Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Clawson


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

Clawson
[ Final] (35/17/1); Ended Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:10:38 (UTC)

- I've been on Wikipedia since September of '04, back when having 3000 edits was "a lot" and anything over 1000 pretty much guaranteed you'd been around long enough for a mop and bucket. My activity here has been pretty steady ever since, with a few small wikibreaks interspersed in there for real life, etc. I believe the time has come to ask the community for its trust with the admin tools, as I'm very tired of seeing anon IP vandals (in particular) singlehandedly occupy the time of multiple users in reverting their mischief on pages like Battle of New Orleans. Those of you who've interacted with me over that time span know that while I may not always be the easiest person to get along with, I do strive to be fair and objective, two qualities which I feel to be vitally important in any Wikipedia administrator.--chris.lawson 04:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: As self-nominator, I accept, of course.--chris.lawson 05:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: I'm more than happy to assist with page moves, protection/de-protection, vandalism follow-ups (being able to actually block users after issuing four warnings will be an incredibly useful ability), etc. My areas of interest in Wikipedia (largely aviation and numismatics, with a smattering of other random topics thrown in) seem to be particularly devoid of administrator assistance at times, and it would be nice to be able to help out the WikiProjects of which I'm a member without having to track down an admin for help all the time.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: Boy, this one's tough. If you look through my recent edits, probably 90% of them are RC patrol of my own watchlist, and while that's a dirty job that someone has to do, it isn't really anything I'm particularly proud of. My contributions to ATR 42 and ATR 72 have gone a long way toward making the articles useful, and I think the core group of us working on Comair Flight 5191 did a damned fine job. I also made some pretty substantial contributions to Dime (United States coin) way back when (I might even have been the originator of the structure the now-Featured Article has; I don't remember). As far as admin-type stuff, I think I did a pretty good job with Copperchair's RfAr, which went all the way up the chain of dispute resolution.


 * 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: See above re: Copperchair and also the Talk archives for Comair Flight 5191. I have tried, throughout the various disputes, to hear both sides of the argument and to support my position with facts and policies as reasonably as possible. I do not like for edit disputes to escalate all the way to RfC or RfAr, but if another editor is willing to push it that far, I won't hesitate to bring the issue to the attention of uninvolved parties who can offer a fresh perspective on the issue. I believe very strongly in building consensus first and using formal dispute resolution as a last resort.


 * General comments


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


 * Please note that there has been some fairly active campaigning against this RfA by  – Riana ঋ 09:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion



Support
 * 1) Support - why not? --BigDT 05:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - the user has an extensive history of excellent editing, vandal-reversion and carrying editing disputes through talk pages. The only problem I can find is a series of 'rvv' edit summaries for someone who reverted mebibyte to megabyte - eg . While the user was wrong to do this, it's not vandalism. - Richard Cavell 05:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I don't see a problem here. (aeropagitica) 05:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Looks good to me!  K u k i ni  hablame aqui 06:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I'd prefer more wiki-space edits, but all the other pro's more than make up for it. The Rambling Man 09:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support will definitely make a good admin. - An as Talk? 10:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oh yes I've seen this editor around many times and this edit proves that he's a very fair and balanced editor. --  FayssalF  - Wiki me up ®  10:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Sure. Mackensen (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Been around long enough to know policy. See no reason not to support.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 13:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Terence 14:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support looks alright.-- danntm T C 17:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support &mdash;dgies tc 17:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Qualified and capable, no reason to withhold the tools. Agent 86 18:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. Michael 20:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support A good potential admin.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 20:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Strong support per above. Yuser31415 21:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support -well same as the The Rambling Man but he does have a lot of experience and deserves the mop....-- Cometstyles 21:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Support A few concerns, but still definately a good candidate. Captain  panda   In   vino   veritas  00:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. Clawson shows a level head and a decent understanding of policies. He's been around long enough (and been mostly active during that time) to understand how things work. I think he'll do fine with the mop and bucket. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 01:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Support - enough main space edits in article writing and counter-vandalism to offset lowish project space contributions. Addhoc 20:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Support Jo  e  I  16:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Support -- Agεθ020 ( ΔT  •  ФC ) 18:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Support - Can be trusted with the tools for which Clawson has an obvious need. -- Jreferee 18:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) Support, despite lack of wiki-space edits. There is both a reason for trust and a need for administrative tools, and I see no reason to believe that the candidate would jump head first into a policy dispute and start blasting without first doing the appropriate policy checks. --Scimitar parley 19:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) Support semper fictilis 18:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) Support Most definitely.  Funky Monkey   (talk)  20:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) Super strong Shoop da Woop support: strong candidate, will do great things for the project.(Note, increasing amount of support in the face of opposition canvassing. &rArr;  SWAT  Jester    On Belay!  09:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) Support a good candidate --Steve (Stephen)talk 04:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak per Xoloz - NYC JD (interrogatories) 17:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn - NYC JD (interrogatories) 14:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support devoted editors make good admins Alex Bakharev 04:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support strong candidate. ··· 巌流 ? · Talk to Gan ryuu 09:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Suppoer good candidate.  One Night In Hackney 303 11:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support: Adminship ain't nothin' special. IvoShandor 11:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per everything above Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 11:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What about everything below, if I may ask? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * For me, the positives outweigh the benefits of Clawson having the tools - hence my support for the reasons above, I haven't disregarded the opposes, they just don't prove to me that he's going to missuse the tools Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 18:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, after a full review of the links posted by KNcyu38. Civil and humble, diligent and correct in application of policy, hard-working; I have no problem in giving Clawson the tools. The concerted degree of campaigning against this candidate would have revealed any hectoring or paranoid tendencies, and I see no evidence of this. This edit was possibly a mistake, and certainly a misuse of the term vandalism, but I think the candidate has learned from it. --Guinnog 21:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Diligent and correct in application of policy"? It's a template, not his own words, see Spam. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support the good and experience does seem to overwhelm the tenuous negative... and being around three years, who doesn't have the odd sour apple? - Denny 05:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Low level of activity in wiki-space suggests an unfamiliarity with wiki-process. Xoloz 14:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) * Oppose Not convinced of need for the tools, and I don't see much experience with policy on protections and blocks. &mdash;dgies tc 15:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed to support per good explanation by candidate. &mdash;dgies tc 17:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1)  Tentative oppose, changed from neutral. My concern from below still stands, but this pushed me over the edge. However, I'm still willing to hear Clawson's explanation for misunderstanding another user so grossly and with apparent intention, going so far as to call his tone "anti-Semitic". —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, my oppose is not tentative any more after I witnessed more of Clawson here, where he doesn't even once reply to complaints by established users concerning his behaviour on the Comair Flight 5191 article and its talk page. User doesn't seem to know, understand or comply with WP:OWN, nor deal well with allegations of the kind. But he certainly knows  how to cite policy in a level-headed way worthy of an admin. Sorry if I sound a bit sarcastic, but as it is, this RfA is going to succeed, and I seriously can't approve of that. See also several examples of edit summary usage:, , and . —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm worried about his severe lack of experience with process, and the WP:ABF shown by kncyu isn't helping things.