Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Snowolf

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

Snowolf

Final (52/4/5); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 02:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Snowolf (talk · contribs) - This is an exemplary user. His contributions are endless, and is one of those users who is long overdue an RfA (reminiscent of Daniel, some months ago). He has been of massive help to me with the administration of NPWatcher, and unfailingly is willing to give his assistance at the slightest indication of need. Constantly polite to newbies, he is also an accomplished vandal fighter, with probably hundreds of reports to WP:AIV, and is certainly very fair to those who would see fit to cause harm to the project - attempting to encourage them to improve before going down the road of reporting. All of my interactions with this user have been positive, and I have never had any cause to doubt his suitability as a potential administrator, yet have been overwhelmed with reasons that he should be promoted. I'm sure that I don't need to go on. If, for any reason, you have any doubt, his contributions are but a click away. Thanks, Martinp23 20:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 02:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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: I surely would lend a hand at WP:AIV and WP:UCFD (and in general WP:XFD closures). Another area in which I think I may be of some help is WP:CSD.

A (bis): My "edit patterns" wouldn't change much. I would still spend much of my time reverting vandalism and dealing with WP:AIV, there's too much of it. I would help with XfD, particulary AfD, CfD, UCfD and MfD, areas in which I'm already experienced. I would also help in keeping WP:CFD/W clean (as it's now protected).

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

A: I honestly don't know how to reply to this question, but maybe the way in which I helped this project most has been by trying to find new admins.

A (bis): I’m sorry for the poor answer I posted earlier. I’ve been working mostly in patrolling new pages and recent changes, request for adminships and WP:XFDs. That’s why I said that I wasn’t able to say what my “best contributions” are.

I'm fully aware that what Wikipedia need most is good article writers, but, sorry, I'm not the right one. However, I believe I am of some help in other areas. Nominating new admins is one, patrolling is another. So these are my contributions, what is best I leave for you to decide. I think I am of most help in patrolling and nominating admins (as there is always a critical shortage of sysops - enwiki is second only to eswiki for the highest users/admin ratio), so that are my best contributions.

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: No, thankfully (or at least I think so).

A (bis): The usual stuff that I do don't offer much chances of getting into conflicts. There have been people who came angry at my talk page because I left a warning at theirs: what I do in such a case is trying to explains my actions in a friendly way.

Future: I can only assure you that I'll maintain the same way of dealing with criticism that I've always been trying to use: trying to re-examine the issue, and if in my vision what I did was still right, I will ask an admin what does s/he thinks of my decision, and if s/he thinks I'm not right, I would be happy to change it. There are 1,420 admins on the English Wikipedia and any one of them can simply change my decision, I will never have any problems with it.

Additional, optional question by Master of Puppets

4. It has been brought up that you do not contribute to articles on the mainspace often; do you feel that an administrator needs to have a fair bit of experience in dealing with article-related issues in order to be an effective administrator?

A: Content edit experience is always a plus for an administrator. However, I think that you can be an effective administrator even without much content edit background. In my view, not making content edit doesn't prevent someone to understand article-related issues, everyone has seen his share of issues, even if they do not take part in it.

As Master of Puppet pointed out, administrators should know the policies and how to deal with mainspace issues. I would deal with mainspace issues in the same way I've dealt with everything else here: with a smile, policy in my hand and willingness to reconsider everything.

I must say that I don't plan on became much involved in article-related issue, apart from the deletion process, an area in which I'm already experienced.

Being a effective administrator has, in my opinion, more to do with knowing the policies, trying to be fair and kind in applying them and have always an hear open for criticism than content editing.

5. Do you feel you are acquainted with Wikipedia's format and content policies? If no, how would you propose to deal with issues and conflicts concerning the mainspace?

A: I'm quite familiar with the policies and guidelines, including those about format and content. I think that every user, whatever s/he does, should frequently read the policies, even those s/he might not need in his usual work around here.

