Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Proto2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Proto

Final (113/3/2) ended 14:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Proto (talk · contribs) – This is a self-nomination. My first RFA, which was closed as no consensus at the start of February (66/27/5 - 71%), can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Proto. After poor old Marskell nominated me last time, and got dragged into defending me, I thought I wouldn't bother anyone except myself, and you (yes, you) this time around. I started editing Wikipedia on 31 March 2005, just about exactly a year ago, and as of this moment, have just short of 6300 edits, around half of which have been in article space, and a bunch in all the various project spaces (almost exactly 2000) and talk spaces (almost 1000). This may well be enough to doom me eternally, as in those edits, I've probably mildly irritated enough people enough times. But what the hey.

I do quite a bit of maintenance, mainly on WP:WIKIFY. I'm involved quite a bit in AfD. I tend to bumble around Wikipedia, chipping in here and there, and I think your granting this humble dolt the mop would help me contribute even more.

I started to try and address the issues raised in my last RFA, how I have resolved them (or tried to), and it ended up being the gigantic-est opening statement to an RFA ever. So what I couldn't finagle into an answer to a question, I've put it in the comments. This is the end, thank you. I won't respond here unless it's just to clear up a point of fact or to answer any additional questions, but I will be watching this (naturally) - so if there's anything you want to discuss, my email and my talk page are both always open. Proto||type 13:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nomination. Proto||type 13:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support. I opposed last time due to a concern over Proto's knowledge of policy, but he is more experienced now. Work in the encyclopedia is excellent, and I think he's admin-worthy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support, I trust him with the mop. A good editor. --Terence Ong 14:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Nice fellow. Engaged me on my talkpage regarding a misunderstanding quite awhile back[1], and whilst a little off base, showed civilty and a williness to listen to explanation. I was referring to another canidate, but I still hold support. -ZeroTalk 14:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    That was me -Prodego talk 19:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, yes that was you Prodrego. :) -ZeroTalk 02:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support I also opposed last time around, but my concerns have been addressed.--MONGO 14:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support I supported last time around and am very happy to do so again. Eusebeus 14:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support with slight concern I think you would make a good admin, but I'm concerned that is was only the better part of two months since your last one. That's no ground to oppose though! Computerjoe's talk 14:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support, very good experience with mainspace and wikispace. Shyam (T/C) 14:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support with confidence really has adressed everything with patience and good grace. --Doc ask? 14:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. Conscious 15:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Strong Support he has adressed all the concerns from his previous RFA and I am confident he'd make a very good administrator. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 15:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support - another mop over here please! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 15:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support Trustworthy editor. Xoloz 15:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support. Good guy. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support as per last time Tim (meep) 16:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support, I didn't vote last time because I didn't think you were quite ready (hence, no support), but also didn't feel that you would make a bad admin (hence, no oppose). However, I think in two months, you've addressed some of the concerns from your previous RfA. Bring on the mop! --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    Support as per last time Tim (meep) 16:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    I struck this (probably accidentally) duplicated vote, inserted here by JIP. Kusma (討論) 23:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    Yes it was accidental. I got in an edit conflict while adding my own support vote (below). JIP | Talk 07:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  17. We're Knights of the Round Table, our shows are formidable. We do routines and chorus scenes with footwork impeccable. In war we're tough and able, quite indefatigable, though many times we're given rhymes that are quite unsingable. Oh, and support. JIP | Talk 17:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support all the way. --Jay(Reply) 17:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support No concerns here. --kingboyk 17:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 17:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support. No brainer. Ifnord 18:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support. Didn't comment/vote last time (if I remember rightly that meant something along the lines of "neutral, but haven't fully investigated oppose reasons to decide if they were bad enough"), but your responses below are impressive. That and other things I've seen meet my my RfA criteria. Petros471 18:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support - Good work Afonso Silva 18:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support: I say "Protogo for it" ;-) Prodego talk 19:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support. Thunderbrand 19:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support. I'll probably generally disagree with him on article content ;-), but he can work with his opponents without turning nasty, and I'm positive he won't abuse the tools. AnnH ♫ 19:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support per my support of last nomination. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support. Looks good. — Rebelguys2 talk 21:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support. I was somewhat surprised to see the previous RfA fail, and this one looks much better. Proto is a reliably good editor, even if he was responsible for Shoe polish being the Main Page featured article. It happens to be the case that I learned a fair bit from watching Proto when I was new here, and he seemed like good stuff to me then and does now. -Splashtalk 21:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support: I supported him last time, and his behavior hasn't worsened. TimBentley (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  31. Unlikely to abuse admin tools, edit-conflict support. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support -- Tawker 22:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 23:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support, seems like a nice bloke. Thumbelina 23:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  35. Obvious why didn't you tell me you were running again support. You'll be getting the mop a couple months later than you should have, but no problem. Marskell 23:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support. Kusma (討論) 23:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support I'm taking him at his word that the GNAA thing was just a misunderstanding (see Comments section below). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support a great user. Jedi6-(need help?) 01:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  40. Very Strong Support --Jaranda wat's sup 01:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  41. Hayeupp. Grutness...wha? 01:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support Naconkantari e|t||c|m 02:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support from one bumbling dolt to another --rogerd 03:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support. pschemp | talk 03:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support Mask 03:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  46. Prototypically cliched witticism/pun on name Support, because this editor has grown considerably since last time, when I was among the oppose contingent. (and bumbling dolts do need to stick together!) ++Lar: t/c 03:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support. Has amply demonstrated that he is deserving of mop and bucket. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support Will do fine, I opposed last time but things have worked out great. Rx StrangeLove 04:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support good editor.--Alhutch 05:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support. Not sure why I didn't chime in last time, but I would have supported then, and I definately support now. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support - Hahnchen 08:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  52. As per last time. NSLE (T+C) at 09:06 UTC (2006-03-30)
  53. Support--Jusjih 09:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support Leidiot 12:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support, quite probably the most deserving candidate currently on the page. Thryduulf 12:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support looks good. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 15:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support per the above. --Syrthiss 16:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  58. Extreme "zOMG!!!! He didn't get s-sp'd last time?" support - what a great guy. --Celestianpower háblame 16:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support Previous concerns no longer apply. Dlyons493 Talk 16:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support Garion96 (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support. Voted for him last time; haven't changed my mind since then. -Colin Kimbrell 18:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support, looks good. Hiding talk 19:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  64. Bumbling dolt support. youngamerican (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support. Impressed with the full-disclosure and growth. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 22:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  66. Support. -- DS1953 talk 22:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  67. Support seems like a great editor and eventually a good admin joturner 23:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  68. Support Impressed with this users history and nom statements. I rarely vote here, but felt compelled on this one. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 00:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  69. Support satisfies all my criteria abakharev 01:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  70. Support seems like a well rounded individual. --Mmounties (Talk) 02:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  71. I'm too tired to remember why IO support Proto, but I do remember that I do. DS 03:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    Support Leidiot 03:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    Striking out repeat vote. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 07:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  72. Strong support. What can you say about a user like Proto? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 04:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  73. "I thought I already voted" Support Moe ε 04:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  74. Support - looks like they will be a good admin. Nephron  T|C 04:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  75. Supported and ReSupport--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 05:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  76. Support. Good candidate! On a side note, your edit count is rather uniform, which makes me smile. --Darth Revert (AKA Deskana) (talk) 08:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  77. Support, of course. Thought you already were. Now you will be. 8-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  78. Support. the wub "?!" 10:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  79. Support. I've been on the opposite sides in a couple of arguments and Proto is mature, calm, and intelligent.Vizjim
  80. SupportGuettarda 13:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  81. Support: Well established and experienced editor. _-M o P-_ 13:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  82. Support...have been of help before ;) Lectonar 15:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  83. Support; impressed with what I've seen Aquilina 17:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  84. Support. Today is his one year anniversary here at Wikipedia! Also, he's ready to don the mantle; will make an excellent closing admin. Isopropyl 17:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  85. Support. Heading for WP:100! Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 18:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  86. Support, as per (self)nominator. Hall Monitor 19:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  87. Support bumbling dolts. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  88. Support per above. Weatherman90 00:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  89. Support Will make fine admin. --Alf melmac 08:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  90. Heck YES its about time you ran!!! Just another star in the night T | @ | C 13:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  91. Support As a fellow bumbling dolt, I sympathise. Banez 14:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  92. Support, will make a good admin. Angr (talk • contribs) 15:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  93. Support for same reasons as last time. --TantalumTelluride 19:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  94. Support. Need more deletionist admins. — Apr. 2, '06 [03:22] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  95. Support. Great experience. Covington 04:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  96. Support ---Blue520 13:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  97. Support. Took a lashing last time, learned from it, and kept working. Keep that up and you'll make a great admin. As one who opposed last time, I'm glad to see I can support now. - Taxman Talk 14:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  98. Support Pepsidrinka 21:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  99. Support, whoever's next please add to WP:100 Stifle 21:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  100. Support, sounds like a good admin. And added to WP:100! - Tangotango 05:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  101. Support. Of course! Was sad to see that last one didnt pass. The Minister of War (Peace) 07:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  102. Support - As much a 'deletionist' as I am an 'inclusionist', but more than worthy of the mop. --CBDunkerson 13:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  103. Support --Ugur Basak 14:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  104. Support™. --Rory096 17:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  105. Support (S). — FireFox • T [19:38, 3 April 2006]
  106. Support. Jonathunder 23:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  107. Support, happy the last RfA had the right influence Deizio 00:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  108. Support - I see no reason to oppose, and Proto is certainly qualified. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 05:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  109. Support, no reason to oppose giving him the mop. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 07:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  110. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  111. Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 00:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  112. Support per Prodego and Tigershark; plus how can you not trust a user that makes an article on Shoe Polish? There's the ultimate assumption of good faith in not deleting and it made it to featured. A mop.T K E 00:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  113. Support for this energetic chap. -- Hoary 10:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Not active enough with the Wikipedia community, rarely deals with newbies, and a wikipedia show polish feature on Wikipedia, three orphan pictures total. --Masssiveego 04:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per my reasoning on the last nomination. SushiGeek 23:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Candidate's former apathy (former not in the sense that it is resolved, but in the sense of "I haven't seen it in a while") and fear of the #wikipedia IRC channel doesn't give me much trust in the user. Like it or not, #wikipedia is a way to contact users and resolve disputes, and if he's so gung-ho against it to the point where one can literally see the vitriol, it doesn't leave me with much confidence. Mike H. That's hot 23:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Referring to yourself as a bumbling dolt doesn't exactly instill me with the confidence to hand you the mop. Self deprecation is unbecoming. ... aa:talk 02:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    Self-deprecation is the most importent trait that an admin has. An admin who thinks he can do no wrong and is infalliable is NOT the person we want holding the mop. -Mask 03:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    I agree. Referring to oneself as a bumbling dolt is actually a bit of a plus, in my view (as long as one isn't actually a bumbling dolt). Note that this isn't an open invitation for future RFA candidates to refer to themselves as bumbling dolts. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. Would have opposed more or less for the same reason as last time and for his overwhelming deletionist urge. I'm also concerned about his misunderstanding of CSD criteria. Nevertheless, my opposition would be incredibly bad form after Proto's indication below that he enjoys discussions with me. And while I must admit that the comment did cause some fleeting alarm for his sanity, I quickly decided that it demonstrated a wellspring of common sense so rarely found among aspiring admins these days. Good luck. -- JJay 03:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 99% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 14:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • See Proto's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
  • I've tried my best to address all the reasons for opposition from last time, and will discuss them here:
    A few of the opposes were because I had editcountitis - I hope that I haven't exhibited this nasty disease since, and will endeavour to battle any relapse. A bunch of others were because I, like a dolt, put my name down on a (now ended) campaign against blog-related articles, which had some GNAA involvement. When it was explained to me what the GNAA were about (despite voting in an AfD on the article Gay Nigger Association of America, I didn't put two and two together, which was cretinously dumb of me), I pulled my name from the list ([2]), and have avoided such crap ever since.
    Back to AfD. I now edit summarise all my AfD votes, as requested. I'd described AFD as a vote in an edit, and it's a discussion, not a vote. I understand this entirely, and am capable of gauging consensus on an AFD discussion. I am happy to answer any questions you might have on whether or not I'd be able to do this. While in the first few months of my adminship, I would discuss any cases where I was unsure with an experienced administrator. I've contributed to Deletion Review, which is a big improvement on the old Votes for Undeletion, and am more than aware of how strongly people can feel about such things.
    Yes, I am fairly deletionist by nature, and I'd like it if Wikipedians excised quality control a little better. This does not mean I would ignore or overrule any consensuses achieved by discussion on AfD - I'd follow guidelines, as I think I do now. And if in any doubt, I'd ask a fellow admin. If the consensus is in doubt on an AfD, then the verdict of a discussion should default to keep. I do vote keep on a fair few articles, but usually don't bother if it's obviously going to be kept.
