Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Soumyasch

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

Soumyasch

Final (53/10/4); Ended Fri, 06 Apr 2007 06:06:50 (UTC)

Soumyasch (talk · contribs) - I have been active in Wikipedia since January 2006, save for a 4-month or so break in the ending months of 2006. Since then, I have been actively involved with computing related articles (see my user page for a somewhat comprehensive list) — primarily computing related. I also invest a quite significant wiki time in stub sorting and RC patrolling. Before my break, I also was quite active in XfDs, but after returning, I am focussing mainly on article editing and vandal fighting. Also, I notice a significant number of articles that need to be speedy deleted as well as a huge number of articles and images that violate licenses and copyrights. I think given admin abilities, I can be of help dealing with such stuff that violates wikipedia policies. soum (0_o) 05:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Supplementary nomination: In my editor review, I wrote that Soumyasch is "an extremely intelligent, creative and dedicated contributor." He had a few struggles early in his wiki career, but he has improved tremendously and is ready to handle the new challenges of wielding the mop. YechielMan 15:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Well, I accept. :) --soum (0_o) 06:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: Please take a look at my editor review page also. --soum (0_o) 06:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?

A: The most significant things that I want to help with are

• CSDs, Proposed deletions and Copyvios.
• Requested moves.
• WP:AIV, specifically 3RRs and Conflict of interest and to a lesser extent ANI.

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

A: I think all contributions of all editors, minor or major irrespective, are significant in building wikipedia — and my edits are no exception to this. As such, I am hapyy with all my edits, as they have contributed to the respective articles. But still, as I have said elsewhere, I would pick Alizée, WinFS, Microsoft Office 2007 and Features new to Windows Vista/Technical features new to Windows Vista/Security and safety features new to Windows Vista (all three articles were initially together), closely followed by Virtual folder and BitVault.

P.S.: Please take a look at my answer at the editor review page also. --soum (0_o) 06:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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 had very isolated incidents of edit conflicts, because I primarily tend to discuss with the other user(s) at the first sign of differring opinions — using both the article talk page and/or user talk page. However, very early in my wiki days, I had one with User talk:Frits van Houten, but it was soon resolved, and we went on to collaborate on the article concerned.

P.S.: Please take a look at my answer at the editor review page also. --soum (0_o) 06:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

4. Additional question by Sn0wflake: In becoming an admin, do you intend to only use the tools that will be made avaliable to you to facilitate tasks you already perform to some degree or do you intend to eventually take part in more human admin tasks, such as the deletion proccess, mediation and user blocking? Please elaborate on your views regarding the processes I cited if possible.

5. Additional question from Ikiroid: Several editors have opposed your adminship request based on what they see as a lack of participation in admin-related actvities, such as WP:AFD, WP:AIV, and WP:RFP. Can you provide any diffs which demonstrate your knowledge of these processes and your ability to handle them if you are to become an administrator?

A: I feel there is some overlap between the two questions above. So, I am answering both of them together. If anyone has any problem, just let me know. I will answer again individually.

First of all, regarding what I wanna do on becoming an admin (IF I quaify) would be more to do with what I cannot do now. Reverting vandalism and warning miscreants, or putting up articles for deletion - I can do pretty well even now. What I cannot do now is to help with clearing the pile of pages tagged for deletion. So, yes, I will help with the deletion process - mainly articles marked for speedy deletions. And if I see pages that, to me are worthy of inclusion, I would rather get them through the process of consensus (AFD) rather than self judgement (Speedy). However, being an editor first, I would first try to make it salvagable before I decide its hopeless and delete it (that rules out certain conditions like attack, advertising products/services that does not meet notability etc).

Mediation. While I do not plan to follow WP:RFM I will indeed try to provide independent views on the (other than the in-dispute parties and the mediators) situations in case I see something important others seem to have missed - provided the topic they are sparring on falls under the purview of my expertise. Otherwise, I would prefer people more knowledgable than me handle the mediation.