Additional, optional question by Malleus Fatuaroum

6. You say that you look for for new administrators. What are the criteria that you use in determining which editors might make good administrators? --Malleus Fatuorum 04:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A: With the idea that adminship isn't a big deal, I search for contributors with a solid history, knowledge (and respect) of the policies, who always stay cool and address issues with kindness.

Question from Icestorm815

7. In February 2007, you nearly accumulated 10,000 edits. How'd ya do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icestorm815 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A. Once I got to high numbers, I wanted to break the 10,000 edit barrier (I did, but since then there have been deleted edits), at the time I thought it was much (then I saw User:Gurch...). At the time I didn't understand the nature of editcount. Anyway, by many many hours with VandalProof and AutoWikiBrowser. Cyde noticed it and suggested I use a bot, which I what is did.

Quuestion from User:B

8. Can you elaborate on the issue mentioned in your block log? [1] Was it an appropriate block? How have you learned from the issue? --B (talk) 06:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

A. It was in the middle of the Essjay controversy. After posting some opinions () in the straw poll that there was at the time, I went to bed. Then I thought... wait, you can post a barnstar or something on his talk, it may be appreciated in such a time. So the next morning, when I had a minute free, I posted the barnstar. The barnstar stated that I thanked him for his "valueless contributions". A user pointed out on my talk page that probably there was a misunderstanding and I mean something else (I did voted in favor of Essjay keeping his flags in the straw poll). When I got back home, I have realized that I've been blocked and filed an unblock request explaining that I didn't realized that valueless meant without any value, but thought, well, countless isn't necessary good, as the edit count doesn't matter much, so I thought countless "that cannot be counted" → valueless "that their value cannot be judged". See relevant diffs unblock request, further edit to my request, requesting unblock of the ip]. I've asked on IRC if there was an admin willing to check an unblock request, and Ryan Delaney unblocked me. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 06:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that the blocking admin should have checked my edits before blocking me, my last edits were to the straw poll, where, even with reservation, I supported Essjay (so it wasn't much likely that then I go and posted such an incivil message to his talk), and with the suggestion made by another user that I may have made such an error typing valueless instead of countless, a block wasn't helping much. Instead, another user, William Petri - at the time it wasn't an admin, (prior to my block) asked explanations on my talk page. Blocks should be used, in my opinion, very carefully. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 07:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment, I beleive what you might have had in mind was "priceless" or something similar.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 00:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a Mastercard moment gone all wrong. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Jc37

9.) In my experience you're a prolific bot/tool user. Could you explain in what ways you currently use such tools?

A. Currently, I use only Wikipedia Vandalism Watch to monitor the user that I've warned and Npwatcher for new pages patrolling. (Well, also my monobook is quite full of stuff) However, in the past, as you pointed out, I've used a wide range of tools, mainly for antivandalism (VP and MWT are the first one I can think of). The bot is pretty much inactive in recent times.

10.) How will becoming an administrator change how you use such tools? (Including: what are your thoughts and expectations about this?)

A. No changes that I can see, apart from deleting instead of tagging with NPW and TWINKLE. There are however some scripts, especially onVoA's monobook, to ease administrative work, which I would surely use, but it's not much: some template for blocks, backlog monitoring, afd semiautomation, link to the noticeboards, page protection tools, that's it.

11.) What do you want Wikipedia to be three years from now? Marlith ^T/C 06:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A.

