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

CloudNine[edit]

Closed as successful by Cecropia 21:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC) at (76/0/0); Scheduled end time 15:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CloudNine (talk · contribs) - CloudNine is an editor I have worked with a few times in the past. He is a dedicated and fabulous editor who has five Featured Articles and one Featured Portal under his belt ("Bam Thwok", Frank Black, Doolittle (album), Pixies, Portal:Alternative music, Surfer Rosa), while still being an avid contributor to the Alternative music WikiProject. His civility and kindness is riveting, as well as his edit count. CloudNine is a large contributor to peer review as well as GAC. Although he had been absent for many months when he first registered in November of 2004, it is apparent that, since finding a niche in Wikipedia, he has become an integral part of our society. In my general opinion, CloudNine is an exemplary editor of Wikipedia and will make an excellent Administrator. NSR77 (Talk) 01:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks for the nomination! I accept. CloudNine 08:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Helping with the ever-present backlog at CAT:CSD (especially during times of heavy backlog) and closing XFD debates. I would also visit the various administrator noticeboards to resolve problems there. I'd also be able to help at any administrator backlog, and I would be happy to do so; indeed, if I do gain these administrator tools, I'm sure I'd find other places to help out.
Q At CSD, supposing you come across a page parked copyvio, and find that the copyvio starts in paragraph two. What will you do?DGG 18:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A I would copy the first paragraph, delete the page and recreate with the page with the first paragraph.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My five featured articles; Doolittle (album), Frank Black and Pixies are ones I'm particularly proud of. Also, I feel my maintenance of the WikiProject:Alternative music, including contributing to weekly collaborations and writing the newsletter, have helped to improve the project. I'm also proud of the articles I'm working on at the moment: Monkey Gone to Heaven, Kim Deal and Joey Santiago.
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 been involved in several conflicts, although none of them have been serious in any way; I hope my attitude towards conflicts helped to resolve them as quickly as possible. In chronological order, here are two conflicts I have been involved in:
  1. The Pixies article was renamed to The Pixies and then Pixies (band); both moves were without consensus and I went to the proper authorities in order to get consensus for a move back. However, I've always tried to focus on the similarities rather than the differences - I assume both editors aim to make the best article on the subject (WP:AGF of course) - and I don't take sides as such; I try to empathize with the other person.
  2. While editing the Red Hot Chili Peppers page, I noticed that the article referenced a little too much fair use media. I went to the talk page to discuss removal of some empheral media, gained the appropriate consensus and removed several images that were not criticised in the text. User:Xihix took objection to this, saying: "top being so full of yourselves, how the hell do you know there are free pics that could be used? Oh wait, you don't. Good job ruining the article guys, great job". I didn't get emotionally involved, and instead quoted policy and tried to empathize with the user. This was similar to an earlier debate about a logo in the infobox, which I removed; citing WP:FUC as a reason.
4 (Question by Haemo): What, exactly, do you feel is the rationale behind the Ignore all rules policy, and how do you think it should be applied in cases of (1) editing disputes, (2) blocking users, and (3) fair use material. --Haemo 03:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Tough question! WP:IAR is for those (extremely) rare cases where following a certain rule (or rules) would lead to a worse article or encyclopedia (1) I'm not sure I see too much of an application for WP:IAR in terms of editing disputes; if you feel the editor is a crank or refuses to obey consensus, then there are plenty of avenues for dispute resolution, such as WP:RFC. (2) I think the appropriate channels for warning users would be satisfactory in virtually all cases; perhaps in rare situations where there was a vandalism maelstrom (from a botnet perhaps?) and warning them would lead to a worse encyclopedia (as it would use up time that would better applied to reverting so much vandalism). I feel such a situation is highly unlikely however. (3) Foundation-wide policies on copyright (and fair use in copyright law) trump any application of "Ignore all rules", so I find it hard to imagine a situation where "ignoring all rules" would not pass the fair use criteria and also be kosher under copyright law.
5 (Question by Evilclown93(talk)) This should be an easy question. How many policies are there on WP, and in how many categories are they split into? --Evilclown93(talk) 11:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: 42 (just counted!). They're split into five categories: Behavioural, Content and Style, Deletion, Enforcing policies, and Legal and Copyright.

Optional question by AldeBaer

6. Since we all started out as readers of this encyclopedia, I'd like to know what your three (or more) favourite reads on Wikipedia are (may be articles, or even policy pages, whatever you like), ideally with a short explanation as to what especially you like about them.
A: Sure! In no particular order: Buddhism - I thought it was an elegant article that clearly summarised what can be a slightly mistifying religion to many people. The KLF; an excellent article on a pretty odd band. Backmasking is also a current favourite of mine.

