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

28bytes[edit]

Final (135/3/2); ended 00:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC) Maxim(talk) 00:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

28bytes (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – Hello, everyone. I've seen some of the comments about WP:CHU backlogs posted at WT:RFA and elsewhere, and, quite simply, I'd like to help out. Since becoming an admin last year (RfA here), I have blocked a few accounts due to username violations, but my areas of focus as an admin and editor have largely been in areas other than username issues. I have, however, taken the time to study the relevant policies, am a very quick study, and will be happy to answer any questions you may have to test my knowledge or judgment on username issues (or any other issues regarding the 'crat buttons.) Two areas relevant to the bureaucrat buttons in which I have been active are bot work and RfAs. I have a very well-behaved bot (User:28bot) which performs cleanup work and a couple of other maintenance tasks, so I have some familiarity with the bot approval process. I'm also a regular participant in RfAs, offering what I hope are relevant questions to the candidates, as well as polite and helpful feedback whenever I find myself in the "oppose" column. As hostile as RfAs (and RfBs) can sometimes be, I recognize that the role of a bureaucrat is not to act as a reformer, but to simply gauge the consensus (or lack thereof) among an RfA's participants and act according to their collective wishes. If given the chance to serve as a bureaucrat, I will take the responsibility very seriously. I'm very cognizant of the fact that the WP:BOLDness one shows when creating and improving articles is something that must be set aside when acting as a bureaucrat. Thank you. 28bytes (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
A: Yes. Unlike many consensus-driven processes on Wikipedia, RfAs and RfBs have developed relatively hard numeric boundaries, outside of which it is extremely unusual to see an "unexpected" result. In the case of RfAs, candidates with a support level of 80% or higher are almost always promoted, and candidacies with a support level of 70% or lower are almost always deemed unsuccessful. With RfBs, the thresholds are 90% and 80% respectively. The discretionary area between those two thresholds is where bureaucrats must "earn their pay". There are a variety of things that must be considered for candidacies in the "grey area": how serious are the concerns in the oppose section? Are the concerns addressed or rebutted in any way by the supporters? Did the candidacy start off with strong support but continually decline as more diffs of poor behavior or judgment are presented? If the latter, have the supporters re-affirmed their support, or withdrawn it?
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A: The key thing to do, in my view, is to carefully lay out the case for the decision that's being made. Most editors are quite reasonable, and will be willing to listen if you can offer a well thought out rationale for why a close call went one way or another. While making the decision might take some time (and may require consultation with other, more experienced 'crats), explaining the decision should not be delayed at all. Much (but certainly not all) frustration and discontent from a close call can be prevented by proactively laying out the case and not making editors guess or have to play detective to understand why the call was made the way it was.
3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
A: On this question, I will let my talk page archives speak for me. If you come to my talk page with a question, concern or complaint, you will find that I will take your concerns seriously, explain my position to the best of my ability, and treat you with respect even if you disagree with something I've done. Like any editor, I have made mistakes, and lost my cool once or twice, but I believe if you look through my talk page archives, you will find overall a knowledgeable, helpful editor who is willing to engage his fellow editors, and treat them with fairness and respect.
Additional question from jc37
4. Please link to a few closures you have performed that you are personally happy about/satisfied with/proud of (you get the idea, I hope). And explain each and why you picked each. Then also do the same with a few clearly heavily contentious discussions which you have closed. What I'm particularly looking for in these two groups of examples is a "showcase" of sorts of you determining consensus. (Feel free to take your time with this question, or even to ignore it if you prefer. I'm slowly going through contribs atm.) - jc37 01:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A: Will take a few minutes, but will do. 28bytes (talk) 02:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The big one, of course, was the Yogurt/Yoghurt battle. This had been a long-running naming dispute with multiple move requests, AN/I threads, an entry in WP:LAME... you get the picture. I took a very long time to read and consider the arguments presented, and eventually determined that the consensus was to move the page back to its original title, but for a different reason than what was presented in the move request itself.
Now, with such a long-running dispute it's usually not possible to make everyone happy, but I believe the close was a solid one. I expected to get some dissent on my talk page along with some praise, and I did: User:Pmanderson requested that I re-consider my close, and the response I offered him is the type of response I always try to offer: I acknowledged his legitimate concerns, and offered a more detailed explanation of the closing rationale.
Just above that section in the talk page archive, you can see some editors who objected to another close of mine; one editor thought the close did not go far enough, another thought it went too far. I did slightly amend the closing statement to address the concerns of the former; to the latter, I offered a more detailed explanation of my rationale for the close.