Blocking and Page protection. I feel that both blocking and page protections go against the spirit of a wiki. Page Protection, in particular, hurts legitimate editors. As such, I will try to defer resorting to these measures as much as I can. However, I do realize the problem vandalism poses to Wikipedia. Also, while blocks and protections are not the ultimate solution, they are the best we have at the moment.

Having said that, I would like to clarify that I am against edit warring. As such, its only 3RR rule (apart from personal attacks, which I am definitely against) that I would be most strict in enforcing - temporary blocks are a very good way to point out that pushing their version is not the way a collaborative effort can bring fruit. Closely related to this is CoI. So, these two are the criteria that I will take into account when deciding on a block, the most. Since I am not a believer in stripping editing privileges, as I have already stated, I definitely won't be handing out permanent blocks - not easily.

As for vandalism, if it is clearly done to add inappropriate content, will I even think of blocks. However, as per policy clauses and because I am against such drastic measures, I would make sure that effort has been made to get the editor in question to a constructive dialog - to the maximum extent permissible by policies (civil requests, warnings etc). If any response is received from the editor (sans personal attacks), I would refrain from blocking to see where the process of dialogue leads to. When it comes to sock puppetry, consensus is the best way to proceed - not individual judgement.

For page protections, as I have already said, I think they hinder legitimate editors. So, I would refrain as long as possible. If I ever have to protect, I would rather go for semi-protection than full protection. Semi protection is very effective against anonymous vandals - which is most often the most serious mode of concern. Also, it is very good weapon for, as the policy states, articles with few mentors. While the Protection policy does state that pages can be protected in face of edit warring, I am morally against doing so (though practical situations may warrant a different course of action). I will definitely try to get them to peacefully talk by pointing out to each the merits and demerits of their versions and asking for opinions. If it is successful, then it is Utopia. But if not, and if there are only a two or three users, then I would prefer a per-user ban (per 3RR), or RfCs. But if there is a swarm of editors sparring against each other, I do not see any way out than to protect a page. A mass RfC has the possibility of creating another battlefield. However, if I do so, I would definitely, as Gandalf said, "keep two eyes on them, as often as I can spare them" ( :D ) as try to remove protection at the earliest sign agreement has been reached or things have cooled down.

Coming back to deletion, deleting articles for which consensus has been reached (AfD) is easier than the speedy deletes. For the latter, one has to depend solely on one's judgement and thats why one has to be doubly careful. But it is more the speedily deletable article that pile up, and thats where extra hands are required. I am ready to direct both my hands to that job. However, in keeping with wiki's spirit, and not just policies, I would go for consensus if I have any doubts about the article. Also, I would be careful that the articles conform solely to the speedy deletion criteria specified, not to a wrong interpretation of the criteria. The slightest doubt, I would go for consensus or invite a neutral party to get an alternate point of view.

I would like to point out that the above scenarios will change if I am a significant contributor to the article in question. In that case, most probably my view will be colored. As such, I will refrain from taking any rash decision and rather get a neutral party to comment first.

As for participation in AIV, RFP or 3RR notice boards, well, since I believe more in talk pages than notice boards, I try my best to reason out and try to get edit wars stomped in buds - trying as best as I can to not let things reach to a 3RR violation - from any party involved. Same goes with page protection - except for an influx of vandalism that calls for s-protection. As such, I have not reported a lot of incidents. But I indeed follow the noticeboards to find instances where I can mediate, provided it is in my purview of expertise (both in terms of knowledge about the subject and policies - including EL et al).

For deletion, I scan recent changes to list articles that need to be deleted. Also, I participate in deletion discussions as well - it IS necessary to maintain a high quality in the subjects covered. Furthermore, as you all are aware I was inactive for quite sometime, once I returned, I found a number of articles which I would like to see get a better coverage and to which I could contribute. This caused a long backlog of editorial tasks. As such, I was tending to them. This caused a dent in my recent AfD activity. But now, all the edits that I wanted to make have been brought more or less under control, and now I can concentrate fully on janitorial tasks. However, that does not mean I was totally off-touch. As specific instances were asked for, I will dig up some: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9],[10], [11], [12], [13] etc etc.