General comments

• See Snowolf's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Snowolf: Snowolf (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

Discussion

• I wish that editors would note that answering the optional questions is optional, and probably shouldn't result in an automatic oppose. Read through the candidates contributions and talk page; that should answer the questions. Either a user knows policy or doesn't, contributed to the encyclopedia or hasn't, and the result of conflicts should be glaring obvious in talk archives. Questions are not a big deal. As recently as 18 months ago they used to be placed at the bottom of an RfA but got moved to the top because people weren't even paying attention to them. Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't. Keegan^talk 06:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, and your precedent cited below is perfectly acceptable... if the candidate doesn't answer at all, but answering the questions with the original, fairly nonexistant answers is pretty much shooting yourself in the foot. If the candidate doesn't wish to answer them, thats fine, but once they put some nice little one liners up, that is what will be judged, and they become answered questions, not optional ones. Dureo (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm very sorry for the poor answering of the questions. I hope that now I've cleared your doubts. If note, please help me by asking more specific questions, which I would be more than happy to answer! Only, I would ask from you one thing: try to go beyond my poor answering and decide if in your opinion I can be trusted with a few more buttons or would I do any damage around ;-) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 12:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. His bot site is very helpful and he is a very helpful user. Monobi 02:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Support This user has shown much experience in dealing with vandalism and new users.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 02:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Support Experienced and trustworthy user, will make very good use of the tools. Húsönd 02:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Although I would like better answers, support Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
5. I don't need answers, example is enough. I don't need article writing, that has absolutely no relation to the use of the tools. As for lack of conflicts, perhaps we should begin to think that that is a good thing in a candidate. I have somewhere near 10,000 edits, 4,000 admin actions and over two years experience with only one complaint in my belt. I trust the user. Keegan^talk 06:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Strong Support - (edit conflict) Although I agree with JetLover that more fleshed-out answers would be appreciated, based on his actions on Wikipedia there is no doubt in my mind that Snowolf both needs and can be trusted with the tools. While I understand that article writing may be a desired trait in an admin who intends to take part in conflict resolution and other areas where they might benefit from experience in collaboration and compromise, this user is primarily focused on vandal fighting and deletion discussions, both of which are vital to the project and both of which he performs very well, as evidenced by his user talk warnings and comments in XfD discussions. His answer about "finding admins" may be made clearer by a visit to User:Snowolf/Admin_scout, and I believe his high number of AIV reports (111) and participation in WP:UCFD are both desirable traits in a candidate who wants to take on the admin tasks that he has noted above. I might also point out his position as a moderator for WP:VPRF speaks to his dedication not only to vandal fighting but to the project as a whole. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)I'm on editor review! 06:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
7. What the hell. I swear you were already an admin, and one of the best admins around. Why do you do this to me!? Dihydrogen Monoxide ^♫ 07:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
8. Support, thought he was one. Redrocketboy 08:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
9. Support Although sorta weak answers to the questions, what I've seen of your editing is more than enough. Jmlk17 10:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
10. Support Epbr123 13:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
11. Support (changed from Neutral) Good answers to questions. Excellent vandal fighter. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 13:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
12. Support - has a comprehensive understanding of policy, but could do with longer answers. I'm sure this candidate will do well. — Rudget _{contributions} 15:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
13. Strong Super-Duper Support - Why he isn't one is something which really bothers me since he is a very capable person and far tooo experienced than most admins and really deserves those 3 new tabs ;) ..--Cometstyles 15:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
14. Suport! Er, you're not an admin already?! *MindstormsKid* 17:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
15. Weak Support - switching from neutral. Answers to the questions are fine, though I'd like to see more content creation. Should be okay, though - Alison ^❤ 18:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
16. Strong support - He has always helped me in every field with always excellent informations, things that only an expert user could know (I think that an admin of three project, as I am, wouldn't make so simple questions.. ;-)) and he has always made a lot of work for en.wiki and Wikipedia's related project. I haven't doubt, he will make a really good job as sysop. --Filnik ^dimmi! 19:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
17. Support I guess so, though I think more effort with the initial questions would have helped ;). As someone who looks for potential admins I hope you can pass on this useful advice. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
18. Support - An overall good User. The lack of Article Creation/Contribution should not come into play. Some people are better at some things than others. A lack of Conflicts shows the user can deal with others without getting into heated arguments. PookeyMaster (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
19. Support Although the first answers to the questions were not good, there is plenty of good work to make me think this user will be a good admin. GDonato (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
20. Support Thank you. Prodego ^talk 22:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
21. Weak Support. Poor answers to questions, but nevertheless there's not much evidence you will abuse the tools. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 23:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
22. Nom support - shockingly late. Martinp23 23:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
23. - Philippe | Talk 23:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
24. I agree entirely with Keegan, especially on the part where he mentions conflicts. Anyway, all because Snowolf says he has not had many conflicts doesn't mean to stay he does not know how to handle them: he might even be good at preventing them from occuring in the first place. Acalamari 23:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
25. Support per addressing concerns of all opponents. — Sebastian 00:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC) (If anyone sees a reason to change my vote, please let me know on my talk page. I'm not voting to do the candidate a favor, but because I think it's the right decision for Wikipedia. Therefore, please refrain from thanking me on my talk page, unless you have a really original or funny idea.)
26. Support. Excellent editor. He will not abuse the tools, an he will certainly make an excellent administrator. --Carioca (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
27. Why the hell not?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
28. Support A fine addition to the list. Marlith ^T/C 03:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
29. Aye. WODUP 05:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
30. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 08:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
31. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
32. Support - I don't think article writing is required to be an admin. James086^{Talk | Email} 08:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
33. Support Dureo (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
34. Support Having met my aribatary standards. In particular the block thing. Perfectly and civily handled, and it has clearly given you strength through being on the "other side of the boot", as it were. I've also had previous personal positive interaction wiht the candidate. I am pleased you fleshed out your questions though. Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  16:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
35. Support — Raffaello9 | Talk | 16:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
36. Support - admin != editing - they are two unique functions that are not directly related. As for policy - common sense sums it up 99.999% of the time. -- Tawker (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
37. Yeah extremely helpful user--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
38. Support Looks like the candidate has improved the answers to the questions. Got my support. :) GlassCobra 23:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