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - I hate to do this, but I'm changing my 'vote' to oppose, based on the diffs identified above. I no longer trust Clawson with the tools. I believe that he will be heavy-handed, will attempt to own certain articles, and will push other editors out of the project. Thanks to the above users for identifying the diffs. - Richard Cavell 00:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose due to the diffs provided by KNcyu38. The candidate seems over aggressive in his approach to other users and edit summaries should not be used to disparage. I simply don't think he has the right temperament for adminship. WjBscribe 03:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Oppose per concerns raised by Kncyu38. I have found Chris Lawson to disregard others in favor of his own opinion, no matter how many people disagree. He makes it sound like just one person disagrees on the above subject, but I also disagree and I am not the one who mentions the internet forum there., and another user also disagreed with him too.   He is quick to tell others there sources are weak, but never his own which is as weak as it could get.  Instead of proving the Red Baron was jewish definitvely, he says I must prove he was not????  I disagree with this logic.  See the discussion page on Red Baron article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Manfred_von_Richthofen in regards to his desire to make the Red Baron jewish in a crusade for his own personal agenda, he employs a weak, old source there which provides no evidence for his statement of jewish ancestry, not to mention the quote given doesn't even state what he takes to be fact, i.e. its doesn't even say he was jewish (it could mean he was slavic) yet alone name a jewish relative. in fact, the 50 year old  book isn't even about the red baron.  Many relatives are mentioned in the article, none are jewish.  I just don't think he is right for an administrative position. JohnHistory 04:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory
 * Note to closing b'crat: has only been registered for a few days and is disproportionately interested in this candidacy.    <b style="color:#008000;">semper fictilis</b> 12:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I am concerned by some of this editor's user interaction, per diffs above and a perusal of his talk page and last 1,000 edits. --Dweller 09:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Opppose I came across this by accident, and the repeated assertions by clawson on the BvR talk page, basically saying that its a good ref because i say it is, and refusal to come to terms with opposing arguments, made it clear to me that it wasnt just a personal dispute between the two. He's not tactful eough yet. Checking other edits, there seem to be a number of edit summaries saying things like "electric green" (#00FF00) is in no way related to "lime green" other than being green" . His statements are generally correct, but the wording as a sarcastic put-down is evident. For more, just glance down user contribs. DGG 10:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per above, citing WP:CIVIL while at the very same time failing to follow it shows a failure in understanding, or a mindset that the policy applies only to others. Neither is a comforting thought. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose after a detailed reading of his talkpage. This user seems to have continuing issues with agression/incivility. I was also concerned about this edit. As an admin candidate, Clawson should know that blanking your own page is NOT vandalism. To tell a new user that is not only misleading, but shows a poor grasp of policy. Jeffpw 12:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The template specifically says, "Please do not remove content from your talk page; other users will utilize this page as a way of seeing past discussion, and removing things can be seen as disruptive if you appear to be trying to hide something." I have only used the idea of "vandalism" in discussions with editors who blanked talk pages with the clear intent of hiding warnings or other criticism. See also the Copperchair RfAr.--chris.lawson 13:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless of your reason, it is not vandalism to blank your own talk page, no matter what the reason. Even to remove warnings placed by admins. That is a contentious topic, and opinions differ. Some say that to blank the warning is a de facto admission you have read and understood it; others, like you, consider it vandalism. But there is no policy about it, which your edit summary implies. Jeffpw 13:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Xoloz and Jeffpw. – Riana ঋ 13:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose (somewhat weak/unsure). Candidate seems unnecessarily sarcastic in many edit summaries, per edit history and other diffs cited above.  This incivility is especially worrying when the candidate has often cited WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA to others. (In addition, could you please uncheck "mark edits as minor by default" -- which I assume you have checked -- if you are not going to change it manually on edits that aren't minor?) -- Renesis (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Opppose per above. --A. B. (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per above. Dionyseus 07:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per above. Mango juice talk 18:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose because I saw these comments on Clawson's talk page shortly after this RfA began. I hesitated to vote earlier since this is my first time voting in RfA, but my serious concerns about this candidate's civility and evenhandedness remain ever since reading that.--Seattle Skier (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. I'm concerned about the difs brought up by Seattle Skier and Kncyu38 that show possible civility problems.  I was also concerned about this edit: It shows that the candidate may be heavy-handed with blocks and may use them punitively and in cases in which he is personally involved (though, to be sure, it doesn't definitively demonstrate that).  In response to the candidate's question about how to demonstrate trustworthiness with blocking and so on, showing sound reasoning in line with policy when making suggestions would go a long way.  I don't think that edit did that. <font color="#990066">delldot  <font color="#8B00FF">talk  21:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * (Changed to oppose) I'm not sure what to make of this. The other user is obviously quite impatient and also uncivil, but Clawton doesn't seem willing or capable of understanding the underlying argument, that the burden of evidence lies with the user including information (and from the little that I can deduct, the source or at least the quotation doesn't actually back up the contested statement). However, I'm ready to support in case of an explanation. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The argument, as I see it, is not whether Richthofen was Jewish, but whether the source cited is reliable. The cited source is a published book. The anons (and newly registered Wikipedian who was, until yesterday, one of the anons) claiming lack of Jewish ancestry have nothing but original research and a single post on an Internet forum saying that the book is wrong. I'm quite open to the idea that the book may be wrong, but we should not remove reliably and properly cited information based on uncited, unpublished original research any more than we can include uncited, unpublished original research in the first place. In that case, the burden of evidence lies on those claiming the source to be invalid or unreliable, which is clearly what's being claimed here.--chris.lawson 21:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Neutral Although I feel that the other party in the MvR dispute was/is being way too emotional and disruptive in his postings, he does have a point (I in fact agree with him. I will post why below) and an administrator should be more cool headed and less heavy handed. Even if an editor is ranting if the point he is pushing has any validity at all I feel an Admin should focus on that rather than the post itself. However I also don't see any other reason not to grant his request and one case of not having patience does not equate to being unworthy for a position of trust. Colincbn 11:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