I hope this long answer answers the queries. If you have any doubt at all, just put up a question. I will be happy to answer. I hope the length is not a turn off. :) --soum (0_o) 20:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If that does not bother you, can I ask how many of you have read the uber-long answer? :P --soum (0_o) 20:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I read your entire answer. Thank you for taking the time to answer it so effectively. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I also read your answer. CMummert · talk 16:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Aye. -- LeCour^T:C 20:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See Soumyasch's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• I know most people like to take a look at edit count. So, I am providing the links for convenience: Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool and Mathbot's tool --soum (0_o) 06:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, the candidate was away for a while. Yes, Soumyasch doesn't have many edits in Wikipedia space. But can anyone make 3200 mainspace edits without contributing substantially to Wikipedia or becoming familiar with processes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xiner (talk • contribs) 02:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
• Excellent contribution history; should make an exceptional administrator 74.12.88.193 21:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

1. Support - good contributor. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Support Soumyasch appears to be a friendly, well-rounded Wikipedian who is well suited for some extra buttons gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 08:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Full support a positive contributor. I don't find his wikivacation period a concern, given the nature of adminship - as more than 1,000 admins are available at a given time, individual admins can contribute at their individual speed and time availability. Its clear that Soumyasch is committed as a Wikipedian and willing to be an admin. Rama's arrow 13:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Support. Per Rama's Arrow -Mschel 14:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Support: He is a good contributor to wiki, and helped me a lot and still doing the same in getting acustomed with wiki,,, his articles are very helpful. So full support! --AyaN 14:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

   Only registered users are allowed to vote, sorry. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

   The anon (203.145.188.130) was me. I forgot to login while voting. --AyaN

   Gotta be careful. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 18:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

