Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Heligoland 2

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

Heligoland

Final (90/3/5); Ended Tue, 20 Feb 2007 01:11:03 UTC

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept--

Heligoland 22:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: If promoted, I anticipate much of my work will be dealing with the numerous spambots and open proxies, like those that have been detected over the past few weeks and I've been reporting to AIV. One side effect of spamming and automated edit summaries is that the URL can often end up in the edit summary, so being able to delete those specific edits from the page history would be enormously helpful. It's not unusual to find new articles and new userpages being used solely for advertising and being able to quickly remove those pages would be useful too. I would also like to help with the various backlogs, in particular the images for deletion backlogs which are quite hefty, and keeping the AIV board empty, which can often have a little backlog and even taking 10 or 15 minutes to block a vandal or open proxy can cause considerable damage.

I'm also going to try and help with unblock requests and pay more attention to the various administrator noticeboards, and help out further with the Abuse Reports section, where the ability to view deleted material or delete specific edits can often be very useful.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I'm really happy with

User:Eagle_101s link monitoring bot and normally create statistics detailing links added per day User:Heligoland/EL

they're a little out of date though. I know there will be some concern that I'm not a regular !voter over at XfD but I'd like to think what comments I have made show some research into the request for deletion.

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've managed to avoid any major conflicts, despite having been involved in a somewhat unusual RfC/Username in January. [1] It was decided my username was acceptable, but I'll hopefully be changing to User:Nick when the first batch of username usurpations goes through. I thought I had best mention that here too, just in case anyone thinks I'm trying to hide anything. A good edit summary is one way to ensure every other user knows why you did what you did and references are the other, if you introduce material which is reliable and accurate, it's very difficult (within the articles I edit) to argue and as such, I believe that's the main reasons I've managed to avoid major disputes. I also edited more out of the way articles, avoiding the Transnistrias of Wikipedia, preferring to work on reasonably important but arguably under edited articles.

Optional question from llywrch

4. Can you imagine yourself deciding ever taking a day off from Admin duties? Just deciding to let someone else worry about the vandals, troublemakers, and personality disputes in order to spend that entire day simply improving Wikipedia's content? -- llywrch 04:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. Yes. If promoted, I wouldn't stop editing and adding to the project, and I think taking a day or two off reguarly, either to edit away from admin work, or away from the project completely is essential to avoid burn out and to retain perspective.

Oh no! Are you really committed to the project? just kidding :-) Ta bu shi da yu 04:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from ST47Talk

5. You've been here for months, made thousands of edits, and devoted hundreds of hours to Wikipedia without pay or and tangible reward. Above you said why you wanted to be an admin, but why do you want to be a Wikipedian? What was your motivation for joining, and for staying?

A. I honestly don't know what prompted me to sign up, I think because I knew I could contribute something to the site and liked the idea of having such info available free of charge, and spending a few hours each night, especially in the wintertime is a really enjoyable way to spend the evening. It's not like I sit in a broom cupboard or anything...

Optional question from Irpen

6. As per your entries such as [2] [3] [4] [5] I would be interested in having a clear and direct answer from you on what constitutes an ethical or unethical usage of IRC or other off-wiki communication. Is there a particular reason why use IRC instead of publicly visible WP:ANI or other onwiki boards in discussions of blocking? Thank you.

A. I'm not sure that you can make IRC black and white. Ethical and unethical, it's very much like Wikipedia, where one person means one thing, someone else takes it to mean something else, where one group of like minded people think they're doing the right thing and others think they're some sort of hellish cabal. I'd say plotting to have a user banned, an article deleted, or anything else that's personal and in no way in the best interests of the project would be pretty clear cut cases of unethical behavior, but caution is needed, even in these cases.

My own IRC usage is something of a necessity, Spamda receives diffs through IRC and with the first test versions trickling out to testers (no, it's not ready to roll just yet) it's proved invaluable for bug reports. IRC is also really useful for asking an admin to consider blocking a user, especially when we've got evidence available to show why the user should be blocked, diffs, links added, articles vandalised, stuff that's just that bit too complex for WP:AIV. If we run across a vandalbot or spambot, a report or series of reports sitting on WP:AIV can let tens, even hundreds of edits go by and that all needs reverted. That's about the only time I would consider requesting a block on IRC though, for something more significant, POV, 3RR or such, then clearly, the on-wiki forums are essential, what might look like a 3RR to me could easy be genuine vandalism being reverted and not a content dispute, so asking one admin on IRC and giving them the brief "3RR" is probably gonna get that user blocked, especially in complex fields away from the admins areas of expertise. IRC is great for having an urgent problem causing lots of damage to WP dealt with, it's paradoxically too quick for content disputes and editorial issues, yes, 3RR is annoying, but if it takes a couple of hours or a day to get to the bottom of it and a useful solution fleshed out, hopefully avoiding the need for a block, then surely that's a good thing.

