Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tivedshambo

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

Final (56/1/1); Ended 16:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Tivedshambo (talk · contribs) - Self nomination. I have been active on Wikipedia since April 2006, and accumulated 10,000 edits in several areas of the project during that period. I've considered putting myself forward several times in the past, but only now do I feel that I am fully ready for the mop. —  Tivedshambo  _(t|c) 15:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back-up nomination from AGK (contact)

To protect this candidate from oppositions along the lines of "I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger", I'm willing to add my name here as a nominator of Tived. Not that there's a difference between having the candidate's or somebody else's name under the "nom. statement" section, but that's just my opinion. Either way, consider Tivedshambo's RfA no longer a self-nom. AGK (contact) 22:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I'd like to assist in reducing the backlog at CAT:CSD, which often seems to suffer from long delays. Almost 100% of articles I've nominated for CSD have been deleted without question – the few failures I've had have generally become redirects or deleted at AfD. Other areas in which I'm willing to assist include WP:AIV and I'd also like to be able to fix non-controversial main page errors reported on WP:ERROR, and keep an eye on CAT:PER. I would discuss controversial requests with other administrators before implementing any changes, particularly to the main page.

Followup How long is the current delay at WP:CSD?DGG (talk) 04:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure at present, but sometimes some of the image subcategories can be a day or more. A bit like the answer to this follow-up question ;-)  —  Tivedshambo  _(t|c) 10:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: Although I've created a number of articles, the work I'm most pleased with is helping User:TicketMan to get List of West Midlands railway stations up to Featured list standard. I'm currently helping to improve Talyllyn Railway. I'm also please with some of the work I've done translating articles from Welsh Wicipedia, e.g. Red Bandits of Mawddwy. I have been entrusted with selecting the front page article (pigion) for that project, which I have set up to change on a weekly basis.

Another thing I achieved on this project which I'm pleased with is finding a solution to a problem with the display of coordinates using the {{coord}} template in classic skin.

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: Of course - who hasn't? The worst conflict I've been involved with recently involved the route diagram for Stourbridge Branch Line, and I admit I made mistakes with my handling of the situation. I learnt that there's no point flogging a dead horse when everyone else has lost interest. I don't get overstressed very often – when I do I find the best thing is to walk away for a while, preferably overnight, and do something else.

Optional questions from Tree Biting Conspiracy (TBC!?!) Partially lifted from Wisdom89, Dlohcierekim, Tawker, Malinaccier, Benon, Tiptoey, and everyone else.

4. What is your opinion on WP:IAR? When would the "snowball clause" apply to an AFD or a RFA, if at all?

A: WP:IAR is there to allow Wikipedia to be improved without being bogged down in petty exception clauses. It can also be useful for bending rules to take common sense into account. It is a vital policy, but needs to be handled with a certain degree of care, and always taking consensus into account.

WP:SNOW can be used for AFD (with care) where the result is clear and uncontentious (either for keep or delete) before wating for the full term of the debate. Similarly, it can be used for RFAs to prevent embarrassment to a user who is clearly not ready for adminship.

5. Will you list yourself in Category:Wikipedia administrators open for recall?

A: I've given this question very careful consideration, and I'm afraid the answer is no. It's a good idea for administrators to be accountable, but it needs to be on a level playing field - i.e. with the same criteria, applying to everyone. Unfortuneatly there are some admin who have said they will join, but do not appear on the list. I prefer to be honest up front. However, if there ever are any serious concerns about my administrative work, I would be fully prepared to discuss them, and give up my mop if the consensus of the community were for me to do so.

6. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behavior?

A: I hope so, though I can't really say for sure till I'm in the situation. As I said in my answer to q3, I tend to deal with stress by stepping back. If there was a situation that required immediate attention, but I felt I was too stressed to handle it properly, I would raise it at WP:ANI.

Optional question from Keepscases

7. Do you believe that http://cubo.cc/ should have an entry in Wikipedia?

A: I don't know the website, and haven't seen any debates about it, but my view is that any website should have an article only if it can be clearly shown to meet the criteria of WP:WEB. Whether this site does or not I cannot say.

