Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fang Aili

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Fang Aili

Final (91/3/5) ended 01:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Fang Aili (talk • contribs) – Fang Aili, or Erica, is a person I see often on RC patrol, and I find her to be a very valuable line of defense against vandalism. In addition, her contributions to the encyclopedia and articles are very respectable, and she has a good grasp of policy. I think she would be a most worthy addition to the administrator roster. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 01:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Strong premature support! ;) —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 17:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
3. "No big deal" support! --Misza13 ^{T C} 18:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

   NSLE _(T+C) at 01:18 UTC (2006-04-03) Moved to neutral

4. Support a kind editor who would benefit from a mop and bucket Where ^(talk) 01:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. of course. pschemp | talk 01:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Support JoshuaZ 02:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC).
7. Support. Great user, friendly too! Gflores^Talk 02:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
8. "Adminship is no big deal." - Mailer Diablo 02:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Support - this is one user I welcomed! :) Renata 02:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Support Excellent, trustworthy, level-headed user. Xoloz 03:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
11. Support An excellent user who will continue to find vandalism. We need more admins like this. - Richardcavell 03:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
12. Support Easy choice for me. KnowledgeOfSelf 04:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Support. Always friendly on IRC and good editor. - Tangotango 05:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
14. Support Per all of the above. Banez 05:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
15. Of course. If Sjakkalle thinks you "have a good amount of contributions to articles, a good record of fighting vandalism, and a good record of being sensible", little more need be said. Good luck.;-) —Encephalon 06:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
16. Support I'm sure this user would be a great admin.  Grue  08:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
17. Support, she's good. --Terence Ong 09:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
18. Support (so many good noms lately). Meets criteria, great editor. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 10:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Support, looks like another good'un. ProhibitOnions 10:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
20. Support - Seen her around doing lots of good things. --CBDunkerson 10:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
21. Support On the fence a bit...but, can't find any reason to oppose so you get my vote...good luck! TruthCrusader 12:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
22. Support this is another one of the good ones, for sure.--Deville (Talk) 12:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
23. Support A good editor. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
24. Support - an obvious choice. Weatherman90 14:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
25. Support friendly and civil, a good grasp of policy and very dedicated to the project. We need more admins like this. --JoanneB 16:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
26. Support changed from neutral...hope to see you in #vandalism-en-wp. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
27. Support. --Rory096 17:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
28. Support. Good editor, friendly person; will make a good, level-headed administrator. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 17:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
29. Support, seen her around; never have had real communication, but from what I've seen, no problems here. -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 18:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
30. Support (S). — FireFox • T [19:25, 3 April 2006]
31. Support --Jay(Reply) 20:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
32. Support Moe ε 21:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
33. Extreme "What an Esperanzian!" support - kind, civil, exciting, invigorating, knowledgeable and all-round nice. Keep it up! --Celestianpower ^háblame 22:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
34. Support. We seem to run in similar circles, and we have cooperated in dealing with vandals (although we've never spoken before - hi, Erica). We can always use more admins like her, and I wish I could always stay as civil as she does. Kafziel 00:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
35. Support, this mop's for you Deizio 00:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
36. Support. I've looked though her talk and user talk edits; she's a good communicator and will do a great job. ×Meegs 02:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
37. Support Rc patroller, good amount of edits, lots of experience, why not? -- Patman2648 19:48 3 April 2006 (UTC)
38. Enthusiastic Support! I was about to nominate her myself :) -- SonicAD (talk) 05:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
39. Support, very friendly user. -- King of Hearts ^talk 05:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
40. Support. Looks good, as far I can tell. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 06:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
41. Support, good user. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 06:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
42. Die die must support!--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)ContributionsContributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 07:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
43. Support - no issues here. Proto||type 08:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
44. Support- I was a little unsure about how to vote for this nomination, until a read all of the other support votes. JaredW! 11:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
45. Support- Good contributions, experienced, will be a good addition to the rank of admins. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 11:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
46. Support You don't need thousands of edits per month to be a valuable and trustworthy contributor. Waggers 11:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
47. Support, looks good. Kirill Lokshin 12:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
48. Support will make excellent use of the tools and we could really use a few (million) more good people over at Copyright problems. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 12:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
49. Support A nice person. Karmafist ^{Save Wikipedia} 12:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
50. Support--Jusjih 15:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
51. Support--StabiloBoss 17:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
52. Support Jedi6-(need help?) 22:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
53. Support good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
54. Support The 2 oppose votes look like socks... Merecat 02:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
55. Support, I am always impressed by her contributions and feel she should certainly be an admin. -- Natalya 03:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
56. Support good candidate --rogerd 04:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
57. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
58. Support--PaddyM 04:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
59. Support -- Strong RC patroller. Good editor. Level headed. Work well with the mop! -- Samir (the scope) 04:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
60. Support good editor, will be a good admin. Gwernol 05:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
61. Support Need I say more? Covington 06:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
62. Support Good editor. Promotion well deserved--Looper5920 10:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
63. Support. Good editor, good level of activity (whatever the oppose voters say), and quite enough good quality edits edits over variety of namespaces.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 16:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
64. Support. Has some real contributions to encyclopedia in addition to vandal fighting; good answers to questions. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 17:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
65. Support. Could do great things with the mop. haz (user talk) 17:54, 5 April 2006
66. Support I'm fer her. T K E 18:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
67. Support. Looks good. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 19:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
68. Support. Upon closer examination, I actually know this person in real life. Scary. Mackensen (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
69. support ILovEPlankton 21:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
70. Support - Ganeshk (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
71. Support per nom. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 23:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
72. Strong Support This user has been valuable to wikipedia. Will be even more so after adminship. ---J.Smith 23:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
73. Support. Looks like a good choice. Nephron  T|C 01:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
74. Support. Keep it this way, it's great. --Tone 12:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
75. Strong Support. She will make an excellent admin.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 19:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
76. Yes please! A superb vandalwhacker who I'm often to be found trailing behind, Speedying and Blocking what she leaves in her wake. Now you can do your own dirty work, Erica! :o) ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
77. Support Fad (ix) 00:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
78. Support seen this person around, very good user.--Alhutch 17:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
79. Support joshbuddy^talk 17:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
80. Support. She can be trusted with the golden mop.--Adam ^(talk) 00:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
81. I've seen this editor around, and what I've seen, I liked. Seems to have a good, level headed approach to things and I see no reason to oppose. Support ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
82. Support per answer's to Masssiveego's uh... questioning... --W.marsh 03:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
83. Support Good editor. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
84. Support Mike1024 (t/c) 16:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
85. Support —Ruud 18:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
86. Support Rama's Arrow 20:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
87. Support Solid candidate. --Andy123(talk) 20:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
88. Support. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 04:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
89. Support. A worthy selection. Sarge Baldy 06:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
90. Strong Support --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
91. Strong support, answers to Masssiveego's questions were, to my mind, exemplary. Steve block talk 16:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. No way! Boooo!!Buckeye80 02:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

