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

Ttonyb1[edit]

Final (15/5/9); ended 01:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC); originaly scheduled to end 01:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination[edit]

Ttonyb1 (talk · contribs) – I am very proud to present to the community Ttonyb1. There are a few editors I look up to with my own editing and Ttonyb1 is one of them. He has over 82,000 edits and only 31% are automated and he has been a consistent editor since November 2008 with around ~1500 edits/month (highly active). If ever there was an editor that does new page patrol the right way, it's him. Ttonyb1 is one of Wikipedia's best speedy delete taggers. As a very controversial and under supervised area of work, Ttonyb1 has shown clear understanding of the policy and properly applies A1, A7, G1, and G2. However, Ttonyb1 is unique from most CSD taggers. He understands NPP isnt just about deleting the occasional "Sally is hot" articles. He can be seen frequently copyediting new articles and fixing references. He also frequently reports to the admin noticeboards. He has clear understanding of the username policy and is consistently seen removing copyrighted material. He is very familiar with deletion policy and kept a cool head when faced with an onslaught of IP !voters in an AFD who had little rationale other than WP:GHITS and WP:ILIKEIT. He also can spot a duck from a mile away. For me, Ttonyb1 is one of those 'I thought you were an admin' editors. Giving Ttonyb1 the tools is just a win-win for Wikipedia. v/r - TP 17:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I am honored to be nominated and thank TParis for his faith in my abilities. Thank you all that will contribute to this nomination and I look forward to whatever results the community decides are appropriate. Thank you to all that have voiced your support, opposition, and neutral comments. I appreciate all that contributed to the RfA. Given the comments, I have decided to withdraw my nomination. My best to all... ttonyb (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: As a NPP my experience has been mostly with new articles and the processes associated with new articles. As such I will probably spend my time working on tasks related to the generation of new articles. I assume this would include reviewing proposed CSD nominations, sockpuppet concerns, and AFD closures. In addition, I would like to start working on AIV and UAA issues. I presume that after working on these areas for a while I will find a niche that will include some of these areas or others.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I cannot point to one or two articles that I would consider my best contribution to Wikipedia. My goal in editing has always been to improve the quality of the project. I have edited existing articles, created a few, and as a NPP, nominated articles for deletion – but the bottom line has been to improve the quality of the project. I also believe it is important that Wikipedia is an environment where it is easy for new users to create articles, regardless of the number of less than appropriate new creations. There has been a movement to restrict new article creation to confirmed users, I am opposed to this restriction. This restriction might make it easier on NPPs, but might also discourage the creation of those first attempt gems (polished or in the rough) that one sees as a NPP.
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 cannot think of any situations that have created any stress for me. There have been times when I have revisited my prior edits to ensure the appropriateness of my actions, but I would hardly categorize that as stress. As an account creator I have not experienced any stress simply because I take my time when creating pending accounts. Recently, I dealt with a difficult editor (and sockpuppets) when reviewing the article Steve Comisar. The article was originally created as an unencyclopedic article with copyright and sourcing issues. I AfD'd the article, but with the help of another editor we were able to rewrite it and add supporting references. This resulted in my withdrawal of the AfD nomination. The original author of the article did not like the new version of the article and created socks to edit the article. In addition, the author claimed I created a “hit piece”, that I was harassing him, I was part of a organized effort to defame the subject of the article, and a few other interesting things. In spite of the editor's comments, I did not stress about this article, the editor, or the accusations. All one can do in these instances is try to explain what Wikipedia is about and offer help and guidance.
Additional question from Mtking
4. As I can not see deleted edits, can you please explain this addition to your talk page and the deletion of Lennert van Dessel at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lennert van Dessel ? Did you create the article ?
A: I did not create the article and at the time I received the note on my talk page, I remember I was a bit perplexed as well. When I when to the article it was already deleted. I assume I tagged it with a maintenance tag of some sort. An Admin would have to reinstate the history for me to comment further. Sorry I cannot be more specific.