For completeness' sake, here is the one close I performed that was taken to deletion review: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Parsons in a Winter Wonderland. The editor who objected to the close (and his position was reasonable) discussed it with me on my talk page, but we could not come to an agreement there, so I suggested deletion review.
I chose those three examples as those were the main ones I could think of where my close was questioned, so that you can see how I deal with having my closes questioned. In the vast majority of cases, of course, my closes go uncommented upon, which is probably true for most admins. (I thought I might get some complaints for deleting "Bennifer", for example, but so far I haven't.) 28bytes (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Wifione Message
5. Thanks for the offer to become a bureaucrat. Kindly give a few examples, if at all, where a bureaucrat can close an RfA discussion against visible consensus.
A: The short answer is that they shouldn't do that, ever. There are a few caveats, of course: what one reasonable person considers visible consensus could easily be viewed as "no consensus" by another reasonable person, so it's certainly possible, even likely, to close against someone's idea of visible consensus, especially when it's in the discretionary zone. If I stretch my mind I can think of some extreme scenarios (for instance, right before an RfA with 95% support is set to close, someone emails a 'crat convincing evidence that the candidate is a sock of a banned editor), but even then, simply closing as "not successful" against (visible) consensus without publicly disclosing the existence of the allegation is not the right way to handle such a situation. 28bytes (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Callanecc
6. I believe that one of the problems facing bureaucratship is that once appointed crats slacken off as they have reached a pinacle of the Wikipedia career (which I know, is somewhat of an exaggerated statement, however about half the appointed crats used their tools in the last 6 months).
So my question is this, how much time would be be willing to devote to doing bureaucrat tasks (for example, per week or month)?
A: My intention is to spend at least an hour every day or two helping out with WP:CHU. The other tasks are a little harder to predict (we're having a really good run of RfAs at the moment, but sometimes there'll be nothing to close for weeks at a time), but I'm certainly willing to put time into those tasks as well. 28bytes (talk) 05:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. What is your long-term time frame for continuing to contribute to Wikipedia (that is, are you only planning to edit for another 6 months)?
A: I have no plans to stop contributing. Quite the opposite; I have a giant to-do list of things I want to accomplish while I'm here. I got my first GA just a couple of months ago; there are several other articles I've written that I'd love to improve to GA or even FA status this year or next. (And I'd love to get on this list as well.) Granted, all of these goals are orthogonal to 'crat work, but I mention them merely to illustrate that I have a great deal more that I want to contribute here. 28bytes (talk) 05:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Questions from User:Ched Davis
8. First my apologies for doing this - because I do consider you "one of the best". My question: You are asked to deal with a BLP issue where the community is roughly divided 50/50 on whether there should be an article. The subject has expressed a desire to not have the article. There are some reliable source which claim some derogatory information about the subject. How do you respond? — Ched :  ?  06:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A: Well, that's a tough one, and there's no "one size fits all" answer. Keeping in mind that bureaucrats have no greater authority to close deletion discussions than anyone else, much of it will depend upon the strength of the arguments presented. However, if both sides make persuasive arguments and it truly is a "no consensus" situation, the wrinkle, of course, is that a "no consensus" result in the case you describe is treated a little differently from the normal "default-to-keep" practice. According to our deletion policy, Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete. The question then turns to whether (and to what degree) the article subject is a public figure. 28bytes (talk) 07:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Beeblebrox
9. Since you have expressed an interest in CHU, here are some hypotheticals. Please indicate how you would respond to each one:
  • A user currently has a perfectly acceptable username, but wishes to change it to "Nipples37"
A: I'm at an advantage here in that there has already been a discussion about that specific username, and the clear consensus was that the username wasn't problematic. Not unanimous consensus, but clear nonetheless. Since community consensus appears to be that the name is fine, I'd grant the request. 28bytes (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A user has been warned that their username "Bob's House of Tires" is overly promotional. They wish to change it to "TireBob"
A: The names are similar, but I think there's a subtle difference between what appears to be a business, and what appears to be a person's name, so I would grant the request. It's important (for attribution reasons, etc.) that an account be tied to a person rather than a group or business, but we shouldn't go overboard and insist that all traces of a person's association with a business be removed from the username, as that just serves to conceal a potential conflict of interest. (In granting the request, I would likely add a friendly reminder that they should review WP:COI, WP:AUTO and WP:NPOV, and understand that regardless of their username, promotional editing will likely lead to a block.) 28bytes (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A user with a grossly offensive "block on sight" username has just been unblocked for 24 hours so that they may request a username change. In their unblock request they said that new name would be "monkeyman24" but instead they are requesting to be renamed "monkeyspanker69"
A: Well, that seems like a bad faith request on its face, as the username requested is obviously more provocative than what they offered to do in the unblock request. I would likely decline the request. If they immediately requested a more innocuous username, I would grant that request but keep an eye on their edits for a bit to see if the first rename request was just a momentary lapse in judgment or if they were here simply to troll. 28bytes (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Keepscases
10. Please click on Random Article, then come back and explain how the subject of that article has most influenced your life.
