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

Final (14/21/4); ended 09:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC) - Withdrawn by candidate - - filelakeshoe 09:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Apparition (talk · contribs) – I'm an active participant at AfC and since the August/September 2010 debacle (you can find that in my talk page archives), I have taken extra care in my reviewing to include links to the relevant guidelines and newbie article guides where helpful. I also actively particpate at FFU, my knowledge of image use and policy is attributed to my work there and Graeme Bartlett and Armbrust (who beats me every time!) who helped me throughout (I made no mistakes there, except forgetting to append the Fair-use rationale on the file description page and the WPAFC banner on the talk page), many thanks to them both.

I also do work at UAA where I did have problems with 1 report, though, the name was a blatant violation of policy, however, I did not pick it up, but I've been more careful and have been referring to username policy where I am unsure. UAA has, coupled with my ACC work, helped me to gain experience and familiarity with the username and sockpuppetry policies, that's not to say I don't occasionally ask for help when I'm unsure, quite the contrary, my stubbornness was the primary reason I failed to do good (depsite the fact that that was contrary to my well-meaning intentions) and after all Wikipedia is a learning experience!

I'm also a regular at FSC, where I participate in the nominations process and discussions and as some of you may be aware, recently FSC has been quite a hostile environment, or battleground if you will, however, I try to steer clear of such disputes (which have resulted in the departure of many active users from this area of Wikipedia) and disputes in general.

I've had problems with my CSD tagging because of a few misinterpretations of the criteria and what the encompass (particularly A7 which it seems I'm not the only to have trouble with), but I'd be willing to show that I do know what is and isn't appropriate for CSD through questions. Above all, I do take into consideration the criticisms and opinions of others in trying to better myself so that I may continue to positively contribute to Wikipedia. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 1:53pm • 03:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that I will need more knowledge on the deletion process and more experience with certain admin-related areas. Thank you all for your criticisms, rest assured I will certainly try and improve my editing based on the recommendations given me here. I therefore withdraw. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 6:10pm • 08:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I intend to participate at UAA, RfP, RfPerm, AfD and Requested moves, I feel I've got the required experience having seen the work administrators there do and believe I could do a satisfactory job, I've got a good grasp of the policies surrounding these areas and I feel I can evaluate consensus appropriately before closing a discussion. I have participated in most of those areas and establishing consensus is about one of the hardest things one can do when the discussion accounts for over half the talk page size. The tools would be very helpful in my work at Requested moves.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Stephen Colbert, which I nominated for GA and helped improve. Digital Education Revolution and Bruce Hawker which I wrote and successfully nominated for DYK. Outside of this I try and improve articles (particularly Australia-related), adding sources, removing vandalism, MOS-compliance and so forth. In this respect, I'm more of a WikiGnome.

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: Yes, with User:Tony1, it was in regards to a comment I made on User:Sven Manguard's talk page about the latter's retirement, I did manage to clear the issue up. It was a civility issue on my part which should not have happened, I've since stayed clear of any disputes and stuck my nose out of things that don't concern me or which I have litle knowledge of. If I do come across another future dispute, I will try and remain as civil as possible, if the dispute does escalate and is beyond my control I will request a third-party opinion and attempt to resolve the dispute by mutual agreement.

Additional question from Monty845

4. As an administrator, you come across a page with the following content "John Doe is a well known and respected commentator on the politics of state governments in the northeastern US" and it has been tagged CSD-A7, there is nothing else on the page or in the history. What would you do?

A: Given that the article is a WP:BLP it is important to cite EVERY challengeable or possibly contentious statement with a reliable source, to make sure that this isn't hocus pocus mumbo jumbo that an opponent in their field of work wrote to defame them and that this person actually is who the author says they are. The notability guideline for people (WP:BIO) states, specifically the section on any biography (WP:ANYBIO), that if the subject has received any recognition (significant or well-known award or honor, say knighthood) or been recognised in many notable publications (news reports, interviews etc.), for their work that they are considered notable. However, just satisfying or not satisfying these notability criteria does not guarantee the inclusion or deletion of the article. If I can't find a single reliable source on John Doe, I would, without prejudice, delete the article and include a rationale for doing so in the action's summary.

