User talk:Tom Morris/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Deletion review for Occupy Marines

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Occupy Marines. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Kai445 (talk) 07:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

As noted above, I've changed my mind and will undelete the article imminently. I'll ask another admin to close the DRV. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to see you've taken a closer look. -Kai445 (talk) 08:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Tom, you made a correct decision there and you should have stood by it. The nominators comments that he felt there was a consensus to keep were no reason to close with the mass of additional editor input after that , I don't see as his comments had any weight at all. Your close is very messy indeed imo. Do you really see his comments overriding the mass of additional comments that followed it? Please link me to the policy or guideline that supports such a closure, thanks - Where does it say he is even allowed to withdraw it after multiple delete votes? Youreallycan (talk) 12:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Nominators always have the right to withdraw their nominations. Sadly, policy is unclear here: WP:WITHDRAWN only says that you can't use nominator withdrawing to justify a speedy keep if there have been substantive discussions following, and withdrawing cannot be used as a way to short-circuit discussion. Neither of those cases apply. The withdrawal of the nominator doesn't always undermine the consensus for deletion, but in this case, I'm afraid it does.

Pragmatically speaking, the answer is simple: let's leave it as it is, wait a few weeks and see if the sourcing issues get resolved. If not, someone can make the case for deletion again. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Very messy Tom - You closed it as delete and only overturned on a vague comment from the nominator, perhaps you could have asked him to clarify his intention. "Old AfD multi and MiszaBot config as this article seems to be here for the long haul now" - dude - you appear all over the place with this. - Never mind we'll see how the facbook pages notability goes forward and get back to it later. As you closed this AFD as nominator withdrawn I reserve right to nominate it again without reference to the last one as technically it is not a Keep close but a withdrawn and as such is void in regards to a time line objection. Youreallycan (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Marines

Hi Tom. I just wanted to clarify some things; it seems that you restored the article on the basis that I apparently withdrew my nomination. This is not the case; if you look at my comments both at the AfD and on my talkpage (when asked to withdraw by another editor) I made it clear in this edit that I would not be withdrawing the nomination. I decided to step away from the discussion after receiving feedback that I was becoming too involved and becoming too combative over the issue, but though I conceded (at the time of the comment) that consensus appeared to be leaning towards keep I did not withdraw the nomination. This was indeed my first AfD, but I know how to withdraw the nomination formally and would've non-admin closed it as a withdrawal if that was my intention.

If you feel that the article still should stand, then fair enough. But I feel you made the right decision to delete, based on policy. It was to be expected that some of the keep !voters would come straight at you, pitchforks in hand, but you made the right call according to policy. Please reconsider the restoration; don't keep this article on my account. I did not withdraw, and feel the original result should stand. If any editors want to contest it, they can take it to DRV. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Given this clarification Tom would you please consider reverting back to your Admin close and the user that objected to that close can open their DRV discussion again? A cleaner option might be to simply revert back to prior your closure and we'll ask at WP:AN for a completely new close? Youreallycan (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the latter option seems sensible: I've created a thread at WP:AN asking for an uninvolved admin to either let it stand as it is now or to reclose as appropriate. (I will now go and get myself utterly drunk to try and forget what a ghastly mess I've made of this.) —Tom Morris (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Tom go get drunk if you like, but in celebration not in sadness. Your efforts here have been fine, we all make little missies occasionally. We are all volunteers and here to help and enjoy a little bit. Thanks for your willingness to look and look again at this. Best regards. - Youreallycan (talk) 13:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Tom, you've allowed yourself to be bamboozled. The controlling comment in this regard by user Basalisk should not be one at his personal Talk page, which few participants in the AfD debate bothered to follow, but this one on the project page for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupy Marines (2nd nomination):

• "I'd like to point out that the requirement that the subject be the main topic of the cited sourced comes from WP:WEB, rather than WP:GNG. However, I see your point, and for the benefit of others in this discussion I concede at this point that consensus is to keep. I will not be arguing for a deletion any further. Regards (User:Basalisk on the 13 December 2011)

JohnValeron (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I like to think I haven't been "bamboozled". I took a comment to mean one thing. The author of the comment said it means something different. Rather than attempt to be a psychic, I'll step out of the way and let an uninvolved admin look over the whole mess and see what they can make of it instead. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (section)

Please be advised I have added a comment that concerns you at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Occupy_Marines_AfD. JohnValeron (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Tom, I apologize for removing the foregoing message. As I told you above, I've been copyediting Wikipedia since July 2010 but am new to AfD. I supposed it was my responsibility to clean up after myself by deleting messages that had obviously been responded to. But I see your point: I have no business scrubbing messages from your Talk page. Please forgive me. JohnValeron (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I just like to keep everything because I'm an archivist packrat. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Please be advised I have added a new comment concerning you time/date-stamped 01:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Occupy_Marines_AfD. JohnValeron (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Lift Ban?

Tom, For reasons that are obvious from the fundraising discussion, could you look into how one would go into lifting the indefinite ban on editing by Douglas Youvan? That assumes you agree the argument he was having with Hrafn was unfortunate and not representative of his advocacy for the WMF. He is still active on Commons as "Doug youvan". Thanks. It's more than OK to decline. LadyJosie (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea what the nature of the dispute you refer to is. I may risk failure to assume good faith here, but would the village pump thread be a convenient excuse to get User:Doug youvan unblocked by any chance? —Tom Morris (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The individual in question operated a number of socks (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nukeh/Archive, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nukeh & Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nukeh (2nd)) and made numerous bizarre and incoherent claims (including that I am a cabal of Kansas public school teachers). I have no extreme sentiment against his reinstatement -- but don't really expect him to contribute anything to the project. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Just sayin

Hi Tom, I saw some of that "occupy" stuff and just wanted to drop by and say "Don't beat yourself up over such trivial matters". Everything I've seen of your work here has impressed me as thoughtful, considered, and always done with the best interests of the pedia at the forefront. Months from now nobody is gonna care about that AfD (save for those few vested individuals who wish to lay wp:ownership claims on said article.) Keep doing what you're doing, be yourself, and enjoy what you do here.

By the way .. have a great holiday season. (and Merry Christmas too if you don't object to a touch of politically incorrect best wishes.)

Cheers :) — Ched :  ?  10:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The way I figure it is there is only one way to learn on Wikipedia and that is to do, which means there will be mistakes, blunders and right royal screw-ups. But the alternative is only to close safe discussions. Thanks for the holiday cheer. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Closed as keep

Hi Tom User:Causa sui has closed it as Keep now. I just wanted to say. - Your gut feeling and comment assessment of delete was imo the correct close and moving forward don't let this stop you making similar well judged policy driven assessments of consensus - regards - Youreallycan (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• LOL. Except when YRC wants a keep result.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I always err on the side of caution in such case and wouldn't ever on the Keep side in similar situations. Youreallycan (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• The default is to keep unless there is consensus to delete, though. AfD is structured to be in favor of keeping articles at the margins.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I concur you were correct in closing as delete. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Thanks for your kind info. Would surely do that from future. Thanks! -- Karthik Nadar 14:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)