Follow-up question from Keepscases

8. Why not? If you as a potential administrator could not make that call, who would? Keepscases (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A:

It depends what's in the article. If it consisted solely of cubo.cc is a funky website with a moving face, then I would have no hesitation in deleting it under WP:CSD#A7. On the other hand, if the article stated that the website used cutting edge technology using the latest digital techniques, and was receiving accolades from programmers and web designers all round the world, and had sufficient citations to back this up, then I would quite happily defend it at AFD. —  Tivedshambo  _(t|c) 19:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In defense, it really depends on how the article is written as to whether it will be an acceptable article. The article should be written before this question is asked. Dusti^{talk to me} 19:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. An article on a clearly notable subject can be written so poorly that it may be speedied, and an article on a subject whose notability isn't clear, may be written with enough sources to allow it to pass.Balloonman (talk) 06:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Majorly

9. Are lots of questions irrelevant to the candidate stupid?

A. No - see next question

10. Why do you think that?

A. Everyone has the right to ask questions at RFA, and presumably have their reasons for asking. Even the occasional completely esoteric question can serve to lighten an otherwise serious process - after all we're all volunteers, and provided it isn't disruptive, an occasional joke helps to oil the works.

11. Do you play the violin? If yes, would you strive not to ever edit Violin?

A. I don't, but even if I did, I wouldn't see that as a problem. WP:COI does not prevent editors writing about their interests and activities (otherwise how would the article about Wikipedia ever get written?) For a personal example, I'm a member of the Talyllyn Railway Preservation Society, though I don't feel there's a problem writting about it. If I was a member of staff, or active volunteer on the railway, this would be a different matter.

12: What you know about licension on English Wikipedia, and what you think about Fair Use on English Wikipedia? Paweł Alden or my talk page 20:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. By licension do you mean licensing of contributions? All text contributions are licensed under GFDL. Other contributions such as images can be made under various licences (eg GFDL, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike or public domain), which are Free Content. Use of Non-free content is allowed in article space only, provided it is accompanied by an acceptable fair use rationale. —  Tivedshambo  _(t|c) 08:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

1. Support. Editor claims 10,000 edits, but that includes deleted contribs. But he does still have 8000+ other edits. He has tons of experience and seems to know what he's doing. I think he'll be a help at CAT:CSD. Useight (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support - Enough experience for me to support - meets my criteria with aplomb. Well rounded. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support - I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of being BOLD!. ArcAngel (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Strong Support I've worked with Tivedshambo on a number of articles including the current push to improve Talyllyn Railway. He is a great contributor to the encyclopedia, working tirelessly to improve articles. He has also demonstrated a clear grasp of policy and a willingness to get down in the trenches and help remove vandalism and perform the other grunt work that enables Wikipedia to function. During all of this he remains polite, calm and positive. I've no doubt that he will use the tools well and continue to make excellent contributions to Wikipedia. I only wish he'd asked me to nominate him, something I would have happily done. Gwernol 16:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support. An experienced encyclopedia editor with a good knowledge of policy. (And a good knowledge of small railroad lines, too.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Refreshing to see a self-nomination. Seems well-acquainted with policy and will make a good addition. With respect to edit count, 10,012 at time of writing. Rudget (?) 17:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support not based on edit count as I view this only as a very crude way of determining experience --Camaeron (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support from my time seeing this user, seems to be very good! The Helpful One ^(Review) 17:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support User seems to have many edits in a variety of area and i think could do some good work as an admin. I don't see any problems in the past with being uncivil or having disruptive edits. Hatmatbbat10Talk to me 17:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Looks good to me. faithless (^speak) 17:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support - I really like what I see. Mr Senseless (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support- Wheres Kurt? Dusti^{talk to me} 19:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I apologize, shouldn't have said that. Sorry Kurt.

    Who cares? ArcAngel (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    But some of us enjoy the entertainment and the laughable aspect of a Ctrl+V Kurt Weber oppose... EJF (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC). Struck per consideration of Pedro's concerns. Sorry. EJF (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

    Guys, cummon. Whilst there may be general agreeance regarding the "value" of Kurt's standard oppose, these comments are slowly moving from an "in joke" to comments that are unbecoming of respected editors, which all three of you are; They hardly help build a collegial atmosphere. Pedro :  Chat  22:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