General comments

• See
  Heligoland's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page
  .
• RfA #1

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

1. Beat the nom support Definitely appears to be a good editor and someone unlikely to abuse the tools •CHILLDOUBT• 22:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. I-really-did-beat-you-Majorly support - dedicated user, won't abuse tools, very helpful, always on IRC. ST47Talk 22:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support as per Majorly's nomination above. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support of course. Excellent user/vandalfighter.--Húsönd 22:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Ebola support Viridae^Talk 22:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support, because I trust Majorly's nomination. And other reasons, such as the fact even though the user failed to pass their RfA at the start of December they still kept on editing. In fact, that month was their biggest in terms of number of edits for them ever! Though the numbers did drop significantly in the couple of months against. But that is no reason whatsoever to vote against them. We are better off having an admin who only does even just one good edit per day than not having them. Besides, they are obviously far more active than that at the moment anyway. Mathmo ^Talk 22:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support The user is an excelent vandal fighter who needs the extra tools.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support I supported last time, and see no reason not to do so this time around. Agent 86 22:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support again. Only concern last time was time on the project, and now it's doubled. --
   talk) 22:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
10. Support. Last 500 contributions are very heavy on administrative work. Well qualified.
    masterka 23:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
11. {{subst:RFA Cliche|1}} --Slowking Man 23:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support A solid contributor, this editor; no problems here. (aeropagitica) 23:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support a good candidate --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 23:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support. The impression I've got from reading what Heligoland has had to say in various corners of Wikispace is that he's a sensible bloke. I'd happily trust him with a block button and a key to the bit bucket on that basis alone. But there's more. Those who like edit counts should be impressed, those who must have article writing can take a peek at Arbroath, which is not so bad (the article that is, not the town), and those who need a convincing rationale have been given one. Spam is a problem (I like how he says "dealing with spam" rather than the more glamorous and misleading "fighting spam") and this seems to be just the man to help sort it out. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support. bibliomaniac15 23:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support a very sensible candidate.
    Addhoc 23:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
17. Support YechielMan 23:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support good spam/vandal fighter as well as great contributer.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support per above. I wish bureaucrats could speedily
    Yuser31415 23:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
20. Support Hasn't been that long since the last RfA, but it looks like this candidate is surely qualified to be an admin now. Nishkid64 00:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Strong Support Has only improved since last time. Not alot of recent participation in deletion related fora but what I did find was of good quality.[6] [7] [8] [9]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eluchil404 (talk • contribs)
22. Cliché support. This guy's already an admin, right? Seriously, he may not have been around long enough last time but now he's clearly got more than enough experience. No hesitation. WjBscribe 01:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Every time I've ever seen Heligo in a discussion, he's always managed to bring some light or new information into it. Not only a valuable editor, but a calm, levelheaded one at that. It would be insane not to give him the mop. Shadow1 (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support per candidate's record, nom, and a great many of the above comments. Newyorkbrad 01:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support Great user; always nice to see in discussion pages and XFd's ~ Arjun 01:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Good user hopefully soon a good admin. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 01:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support great user, won't abuse the tools and could certainly use them. Cbrown1023 talk 01:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support, the epitome of
    desat 02:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
30. Support. Nearly invariably, I appreciate whenever Heligo contributes to a discussion. I see no reason not to hand over the mop. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. With kind regards Deiz talk 02:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support Am convinced he'll make a great admin. Shimeru 02:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support fine contributor and all round great person (also does anti-spam work, which I believe we need more admins to do) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 06:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. Yes please.
    Review
    )07:04, Tuesday, 13 February '07
35. Support great user, I can't see anything to suggest they aren't ready to be an admin. James086^Talk 07:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support Amazing user - supported him last time. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 08:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Strong support - Very good friendly editor with a good knowledge of policy shown throughout Wiki talk pages. ^{Khukri -} 09:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support - knows what he's doing. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 09:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
39. He has great experiance and time, second time a charm. 'Nuff said. BuickCenturyDriver 10:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. Hang on, I thought....support - great editor. The Rambling Man 10:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support, very much. Opposed last time, saying come back in a few months. I've seen nothing but good things since then, so happy to support. Again, random point - I've been to
    ► 11:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
42. Support Great user. Was neutral last time per lack of time spent, but that's not a problem anymore. All the best!
    dzasta 11:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
43. Support Absolutely. --
    Spartaz 12:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
44. Support was about to last time, but glad to see the candidate is back... and stronger for it.
    Bubba hötep 12:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
45. Support defintiely qualified. Great article work. - Anas ^Talk? 12:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support, excellent vandal fighter. Would be a welcome addition to AIV. Kafziel ^Talk 12:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Will make a good admin. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
48. Wow. Of course. I was planning to nominate him for adminship soon. This one is a responsible user and shows a good understanding of the policies and the guidelines as well. Keep up the good work! — Nearly Headless Nick 14:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support. I've seen him around. Good editor, level-headed and all that. Coemgenus 15:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support Excellent candidate. Xoloz 16:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support I see no reason not to trust this user with the tools. Pascal.Tesson 17:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support - Aksi_great (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support. I thought he was one already. A Train ^{take the} 19:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support. Civil, trustworthy, plenty of experience. --Fang Aili ^talk 21:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support per nom. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support Without question.--MONGO 22:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support Did so last time, thumbs up again. --Groggy Dice T | C 23:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
58. Strong Support You have addressed our concerns from your last RFA. You are still an incredible user. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support The user knows blocking policy very well in my opinion. He knows the difference between a ban and a block, something that all admins should know. We admins don't have the authority to ban a user, only to issue a preventative block. Admins don't have the authority to be banning IPs, we can only block them. We also must keep in mind that not all IPs are permenent. In addition, I like how Heligoland knew what the process was for copyright infringement. Sure its backlogged, perhaps heligoland will be able to assist with that, to me thats a case where we need more admins. I believe that this user can be trusted to wield the mop, and we must always remember, adminship is not a big deal! ——
    Need help? 02:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Section 202(c)(1) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act provides certain criteria under which the civil liability of a third-party host (of content submitted by the general public, for example, Wikipedia) might be limited. These exceptions include unawareness (but not ignorance/negligence), and come with the expectation that we "expeditiously remove, or disable access to, the material", as soon as we do become aware of it. The term "expeditiously" is intentionally vague. There is no set time limit, but in plain English it means we should not be caught dragging our heels on issues relating to copyright infringement. A more diligent response would have been to promptly remove the identified material (then restore it later if it the complainant turns out to be full of crap), rather than suggesting that he take his concerns to hell and wait. — CharlotteWebb 19:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The copyright violation was reported a month earlier on the talk page and had attracted the attention of an administrator who didn't remove the material, all I was trying to do was help the complainant have the copyvio investigated as best as possible. I realise now the most sensible approach would be to remove the content and add it back later if it transpires the complaint to be false. 3 months of editing here has certainly alerted me to the finer points of US copyright law, I know what I did wrong in this case and am confident it's not an error I would make again. --