    Yes! *MindstormsKid* 01:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

    I'm sure Snowolf appreciates the support, but you already expressed it at #14. WjBscribe 02:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

39. Support The mop isn't that big of a deal, and this user appears to contribute positively enough to Wikipedia that he should be able to handle the admin tools with ease. --Sharkface217 02:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
40. Support Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
41. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
42. Support. Seen him around lately. Nothing made me worried. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 09:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
43. Support - But please read up on (or re-read now with administrative tools usage in mind) such pages as deletion policy, particularly speedy, templates, and categories; and protection policy. (Per my note under neutral, below). My experience with you has been overall positive, and I have faith that it will continue to be so : ) - jc37 12:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
44. Support -- and please never forget the circumstances of your mistaken block (question 8 above) -- it's an object lesson for admins in "assume good faith". The blocking admin made a mistake, but the block certainly looks "appropriate" on "first glance"; it only reveals itself as very wrong when you take that extra minute or two to dig around trying to understand the Snowolf the editor. I'm not saying every chronic schoolhouse vandal reported to WP:AIV requires a background investigation, but if it's an established editor, please take that extra minute or two to try to understand the editor and the context for their actions. I'm sure the blocking admin felt really bad after this incident. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
45. Conditional support: Don't burn out again via 10k edits in a month. Wizardman 03:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
46. Support --Gia.cossa (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
47. Support Do not believe will abuse the tools. Should be a valueless! good admin Davewild (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
48. Support unlikely to abuse tools, good knowledge of WP and policy. Shell ^babelfish 11:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
49. Support - from what I have observed of this editor, I think they would make a great admin. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
50. Support. Slideshow Bob (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
51. Highly trustworthy; no issues here. 哦， 是吗？(review O) 22:42, 10 December 2007 (GMT)
52. Support - a really friendly user who would be great with a few extra buttons. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose Per the answers, or almost lack thereof, to the questions. Any article writing? (I can't see any going back through 2000 contribs), No conflicts at all? How are we supposed to gauge how you will handle a conflict in that case? Need more to work with before I personally can support. Dureo 02:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC) (switched to support thanks for the reasoning.)

