem to be editcounting and not actually checking to see if this is a quality user, which Gromlakh appears to be. Acalamari 17:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    9. Support, per above and what I can see in contributions. Dreamafter ⇔ 19:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    10. Support. The user seems to be pretty experienced in terms of the work he has done and does not seem likely to abuse the tools. That is good enough for me. SorryGuy  Talk  02:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    11. Support. The opposes seem to be made of pointless editcountitis (unless some opposers want to clarify which of his thousands of edits show inexperience). rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    12. Gromlakh may not write too many articles, but instead is one of those editors who chooses to focus on the upkeep of their quality: in my opinion, this is conducive to being an administrator who does excellent maintenance work. Additionally, the answer to Q9 demonstrates sufficient Clue. east.718 at 10:06, January 7, 2008
    13. Support - experienced, smart, and trustworthy. He'll make a good admin. The Transhumanist 12:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    14. Support Good editor. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Talk to Me) 20:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    15. Support Not so much experience, but I think you can make that up by working hard. Fattyjwoods (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
    16. Weak support. Could use more experience, but great answers to questions. Wizardman 20:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
    17. Support. Users should not be denied adminship because of borderline edit counts, and lack of experience is not so much a detriment if the user has good intentions. Jehochman Talk 02:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    [edit] Oppose
    1. Lack of exp. --'n1yaNt 23:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
      In what way do you believe Gromlakh lacks experience? Acalamari 00:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    Per below, and some above. --Niyant (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    No offense, but that wasn't exactly helpful. Details would be, because then I'd at least know what to work on. Gromlakh (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    1. Oppose I do not like to oppose RFAs of editors who have been great users and haven't done anything wrong in their time working on Wikipedia. However, I must oppose for the same reason as stated above. The nominee has less than 2000 total edits and not even 1500 mainspace edits. I suggest that you keep doing what you're doing and continue contributing for a few more months, and, after you accumulate some more good edits, preferably well over 1500 mainspace edits, you can apply again and I will gladly support. Timmehcontribs 01:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    2. Oppose Regarding experience...I would like to see a larger amount of user interface in an RfA. Otherwise, a pretty good candidate. Kukini hablame aqui 01:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
      Could you clarify what you mean by "a larger amount of user interface"? Are you referring to my edit count or something else (like I haven't commented on enough other RfA's or something)? Gromlakh (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    3. Oppose Not enough experience as per Timmeh. Razorflame (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    4. Oppose User has been wrong on more than one occasion. I see that he is an avid fan but being stubborn like the fedor situation shows a lack of checking facts before edits.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chode747 (talk • contribs)
      I edited the above for formatting, and added the Oppose as it was apparent from user's post that he wished to oppose me. You may want to see my/his talk pages for background... Gromlakh (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    5. Oppose Just not there yet in terms of overall experience. Sorry. Jmlk17 07:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    6. Weak Oppose A good editor, but lack of mainspace edits is a concern here, our admins should be the elite of Wikipedia and less than 1500 mainspace edits just doesn't seem to me to be enough, coma back inn a few more months maybe. Harland1 (t/c) 10:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
      I'm not sure what you mean by elite of Wikipedia but I'm pretty sure I disagree. Avruchtalk 17:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
      I have to agree, saying someone has to be "elite" seems to be a higher standard than the one adminship is no big deal sets forth. I also am curious as to why 1500 mainspace edits is now a standard? SorryGuy  Talk  02:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
      Adminship may be no big deal, but even if the elite part of my oppose is not appropriate , but even without that part I would still consider my oppose as valid. And 1500 edits is not a standard but in my opinion that is really not enough i would say that 4-5 thousand edits is a requirement for adminship. Harland1 (t/c) 09:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
      Why? What does 4000-5000 edits tell you, except that the candidate either uses automated or semi-automated tools to edit or spends an unhealthy amount of time on Wikipedia? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
      Sometimes, not even 8,000-9,000 edits can tell you much about whether they will threaten to abuse the admin tools...*twiddle* Gromlakh (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    7. Oppose - I don't see what administrative duties you could contribute to efficiently with your experience. Proportionately, you're on the right track (I like to see around 75% mainspace) but you just need to sink your teeth in a bit deeper. I'm guessing this won't be successful, and I'd encourage waiting until you've got at least around 5000 edits until reapplying for adminship, and of those 5000, keep the 75ish-% (around 3500 - 4000 of 5000). You look like you may have the makings, but I don't feel you're ready. --rm 'w avu 13:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
      There are many qualified admins who do not fit your mold. This is pure, inflated editcountitis. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