14. Support: an experienced, well-behaved and trustworthy editor who isn't likely to make a mess with the admin tools. --RFBailey (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support. I'm confident that granting Tived. the administrator tools will benefit the project as a whole. After a quick look through the candidate's contributions, I see no obvious problems, and as such, I am glad to support. AGK (contact) 19:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support And I'll be honest here - I haven't interacted with the candidate and therefore spent quite a while reviewing contributions / talk pages and so on. I'm simply staggered no-one has spotted their dedication earlier and forced a nomination upon them!! Great stuff, clearly great, and as ever my best wishes and good luck. Pedro :  Chat  20:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Aye. No problems at all, will be an excellent admin. Black Kite 20:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Spencer^T♦C 20:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support I view self-noms as prima facie evidence that the nominator has nominated himself or herself. Keepscases (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support - Keepscases sums it up succinctly. EJF (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support. Looks good to me. Good luck to you, Malinaccier (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support As per Track and has over 3000 mainspace edits .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Seems very genial and not likely to abuse the tools. Seems to take strange criticism in stride. Adam McCormick (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 00:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support Seems fine. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 01:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support. Looks like a good candidate. Majoreditor (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27. Oppose - I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Support - excellent editor. I received adminship at about the same point that this user is, though this user happened to be active almost all twelve of the months he's been registered, while I was only active five. ;) Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 03:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support - looks good to me. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 08:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support. Everything looks good. I have no reservations in supporting this RfA. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support Regular vandal fighter, demonstrates knowledge of speedy/delete policies, displays civility—I am reasonably comfortable having the community show its trust in this users judgement and handing him the mop-and-flamethrower. -- Avi (talk) 06:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support. I was going to oppose due to low level of Wikipedia namespace edits, but I am going to support in lieu of Kurt Weber's nonsense opposition. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 11:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32. Per Stifle. NHRHS2010NHRHS2010 12:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support No indications that they will abuse the buttons. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support The guy wants to be an admin - and he backs it up with a good resume and interview results, so I'd say yes!  — master son^{T - C} 18:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support No qualms here. нмŵוτнτ 18:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support, excellent user! _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{tell me a joke...} 20:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support,What a bobby dazzler - doing some great work on Talyllyn Railway keep it up! Willsmith3 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support - a dedicated user that won't abuse the tools. :) Ale_Jrb^talk 21:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support, good answers. seems right for the role. MURGH ^disc. 11:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support Good answers, seems to know his stuff. :) GlassCobra 14:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support - I view self nominations as prima facie evidence of immense common sense. Nick (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support. I especially like his answer to question #5, in that I have never seen the usefulness of "registering" for recall. If there are problems, which i doubt, we'll deal with them. No issues, seems to have learned from his past "mistakes" (quotes because nothing was really horrible). Tanthalas39 (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
43. Weak support - great editor, knows the rules and isn't BITEy. I'm a bit disappointed with question 5, but appreciate his honesty - Alison ^❤ 21:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
44. Strong support per having the backbone not to sign up to the useless drama-sink that is the recall category, and the honesty to explain why. Neıl ☎ 00:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support. Seems ready to me. MrPrada (talk) 03:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support I've seen your work occasionally, and you've answered well here. VanTucky 04:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support: After answer on question number 12. Paweł Alden or my talk page 09:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support - With plenty of edits, here is an editor who is actually working on creating an encyclopedia. No concerns, and meets all my standards. Go for it. Bearian (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
49. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 11:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support. Good user.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support - looks okay to me. Deb (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support - ready for the task. --MPerel 20:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support, faithful editor. SexySeaShark 16:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support - seems ready. Good answers except #5 but that is not a deal breaker for me. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support, passes my criteria! Littleteddy (roar!) 11:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
56. Definitely Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 16:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Given the regularity of the statement, don't you think it is a little confusing that Kurt seems to be undermining his own case by using the phrase prima facie? He's essentially saying that without actually doing anything other than reading a self nom he is using how something first appears as his justification? Perhaps Mr Weber mean res ipsa loquitur? Or perhaps he's a straw man? You may now trout slap me as suggested below. BigHairRef | Talk 09:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Anyone would think that Kurt was bitter about a previous experience of his. But there's no evidence of that that I can find, so we have to accept what he says at face value. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 20:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Kurt Weber, Tivedshambo has been nominated—by me. How can you possible oppose on the basis of his RfA being a self-nomination? That is twisted logic, if not patently false. AGK (contact) 22:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not an ididot--I can read timestamps. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   What's an ididot when it's at home. Must be the opposite of an idiot, I guess. Nick (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I think the bitchy behaviour of the four of you here reflects more on yourselves than on anything bad Kurt has ever done.Personal attack removed -- Naerii · plz create stuff 11:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I think pointing out the flaws in someone's reasoning is hardly a 'bitchy' way of going about something. Given the manner in which the phrase is used it is quite likely that Kurt intends to say res ipsa loquitor instead of prima facie. On the other hand should he intentionally be using prima facie as the intended Latin term, he undermines his own case by explicitly stating that he undertakes no research in to an editor nor their contibs nor the answers to the questions they provide. It is also possible that the repeating usage for each self nom is trying to provoke debate over something where it is not required in order to make another (contrary) point seem more valid. You will see that good faith was assumed as I suggested that perhaps Kurt may wish to change his rationales for opposing to make more sense, I merely suggested that it was a possibility (not stated it as a fact) that he may be trolling as did Redvers as there is no evidence to the contrary. Whilst it is possible we did not make the suggestion in the correct way (and I must say that I absolutely do not accept your suggestion that the comment was bitchy) it does not on the other hand preclude speculation as to reasons why Kurt makes these comments which he has never expanded upon. Kurt brings this upon himself to a degree as there is a distinction between consistently opposing for a reason you hold to be true with at least one explanation as to why you believe it to be the case, and simply stating that something is that way and they will believe that even if it flies in the face of the evidence to the contrary (as it would appear so here, he is outnumbered almost 50 to 1). As below I would suggest that the implication that we are being bitchy is not fair as Kurt did not adopt a completely civil tone when AGK made a point about nomination. Whilst admittedly ADK may have erred in his statement I hardly think Kurt comes out of this whiter than white whilst the rest of us with legitimate objections to his course of actions are labelled "bitchy". If we were not allowed to disagree with Kurt then what would be the point of the debate? We'd just accept the opinion of the first user to register their opinion. I would also like to indicate I concur with the statements by Dustihowe below, and I feel even the revised comment is not entirely free of personal attack. I do not suggest that my statements were without it either as otherwise there'd be no way to criticise another's opinion on RfA without being brought to book under WP:CIVIL. Let's not forget here, whilst I have nothing personal against Kurt himself, his comments hurt active debate and could prevent good admins from nominating themselves because they don't happen to know the right person who noms other people and don't want to be opposed for frivolous reasons. He has never provided a reason why he thinks that power hunger (here) is a bad thing (incidentally surely all who accept a nomination should also be power hungry). Someone may be hungry for power to work against vandals perhaps? He does not qualify his statement which damages the debate and contributes very little to the consensus.BigHairRef | Talk 19:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   This oppose rationale is without substance, and should be totally disregarded. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Go on. Its irritating, overused, and almost certainly incorrect, but its not without substance. Relata refero (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   The Boy Who Cried Wolf springs to mind here. Given that this user opposes every self-nom in the same way, if there is ever an instance where a self-nom is a case of blatant power-hunger, no-one will take any notice of him anyway. Thus his opposition is redundant. (Fortunately, in such a situation, other nominators are likely to oppose, so no harm would be done.) --RFBailey (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment from Tivedshambo. Sorry, I had intended not to make comments within my own RFA, but I can't let the above go without comment. Whilst I (obviously) disagree with Kurt's oppose, he is fully entitled to his opinion, and should not be constantly ridiculed for it - see Pedro's comments above. Nor should anyone be accused of trolling just for expressing their opinion. Please be civil. Thank-you. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 15:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   He's fully entitled to his opinion, but it's one that nobody gives any weight to, it causes endless disruption and it's a viewpoint he's consistently told he take somewhere else, somewhere more appropriate (say WT:RFA). I've blocked him for his comments, others are equally vocal in their opposition to his behaviour, and two RfCs have shown no consensus supporting his viewpoint, nor consensus to prevent him making such comments. The best we can now do is try to point out to others what's wrong with his viewpoint, poke some fun at his comments, and generally try and prevent as much disruption as possible. Naerii's comment doesn't help with that, sadly, and plays right into the hands of Kurt. The fact she calls four contributors "children" is insulting and offensive, and given the manner in which it's made, it's clearly provocative. I don't object to the comments being called childish or humourous, which was my intention, but to describe the other contributors who are trying to discuss Kurt's comment in a valid manner "childish" is way out of line. Nick (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize in advance for any bad feelings that may arise from this comment, but the votes here are opinions and everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion. Granted, Kurt has been taken to RFC about his seeming harsh behavior, but maybe he's upset because his own self-nom was declined with all opposes. Us barging him with attacks on his opinion aren't helping the users who wish to better wikipedia. Just make your opinion known on the RFA and be done with it. If Kurt wants to oppose all self-nom's (which is odd), then he is entitled to do so. The 'crat or admin closing the discussion will take it with a grain of salt i'm sure. Its all about consensus, not Kurts opinion.Dusti^{talk to me} 16:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral His motives are clear given this users answer to number 5. If this user really is not after power they would have answered yes. I will review his answers again in a few days to see if this user can make a better argument for them to be an admin. If this user cannot, I will be changing my vote to opposed. It is clear that this user is the weakest of all three users this month. - SorryThright (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)thright[reply]

Comment There is actually a fairly large belief that people who answer yes aren't ready to be admins because the current process for recall is full of drama and more often causes more issues than it helps. There are no defined rules to recalling an admin, each admin sets their own criteria for when they will let themselves be recalled and as such has caused too many headaches in the past, indicating those who say yes like the drama created. -Djsasso (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.