   User has two edits, the other was obscene userpage vandalism.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

   Note this user has been indefinatley blocked for proclaiming sockpuppetry/vandalism 1(dif avail to admins/'crats only) — xaosflux ^Talk 04:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

2. Are you kidding me, this guys a joke! Alabamaslamma 02:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

   Only edit by the user.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose Unresponsive to my questions after 24 hours. --Masssiveego 07:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

   Not being on Wikipedia at the time and being unresponsive to a question within 24 hours is not a valid reason for opposing someone. Moe ε 19:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

   Actually it proves that the User in question was irresponsible, careless, and fails to pay attention, and typically unavaliable. If Fang Aili job was to become an Admin, she could have demonstrated the actions of one, and answered the questions within 24 hours. The failure to answer the questions in a timely manner in my mind, casts doubt on the RC patrol experience, and skills of this user. Fang Aili either takes the admin role too lightly, still does not understand how to use Wikipedias resources, or is too careless. Anyway put, not qualified to be given Admin tools. --Masssiveego 03:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

   I have not expressed an opinion on this nomination, nor will I, but I find this comment to be rude, totally unhelpful, and to be blunt, absurd. I urge the bureaucrat who closes this nomination to ignore this comment, as the rationalte expressed therein is beyond ridiculous and completely incoherent. This sort of strained reasoning is what makes people think that this user is determined to oppose virtually any and all nominations simply because he can.--Sean Black ^(talk) 03:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

   Please define absurb. I have given my reasons as clear as possible. The completely missing the questions for 24 hours despite with an obvious log entry of the user in question being on Wikipedia during the time period in which the user may have answered the question. It is irresponsible of the user to ignore users duty to monitor the users own RFA. If the user will not monitor a simple RFA for questions, the user cannot be trusted to monitor other more important aspects of the Admin duties. It makes me wonder what if she is even paying attention during her RC patrols or merely using a bot after that. I have no confidence in the comptency of this user, hence my oppose vote.

   Further attempts to urge the bureaucrat to ignore my vote, in this manner will be treated as a WP:personalattack in the future. As you have in no way countered the primary reason, and are only using the call to the bureaucrat as a means to attack my reputation. In a way calling other users to ignore my vote.