The two oppose votes and the neutral thus far have expressed a concern that I anticipated might come up. In particular, I would like someone to answer this question: how does one gain (or demonstrate) "experience with policy on protections and blocks" without being an administrator? While my edit history can't possibly show it, as a fairly active vandal- and linkspam-fighter, I am quite aware of the policies in place regarding page protection and user blocking, and I would much rather err on the side of caution and do nothing than inadvertently run afoul of a policy with which I am not intimately familiar.--chris.lawson 16:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say "experience with policy on protection" is rather silly because very few editors edit the protection policy, and obviously non-admins can't protect. Experience with process, on the other hand, is gained by working with process, and there are many such open to non-admins.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean experience creating policy. I meant experience applying policy.  Like knowing when to semi or fully protect, or block, as well as when not to.  Maybe you'd call this process. <font color="#00F">&mdash;dgies tc 16:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, my point was that a non-admin has little chance of showing that they know when to protect a page.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Making valid requests at RPP shows they know the policy. Invalid requests can be a learning experience. <font color="#00F">&mdash;dgies tc 16:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Imho, that's asking for a shrubbery.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I didn't ask them to chop down the tallest tree with a herring. But seriously, if someone says they're interested in performing blocks and protections, I think it's reasonable to ask that they show a little experience with the process. <font color="#00F">&mdash;dgies tc 17:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * While I admit it's been a while, I was very active on WP:VIP back when it was still a highly used page (I'm certain that at least some of those edits were lost in all the page moves and splits that went on a while back, as I'm not seeing anywhere near as many edits in my history as I expected to involving that and similar pages) and became very familiar with the administrator process of blocking users for vandalism, 3RR, etc. Page protection is something that I've generally asked for personally from admins I knew rather than making a formal request at WP:RFPP. Again, I plan to err on the side of caution (a practise that keeps me out of trouble in aviation and seems that it would do the same as an admin on Wikipedia) and rely on those with greater experience for advice and assistance.--chris.lawson 17:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. I find it sad, and somewhat disgusting, that a groundswell of opposition has been drummed up based on one interaction on one talk page with a user whose behaviour has been...trying. Said user also posted on my talk page trying to poison the well. Now, if we're going to penalize sysops for getting a little hot under the collar because they keep getting harassed about defending a book over a forum I might consider handing in my own bit. It appears that this has been going on since late February; I'd be annoyed too. This is the anon's proof. We don't let edits like that stand. Ever. Mackensen (talk) 10:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, this is the same fellow who made a complete mess of the Tuskegee Airmen talk page: . I'm not one to canvass, but everybody voting oppose should probably take a long, hard look at his edits, and see whether they'd blame Clawson for having a little trouble assuming complete good faith. We don't ask our sysops to stick their heads in the ground. Mackensen (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Your confusing me, with the other guy who disagreed with him. They might have been arguing since Feb, I have since yesterday only. You should have been able to figure that out with the ISP addresses that your obviously using. Agian, that was not me talking about the forum, and your missing the point. I did not mention any forum, ever. Yes, I had trouble with the Tuskeegee page too, I asked for sources and raised good points there. My inital "talk" posts were deleted and it upset me combined with seeing editing conflicts where it appeared someone had deliberately changed my wording around to make it look bad. That all upset me. So what? This issue is a much worse level of wrong though. I didn't poison your well I just gave you a couple links. Agian, you don't seem to realize that he is the one who must defend the source, I am not making an claim such as he is. Very basic logic here. This isn't about me, as your trying to make it, it's about him. I'm not applying for anything he is. I think its disgusting that you want voters to vote on him and his words based off of my issues with the Tuskegee article??? That is truly ridiculous. You are canvassing and being hyprocritcal. I gave you a link to his words, you gave people here a link to mine. The proof is in the pudding no matter how you try to distract from it. Look at his source and it's quote, period. This isn't about me, or "good-faith" it's about scholarship and Chris Lawson's lack of it. Not to mention, like you said, others have raised these same issues, with the same source/quote earlier. How did he respond to them?? Badly. BTW, I didn't even see his response on the TA page until right now. JohnHistory 11:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