    Heligoland 19:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

    ]

60. Support. STILL an outstanding contributor who will do the tools proud. ;) – Lantoka (talk) 05:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support Even taking into consideration the oppose comments, I'm favourably impressed. --
    talk 08:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
62. Support Put my faith in this user. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 10:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
63. Fanatically Support - Very Much A Suitable candidaet -- >Radiant< 13:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
64. Strong support I very much appreciate all his spam-fighting work for this project. --A. B. ^(talk) 17:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support user has done great work, and is well qualified.-- danntm ^T _C 18:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
66. I can't believe I didn't see this rfa earlier - support GeorgeMoney (talk) 06:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support well rounded contributions, been here a while, and as always we need more administrators. -- Selket 08:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support Kusma (討論) 13:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
69. I'm
    Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 20:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
70. Support. --Slg
    n (page - messages - contribs) 20:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
71. Support - he has all the makings of a great admin; he'd be an asset. JoeSmack ^Talk 05:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support, really deserves mop as we need more admins.
    T/C) 06:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
73. Support - happy to give him my first vote. Looks like someone who's already doing a super job, even without the tools. —SaxTeacher (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support - has my full support. Deb 18:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support ElinorD (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support
    Ong 恭喜发财 03:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
77. Support: absolutely. Firstly, his devotion to the main article namespace is very impressive. Even more impressive is his external work in fighting spam, of which I could see why adminship would be useful for him. Overall, an extremely good candidate for adminship. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support great spam fighter and would make a trustworthy admin--Hu12 04:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support. PeaceNT 06:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support again. Accurizer 15:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support I believe this candidate will benefit the project well with the advanced tools. His answer to Q1 really caught my attention. May "
    The Force" be with you. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 23:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
82. Support, let's just give ihm teh tools.--Wizardman 02:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
84. You're-not-an-admin? support. S.D. ¿п? § 13:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support NoSeptember 14:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
86. Support Good-Editor..--Cometstyles 15:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support No reason to believe user will abuse the tools.
    IronDuke 17:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
88. A llama's support –
    man 18:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
89. Support changed from neutral (below) :) --Iamunknown 19:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support, but where on earth is Heligoland?? Axiomm 21:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Fanatically Oppose - Not A Suitable candidaet --60.234.48.7 23:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Nice try, but only users with accounts are eligible to "!vote" --