   I have taken it as a serious insult to my reputation that you even called for such a measure from the bureaucrat, when it's clear beyond reasonable doubt of the irresponsibility of this user. I urge others to oppose this canidate as unqualified. --Masssiveego 05:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

   What reputation? pschemp | talk 20:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Each user name builds up a reputation, apparently mine is oppose all votes when casting votes. This is clearly wrong, as I have supported some votes in the past. Such wrongful smears only make voting in these events emotionally difficult, thus intolerateable, that this user damage my reputation in this manner. As to wrongly call upon the bureaucrat to discount my vote over such a wrong reason. --Masssiveego 04:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the bureaucrat will be able to decide whether or not your comments are absurd and should be considered with ease. They're usually fair on these sort of things. Banez 22:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention they have their own (unshared)brains and are required to use them. pschemp | talk 22:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a CITE for that requirement? I've observed they DO use them but was NOT aware it was a REQUIREMENT! (sorry for the Zippy the Pinhead capitalization) No change in my thinking on this one. ++Lar: t/c 13:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:28 UTC (2006-04-03) - from support; didn't look into edit patterns, activity has only really increased recently. No reason to oppose though. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:28 UTC (2006-04-03)

   Neutral leaning support as per NSLE, no real reason to oppose. I'm all for vandal fighters, but I've yet to run into you in my vandal fighting (though to be honest my hours are sort of random). Adminship is no big deal, so I lean towards support, but I'd like to see more coordination with other counter-vandalism editors, perhaps through more frequent IRC usage and communication. If I'm way off base here, I'm more than happy to change my vote. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Changing to support based on communication with nominee. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

2. Neutral low edits in the main space and most of them in the last month. No reasons to oppose abakharev 00:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral per User:Alex Bakharev. JIP | Talk 07:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral as per NSLE and Alex and also feel there is no real reason to oppose. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral Not always right, but her willingness to work with others for consensus makes up for that. Sometimes she is too quick on the trigger and could assume a little more good faith. This may come with more experience, so I am reserving my vote until then. --Dragon's Blood 16:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

   Curious note: User does not appear on Interiot's tool [1] due to replication lag, because the account was created only yesterday. What brings you to this RFA, sir? — Apr. 7, '06 [19:39] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

   In my twenty years of administering websites and bulletin boards, I've found judging the character of other people to be my strongest suit. I told Fang Aili, on my user discussion page, that I have great faith in her. I realize that she is on the path to enlightenment, but she isn't quite there yet. Fang Aili is different from the other administrators I have voted for; she will use her position for more than mop and bucket work. She claims, and has shown, that she will use her powers to control vandals. In doing so, it is important that her definition of a vandal be consistent with that of the entire community. Her definition is not consistent with mine because mine is always based on an assumption of good faith. It is my experience that new editors follow examples much more than they follow policies. If administrators do not demonstrate an assumption of good faith in the newbies, how can they expect the newbies to adopt an assumption of good faith in them? --Dragon's Blood 20:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 01:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• See Fang Aili's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

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 voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I would like to help clear the backlog at Copyright problems. I'll continue doing recent change patrol, and admin tools will make that a bit easier. I'd also like to help at AfD, and keep an eye on Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and AIV.

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

A: I'll be particularly pleased with Milwaukee, Wisconsin when it becomes a Good Article (and hopefully, eventually, a Featured Article). I've added a lot to it, but it's gotten to the point where I have to start reading more books, and I haven't done that yet. I created the "to do" list for the article and have also created some other Milwaukee-related articles, the most substantial of which is Pabst Theater. I'm also pleased with my figure skating articles, especially Yao Bin. But basically, I get a thrill out of contributing to Wikipedia, period. It's the idea that I'm contributing to world knowledge, and that I can write something that other people will read and build upon. It's marvelous to see, for example, how Maxim Marinin has evolved. Wikipedia also calls to my inner editor--when I see "it's" instead of "its", I can just fix it!

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I was somewhat involved in the userbox debates of the past, but I have lost track of that topic now. I wish the Userbox policy had passed, because I think it was an excellent compromise. Other than that, I have not been invovled in anything particularly stressful. The disagreements I've been a part of were usually the result of good faith screw-ups, and were easily resolved. I don't usually contribute to controversial articles, and that helps keep my personal stress level down.

Questions from JoshuaZ

1 You are a member of both the Kindness Campaign and WP:Esperanza. Will your experience with those projects help/influence how you behave as an admin? If so, please explain how.