Having read WP:BLPPROD it is clear that I made a huge error in my original answer. Basically my statement about notability still stands and given that the article is a BLP, if there are no reliable sources (this is particularly problematic in the case of BLPS) and a Google News and standard Google search fails to bring up any such sources, I would to tag the article with a BLPPROD, inform the author of the proposed deletion and what they could do to stop the article from being deleted, given that BLPPRODs come with a 10-day grace period that's sufficient time to go your local library and source the article. I'd ask for help when dealing with some CSDs (I don't forsee a lot of future activity in this area of deletion), AfD is my primary area of concern. My nominations may not have been the best but I am good at making consensual decisions and giving a justified rationale.

• Links for Ancient Apparition: Ancient Apparition (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Ancient Apparition can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

• Stats on talk. —GFOLEY FOUR— 04:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support. My interactions with him (though limited) have been good, and I don't see anything seriously bad in his contribs. Looks like he will do good with the mop. Yes Michael? •^Talk 04:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support Experienced editor, clean block log, would definitley benefit the community if given a mop :) Acather96 (talk) 04:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support I definitely have no concerns. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support Had issues when first starting on ACC but now the user seems to be doing some good work both on ACC and on the Wikipedia itself. Jamietw (talk) 06:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support Don't see any problems. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 10:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support No problems. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 16:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support- I've seen current admins provide more childish/crushing outbursts than what you've come up with. I look what you've done around here, and what you've achieved is good. Orphan Wiki 16:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support - Great candidate. mauchoeagle _(c) 17:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support - Don't see any problems either. Nothing but good experiences with this user in the past. Swarm ^X 18:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support - The overall quality of this candidates contributions, their mature intentions and zeal for Wikipedia have greatly diminished the concerns of my peeve. My support extends beyond this RfA. My76Strat (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support - I have personally interacted with this fellow, and I believe him to be a fine candidate. He's not perfect, but no one is, and many successful RfA candidates are a lot less so than he.-RHM22 (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support, don't see why not --Σ _☭^★ 23:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Some of the opposes are quite silly. Support in favour of neutralising them. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support. (Second time I'm writing this tonight...) I think that if approved, the candidate would move slowly with the tools and wind up doing a fine job with them, so this is a true support rather than a "moral support." That being said, the outcome of this RfA is already pretty clear, and the candidate would probably be well-advised to withdraw soon and to try again after a few months of editing taking the opposers' and neutral commenters' concerns into account. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Based on age and maturity reasons. Also, lack of in-depth content contributions—only one or two of the DYKs listed on his user page was primary written by this user, and as far as I can tell, the GA (calling those edits a "major" contribution is using the term a bit liberally) was passed with some serious sourcing issues. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Can you show us an example of immature behavior? Has this user divulged his or her age publicly? Andrevan@ 05:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   My personal belief is, if by looking at a user's edits it's fairly clear the user is a minor, then I usually don't feel comfortable with them in a position of perceived authority ("usually" because there are always exceptions). I say "perceived" because—and I hope I'm not over-complicating my explanations here—many users, particularly new editors, find administratorship to be one of authority, regardless of whether it was meant to be a big deal or not. Now that Wikipedia has matured, it's attracting a lot of people looking to post articles, especially business professionals or other adults. Obviously, most of them are going to be unfamiliar with how Wikipedia is run, and are going to mess up. But I've seen this time and time again: their article is deleted, they ask why, and they want a professional response. Because these people think admins are an authority and don't realize that many children edit Wikipedia, I've seen people get frustrated when they think someone that seems like a child is deleting their hard work as a business professional. It would be frustrating for me, to say the least, if I spent two hours writing an article about my company, it's deleted in five seconds, and the person who deleted it seems to be a schoolchild. (This is, remember, just my personal philosophy about attitude exhibited, not actual age.) As for your second question, Andrevan, I'm not sure, but I do know his age, and he had posted a picture of himself onwiki some time ago but deleted it for privacy reasons. But it's not really age for me, I guess—more like acting one's age. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   So, in other words, "no", you can't? Swarm ^X 18:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Maturity isn't something you judge by single edits. If you're familiar with the candidate, you'll be able to judge this based on your interactions. My interactions have led me to my conclusion. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose - I'm going to have to pass on this one. The candidate hasn't been active for more than a year and doesn't seem to have a content-creation focus. Though I like what work he has done (and AfC needs a lot of help), I can't support at this time. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose This is only one link I've found, and it does seem like a while ago, but I was unimpressed to see a response like this to somebody he disagrees with. Other than that, his recent contributions shows that sometimes he uses edit summaries inappropriately, adding "Blech" and "Grrr" [1]. He might be working at areas which are uncontroversial, but the links above show poor temperament and are the reasons why I don't support this candidate. Minima© (talk) 06:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   The single uncivil comment you found was from seven months ago, and there's really nothing wrong with those edit summaries. They were doing uncontroversial maintenance work. Really petty, minor things to dig up and oppose over. Swarm ^X 19:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   The edits I made and my past temperament (to my knowledge that was only outburst?) were due to my unfamiliarity with wiki-ettiquette and civility, I can assure you I've been keeping my comments as civil as possible since then. Those edit summaries were not reflections of my temperament, just me criticising myself over my inability to fix those mistakes in prior edits. I don't really see the harm in using such edit summaries, my edit summaries are usually brief and to the point. Using blech, whoops and grr usually mean I made a mistake that I didn't catch in the prior edit. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 6:38pm • 08:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose Concerns with experience. You say you want to work in UAA, RFPP, PERM, RM, ect, but you have made a minimal number of edits, < 25 to each area you have indicated you wish to work (e.g. [2], [3]). Honestly, I do not feel that is adequate experience to judge your competency in these administrative areas. Sorry, FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   My edits there have been minimal, but I have knowledge of the relevant policies, as I said, any questions anyone may have I'd be willing to answer. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 6:38pm • 08:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose, concerns about experience and content familiarity. -- Cirt (talk) 06:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Not malicious. But see this MFD. You expected reasons to delete for small reasons. This does not show that you understand the main purpose of pages and is not good enough to see in an admin. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 07:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm sorry, but what is it you're trying to say? That deletion nomination was well-intentioned, but the wrong way of going about the improval of the page. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 6:38pm • 08:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't see how this isn't a reasonable deletion rationale - if I'm understanding your oppose correctly. As much as I hate to suggest it, your oppose appears to me to be based on "you wanted to delete my page, so I'm opposing you at RfA". Perhaps you could clarify a bit here as to what you actually mean by your oppose? [stwalkerster|talk] 16:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

7. Oppose – Lack of experience. "Well-intentioned" is bearable for editors but dangerous for administrators. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Dangerous if I act on those intentions, I intend to make decisions based solely on consensus, my goal is that of every other Wikipedian, to help build not destroy the encyclopedia. Every editor and administrator would rather do some things there way but they don't because of the backlash and because the community said so, that's why the encyclopedia works. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:03pm • 11:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   That is the right attitude that an admin should have, we operate on consensus. But that attitude does not negate the danger that Michael eluded to. We expect that everyone behave, but most people have higher expectations for those that would have the tools. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