A: Heh, that sounds familiar. :) At the risk of sounding ignorant, I will confess that I have not even heard of the first four article subjects I landed on: Campina Grande do Sul, Paraná, Yousef Munayyer, Gerald Oshita and NPR2. As best I can deduce from the article, NPR2 apparently plays some biological role, so to the degree it's kept me alive and healthy, I'm happy to thank it for its work. 28bytes (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Nikkimaria
11. Given an RfA in the discretionary range, all else being equal, how would you close if most or all of the oppose !votes were based on...
a) lack of content contributions
b) refusal to publicly disclose previous account(s) in a clean-start situation
c) the candidate's answer to a question on which policy is absent or ambiguous (an example would be the "open to recall" question)
A: Excellent question. I personally think all three are quite valid reasons for an oppose, but more importantly, I believe there is a considerable portion of the community who considers these to be valid reasons to oppose. Although it's impossible to do so with scientific accuracy, I believe a 'crat should be striving to weigh votes in accordance with how the community would weigh them. I've personally opposed more candidacies on the basis of "a" than "b" or "c" (many WP:NOTNOW candidacies, for example, have a lot to do with the fact that the candidate has little or no content contributions), but if forced to rank the opposes in terms of weight, I would have to put "b" first and "c" second, for the simple reason that candidates who are viewed to be withholding vital information about their account history from the community tend to end up before the arbitration committee. (Certainly the recent ArbCom case has underscored how unwise it would be to take lightly concerns about a candidate's lack of disclosure in an RfA.) 28bytes (talk) 06:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Yes, please. I have enormous respect for 28's judgement, maturity, care, and attitude. --Floquenstein's monster (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think you'll do well. :) 89119 (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Absolutely, I've long been impressed with 28bytes. We also have a known lack of crats working at WP:CHU. 28bytes is perfect for the job. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I am happy seeing this nomination and support 28bytes without equivocation. 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Although I have not seen him in user renaming, he runs his own bot and would suite that purpose well. In addition to Floq's comment above (#1), he has never given me wrong advice as my primary mentor.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support No concerns, great candidate. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strongest Support. What counts most in a crat is integrity. He's also calm, levelheaded, and never forgets there are real people behind our usernames.PumpkinSky talk 01:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Heck yes. Bravery in his actions, bravery for running.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Yes, you have my support. Best of luck. Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 01:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Yes, please. Not a concern in the world ;)  Br'erRabbit  01:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC) ← Street-Legal Sockpuppet. — Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I'm quite comfortable with him having a few extra tools, no worries at all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - My RfB standards are quite high, but 28bytes passes them. Most importantly I find the temperament ideal and I believe he has an even-handed nature. As Pumpkin Sky says, integrity is the key and I think 28bytes has it. Shadowjams (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Everything I've seen indicates an even temperament and generally clued-in nature. —Torchiest talkedits 02:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support A voice of reason. I put much trust in 28bytes' judgement. The Interior (Talk) 02:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support User seems to have a good grasp of the ideals of bureacratship. No problems here. Michael (talk) 04:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong support One of my favorite contributors on Wikipedia and quite capable to be a bureaucrat. Wifione Message 04:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  17. It would be very beneficial for Wikipedia to grant 28bytes the bureaucrat flag. In particular, WP:CHU could use the extra assistance. I definitely trust his judgement. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. 'Crats are paid? Focus, reason, and insight coupled with appropriate restraint. Glrx (talk) 04:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support I've seen this user around, and they do a very good job. No doubt they will be an awesome 'crat! —GFOLEY FOUR!— 04:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. It would be a yes for Yogurt alone ;-) Very sound judgment and understanding, and trustworthy. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support – has the experience, and the temperament. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support –- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 05:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  24. good people. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support trustworthy user. →Σσς. 05:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Great and trustworthy user. Would make a good 'crat. —Hahc21 06:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support An editor of intelligence with a sense of justice. He behaved honorably in my RfC, for example. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Experience, integrity, calm clear headed thinking, great knowledge, an excellent editing history; a truly fine candidate for bureaucrat - or anything else in the project for that matter. Dreadstar ☥ 06:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. I asked a damned tough question, and one that can be used to oppose 28. I don't really need an answer, because I know that no matter what - 28 will do the right thing. There's very few people that I trust on wiki - I can count them on one hand. Even when he doesn't agree with me, I value his opinion. There's not a doubt in my mind that 28 would never fail his duties (regardless of what they were) - so I have full faith in supporting this. — Ched :  ?  06:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Stephen 06:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  31. It's hard to believe that it's now been over a year since myself, Pedro, and HJ Mitchell nominated 28bytes for adminship. 28bytes is easily one of the best administrators around...I had no difficulty whatsoever in choosing to support this candidacy: he'll make an excellent bureaucrat. Acalamari 07:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Easy support. Sædontalk 08:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Initially I thought this was too early for bereaucratship, but as everyone knows how clueful and trustworthy the user is already, I think there's no reason why we can't give this editor these rights as well. Minima© (talk) 08:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Calm, even-handed and good answers to questions. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 08:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Short and precise in words, bold and just in action, most helpful, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, do not expect any problems--Ymblanter (talk) 09:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. On examination, everything looks perfect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Impressive admin work, trustworthy, and helpful. I can't see any reason to oppose. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Good sensible answers - Super-Mop please! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 10:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support I thought that he already was a bureaucrat, and based on what I've seen of his admin-ship, he should be. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Aren't you already a bureaucrat? Electric Catfish 11:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, could do well. -- Mentifisto 11:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support I see lots of good edits, and you seem to readily admit your mistakes. No obvious reason to oppose. Frood! Ohai What did I break now? 13:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, level-headed, trustworthy, will make a good 'crat. Nsk92 (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - Their answers to the questions are superb and I see no trouble in trusting this user with few extra bits. →TSU tp* 13:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  46. 'Support. Fully qualified candidate for this position, and has expressed willingess to help out with the 'crat task where help is the most needed. With respect, I don't find the opposers' concerns to be persuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support, of course. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. I've worked with 28bytes a few times, and from what I've seen he would make an excellent 'crat. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 16:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - great admin, will make a great 'crat. GiantSnowman 16:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Good admin, good answers to questions, well-suited for the role. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Great answers to the questions. Torreslfchero (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support with pleasure; an excellent candidate, sensible and helpful. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Sure. Seems like a reasonable chappie. --regentspark (comment) 19:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose If I can't have it nobody can! No seriously, Support per excellent answers to questions along with already being a great admin with a proven track record, although of course this also means you are "more boring" than me. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. I'm new here but 28bytes seems like an active and responsible user. DeMicheal (talk)
  56. Support. Can't see any problems, excellent answers to questions, and opposes are unconvincing. WikiPuppies! (bark) 20:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. It is really great to see such level-headed, thoughtful answers to the questions. I think 28bytes will do really well as a crat. Vertium When all is said and done 20:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. Qualified candidate. -- Lord Roem (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support - I would certainly trust 28bytes with the extra buttons. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. No Question. Agathoclea (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - A level-headed user with sound judgement and community trust. Impressive answers to questions. I think they would make a fine 'crat. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - without any reservation. --RexxS (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support -per all of the above. Montanabw(talk) 22:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  64. While his opening statement is brief, 28bytes' answers to the standard and other questions demonstrate the thoughtfulness and careful attitude required of a bureaucrat. I know of no other concerns about this candidate. AGK [•] 22:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support The candidate is a good decision maker and stays calm under pressure. Highly qualified -- Dianna (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Keepscases (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Who could oppose 28 bytes? I would trust him with my right testicle. It's not my favourite testicle, but it's still one of my testicles! Egg Centric 01:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a wrong testicle? --Floquenstein's monster (talk) 01:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Morally speaking, both of them have (functionally speaking) have only done wrong. However, I was thinking geometrically, in which case it's definitely the left one that does the important stuff. I think. Egg Centric 01:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. The other crats could apparently use the help, and this guy seems sensible enough and then some to probably be of help. -— Isarra ༆ 02:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Well qualified. Hobit (talk) 04:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support His works at Wikipedia are very helpful. He has contributed to many articles. What