Note: Just so the candidate has a fair chance to answer this question, I've moved the history to User:Courcelles/Lennert van Dessel for however long it's needed. Move/redelete/trout me, as necessary. Courcelles 01:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, it appears I removed the comment, "Described by his peers as "a brilliant, albeit disturbed astrophysicist with extraordinary ideas". I marked it as fluff as it was unsupported and bordering on attack. ttonyb (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from TCO
5. In at least one structured paragraph please name the article where you have added the most referenced content and describe the extent and nature of the additions (in content, format, etc.). P.s. I appreciated the heartfelt nom from TP. Thanks in advance for the little bit of work to answer this question...it's not just the info I learn but how you answer that concerns me!
A: Could I get a bit of clarification?
  • What do you mean by "structured paragraph"? Are you asking for at least a paragraph of text associated with the answer or is there something I am missing?
  • When you ask for the "extent and nature of the additions," are you asking for my reasoning for the addition and format? Are you asking for an analysis of each edit/addition or just an overall analysis?
  • Your statement, "but how you answer that concerns (emphasis added) me," implies you have concerns about how I have answered prior questions? If so, would you like to discuss those specific concerns or is this just a heads up that you will be reviewing the comment beyond the specific content. ttonyb (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(1) Yes an organized paragraph of text (nothing super fancy, just want to see how you structure a response). (2) Just an overall analysis. (3) I didn't have any previous experience of your communications.TCO (talk) 10:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from MC10
6. When is it appropriate to use CSD G1 (as opposed to using a different CSD criteria or not even tagging a page with CSD)?
A: G1-Patent nonsense is used where the article lacks an actual meaning or consists entirely of incoherent text. (i.e., "ASDFGH" or "gfamdsmerv") This is different from hoaxes, misinformation or vandalism. (i.e., "My mother is from Mars" or a long dissertation about the moon being made of wool spun by drones made in California) It can be used in the mainspace, but not sandbox or user name spaces. It should not be used for foreign language content (assuming it coherent) - foreign language content should be marked with the appropriate maintenance tag or translated by the bilingual user. ttonyb (talk) 04:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from Samir
7. Please list the articles to which you have substantively added content. -- Samir 07:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A:
Additional question from BonesTrend
8. What is your stance on blocking an account for the first time as "vanadalism-only"? Would you AGF and unblock such an account if a request is made? Many new users don't know the rules and are often blocked due to a low level of tolerance. BonesTrend (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A:

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support as nom--v/r - TP 01:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Definitely.(Move to neutral) You seem a well seasoned editor, the nominators statement outlines the editors contributions well and your answers to the questions are very good. Unless I've missed something untoward, I'm quite confident this will pass with flying colours. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 01:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support Following on from the answer to Q4, have no problems supporting. Mtking (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. With well over 2 years of editing, I don't see why not. –BuickCenturyDriver 02:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 03:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support No worries from me. 1 wrong speedy's nothing to go crazy over. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 1:48pm • 03:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Support You shall make a great addition to the already stellar list of admins. L'etats C'est Moi (I Am The State) (talk) 04:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Support - No worries, Tony's contribs to new page tagging will be of even greater benefit as an admin. Best, Mifter (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Support. I've seen Ttonyb1 around NPP many times, and I've seen nothing but good stuff -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Support - I see no serious problems. James500 (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Weakest possible support - Candidate is light on content contribution particularly article creation (10 new articles; 200 redirects); and there are some CSD mistagging issues and judgement concerns. That said, however, the candidate has been highly active since the end of 2008, >80,000 edits, a sound anti-vandalism portfolio, and most speedy deletion tags have been deleted. So the scale (barely) tips in favor of support.--Hokeman (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. I admit that I have seen some of the issues raised below, but I don't think that they occur frequently enough in Ttonyb1's 80,000+ edits to be a major issue. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Support - Good in many areas, including new page patrol. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Support Good luck! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Support – Excellent work with NPP, and the opposers' rationales are not concerning. —mc10 (t/c) 19:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Support – The excellent work far outweighs the error. I think he is capable of being a fine admin. Cind.amuse 20:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose Unfortunately, I cannot support this user for adminship at this time due to CSD tagging concerns. Some weeks ago, he tagged the article Diann Blakely for speedy deletion under the A7 criterion. It looked like this before tagging, where it clearly established the subject's significance/importance through the awards stated for her various anthologies and through her fellowship at a writer's conference. A7 is only for no claims of importance/significance, and Ttonyb1 clearly does not understand this. Sorry for being nit-picky, as I really appreciate his efforts with NPP, but I really do feel that Ttonyb1 is too trigger-happy with his speedy deletion tags and could turn new users away from the encyclopedia through unjustified deletions, at the most extreme level. Logan Talk Contributions 01:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Is 1 speedy delete tag really worth an oppose? I wouldn't say anything if you had a pile of them, but we all make small mistakes do we not?--v/r - TP 01:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I wouldn't call that a "small mistake." It was after he had already edited the article, so it wasn't a false alarm, per sé. He clearly thought that an article that established importance/significance warranted the A7 criterion. Logan Talk Contributions 01:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    With the huge number of edits this candidate has made, picking on an isolated, even fairly recent, possible mistagging, is being picky. Even admins make mistakes, but errors need to be of such a high frequency that they reveal a distinct trend in carelessness. TtonyB1's work does not demonstrate such a trait. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose. Ttonyb1 has a poor attitude and little history of actually writing and expanding articles. I agree with the opposer above that he has a tendency to be a bit trigger-happy, but really - some contribution to the project outside of the bureaucracy would be a good start. Rebecca (talk) 08:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Can you expand on the 'poor attitude ' - Diffs perhaps? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yeah, this is something that can influence votes other than your own (including mine). If you can provide diffs, I would request that you do so. Swarm X 17:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Low demonstrated Wiki-article writing experience. Didn't even start to answer my question either. (Even if one disagrees that content is important, or is worried that the answer will not look good, just answer the question!)TCO (talk) 10:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Your original question is confusing. Asking for clarification is a normal course of action. (You may help your case by dropping this holier then thou attitude) --Guerillero | My Talk 15:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You're probably right, will work on my tone and clarity. Of course, my faults don't excuse the candidate. Am still concerned by the lack of any answer to give us needed info (half a loaf is better than none), instead questioning the questioner and looking for hidden tricks (weren't any). He hasn't answered question 7 either, which is a very direct, simple request for info on his content contributions. But he has had time to discuss things further in the non-support votes.TCO (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    From my experience with this editor and especially with this RfA, the candidate likes to take his time to fully understand a situation and explain it carefully. As you can see, the different in dates between when I wrote the nomination and when it was transcluded. The candidate wanted to ensure his answers were well through out and thorough. I honestly doubt he intended to slight you in anyway. He just isnt prone to off-the-cuff answers.--v/r - TP 17:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Fair enough. And very well stated. (I meant it when I said, I liked your intro for him as well...somehow got a good feeling from it. Maybe you should be an admin!)TCO (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Strong oppose - Very recent violation of WP:NLT for which he was blocked by an arb. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry! You aren't the person I was thinking of! Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Of the articles you've created, most are stubs or sub-stubs. One bio has only one reference and the article is actually longer than the actual reference (which is an obituary). May reconsider if you can point to quality content work. And per NW in the neutral section below. -Atmoz (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Does copyediting count as quality content work? Ttonyb1 is a very frequent copyeditor and I feel that copyediting is just as important as writing the content itself. As linked in my nomination, he can be seen adding references, fixing spelling mistakes, editing for neutrality, and wikifying articles.