General comments[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/CloudNine before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support

  1. First to support (it was watchlisted ;) ) - great editor, very communicative, all my interactions have been very pleasant. Has my trust. Go for it! (Must add - a great relief to see one of the musical editors being conscientious about fair use - we don't have enough of those... ) Riana ⁂ 16:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Oowaweewah, your contributions are excellent, I can't see any reason why the community shouldn't trust you with the tools. However, if they're bestowed, please don't forget to continue making your great positive contributions. Good luck. The Rambling Man 16:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Support He is a good editor, and I believe I can trust him! Politics rule 16:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Adminship is no big deal. ~ Wikihermit 16:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Looks good to me RuneWiki777 16:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I generally only meet the editors of academic articles, but I have come across CloudNine because I am a Pixies nut. He has done the band proud with his five featured articles; he works hard, understands about sourcing, and responds impressively to questions or objections. He is also a good reviewer of other articles at FAC and contributes measured comments on the talk pages relating to featured articles.qp10qp 16:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - a great candidate. —AldeBaer 16:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support. Seems to be consistently civil and composed, and has a fine track record of constructive edits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support in agreement with BrownHairedGirl. Acalamari 17:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Why not? He/she is a reliable user.--†Sir James Paul† 17:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Very strong editor, and no reason to believe he'd abuse the admin tools. - Zeibura(talk) 18:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Support on behalf of the nominator. NSR77 (Talk) 18:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support- Great editor. Eddie 19:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong Support - has made really good contributions and is very experienced as well ..:) --Cometstyles 19:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support ll the evidence says you'll be a great admin. Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 20:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support I have not personally come across this user, but he clearly has a broad basis of admin-related experience over the whole project. And User:Riana supports him, which would be good enough for me anyway.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Has good taste in music. --MichaelLinnear 21:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support I disagree with your disambiguation thoughts on the article, Pixies, but I still think you will make a good admin. Captain panda 21:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. I was initially in two minds about this one, but after a long and thoughtful consideration of this candidate's username, userpage design and edit count (oh, and a few contributions, too), I have decided that they should recieve my support. Recently concern has been expressed that many contributors to adminship request discussions, particularly those in favour of the candidate's promotion, have not been elaborating their arguments in quite as much detail as might be desired. My opinion on this candidate is not one which can be distilled to a simple "Support", "Oppose" or "Neutral", and I have both positive and negative points to make, as well as recommendations to the candidate for future consideration. However, I feel that, on balance, the project would benefit from their promotion.
    So. What do we have, here? "CloudNine" isn't a bad username – makes sense, even kind of catchy. Certainly this is not the sort of user who picks a dull, meaningless, monosyllabalic username and then somehow expects to be taken seriously. Definitely a plus. So then we come to the other key element of a candidate's suitability for adminship – the userpage. It's blue, it's organized, but most importantly of all, it has no userboxes whatsoever. (The user has wisely decided to put them on the talk page, where they will blend in nicely with the insults, bad language and accusations of misconduct that an administrator can expect to have deposited there). In fact, it's so good that if my userpage wasn't already perfect in every way, I'd steal it and pass the design off as my own. It's spoilt only slightly by two minor blemishes. First, the box at the top constitutes blatant canvassing. While it's only their userpage, such blatand disregard for ... well, something is absolutely not on if this candidate is taking adminship seriously. Someone visiting that page might not have previously known that this request was in progress, and imagine the consequences of that. Vote-whoring, I hear you cry? It gets worse. The userpage has a link not only to the user's edit count (which, being the gold standard by which all candidates are judged, is naturally a largely meaningless, often misleading statistic), but also their edit summary usage. How a candidate who feels the need to prove their ability to consistently fill in a box on a webpage expects to be handed a position of trust is beyond me. Were it not for the user's excellent first edit date (27th November 2004. Classic.) I would be opposing.
    Fortunately, the user is able to redeem themselves at this point, as I consider another important indicator of a candiadate's ability – the wording of the nomination. While this candidate's nomination has serious neutrality issues, fails our policy on biographies of living persons, and does not cite independent, reliable sources, I feel that the candidate can be excused, provided they are careful in future to accept a nomination by someone well-versed in our content policies. Where the nomination really stands out is with the nominator's description of the edit count as "riveting". 9161 may at first appear to be a fairly boring number, but not only is it prime, you can transpose the first and second and the third and fourth digits and then rotate it clockwise through half a turn and it looks the same as it did before! Clearly the candidate should be commended for this excellent achievement, which more than makes up for any reservations I may have had.