now if he'll be contributing to the Wikipedia community? It'll be of great responsibility, but I'm sure that with his tools, he'll be able to gain public trust. Jedd Raynier wants to talk with you. 09:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  71. - filelakeshoe 11:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support 28bytes has a good track record of being fair, able to judge consensus correctly and staying calm, even under pressure. Add friendly and helpful to the mix and you got all the necessary requirements for a crat. I was happy to support 28bytes in his both RfAs and there is no reason for me to not support this request. I understand the concerns in oppose #2 and I share the opinion that he should not have unblocked Rlevse; not, because it wasn't the right decision - it was - but because it made it look to some users as if he did so because of his previous support of such an action. A reminder that WP:INVOLVED should be interpreted strictly is sufficient though; next time, just let another admin do it who was not previously involved. That way noone can doubt that the action was made based on neutral reasons. But a single occurrence like that doesn't mean that his judgment is generally faulty; we all make mistakes after all. :-) Regards SoWhy 11:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support - Though I want to echo SoWhy's comments. While I did/do think that the rlevse situation was becoming something of an unfortunate farce in several ways, I've never been a fan of an individual (often "rouge/rogue") admin short-circuiting (or bypassing) unblock/unban discussion by unilateral action. The main reason I find I need to support though is because, in my reading over the candidate's contribs, in most cases, they are willing to discuss admin actions, regardless of how obvious they feel the action was. And most closes, even back when doing non-admin ones, were decent and within the realm of discretion. A thoughful closer of discussions is a good thing. And per my criteria, I think I can feel comfortable that the candidate can indeed read for content. Oh, and also per beeblebrox : ) - jc37 13:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Likely to be net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Has been very level headed in some contentious situations I have seen him involved in. Would be a benefit to the project to see him in this position. -DJSasso (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Easy. An extremely clueful and competent candidate. Opposes are bizarre. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support, good candidate as shown above. Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. Experienced. Opposes are unconvincing. Mysterytrey talk 16:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support I have found the candidate to be a serious, sensible, and good-natured person. The quality of 28bytes' personal character and work is demonstrated by the way the user went from an unsuccessful RfA to a highly successful one in just ~6 months. Let's accept this offer to take on more thankless work -- I am confident that the added work will be done with commitment and care. --Orlady (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - If he wants to roll up his sleeves and help in this way, why not. Seems clued in. Ceoil (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. No concerns. (And although it may be impolitic to say so, serious props for any editor who can effectively moderate the extremes of much-ado-about-nothing edit warring, as evidenced at Yog(h)urt. Thank you, that work benefits the encyclopedia and its community.) --j⚛e deckertalk 17:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support - Fantastic admin who can certainly be trusted to act properly as a bureaucrat, and has the right skills and knowledge to not get things wrong. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support with no concern. KTC (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support with very high enthusiasm. I think that this candidate is perfectly suited to the role. I've had many interactions with them, and, without fail, they have impressed me with their cluefulness. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  85. —Kusma (t·c) 19:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. The frequent questioning of RfA candidates is disappointing. However 28bytes intends to work in an area that would benefit from more regular bureaucratic input, and he has the appropriate experience. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support Your RFA history shows you are far too nice and forgiving to be trusted with the bureaucrat bit. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Great candidate. – Connormah (talk) 04:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support great candidate, I add my support with no concerns. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 04:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  90. + Keegan (talk) 08:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support. Has shown a good approach to the issues at hand as an admin, and is ready for handling crat issues. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Strong support, although I share Someguy1221's concern. A good bureaucrat is expected to spend his free hours ripping the heads off small children and supping from the gelatinous fluids within, not making great edits like you do! Very disappointed :p. Ironholds (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Very trustworthy well-rounded contributor! Royalbroil 13:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support - Mato (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support - Seems level headed and capable of judging consensus fairly. AniMate 22:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support - 28bytes has shown many times that they're thoughtful, fair and thorough--Cailil talk 23:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support, every time I've seen 28bytes around, I've seen not only good judgment but a crystal clear explanation as to why he came to the conclusion he did. Reviewing contributions shows more of the same. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support—yup. Tony (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Yup. -Scottywong| chat _ 15:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support...no evidence extra tools and responsibilities will be misused.