6. Support See my supplementary nomination above. YechielMan 15:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Support - His work and expertise on computer related articles is commendable.Bakaman 16:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
8. Support - Only problem with this user is the long period of semi-inactivity prior to this month, but that's not a good enough reason to oppose, IMHO. Remember that adminship is no big deal. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
9. Tentative Support The answers in this RfA look very civil so far, and are rather impressive. Can't say that about every RfA. Xiner (talk, email) 16:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
10. Support, seems pretty much ok to me and he won't abuse the tools. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
11. Support per rational articulated on my user page. Edivorce 18:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
12. With just under 6000 edits as of this support, yes. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 18:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
13. Strong support In my opinion he is an excellent candidate for admin and has all of the required skills. DavidJJJ 19:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
14. Support not likely to abuse the tools. - Anas ^talk? 20:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
15. Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
16. Support: You seem like you would do all of the admin chores that I would anticipate doing, but I do suggest getting involved with ANI.  ~Steptrip 20:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
17. Support The Wiki-break until just a month ago is a bit of a concern, but I think we can still give adminship to this guy as he has been very active upon his return. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
18. Support. Soum is a very good contributor in Windows articles. Jigs41793 ^Talk/_contribs 11:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
19. For Mother DA-IICT! — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
20. Support:per Rama's Arrow. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 18:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
21. Support Seems like a good editor who could use the tools. Good luck. --James, La gloria è a dio 18:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
22. Support Saw nothing wrong in the contribs, I disagree with the opposers. I see him around alot. Just H 02:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
23. This user is a great editor and has always shown great judgement, patience, and civility. I wholeheartedly support his nomination. JACOPLANE • 2007-04-1 14:54
24. Support. User is a terrific contributor and diminishe activity in a single area should not be the deciding factor. Kntrabssi 16:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
25. Support No problems here. Picaroon 21:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
26. Support I do not see any disqualifications. My support is steadfast. Pig^man 04:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
27. Support Good contribution to Wikipedia. Could be a good administrator. --Abhinandan Verma 20:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
28. Support, as the editor shows good understanding of administrative tasks and, especially, knows what his position in relation to them is. I'm sure the candidate will put sysop rights to good use. I'd just like to mention that — as I see it, mind you — to some degree you have failed to show the intention of being bold in your answer to mine and Ikiroid's questions. Don't let this hive mentality that somehow crept into RfA that admins are machines deceive you. When you have to make a tough call, don't act like you are expected to, act as you feel yis best for the parties involved. --Sn0wflake 21:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
29. Support His well-worded description of adminship duties quells any doubts I might've had. In fact, I urge the voters opposing based on process naïveté to reevaluate their votes. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
30. Support per User:Ikiroid. - KNM ^Talk 03:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
31. Support - Seems like a good candidate. Opposes dont worry me.--thunderboltz^(TALK) 06:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
32. Support - dont see any problems. should make a good admin. Sarvagnya 06:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
33. Support. Good, well-rounded editor. If he's been around contributing well, chances are he knows policy pretty well. As long as he uses common sense, he should be fine.--§hanel 07:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
34. Support. Useful contributor. Can make a responsible admin. Gnanapiti 07:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
35. Support Excellent contributor. Have thorough understanding of the project. Would act as a good and thoughtful admin. I agree with User:Ikiroid that voters opposing based on process naïveté should reevaluate their votes. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
36. Support I see no evidence this user would abuse the tools. CMummert · talk 16:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
37. Support Good contributions. I think he'll do ok — Lost^(talk) 16:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
38. Support↔NMajdan•talk 16:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
39. Support -- I'm not sure I see any problem with taking a several months break. 1700 edits since that break all seem OK + the 5300 before. --A. B. ^(talk) 17:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
40. Support. Did a good job in controlling POV on many articles. Will make a good admin.Dineshkannambadi 00:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
41. Strong Support: I hope you will succeed throughout this nomination — zero » 05:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
42. Support. Well qualified to be an admin, well thought-out, assumes good faith, great contributions. All-together great Wikipedian, deserves the role of admin. Rockstar915 06:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
43. Support Good contributor, will make a good admin. -- Naveen ^(talk) 08:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
44. Support -- I've worked extensively with Soumyasch over the last year and believe that he has the needed skills both technically and socially to be trusted with the admin tools. We share hundreds of watched pages, so I see him at work pretty much daily. He's one of those editors whose name you see on the watchlist, and you know everything's in good shape. He has for a long time demonstrated a solid, thoughtful understanding of WP:NPOV and WP:V, and is a good participant in discussions. His answers given above about edit warring, 3RR and talk participation are consistent with his on-the-ground behaviour. -/- Warren 09:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
45. Strong support - Aksi_great (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
46. Support - Trusted user who understands policy and, to the extent that Soumyasch does not understand any remaining policy, I trust Soumyasch to continue educating himself about policy before, during, and after using those admin tools based on policy. -- Jreferee 15:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
47. Support. -- LeCour^T:C 20:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
48. Support Thoughtful, considerate, and experienced Wikipedian. Would make a trustworthy admin. // Internet Esquire 21:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
49. Support - Seems like a good, well-rounded editor who could stand to do some good around here with the tools. Smee 14:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
50. Support fears about lack of community participation have been somewhat assuaged by extensive ( :) ) answer to Q5. Has been here a year and hasn't been blocked. Enough indication that he understands policy sufficiently; I'm sure we'll be fine. – Riana ^ऋ 19:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
51. Weak support The suggestion that the candidate might not, in view of his having been inactive for a bit, be well-acquainted with policy, such that he might avolitionally misuse the tools, is not entirely without merit, but I think it rather clear that Soumyasch is possessed of fine judgment and a deliberative temperament, such that I trust him to know whereof he does not know and to tread quite carefully generally and especially relative to areas with the policy relevant to which he reasonably suspects he may not be altogether familiar. Joe 02:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
52. Support, I can overlook the projectspace issue. (300 wikispace edits is fine imo)--Wizardman 02:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
53. I've purposely taken the time to consider before supporting this nomination at the last minute. I see no reason for mistrust of the tools and talk page interaction makes up for project space interaction to myself. Teke 04:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Insufficient projectspace experience to formulate an opinion on the user's policy knowledge; recent period of activity after long layoff not long enough for comfort. Please try again. - NYC JD (interrogatories) 14:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