    The last issue was about rudeness. I don't think I've ever been abusive, but I have been terse, and I needed to learn when to make a joke and when not to. I think I've improved hugely in this regard, and am always open to discussion on this. I'm always trying to better myself, and the first RFA was hugely useful in this respect. I seem to get into discussions sometimes with a few of the more inclusive people on AFD, although I don't think I've ever been impolite, try to avoid them becoming protracted, and I'm always willing to change my mind, which does happen. JJay and I have had some splendid discussions (which I always enjoy - yes, seriously) about Filipino actor stubs, lists, dead malls, and so on. Proto||type 13:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • In the interests of full disclosure, something that was not brought up at my previous AfD, which could have been, was that back in my first few months (April and May of last year) on Wikipedia, I uploaded 4 or 5 images that I'd just taken from the BBC, on various news stories, as I didn't quite grasp fair use at the time. I've been hellaciously careful with the few images I've uploaded since then. Proto||type 13:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Not voting, but I wish the candidate well. --Tony Sidaway 15:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia 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:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. The main one would be helping with AfD backlog. Clogging of AfD is something that I would like to see reduced. The {{PROD}} tag was a great start, but there's always going to be a lot of stuff on there, every day. I think I'm fairly good at judging a consensus (feel free to quiz me on my talk page), and there's always hundreds of friendly experienced admins around to provide advice when (not if) it'll be needed.
I'm going to discuss it a little, as it's where I anticipate being involved as an admin the most. Thus far, to assist, I have closed a few discussions where the article's been speedily deleted or redirected, or where the AfD's been withdrawn. I've a bit of a dislike of AfD clog, and if there's an article that should have been speedily deleted, and the obvious consensus (with no contributors stating otherwise) agrees, I'll tag it for speedy deletion by an admin. Or I'll boldly redirect, again, if there's an obvious 100% consensus.
I've cleared up vandalism as I come across it, but I don't really go out hunting for it. I don't have a huge and weighty watchlist to swing around, I only have WP:AN, the reference desks, and articles I've created on there (and the hundred of redirects I've made (off topic, I love redirects, and am a proud and founding Redirectionista). I'd say I have maybe 30 vandalism reverts to my name. I tried patrolling the newpages and recentchanges pages, and decided after an hour of edit conflicts, that having no rollback button or god mode made me faintly impotent in this regard.
As I said last time, blocking would - of course - be a useful aid to vandal-coping, but I wouldn't like to be giving out long-term blocks until I'd garnered some experience as an administrator. The rollback button would be useful, but at the moment, I don't revert much vandalism. Of course, if it was easier, I probably would. To be honest, all the various tools are useful in some way or another, and I'd use them as best I could to help.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Shoe polish is the obvious answer, as I took a red link on a mundane subject to a featured article, following the perfect route through peer review, second peer review, and FAC. Other articles I am proud of include Neil Ross, Buckley (as it's my home town), chip pan, Nance O'Neil and Edward Lowe. There's no real specific area I contribute in when it comes to articles. I've started articles on things ranging from mambo musicians to corrupt New Jersey vote riggers. And all bar about eight of the articles in Category:Ambassadors to the United Nations, which I've created myself, and am working on the others (via List of ambassadors to the United Nations).
There's a list on my user page. I don't know how to get a figure on the number of articles I've created, but it's probably in the region of 150, with none deleted, as far as I'm aware. I help out on WP:RD and WP:AR1, which are the sources of a lot of articles I have created. I've made a crapload of redirects, because redirects are awesome, and I'm proud of every one of those, too.
I'm also quite proud of the fact that 66 people thought I was suitable to be an administrator the last time around. I like being involved, and making a contribution, because I am one of those poor saps that actually believes Wikipedia is an opportunity to better the world by making all decent and accurate information available to all.
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. Everyone has some kind of disagreements. I've never (as mentioned above) gone beserk, or been hateful or abusive. I nearly lost my patience with User:Pigsonthewing a few times last year, but actually ended up defending him (a shame it didn't work out, as despite being awkward, he was a good editor). There are editors who I have disagreements with, often due to my rather deletionist stance on AfD. I don't think these have ever degenerated into conflict, though, and I do my best to understand their concerns. I may never agree with them, and I don't expect them to ever agree with me, but disagreeing with another's viewpoint doesn't mean you have to hate them, or even dislike the, I respect people with a strong viewpoint, who can express it well. Nothing's happened on Wikipedia that has ever caused me any real kind of stress, though. It's only words on a computer screen. I was a bit down over the last RFA, and that's probably the thing that got me down the most. But it was an opportunity to improve myself, and I'd like to think I've taken it.


The above 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.