--MONGO 16:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support Good steady editor, good steady admin. Should be a good steady crat too. Peridon (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Yup. Candidate can't spell yoghurt properly, but apart from that he seems to be fit for the role.—S Marshall T/C 00:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support - Solid editor and admin, and I like the reply in oppose #2. Count me in. Jusdafax 01:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support - will it be a net benefit to the project? Yes. Do I have any concerns? No.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 08:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Oh yes, one of the most qualified candidates for this job. Cares about the community and its editors. Secret account 09:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Certainly I've looked into 28bytes in depth and I really can't see any problems. He's an excellent admin, has a knack for saying the right thing and getting stuff done. WormTT(talk) 10:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support no concerns. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 14:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support I think that you can do a good job...Modernist (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support Great work as an admin. —HueSatLum 14:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support - 28 is cool, calm, and collected (and great at determining consensus to boot). He'll make a wonderful 'crat! Keilana|Parlez ici 16:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  111. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 16:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support 28bytes is a find admin - if they would like to expand their role to include bureaucrat tasks I fully trust their ability.Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support The user plans to work in WP:CHU as per Q 6 where there is a requirement.User has been editing regularly since Aug 2010 and has been an admin since June 2011 and has been an excellent admin since and see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support Of course.Érico Wouters msg 21:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support My only real comments surround the unblock of Rlevse. While I agree totally that this unblock was out of process and controversial, it was a judgement call taken by a level-headed and thoughtful administrator. Process is important, but not so important that we can allow it to handicap us from making good judgement calls... and that is the very nature of what we expect out of a bureaucrat. 28bytes made a decision to unblock someone for the greater good of the encyclopedia. Whether or not it truly WAS in the best interest of the project, I leave to others to judge, but I see an admin that stepped forward and made a difficult call when others stood back twiddling their thumbs and waiting for someone else to take the initiative. A level head and guts... I can't think of any set of qualities the project needs more. Trusilver 00:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Only real concern is a relative lack of tenure, but other than that, fully qualified candidate. Courcelles 04:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support The Rlevse issue was perhaps a misstep, but that was a very difficult circumstance, and I don't regard the actions taken as irresponsible or unreasonable, despite not personally agreeing with them. Apart from that, an ideal candidate. Manning (talk) 10:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support . It's taken me a while to catch up on, and get my head round the Rlevse debacle. I have always admired 28's level-headed approach to all things meta, and I have no concerns whatsoever with him being a bureaucrat. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support While I would have preferred a different handling of Rlevse, it was mostly a timing issue, not a disagreement with the action. Perfection isn't the right hurdle, so my positive views of almost every action taken by the candidate leads me to support.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support - just what we need. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Oppose Support This candidate is great in the ways I checked except for a particular criteria which is important to me and the community for which I advocate - I do not find this user's userpage to be sufficiently inviting to other users. Bureaucrats are public figures on Wikipedia and when people explore the site there are many paths which lead to bureaucrat userpages. Since this is a service role the first duty is to meet the needs and expectations of other users, and whether it is reasonable for them to do so or not, I think that many users see bureaucrats as role models for community behavior. Because of this, I prefer people in such leadership roles to have a userpage which gives some information about what they do and what users may ask of them. Other points:
    1. This editor has been active since August 2010 and I evaluate this user's editing history as focused on admin-related tasks and much less on the development of any article content or field of content. What article contributions have been done are great and there are enough of them to prove that this user has maintained a sufficiently broad range of participation since becoming an admin to demonstrate continued connections with many aspects of Wikipedia. For this reason, I support this user's RfB.
    2. I appreciate the history of excellent admin work this user has done and their interest in doing work related to the role of bureaucrat. I support this user's RfB for that.
    3. The yogurt/yohgurt debate was an English Wikipedia tragedy that drove many good users to bad behavior and at the time I wondered if that might not destroy the entire Wikipedia project, but 28bytes somehow and with strong will sealed that controversy in such a way that satisfied all the participants/victims. For this reason, I support this user's RfB.
    4. I am grateful for this user's management of user:28bot but I am curious what this bot started doing this month as shown here; I would appreciate more documentation about dramatic changes in bot behavior and I see none on the talk page. I appreciate more documentation in general, actually. The good work that this user has done with this bot makes me support his RfB.