   Instead of assuming that the nominee has no policy knowledge because of their lack of portal/wikipedia-namespace edits why don't you ask some questions from the nominee to test your theory. My experience with Soumyasch (on numerous occasions) in mainspace editing has been that he is very much aware of Wikipedia policy and I think that perhaps you did not look carefully enough at his contributions to notice this. Just because one does not discuss policy does not mean that one is not aware of it. JACOPLANE • 2007-04-1 22:22

2. Oppose per NYC JD. Xoloz 15:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Weak oppose, sorry. Looks good, but Wikipedia space participation is currently insufficient to evaluate preparedness. Also, little time since the period of inactivity. I'll be happy to support in a month or two.--Húsönd 15:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose Looks like a great contributor but NYC JD summed up my issues pretty well, sorry. NeoFreak 18:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose per all above; article writing is nice, but it's not a must, nor is it sufficient by itself. And you admit yourself that most of your AfD edits were a while ago, which means that you may not be familiar with processes now. -Amarkov moo! 22:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

   Would it be fair to say, however, that an experienced editor would know the general rules for AFD, and that a responsible editor would not touch things s/he doesn't understand? Xiner (talk, a promise) 02:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

   1. Oppose seems like a pleasant, well rounded invidual - therefore unsuitable to be an admin. 4kinnel 00:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

      Comment If that's your reason, your participation will hopefully be disregarded by the closing bureaucrat.--Húsönd 01:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

      This vote has been disregarded. These are the type of qualities needed by admins. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

6. Oppose per NYC JD, who said it very well indeed. Soumyasch, please try again later. Johntex\^talk 01:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Weak oppose as I don't see enough experience in areas frequented by admins. This makes it difficult to determine how you would handle such things. I guess this is just a long way of saying I agree with NYC JD and Húsönd. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose NYC JD. Try again later, please.--cj | talk 14:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose per NYC JD. Michael 03:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose Only 348 Wikipedia namespace edits. This shows a real lack of community participation on the policy level. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - I have one big concern here which is that it looks to me more like you were inactive or nearly so for closer to 8 months and that you then banged out nearly 1500 edits in the last 4 weeks and now you are doing a self-nom. I would have preferred that you were either back longer, or were nom'ed by someone else, or both. I will probably change this !vote later, but I am starting here and will see what else develops. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 07:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
   • As you can see in my edit stats, I generally averaged around 1000 edits a month when I was active. After that, I sort of cooled off (reverting vandalisms on my watched pages only and replying to messages on talk pages) because of the work load of my semester. However, after I returned, I focussed more on vandal fighting and issuing warnings than I did before the break (when i focussed more on article editing) - which takes significantly less time and thought. Also, I experimented a lot this time round in sandboxes trying out new layouts and infoboxes. Both these things account for more edits this time around. As for "being back longer", I do not see how that would have helped. A break does not diminish one's experience, understanding of policies, wikiquette or editing characteristics, does it? --soum (0_o) 07:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
     • Yes and no. Some people can change their behavior quite a bit in the better part of a year. Also, even if you didn't change, things here did. I was gone for a bit as well, though not as long as you, and I found things much different when I returned, especially here at RFA. So as the environment changes, so do the policies and the guidelines, and the standards and the experiences as a result. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 07:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
       • Yes, some policies and guidelines did change - like the Fair Use guidelines and the external links one, which is the ones that I found most different. But its still not a 180 degrees turn from a year back. I don't think it changed so much that it would take someone fairly familiar with the old policies more than a week or two to get familiar with the new and changed clauses. Plus, not being editing does not mean I was totally off wikipedia. Monitoring the evolution of my watched articles and keeping track of the discussion on their talk pages does give a fairly descent idea. --soum (0_o) 07:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Neutral, similar concerns to After Midnight. Two or three more months of sustained activity would be preferable. The Rambling Man 09:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

   Neutral leaning towards support Would be glad to support after a bit more time in projectspace. Just H 18:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC) changed to support. Just H 07:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

3. Neutral - good editor, however concerns about total and recent experience - for example almost no edits to WP:AIV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Addhoc (talk • contribs) 2007-03-31T22:04:23 (UTC)
4. Neutral - good editor, just lack of community edits. Would suggest trying again in a few months presuming you are still active by then. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 08:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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.