8. Oppose I think it is good the candidate is transparent in his nomination but I feel he is too inexperienced, particularly in planned admin workspaces as Fastily points out above. He is an enthusiastic and good editor but more experience and knowledge is needed in article and administrative areas.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose Lack of content contribution, admin-area experience plus maturity issues, which are only highlighted by the persistent responses to oppose votes by the candidate Jebus989^✰ 12:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   My responses to the Oppose votes have only been to clarify my position and because I value the criticisms of others, the oppose !votes raise points about my editing which I should address. I believe it is part of the learning process for a user. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 11:12pm • 13:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Is it now against some policy somewhere to provide more clarity to a user's actions? I'd have thought James' offers of clarity would be accepted, rather than the basis (both in part or in full) for an oppose. [stwalkerster|talk] 16:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't have three-letter acronym to quote but it's frowned upon, at best, for the candidate to continually respond to every oppose vote. It can intimidate !voters knowing the person they are commenting on is going to criticise their opinion. It relates to maturity, too, in that this is an RfA, a request to help with various maintenance tasks around the wiki, not a popularity poll to become prom queen. So if the community doesn't think you are ready for the extra responsibility, try to accept that with dignity without the "WHAT! why not?! you're wrong!" knee-jerk responses Jebus989^✰ 18:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Frowned upon to comment on oppose !votes? I've never seen or heard that. Why should anyone feel intimidated? Is consensus now built on a policy of "everyone can give their opinion but no one's opinion can be questioned?" That's silly. RfA is about consensus and consensus is built on discussion, not !votes. Frowning upon discussion makes this a vote.--v/r - TP 19:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Excessive pestering of one's opposers (i.e. replying to every one) is frowned upon, responding to comments to clarify of defend oneself is absolutely not. RfA is still a discussion, and if someone can't leave a comment without feeling "intimidated" by a reply to it, they probably shouldn't be using the internet, much less commenting at RfA. Swarm ^X 19:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   How is replying to 5 out of 12 opposes excessive and who defines excessive?--v/r - TP 19:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   It isn't. I was replying to Jebus, though the indentation was wrong, sorry. Swarm ^X 19:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   My bad too, I thought you were Jebus when I replied. I missed the signature.--v/r - TP 19:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I fully accept and respect the criticisms of others, RfA is one of the best environments to get recommendations on how to improve one's editing and interaction with others, I certainly want to come out of this RfA with more learnt and improve my editing based on the criticisms of the opposers. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:36am • 23:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm clearly out-voted here, but take a look at past RfAs. It's not unusual for a nom/co-nom/wikifriend to 'badger' several opposes but for the candidate to take that upon himself it is rarely seen (especially in successful RfAs). By all means, sit back and take the criticism on board, that's definitely the right idea. Jebus989^✰ 00:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC) edit:In fact, see each of the other active RfAs, where no candidate has been the first to reply to an oppose more than once[reply]

   Actually, I completely agree with Jebus989. I see badgering of opposers as a maturity concern - in general, if an oppose !vote is horribly wrong, somebody else will mention it. I am always one to say that RfA is a place where the community can discuss a candidate's eligibility, not a place for a candidate to endlessly argue with the people who oppose him. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't think it's badgering to consider the opinions of others to improve one's own editing. The thing is most of the !votes detail problems in my editing that I need to address and I wholeheartedly agree, my responses have been to clarify my position and that I've acknowledged said problems and will try and adress these problems. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 12:37pm • 02:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10. Oppose. User states that he wants to close AfDs, yet the only time I can recall seeing him is at this AfD, where he displays a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. This was only last week and comments like "just having major Australian newspaper articles written on a person does not equal instant notability" are worrying. I personally know little about UAA, RfPP and RfPERM, but Fastily's oppose that you actually have very little participation in those areas is convincing. In addition (although you have not expressed a wish to work in CSD), your answer to Q4 is incorrect. The correct response would be to decline the A7 (clearly makes an assertion of importance/significance) and, if you couldn't find any sources, tag for BLP PROD or send to AfD. Speedy deleting the article because it's unreferenced and doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO is incorrect and would be pretty BITE-y if the creator was a new user (many new users are unaware of Wikipedia's strict BLP policy and will often supply sources if the article is tagged for BLP PROD or, better, asked on their talk page for references). Jenks24 (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    After reading Monty's oppose, I feel I should clarify that when I wrote "the correct response", I should probably have written "a correct response". Jenks24 (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