    A word of caution to the candidate, though. While I'm supporting them here, and wish them every success, a number of troubling metrics caught my eye when I fed this candidate's long and prosperous contribution history through the edit counter, like a beautiful, delicate flower being fed through an industrial waste treatment plant. I could hardly believe my eyes when I saw the results – a complete lack of Category talk, Image talk and even MediaWiki talk edits is a bit worrying. The candidate's 798 edits to the Pixies article strongly suggests either a conflict of interest or an inability to use the Preview button (or possibly even both), and while it's a featured article of the highest quality thanks largely to the candidate's dedicated work over a long period of time, I don't really like their music, and if it ever goes on the Main Page the accusations of American bias will come thick and fast.
    There is much more I would love to discuss, but time and space do not permit; if the candidate would like me to explain myself in more detail, they are welcome to leave any queries on my talk page, and I will endeavour to ignore them as soon as I can. Just one final word, as no RfA rationale would be complete without an excessively broad generalization based on the voter's single, brief encounter with the candidate. I once reverted some vandalism to an edit by you, this shows you make edits, which is good. Thank you for everything you've done, have a nice day – Gurch 21:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)    [reply]
    Take a bow, sir. Riana ⁂ 21:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is my understanding that a nomination description should be biased, as the person giving the description is, essentially, for their success. If this were an article I would, graciously, site every claim I can find with the proper corresponding evidence, however, it is not. I do give you a pat on the back, though, for digressing (and somewhat rambling) deeply into CloudNine's history; so much so that you even examined his edit count number. Really, I wish people were as humorous as you, sir. NSR77 (Talk) 22:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominations should be biased? I don't know how such nonsense has permeated this project. Our valued regulars should be free to vote based on a glance at the other votes without such distractions as biased nominations – Gurch 22:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Gurch, I think you've just been awarded the longest comment on an RFA ever award. Great speech by the way. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 03:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And you are sure you're not a politician? Damn biggest speech I've ever seen.... --Dark Falls talk 08:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice... :) CattleGirl talk 09:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear, that's one impressive... oration. I applaud you, Gurch. —Anas talk? 09:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, that's quite the speech... Tim{speak} 18:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You win the Internet for a day! :) CloudNine 10:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And then some. NSR77 (Talk) 12:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have time to read this, just as I don't have time to read Shakespearean plays, but I just pasted that into a word file and it was 1⅓ pages long. Congratulations, you are now a professor of writing for that excellent dissertation. « ANIMUM » 22:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support I've seen this editor round and about and I don't see a significant problem with their contributions to cause me any concern about them receiving and using the admin tools as part of their regular tasks. (aeropagitica) 22:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, I don't see any problems. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 00:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - good 'pedia builder.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support You know how to use a talk page. KP Botany 01:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support A very civil user. Gutworth (talk) 02:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support per nom and especially per Gurch. :) Newyorkbrad 03:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support per contributions, experience, and most of all, Gurch. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 03:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support—Excellent contributions, and nothing of concern turns up; also, good answers to the questions.--Paul Erik 04:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support; Excellent article contributions, which speak to a commitment to the encyclopedia. No concerns. If this RfA succeeds (which I think it will, and should), check out the image backlogs at CAT:CSD. It's an area where many admins (myself included) lack confidence and efficiency. MastCell Talk 04:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support per Gurch Wikidan829 04:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Good editor, I see no problem with it. oysterguitarist~Talk 04:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support more than capable—arf! 05:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support I believe we need more admins like this around here. Jmlk17 05:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Following a need for the tools, good contributions, a very long speech (by Gurch), and a really bewildering oppose vote below, this user has my support. --Dark Falls talk 08:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. A solid contributor. Happily support.--cj | talk 08:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. :) A great contributor... (and I like your taste in music :) ) seriously though, I see no problems whatsoever. Good luck- CattleGirl talk 09:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support As probably the two biggest contributors to WikiProject Alternative music, we've worked together quite a bit, and I have nothing but positive things to say about CloudNine. Great editor, courteous and helpful, and dedicated to improving Wikipedia. Would make good use of admin tools, and can serve as an excellent example to others. WesleyDodds 09:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support--MONGO 09:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support amazing contributor; he does excellent work in the mainspace and has a real need for the tools. I feel very confident that CloudNine would make a great administrator. All the best, Anas talk? 09:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support per reply in neutral. No issues with WP:OWN indicated by the answer. Best wishes. Pedro |  Chat  11:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support I trust this user, I'm sure he knows policy quite well, and he won't misuse the tools at all. --Evilclown93(talk) 12:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Nothing to suggest that editor will misuse tools. PGWG 13:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Peacent 13:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support per Anthony.bradbury —  $PЯINGrαgђ  15:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. support JoshuaZ 16:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support -Tim{speak} 18:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support, won't abuse or misuse the tools. --Rory096 19:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Very capable editor. Ceoil 20:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support per my analysis of his contributions, and his answer to my question. --Haemo 21:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - I have only one thing to say, per Gurch. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Trustworthy editor with sufficient experience. -- Jreferee (Talk) 01:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Big Support I've seen this editor around, I think he'll do fine. DarthGriz98 02:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support A great editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Go for it! Trustworthy, experienced, needed. Stwalkerster talk 10:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support experienced and good editor.-- danntm T C 18:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support, is there a reason not to? E talk 20:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. "Is there a reason not to?" Not that I can find. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 23:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support A great candidate. — Wenli 03:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. I think he's been around longer than I have... Sasquatch t|c 17:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Judging by his contributions to Wikipeida he would be a great admin. -- Vision Thing -- 18:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - No oppose yet (the user must be fit for the administrative position), so I´ll support. ♠TomasBat 20:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support See nothing to suggest will not make an excellant admin. Davewild 20:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. See no issues or concerns. Jayjg (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support - it was Gurch that got me there. - Philippe | Talk 06:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Musical support (my highest endorsement). Bucketsofg 21:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support per everyone else and the well-reasoned response to Q4. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Ran into him once, helped me out politely. Has contributed alot. Warrush 01:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Need more admins who are also great article writers, but the combination of skills is rare. - Merzbow 02:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Count me in - an excellent editor.--VS talk 16:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support per Gurch. JavaTenor 20:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Gurch said it all plus some. --A. B. (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Terence 04:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Wow, how did I not see this RfA before? I've bumped into CloudNine a fair few times and have absolutely no qualms whatsoever about giving him the admin tools. Kamryn Matika 01:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Oppose Sure, CloudNine will make a good admin, but if it's unanimous, it'll just go straight to his head. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You put it under the Support section. :) NSR77 TC 17:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that was intentional! :-) WjBscribe 21:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. Looks fine. WjBscribe 21:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Last AfD vote was on May 29, yet the candidate says they wish to close XfD discussions. Also, the last CSD warning was almost 2 weeks ago. These two factors combined mean that I am unsure of this user's capabilities in those areas, and thus oppose. G1ggy Talk/Contribs 01:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC) Peer pressure.... G1ggy Talk/Contribs 10:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What major thing has changed in one month and two weeks, that would make you think CloudNine still doesn't know how to handle xFDs and CSDs? --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 02:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's !votes like these that assure me that RfA is broken. Adminship should be no big deal. Sean William @ 04:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, see, when I saw that, I thought 'he motioned to speedily delete something that shouldn't have been deleted' or 'he voted keep in an AfD that was obviously going towards delete'... something that would imply he doesn't understand deletion policy... but no? He did the right thing? ... Yes, I can see the problem there. ;) Seriously G1ggy - there are admins who don't go near AfD (like moi) - does that make me a bad admin? (Actually... don't answer that!) Riana ⁂ 05:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What change in XFD and CSD means I wouldn't be able to close discussions? CloudNine 06:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my, two weeks! Hmm, that reminds me, I haven't done any of that either in a while, so I must have forgotten it all. Whoopsie. *Goes to be desysopped* Majorly (talk) 07:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral at Present You state that you opposed the move of Pixies to "Pixies band" as there was no consensus. However you have been heavily involved with this article, and I wonder if WP:OWN applies. Everything else looks great, but I would like to know why you feel that "Pixies band" is unacceptable to you when it, well, is a band and not a bunch of imaginary small people at the bottom of the garden (etc.). Of course there is no requirement to answer and I wish you well in your RfA. Switched to support Pedro |  Chat  20:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Pixies (band)", I felt, was unnecessary in terms of disambiguation; the fact was (and still is) that nothing else is referred to by "Pixies" other than the band. Someone looking for Pixie (and typing in Pixies) would see a dablink at the top of the article, which I felt was a suitable compromise. I do understand your concerns, but I felt that many (if not most) people typing in 'Pixies' would wish to view the band's article, and those wanting to read the Pixie article would type in Pixie (or realise quickly that the article was located there). CloudNine 20:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

#Neutral pending a reply to my question. --Haemo 04:13, 18 June 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.
Category