--v/r - TP 18:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    To be fair, he didn't actually create that article. NW (Talk) 21:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. I hate tagging my comments, but in this instance, I must strong oppose your nomination. I don't do a lot of article creation work myself, and I feel that while a desirable characteristic in an administrator, is not essential. Civil and reasonable interaction with users is essential, and when I asked for you to demonstrate evidence that you've corrected the sorts of issues I've already seen with biting newcomers, you actually linked me to more evidence that this sort of behavior has continued. Comments like "Do you really wish to be banned? What is it you do not understand about not being able to use copyrighted material in Wikipedia?" is unacceptable. Obeying copyright is essential on Wikipedia, but linking a new user to a massive policy is at times unhelpful. Based on the discussions I have reviewed of your interactions with other new users, I feel you may be heavy handed as an administrator in terms of dealing with these sorts of users, and for this reason must oppose. Sorry. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral; editor systematically conflates WP:CSD A7 and WP:N. jorgenev 01:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    May I ask if you have a diff to support that? —James (Talk • Contribs) • 2:20pm • 04:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Its hardly something a single diff could demonstrate, I will however point to the significant number of his A7 tags that a declined in favor of AfD as evidence. jorgenev 04:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. In this sequence, he edit warred with a user who was bringing up a BLP matter (see AJH's explanation here). Here, they edit warred with a new user while "trying to explain via edit summaries"—there was no indication that the user had any idea what was going on; all he saw that his image was being removed. Tony made no effort to truly discuss with him either on his user talk page or the article talk page.

    While a few isolated instances are acceptable, these are only two non-easily resolvable matter that Ttonyb1 has brought to the administrators' noticeboards. The rest have almost exclusively been straightforward legal threats, sockpuppetry, or similar, and I think that Ttonyb1 would be fine acting as an administrator in those cases. I worry that we might have an issue in non-straightforward matters.

    Will consider more, might change to support or oppose later. Please feel free to "badger" if you wish. NW (Talk) 04:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    You are right, there is no such thing as over communication with other editors, particularly in adverse situations. I should not have relied solely on the edit summaries to communicate. Probably as much an etiquette issue as much as a procedure issue. ttonyb (talk) 05:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    NW, since when are single/double reverts considered edit warring? The sequence you have shown us includes an edit by a separate user reverting your first link. The second link is Ttonyb1 reporting someone else to the 3RR board. Looking at the article history, while Ttonyb1 is frequently removing/reverting content, he only reverts Jack11111 twice. Jack11111 is reverted by other editors involved in maintaining that article. I wouldn't call any of this edit warring. I understand how certain situations that 1RR or 2RR or gaming the system may apply, but I don't see that here.--v/r - TP 13:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Edit warring doesn't mean 3RR. If user X adds something, user Y removes it, and user X re-adds it without substantial discussion or consensus, that's the start of edit warring. Granted, user Y may choose to forget about it and not revert user X again, but I think edit warring is anything past BRD. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (Move from support, but leaning support) (Move to oppose). I am extremely torn here. Largely by comments made by NuclearWarfare, partly by comments by NuclearWarfare in regards to interaction with new users. While I see you have a large amount of contributions and have done a lot of good work, as someone who is active in both aiding new users in understanding our processes, and one that works in the dispute resolution process, the above links are concerning to me. Even if someone's edits are wrong and against policy, unless pure vandalism, discussion should always occur. Even in cases of vandalism, talk page notification should occur, but instances like the image removal above, you should have discussed the issue on their talk page, and help them to understand why the image was removed. Some people are unfamiliar with how our internal processes work, and sometimes this needs to be explained. I'm sure this is a bit of an issue for most of us, while enforcing our policies when necessary is important, it's also very important you explain to those affected as to why. I'd be prepared to support if you could demonstrate some recent activity that demonstrates you've corrected this sort of behaviour, while undoing someone's edits, also giving them proper explanation and reasoning as to why. Otherwise my comments will stay here. While I don't see it enough to oppose, I can't support on it either. Feel free to ask me questions on this. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 05:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    SZ, thanks for the comments. First of all, I agree that communication via edit summaries is inadequate for contentious situations and for that I have no excuse. The other situation (GregTseng) I walked into and because of the contentious nature of the editing I felt it would be better to try to get a cooling off period put in place. Perhaps a wrong decision, but one I thought at the time was a good one.