      No, the admins with low edit counts are people who're meticulous and don't multiedit to get something right. They use (or I'd even say affectionately abuse) the preview button rather than saving then jumping back on the same edit a second or third time. I know very few established administrators with any fewer than 10,000 edits, and that's not a matter of edit countitis; that's just a fact. Looking at gromlakh's history, this is not the case, with several multi edits and many just fixing his/her own mistakes from edits. This isn't a bad thing, but in reality, there's only about 1000-1200 "actual" edits. Another thing is the contributions to discussions in the Wikipedia space. In my rfa, I was told by several people I needed over 400 at least, and preferably 1000 edits in that space. I didn't institute that, but it's definitely wise to look at that side of things. Another of my own little criteria, which I didn't go into here, was the fact that Gromlakh (at least, from what I could see) hasn't contributed to a Featured Article or even a Good Article. I think this is an important step in becoming an administrator, because there's many facets to the learning curve that can generally only be gained from this experience, such as working with other editors, combating differences of opinion, it demonstrates an ability to polish and write an article. There's a lot to be said of it. Basically, I would be thrilled if Gromlakh spends some time in GA and FA looking to improve article assessment, negotiation, discussion and editing skills (not to say I believe his/her skills are deficient, but could be better) and wait until there's at least 5,000 edits. I know it sounds closed minded, but I don't believe anybody can be ready based on what I've seen of the edits made by this editor (not just the count, that's just an arbitrary representation of it). --rm 'w avu 08:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
      Ten thousand? That's not a fact, it's an incorrect perception that comes from editcount inflation. See User:Rspeer/Editcount inflation for a graph that shows actual edit counts of admins and candidates over time (and an unfortunately accurate prediction I made several months ago that people would start demanding five-digit edit counts in 2008...) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
      For the record, I am an experienced admin and I still have fewer than ten thousand edits. (I had around 6000 when I passed RfA, and I have around 8500 now.) Rspeer is quite right that editcount requirements seem to be inflating over time. WaltonOne 11:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    8. Oppose. Not yet enough evidence of a productive, successful mainspace editor. -- Iterator12n Talk 06:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    9. Oppose. A bit low on experience for me. Should be fine in a few months if you stay active. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    10. Oppose - see User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards. Bearian (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    11. Oppose The candidate has woefully little experience in project-space, domain of so many admin-related activities. Perhaps related to this inexperience, his answer to Question 7 leaves me concerned. The answer isn't completely incorrect (there are times when his choice might be the right course), but no consensus anywhere can ever violate core policy, a crucial point he fails to address. The distinctions in this area of policy are quite fine, and I don't believe the candidate has a workable grasp of them yet. Xoloz (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    12. Oppose based on the Q/A I think more experience is needed. Keep up the good work and try again down the road. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    13. Oppose. A good contributor who needs some more experience (both in the Main Space and Wikipedia Space) before becoming an admin. Zaxem (talk) 07:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
    [edit] Neutral
    1. Neutral - Based on pending answer for Q4 and diffs for Q3. D.M.N. (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)I feel your on the right track, but I feel you need to get more involved at places like WP:AFD and WP:ANI. Do this, and possibly get an article to GA or FA status, and I see no problem why you cannot be an admin in a few months. I feel your a little inexperienced. Leave a note on my talkpage if you go for RFA again, and I'll be happy to give my opinion. You can always try admin coaching before hand. Good luck for the future! D.M.N. (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    2. Neutral I won't oppose because you gave very detailed answers to the questions and I think you're a pretty good user; however, I'm concerned with a lack of experience. You only have 83 Wikipedia namespace edits, which I definitely do not think is enough. If you have maybe a month more of active contributing and 500-1000 or so more edits (including at least 200-300 more Wikipedia namespace contributions) I would be willing to support you, though.   jj137 ♠ 21:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    3. Neutral. Though there is no reason to believe that you would abuse the tools, so I cannot oppose this RFA, but I wish you had more experience in the projectspace. If a genuine knowledge of policy is demonstrated later, I would be more than happy to Support you. Sorry, Malinaccier (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
      Neutral per answer to question 4 and the intention to use blocks as a cool down tool. Please look into this and other areas of adminship, and adjust your answers if you think it necessary. I'll stay neutral, rather than my initial oppose, until this develops further. Avruchtalk 23:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
      "Cool down" part was poorly worded. I didn't mean the block was supposed to be a cool down tool, but rather that they could cool down while they were blocked. I've reworded that to clarify. Was there another part of my Q4 answer that was problematic, or was that it? Gromlakh (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    4. Neutral I like what I see, but agree a bit more experience is needed. Having said that, I most certainly would not oppose adminship for someone like this, who has the makings of an excellent contributor. docboat (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    5. Neutral, I too like what I see, and the user should be encouraged by the fact that at ~2000 edits, they are still holding at 50% support, where other editors would probably have been snowed under by now. A bit more experience, and will make a fine admin. Lankiveil (talk) 05:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC).
    6. Bans are not to "punish" disruptive users, but to prevent disruption. This is not specifically stated at WP:BAN, but I believe it is, and at any rate should be, the case. Answer to Q3 by Avruch suggests that you have not read the page entirely. Answer to Q2 by Avruch suggests that you may not think closing a discussion you have participated in is a bad idea, though it may be reasonable in that case. Recall does not necessitate another RfA; it's merely a concept of a process. Your answer would fit nicely inside the table at Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria. There's no need to add a bold neutral at the front of this comment because I'm very clearly neutral. I suggest not taking the opposes above based on edit count too seriously, even though a higher edit count would be beneficial, which is unfortunate. –Pomte 10:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    7. Neutral; You're almost there, I think, but you need a little more experience with what consensus really means, and perhaps a little refreshed on WP:AFD procedure (your comment about participating in an AfD then closing it is... off). Otherwise, you're on a good track and I look forward to working with you once you get the mop (if not this time, next time). — Coren (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2008 (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.