      Overall I oppose pending some change to the userpage. If there were a way to give this user bureaucrat tools without also flagging them as a public figure then I would, but I work with new users and as a representative advocating for the needs of that community I must oppose for now. New users need to see bureaucrat userpages as welcoming and directive. Thanks for submitting the RfB. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You're opposing (primarily) because you don't like his user page? Really? (/sighs/ you've done this before). Is it this: User:28bytes/banner4? Maybe that it's rather wide? You say it's not "sufficiently inviting", which is pretty subjective. It does say "Welcome to my user page!", which is "inviting". Meh. You only hurt yourself with such an oppose. Oh, the surge in userspace edits by the bot would seem to be simply logging information to it's own userspace. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I must admit I'm having trouble seeing the user page as an issue. No doubt the closing crat will make his own judgment.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Or her own judgment. 198.185.18.207 (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please respect my concern and the effort I took to express myself, but if you cannot do that then please try to be respectful of different viewpoints of other users. Wikipedia is a better place when conversations are constructive and comments which are dismissive of the sincerity of others are not helpful for anyone to read. I appreciate that I was unable to explain myself in a way that you can understand but I did the best I could and had good intentions. I am friendly and would respond if I knew what about my statement made it difficult for you to understand. My comment is important to me and all votes on any issue should be graciously accepted. Thank you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh, what is wrong on this oppose vote? Everyone has right to express themselves and this vote is a good point (telling someone that by voting like this you only hurt yourself, rather hurt yourself :P). Bureaucrats are public and their userpages are visible. Though I don't really see what's the problem in this case. The page is a bit overloaded with unneeded content and doesn't display some interesting information such as who is the user or what they do on wikipedia, but I think it's still good enough. Petrb (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Blue Rasberry. I'm not clear what you find objectionable about my userpage, but I am always open to suggestions. Feel free to stop by my talk page and we can discuss your concerns in more detail. 28bytes (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and regarding the bot: what appears to be new behavior this month actually isn't. It always logs a great deal of information about the edit tests it finds to log pages like this one. Once I have a chance to review the log files for each month, I delete the log files as they're no longer needed. (You can see in the link you provided that 28bot has a ton of deleted edits; that's what those are.) The current month will always have a giant yellow band in that report while the logging is active for that month. I hope this helps explain it. 28bytes (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? Crats are public figures? Nah, they should fly under the radar. Blue R, I think you're calling this one wrongly. Tony (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I make this assertion often enough and I get criticized for it often enough that I decided it was time to put my rationale on its own page. I stand by my opinion pending someone's provision of a convincing refutation of any of my premises. See User:Bluerasberry/userpagepolicy. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I change my vote because of this change. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support - I've interacted with 28 countless times on the project and I have every confidence that they'll be a great asset to our bureaucrat team. -- Atama頭 17:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support Baseball Watcher 00:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support, per Pumpkinsky. –BuickCenturyDriver 03:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Weak support per answer to my question. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 04:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  128. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support I have had nothing but pleasant interactions with this user and I believe he suited for the job.—cyberpower ChatTemporarily Online 12:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support Thought I !voted already. Clear support. Not a single thing I can gripe about this user.--v/r - TP 13:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support Also thought I !voted already. Good thing I realized in time, but I'm happy to support such a qualified candidate.--Slon02 (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support Like the two supporters above, I thought I already added my support. I don't see any issues. MJ94 (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support Fully able to help out with the extra bits. That you accepted an RFA nomination from one particularly undesirable and - frankly - borderline fruitcake editor does give me concern about your due diligence; however as you also accepted HJ's and Acalamari's nominations for adminship I guess you can't be too off your rocker. Best. Pedro :  Chat  20:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL, took me a second. I'm slow today. 28bytes (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support. Solid, thoughtful, prefers to avoid drama (or at least, prefers to avoid exacerbating it). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support I'm Always happy to support potential candidates. 28bytes has done an impressive work in many areas of the project including administration. They have made fine edits to the article mainspace, are a hardworking trusted member of the community and also a well respected admin. Great and frank answers given in every question above. They now wish to help in more areas of the project and by seeing their good track record, knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, varying experience and having a good judgement, they should become a Bureaucrat and help serve Wikipedia even better. Best of luck and Regards 28bytes! TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose due to his unilateral and out-of-process unblock of Rlevse/PumpkinSky. Skinwalker (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly is the problem with this unblock? From the block log[1] it appears that Rlevse's account was blocked in November 2010 under WP:RTV, and not because there was some sort of a prior block/ban/other sanction in place. WP:RTV specifically addresses the possibility of a vanished user returning to editing: If the user returns, the "vanishing" will likely be fully reversed, the old and new accounts will be linked, and any outstanding sanctions or restrictions will be resumed. This seems to be what happened here. The user returned, the old account is linked to the new one; since there were no prior outstanding blocks/bans/sanctions/editing restrictions/whatever before vanishing, the user was unblocked and allowed to resume editing. What's the problem with that? Nsk92 (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I'm not going to debate this at length, so this will be my only response on the matter. Your account of the situation is lacking in several crucial details, most likely through no fault of your own. Here are links to multiple community discussions of the Rlevse/Pumpkinsky/Barkingmoon problem:
    • [2] - Discussion of copyright violations.
    • [3] - First suspected sockpuppet of Rlevse.
    • [4] - Second suspected sockpuppet of Rlevse.
    • [5] Rlevse's return request - the outcome of which is best described as "no consensus".
    • [6] - 28bytes unilaterally unblocks Pumpkinsky after defending him throughout the aforementioned AN discussions.