   talk) 00:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   At the rate this is going, this would not impact the outcome, though semiprotection might not be surprising. New users editing here often raise suspicion and set off a lot of fingerpointing.

   I see now people are now starting to say !vote with a !. BuickCenturyDriver 10:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Actually, this anon is not a new editor but a very experienced editor -- see 60.234.48.7's lengthy talk page history and block logs. --A. B. ^(talk) 17:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose per behavior in last RFA and too great a reliance on templates. User seems to have some whack-a-mole tendencies that I would like to see corrected before I support. Actually engaging users with dialogue seems to get best results. Also, there's a disturbing attitude toward copyright violations here, where he asks that the claim be substantiated before the potential violation is removed, and seems to claim ownership over the IP user who eventually turned out to be right. -- nae'blis 20:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   To be fair, that comment made by Heligoland was 3 months ago and prior to his last Rfa as well.--MONGO 23:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose, strongly per Nae'blis. Suggesting that cases of copyright infringements need to be handled through an infallibly backlogged queue of wiki-process, especially in the face of a specific take-down request, is absolutely appalling. The user clearly identified the plagiarized sections, the name of the book, and the page numbers. The fact that the text of the book is not available on the internet is even greater evidence that the copyright holder does not condone unauthorized reproductions of the book, as that would impair their ability to sell the book. If I understand correctly, you would prefer that Wikipedia continued using the material for 2-3 weeks, then draw straws to see who should pay $58.95 plus s/h to confirm that the complainant is telling the truth? It would be easier and legally safer to assume good faith, take the person's word for it, and start over with original content. In the end, it might even make for a more enjoyable read. — CharlotteWebb 21:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Strong oppose. Purely on the copyright basis. Remove then bicker has to be the way. Not getting that exposes a serious misunderstanding of the importance of copyright. So it was three months ago. Where's your diff that demonstrates that he now gets it? Grace Note 06:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Neutral good user, but all the banging on the RfA-sucks drum after his previous nomination didn't impress me overmuch. Opabinia regalis 02:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per above. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral. We had a disagreement over
   User talk:Snoutwood#WP:AbRep). During this exchange, Heligoland changed the policy of WP:ABUSE to read that that system was unofficial and couldn't ban users. I reverted the edit, saying that that wasn't the case. He reverted me, saying that I was reverting against consensus and that I should see his comments on the talk page, which confused me as a) he posted his comments on the talk page after the revert, so there wasn't any way that I could have possibly read them, and so b) his opinion hadn't been discussed, so there couldn't be a consensus for his view. While no one's perfect, I found the whole exchange very frustrating, and that combined with his apparent misunderstanding of both consensus and the blocking policy (see [10]) cause me to vote neutral in this RfA. Kyle Barbour 01:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   There's some additional information regarding this, I wasn't the only one who reverted Kyle's edits to the page ([11]) and the misunderstanding above regarding the ban/block policy arises from this [12] change in the wording (not by me). --

   Heligoland 01:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

4. Neutral, learning toward support per above neutral points. — Deckiller 14:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral per the tagging of this image which I happened to find during image category clean up. I hovered over Heligoland's "contribs" link and saw a link to this adminship page with popups. I don't think one mis-tagged image is enough to oppose adminship, and I'm not an experienced RFA-er, so I'll just be neutral. BTW, I know he developed the program himself, but the fact that the screenshot is a derivative work of, in part, a Microsoft operating system means that it is subject to the copyrights of the software owned by Microsoft, which is definitely not public domain. --Iamunknown 10:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC) Hurray! Now I get to support. :) --Iamunknown 19:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Updated and replaced with a suitable free image. --

   Heligoland 15:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

5. Neutral but near Oppose per Nae'blis. Questionable knowledge also here [13] despite suitable image available since Sept. [14] and clear wiki-process [15]. D Mac Con Uladh 15:12, 19 February 2007 (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.