    I have worked with a number of new editors in the past month and have tried to resolve issues by communication rather than jumping straight to Admin intervention. You might want to take a look at Steve Comisar talk page [1] and the associated discussion on my talk page and User talk:SpartacusXXX. In addition, my interaction with User_talk:Erkman27 in User_talk:Erkman27#Billy_.27Silver_Dollar.27_Baxter, User_talk:Erkman27#May_2011, and the further conversation on my talk page might provide more insight - for better or worse.
    Here is a discussion with an individual that causes a number of issues one of the recent years articles [2]. You may want to review my interaction with this user, although not a new user, I believe it is representative of my communication with others. Thanks... ttonyb (talk) 06:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If you could provide direct links to the discussions on the article talk and your talk pages I'd appreciate it. Having a little bit of an issue finding the user talk discussions. Cheers. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 07:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I thought I did? Which are you having issues with? ttonyb (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Neutral for now. I have some concerns about lack of article-creation experience, and an over-tendency to deletion, with several AFD nominations that appear to lack sufficient prior investigation, although the majority look fine.--Michig (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would be curious which you would categorize as lacking, "sufficient prior investigation?" Would it be possible to find out the percentage of unsuccessful AfD's to successful and "non-concensus"? ttonyb (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I haven't exhaustively examined all of your AFD nominations, but as examples, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brother (UK band), for which plenty of sources existed (and a couple from The Guardian and the NME were even cited at the time it was taken to AFD), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Butler, for which other editors were able to find plenty of sources. By the way, why did you ask this question and then remove it?--Michig (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks, I am not sure why my comment was removed. That was not my intent. ttonyb (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Granted the Sarah Butler article was questionable and I do not recall what pushed me to nominate it. The Brother (UK band) had a couple of references, one was the NME blog that stated, "NME.COM blogs contain the opinions of the individual writer and not necessarily those of NME magazine or NME.COM". Because of the common name I was having difficultly finding refs. ttonyb (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The other was a substantial article from The Guardian. Granted, searching for a band named 'Brother' is problematic, but that's all the more reason not to jump to conclusions about notability based on a quick Google search.--Michig (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In reply to Ttonyb1's question "Would it be possible to find out the percentage of unsuccessful AfD's", the closest thing I know of is SW's tool. It's a little slow to load, but has some useful stats. 28bytes (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. neutral some aspects looked good, such as use of move. However no images have been uploaded to en.wikipedia. This means there is little experience with fair use. However I did find a couple of uploads on commons. I also had a check of contributions, he speedy delete nominations have almost all been deleted. Some prods have survived. And there is some vandalism reversion tagging, and some actual constructive work with references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Neutral. Lacking content contribution. Some questionable deletion tags. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. The lack of content and and that A7 screw up is a kicker but I have yet to see a real reason to say no. --Guerillero | My Talk 15:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Neutral – with caveat - user seems pretty much experienced in the area they want to contribute - few minor issues/feedback to take on board from the comments and moving forward a take it steady approach with the tools and if the user will state a willingness to be open to community recall I will move to support. Off2riorob (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Neutral. I see Tonyb's work often enough, and I don't recall ever having difficulties with their nominations, but I like admins who also create content. I've looked through all ten of their creations (well, nine and a half, I guess, per comment by NW above), and in my opinion that's not enough. I like an admin with a broader grasp of WP than just the area they wish the tools for. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Neutral While I think Ttonyb1 has done alot of good work, and means well, I cannot support Adminship at this time due to the recent questionable CSD tagging, (A7 on articles that clearly indicate basis for importance, but are iffy on full notability) and a bout of edit warring a little over a month ago at EXBii (resolved without anyone getting a block) Monty845 00:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[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