    I'm sure I've missed some discussions, but these should give you a flavor of the acrimony surrounding the situation. A former arbitrator who proved to be a serial copyright violator and known sockpuppeteer was unblocked with no discussion with the blocking admin and with significant opposition from the community. It is not the job of a bureaucrat to substitute his or her opinion for the consensus of the community. Furthermore, it appears that 28bytes engaged in extensive off-wiki discussion and lobbying during the affair, which violates transparency - a fundamental aspect of Wikipedia. Because of his actions I do not trust his ability to evaluate consensus. Sorry. Skinwalker (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, OK, thanks. I was not aware of the above history, and will have to read through the links you provided. Nsk92 (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, Skinwalker has laid out a fair summary of the events, and is quite correct that the discussions were very acrimonous. I like to think that the acrimony has dissipated a bit now that Rlevse/PumpkinSky has clearly demonstrated that he's able to edit in full accordance with our policies, and of course it would have been impossible for him to demonstrate that while remaining blocked. If you have any questions on the chronology of things, or details about any of the events, I'll be happy to answer them on my talk page. 28bytes (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Skinwalker. I respect your opinion, but for the record I stand by that unblock 100%. It was my view that the block was no longer serving any useful purpose, and was indeed actively harming the encyclopedia by keeping a good-faith, productive user from contributing. A key question that should be looked at is what happened after the unblock: did the user go and cause trouble and get themselves blocked again? No, quite the opposite: they got to work creating and improving content, including writing a Featured Article that hit the main page just a short while ago. That tells me that the unblock (the rationale and unblock conditions for which I laid out here) was the right thing to do. (I wish all the editors I've unblocked would go write an FA instead of getting themselves blocked again in short order.) But again, I respect that not everyone will agree with my decision. 28bytes (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I was one of the many editors who worked on the copyvio allegations, wherein virtually EVERY edit made was reviewed, and the "serial copyright violator" complaint is clearly without merit; there was found to be, at most, a few close paraphrases on a few articles out of thousands and thousands of edits. All were remedied, and the user in question has since voluntarily agreed to have his work reviewed by others to watch for close paraphasing, and has returned to be a valuable contributor. 28 was a voice of sanity in the midst of a highly volatile situation and to me this amply demonstrates that 28 is precisely the sort of person we need in this position. Montanabw(talk) 22:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose He's been editing regularly for less than two years, and to me that doesn't seem enough time time to judge someone's suitability to be a bureaucrat. Epbr123 (talk) 08:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - The nom looks like a decent editor but they are also way too green man. Come back in two years please. Yaplunpe (talk) 08:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I didn't get the meaning of "way too green". TheSpecialUser TSU 09:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If I can chip in, I believe Yaplunpe saying that 28bytes is "way too green" means s/he is not ripe yet, if you will, as s/he is editing actively for only the last two years. It's kind of like a growing tomato, which is green if it isn't ripe yet. 89119 (talk) 12:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yaplunpe was blocked as a sockpuppet. Kcowolf (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm sorry, but I think there are TONS of other admins who are *way* more experienced. Sorry. --J (t) 01:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Linking an entire sentence to a redlink is even more awsome IF YOU USE CAPS LOCK AND EXTRA PUNCTUATION!!!!!!!!!!!! Beeblebrox (talk) 06:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That may be, but are those (purportedly) "more experienced" admins volunteering? I've been here way longer than most people, and I've never wanted to be a crat. The fact that 28bytes is willing to even take on this job counts for a lot in my book. Manning (talk) 10:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, they have. A number of people who have admins longer than 28bytes have volunteered for RfB (disclaimer: including myself) but were shot down for some reason or another. The problem is that the longer you are an admin, the more likely it is ta sufficient number of people have noticed you in a negative way for you to fail RfB. Considering this, running sooner rather than later is actually a smart move. Regards SoWhy 17:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Will you be nominating them, then? Maybe there are more experience admins; that doesn't take from 28bytes suitability for the role. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 13:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly: RfA/B isn't zero-sum, and one candidate being nominated doesn't in any way impair the chances of any other "more experienced" candidates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's only true in theory. Especially RfBs have often had opposes of the "we don't need more crats" kind, so any successful RfB might impair the chances of others - at least if a number of people decide to oppose based on that. On the other hand, this seems to have gone way down since 2010, so it might actually be correct nowadays. :-) Regards SoWhy 17:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
#Me for now. (And now I get to do some reading...) - jc37 00:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Moved to support - jc37 13:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Petrb (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. NeutralNot much edits for a crat and quite inactive for months in the beginning. TruPepitoM (talk) 11:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above 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