I usually hang out in Esperanza IRC channel when I'm editing. When I have questions, someone there is usually able to help me. Celestianpower and JoanneB are two experienced admins (among others) who are there a lot, and I imagine I'll be asking them all sorts of questions. I really like Esperanza; its purpose is to make Wikipedia a better place to be, and to help others. It has made me feel welcome and has definitely aided in my advancement of Wiki knowledge. The Kindness Campaign is a little different; I haven't done much with it specifically, other than award a few barnstars. To me, being a member means just trying to be kind and civil at all times, and recognize good efforts. I will continue to strive towards these ideals as an admin.

2 If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?

Fewer vandals! The constant stream of vandalism can be quite daunting. Or how about this: no vandals!

3 Under what circumstances will you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?

That is a difficult question to answer at this point. If I was considering it, I would first ask a few admins about the situation first. Sockpuppets regularly get indefinite blocks, so I would probably go ahead with that if I was sure it was a sockpuppet. A username with curses in it or something equally inappropriate would get an indefinite ban.

Questions from --Masssiveego 06:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Under who and what policy does "deleted... no assertion of notability" follow under?

CSD A7 - non-notable biography / vanity about a person or persons that does not assert the notability of the subject.

Comment Left out "who", and a straw poll of wikipedians, this was defined by Jimbo Wales. Where, and how a policy was made is just as important as the policy itself to check the intregrity of the policy, as anybody can edit the policy page. The check on the policy is to know when and where a policy was made.

Given the user logged in on April 5, it demonstrates lapse of monitoring by the user the RFA. Responsibility and completion is important. If a user fails to monitor a simple RFA, chances are they will fail to monitor the vandal logs. It is part of the admin duties to notice, and monitor pages. That is what a watchlist is for. --Masssiveego 17:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Massiveego, I would have appreciated a message that you had left questions here (they were at the bottom and I was unaware of them for a time; multiple edits to this page masked your questions edit). Your first question was a bit confusing because it is grammatically malformed. If I may rephrase the "who" part of your question, then "Under who policy does "deleted... no assertion of notability" follow under?" makes little sense. As far as I know, CSD A7 has been in place for some time, and there is little debate about it. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, but I believe I do a good job of watching pages and following up. Thank you for your input. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 18:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It is already in the RFA rules, that there would be comments and questions for any RFA. Taking a moment to examine the recent change logs would have quickly shown these questions appearing, or examing the "my watchlist". A timely response would have been courtious, and responsible. Dealing with difficult written in english questions, is part of the admin duties. Details are important, as to what the context of a writing in determining vandalism. Smugness set aside, anyone who is skilled at RC patrol would know the difference. --Masssiveego 01:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Masssive, you waited two minutes beyond 24 hours and then immediately voted oppose. Almost as soon as your questions were placed a multitude of other people pushed the questions down in the log, meaning it would be unlikely for Fang to have noticed. That is why when I add questions I put a note on the user's talk page that I have done so. And no, dealing with bad English is not a fundamental duty of adminships. Considering RfAs is about more than just searching for reasons to oppose. JoshuaZ 01:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The RC logs? Have you EVER seen the recent changes page? There are hundreds of edits per minute, how could Fang possibly see one edit out of thousands? --Rory096 08:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It is the responsibility of the RFA canidate to monitor their own RFA vote. A skilled RC patroller would have preset highlighters recent changes on pages the wanted to notice with the right software. Again there is both the "my watchlist", and rc logs with javascript "watch for" highlighters, the very same the bots use to highlight vandalism, either would have shown my questions. The lack of page checking skills, and attention to detail, and irresponsibility takes away this candiate qualifications to perform as an admin. Still I admit even I make mistakes, I should have only given an active canidate only one minute after 24 hours to respond.

I can only oppose if the candidate gives me a reason to oppose them, they either meet my standards or get opposed.

Any further questions about my personal standards can be brought up on the request for adminship talk page. --Masssiveego 23:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

If I wrote what I'm questioning about you based on your activity on this RfA, I'd likely violate WP:NPA, so I won't; let me just state that I find your behaviour here highly questionable. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 09:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well within Wikipedian policy to ensure quality error correcting Admin will help all users when called upon. Actually it is WP:personal attack, not WP:NPA. Please raise all questions about my behaviour in the RFA talk page. As users will be happy to hear your allegations. --Masssiveego 23:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

2. Can semi protect be used on articles where there are many edit conflicts?

WP:SEMI is pretty clear in that semiprotect should not be used for edit conflicts, but to prevent vandalism only.

3. What policy covers "blacken the memory of one who is dead"?

That phrase is used to describe slander and libel; WP:LIBEL covers that subject.

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.