If I can get a word in edgewise, scholarship doesn't mean a random web forum. Mackensen (talk) 11:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you not listening at all? That wasn't me, I don't need any source anyway. I'm not the one making the claim!!!! He is. I am making zero claims. He needs the good source/quote for changing a major historical figures ethnicity not me. What part of that do you not understand? I think it is very simple. P.S. I added to the above JohnHistory 11:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory


 * Hang on. If you've only been around "since yesterday" which posts on the Tuskegee Airmen talk page are you referring to? The history shows no recent activity. It's pretty obvious by the duck test that you are the IP editor as well. <font face="Verdana"> One Night In Hackney 303 11:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I said, this issue with the red baron is from the other day, maybe technically 2 days. The other guy/girl who is not me is from earlier. Going to bed. Goodnight. JohnHistory 11:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory


 * I think the point here is not Book vs. Forum but more about the content of the claim. If the claim is simply that "he would have been killed by the Nazis" as has been stated than that is far from claiming Jewish ancestry as the Nazis killed members of other groups as well. The book itself might be completely accurate but not in fact be claiming that he was Jewish. Also what about this book makes it a credible source? Just the fact that it was published carries some weight but obviously that alone is not enough, for if it was having two books with apposing views would cause a paradox (maybe a wikidox?). So beside being in print what other claims can be made for its validity? In spite of a seemingly over emotional attitude concerning this issue the points made ie: No other source makes this claim; A family genealogy seems to dispute this claim; The source in question is quite possibly biased; The wording of the claim in question is vague, are all by them selves valid points for discussion. I hope that all the concerned parties will take a small break and come back to this discussion with a more cool headed approach. Colincbn 12:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't really the place for that discussion, but the anon's failure to bring forth a real source, or provide concrete reasons why the given source shouldn't be trusted counts in Clawson's favor. In any event, I'm hunting for said book myself so that the matter can be put to rest. Mackensen (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are of course correct, this is not the place for that discussion. I will place any other comments I have on the appropriate talk page. Colincbn 12:17, 20 March 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.