11. Oppose Per Fastily's rationale on administrative areas as well as Jenks24 AFD rationale and Porchcrop's MFD rationale (even though Porchcrop was directly involved in the issue, it's still a valid point). Candidate just doesn't understand deletion guidelines and especially CSD#A7. Although, perhaps he went that direction because he thought the question was on the WP:BLP policy, but it's clear that Monty845 intended the question to be on WP:CSD.--v/r - TP 16:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose Answer to question 4 demonstrated an inadequate understanding of deletion policy. In my opinion, summarily deleting the article would be out of process, which was neither identified as such nor justified as an IAR. Jenks24 answer with the addition of notifying the CSD tagger of the reasoning behind it would have been an ideal answer, though there are other approaches that would also have been acceptable. Deletion is something that should be approached with caution out of respect for the energy good faith contributors have put into what ever it is you are considering the deletion of, and I'm not seeing enough of that for me to be comfortable supporting this RFA. Monty₈₄₅ 19:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I admit my knowledge of deletion is not the best. It is my hope that if I do pass, I will exercise extreme caution when closing deletion discussions or accepting/declining PRODs and CSDs. If my opinion is somewhat conflicted I will always defer to the knowledge of an existing and more experienced administrator. My strengths lie in evaluating consensus, so RM is a place where I'll be performing most tasks. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:22am • 23:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe not A7, but if that's the entire article and the person has a very generic name, that could be an A1. There could be several John Does that meet that general description; which one are we talking about here? It's definitely easier in practice than in theory. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

13. Weak oppose per very little experience in areas in which he wants to participate. Ultimately, there is no replacement for experience, and even if you know what to do actions speak louder than words. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose Sorry, but I don't think you're quite ready yet. Diego Grez (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose Sorry, but I do not see enough experience overall in many areas. Try to re-apply at a later date. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^{T or} /_{Sign mine} 02:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. Weakest possible oppose Candidate has been entrusted with many tools and has been highly active for a year; however, there are a few of areas of concern such as more experience in the administrative areas and a better understanding of policy. A few more high quality content contributions and mentoring would also be helpful.--Hokeman (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose - Light experience. Some maturity issues mentioned above. Get some experience, I'm sure they'll be ready. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose Not quite comfortable with giving this candidate the extra buttons, at this time. I have no problem with their age, but some of the concerns previously raised do give me reason for concern. With more experience, I may be able to support this candidate in the future. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 05:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose Q4 is way out of order, I suggest that the candidate read up on BLPprod and perhaps strike their original answer write a new one. ϢereSpielChequers 07:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose. Not willing to support anyone who so harmfully misunderstood A7/BLP that recently. In a few months of no CSD tag misuse I might support. - filelakeshoe 08:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't done any CSD tagging for ~2 months that was in the article space, but you're right. It is clear I still need more experience and confidence with deletion before I am suitable for the task. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 6:07pm • 08:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

21. Oppose, Concerned about the experience. With more exprience and more quality content contributions, I may support this candidate in the future. Kaaveh (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral (Moved to support) - I am terribly conflicted with this decision. I truly want to support this candidate, yet a personal criteria has not been met. My76Strat (talk) 05:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral - Have not seen enough. Perhaps in time ... --Epeefleche (talk) 06:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   No concerns over age or maturity but have not seen enough for me to justify supporting. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 08:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Now supporting. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral Neither able to support or oppose, gut felling is not quite yet. My apologies. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral Concerned with the answer to #4, but I'm not sure yet. —GFOLEY FOUR— 17:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral – James is clearly a very helpful user, but he lacks experience in certain admin-related areas, so I'm not supporting or opposing. —mc10 (t/c) 04:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.