Comment article writing is not a nessessary requirement for admins, most of their work is done in AIV, XFD, and Blocking, which has nothing to do with writing a good article.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 02:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment I think administrators should have a fairly good grasp of policy, and some experience in dealing with the mainspace; otherwise, if they get called to a conflict over some mainspace material, they won't exactly be prepared to deal with the conflict effectively. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 03:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The assertion that "article writing is not a nessessary requirement for admins" is one of personal opinion, not fact. Daniel 04:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

So it is a nessessary requirement? I didn't know that.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 01:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No; everybody judges by their own criteria. From the top of RFA "There are no official prerequisites for adminship". Article writing may be neccessary requirement to gain support from certain users, and it is not required for the support of others. I personally do not think that contributions of content to articles is necessary, but that's just me. James086^{Talk | Email} 08:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for explaining that.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 00:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Oppose The questions are the first impression people have of you here. Your failure to answer them is either a slight to the people who are looking at you for the first time or a sign of laziness. Either way, it doesn't bode well in my estimation.Balloonman 05:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose Answer to question 2 shows a lack of ability to judge a user's quality. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose, per answers to questions, but willing to change to Support if you answer the questions in a way which shows your full potential in detail. Jack?! 09:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose If he can't be bothered to answer the questions properly, he can't want this very much. I also don't think someone who never writes articles can understand the needs of those who do. Being an admin is ALL about talking to people and if he's not doing it on his RfA then why would he do it if he passes? Nick mallory 12:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

   Fair enough, he's answered them now so strike this vote.Nick mallory 13:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

4. Per what Master of Puppets said above. --Agüeybaná 23:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Come on Snowolf, answer the questions! Prodego ^talk 03:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutral. While I don't oppose this user getting adminship, I'd like to see some more fleshed-out response in terms of the questions asked. I'd also like to see the response to my question. The user is fine in all other regards; very effective vandal fighter, to say the least. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 03:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Changed to Support.

1. Neutral The lack of content in his answers is a major concern here. Although this user is a great contributor, I can't oppose or support this nomination. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

   Neutral - pending some answers to the questions above - Alison ^❤ 05:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC) (switching to support)

2. Neutral I would like to see more detailed answers to the questions if possible. Also, can you clarify what you mean by "A: I honestly don't know how to reply to this question, but maybe the way in which I helped this project most has been by trying to find new admins." What do you mean by "finding new admins" ? Have you been nominating them for RFA, etc? Thanks. --Hdt83 ^Chat 05:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

   I actively search for new admins and then nominate them. Everything is available here. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 12:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

3. Neutral. I was going to support because I've seen you around with a good editing record, but the answers to the questions bother me. bibliomaniac15 05:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral to follow up with Bibliomaniac15. Very poor answers, especially to Q2. This reflects on failure to think. Lots of edits, but does not seem interested in building WP. Meets my fairly lax standards, so I will not oppose. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral. Can't really oppose, but response to Q10 bothers me. Snowolf tagged Image talk:Handtiegelpresse von 1811.jpg with WP:CSD#G8 (db-talk), a criterion which excludes talk pages of images on commons. This isn't a big deal, but it's the most recent CSD nomination, and it doesn't inspire confidence in someone deleting content on their own initiative. Gimmetrow 06:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

   Ooops :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 07:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

   Here's my problem. I've worked with the nominee in the past, and they seems happy to be helpful. And while mistakes happen, there seems to be a lack of knowledge about/around several key policies, which, in the hands of a bot-owner/tool-user could be problematic. That said, if asked, I don't think that Snowolf would have a problem learning "on-the-job". So I'm going to support, with the hope that some reading/research is done before "jumping in with both feet" : ) - jc37 12:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

   Specifically with deletion, it just sounded like Snow intended to do deletions without tagging. That's OK sometimes, but not always. Gimmetrow 05:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

References

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.