Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tom Morris

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Tom Morris[edit]

Final (97/1/3); Closed as successful by —Anonymous DissidentTalk at 02:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Nomination[edit]

Tom Morris (talk · contribs) – Tom Morris first edited Wikipedia a little over nine years ago, though he did go elsewhere for a while. I first met him a year ago at a London GLAM Wiki event where he was a cautious visitor from Citizendium. We had a long and wideranging discussion about the whole Citizendium experiment, Wikipedia and GLAMs and despite meeting me he came back to Wikipedia.

I've subsequently met him several more times as he has become a regular at the London meetup, and I've also come across him online. Tom is a very experienced candidate who has done some useful work and I'm sure will make good use of the tools.

What strikes me about Tom is that he has a rare combination of serious IT skills, Good humour and both understanding of and commitment to the pedia. I commend him to the community. ϢereSpielChequers 11:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination[edit]

I'd like to recommend Tom Morris (talk · contribs) to the community as a promising editor who I believe could be very useful to Wikipedia if given admin bits. Tom gets around and samples a little bit of everything, with the result that he’s a well-rounded editor who’s at least passingly familiar with just about everything that goes on around here. He brings to the table a whole lot of experience not only on Wikipedia, but in a variety of similar projects that give him a unique perspective on how “wiki” culture works. As well, this wide experience helps him bring a cool, rational mindset to his work on-wiki - Tom is never hesitant to acknowledge his mistakes, nor is he afraid to sit down and truly analyze a situation before acting, and he does both of those with a sense of humorous self-awareness. I consider Tom a solid asset to many of our backend processes (AfD chief among them), a useful front-end content contributor, and someone heavily immersed in open culture and decision-making; I think he would be a good asset to the admin corps. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. I hope I can help the community in whatever way I can. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: My primary use for administrative tools would be to help with the deletion process, primarily at AfD (where I'm a fairly regular participant), but also at CSD and PROD. I answer questions on OTRS and would benefit in being able to see deleted contributions to understand exactly why pages were deleted. I'd also be interested in helping out at AIV and RFPP if they get backlogged.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions are probably the wide variety of wikignome tasks including lots of sister project links (to Wikinews, Commons and Wikisource), adding categories, WikiProject tagging of new articles (as part of new page patrolling), recent changes patrolling with Huggle and so on. I also do some copyediting and wikification.
I've also made quite a few contributions to the Signpost from February through to October. From my work for Signpost, I think the best report I've done is the Wikimania report.
I've had three articles at DYK: Timothy E. Quill, Help Me Anthea, I'm Infested and Black Bear Ranch. I've also created a few other articles which I chose not to submit to DYK: Society for Old Age Rational Suicide, Maurice Généreux, Walter Gale (schoolmaster), Religious epistemology, Skeptical theism and Sweet v Parsley. I have also expanded Dignity in Dying, specifically the 'History' and the 'Practicalities' sections. When I have time, I'd like to fix this up to be a GA.
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 don't think I've ever been in any conflicts. I've had one or two situations where I've done something silly that I very quickly came to regret, but I very quickly apologise, learn from it and move on. I've had a few exchanges with problematic, now banned, users–but nothing that rises to the level of "stress". Generally, I take everything with a bit of humour and always try to remember that Wikipedia is not compulsory.
Additional questions from FleetCommand
4. Please compare the differences between becoming the Chief Executive Officer of company versus becoming an administrator in Wikipedia.
A: A CEO has direct executive control over the business he runs and can sets the course of leadership for that company. He has power because he can tell other people what to do, but may relegate the actual mechanics of that to others: the janitor may have all the keys to the office, the IT manager may have the root passwords to the servers, the head of finance may be the one who administers the bank accounts. On Wikipedia, this distinction also exists: the administrators serve this janitorial role, while the job of the CEO is taken by the process of community consensus (albeit one with a constitutional monarch). Unlike a CEO, administrators have only as much say as anyone else in the consensus-based processes as anyone else in the project: they just have access to certain tools to implement consensus that non-administrators don't have. Another important difference is that a CEO often must take a decision one way or another on some issue. Wikipedia admins, like all users, always have the opt-out clause: if you don't feel comfortable doing something, you can pass it on to someone else. (Also, generally, the salary is better for CEOs.)
5. Please tell us, as an administrator who has the power to block others at any time, how would you handle the following situation: The hypothetical User:A is reported to WP:AN3 for having trespassed the 3RR within the last 16 hours, reverting User:B. User:A however, argues that he believed what he reverted was blatant advertisement but he had willingly ceased reverting 14 hours ago when a third user un-reverted him and told him he was wrong. You check the edit history and see that User:A was indeed wrong. Both User:A and User:B have received blocks in the past. Question: Cite a Wikipedia policy and tell us whether User:A deserves a block or not.
A: I'll preface this by saying that WP:AN3 is not an area I plan to get involved in: if I ever became interested in doing so, I would lurk there for a while to see how admins regularly handle the different issues related to three revert rule enforcement before jumping in. I think there's a fairly simple answer to this question that derives from the blocking policy. Blocks are not supposed to be punitive but preventative. I don't see how a 14 hour old borderline 3RR violation counts as "imminent or continuing damage or disruption". Some administrative judgment may be required here: it may be that A has had six rounds of 3RR with B already, so it would be worth checking the history in more detail if there's any doubt. But if I couldn't find any evidence of recent previous edit warring, then, as with vandalism, I'd have to assume good faith: I'd probably warn them to not break 3RR again and to try to be more careful what they revert as "I'm sorry, I thought this was vandalism" is an excuse that people will stop believing pretty quickly. If this user truly is a hardened edit warrior, the lenience will only be short-lived: they'll be back for another round soon enough and an admin can duly block them.
Additional questions from Ebe123
6. What's your opinion on WP:ABUSE and WP:LTA?
A: I'll start with a highly controversial starting point: long-term abuse is bad! Sharing information to identify long-term abusers obviously helps. Is WP:LTA the right way to do this? The argument against is that it provides a target: abuse Wikipedia enough and you get immortalized on WP:LTA, which runs against WP:DENY. It also potentially makes them into outlaws. This information exists in the minds of long-term users, but making it into a formal list runs certain risks. On the face of it, it's a fairly compelling argument. The important flipside of this is one derived from experience: there are long-term abusers of the project, and we should try to ferret out their latest sockpuppets and attacks as quickly as possible so as to reduce their ability to cause havoc and waste the time of volunteer contributors.
I was involved in tracking and alerting administrators across numerous wikis of someone who, if he keeps it up, seems like a good candidate for the LTA list. His disruption can be easily stopped if admins and users on both Wikipedia and on the sister projects are aware of his history and methods. Having a place to point an admin from, say, Wiktionary, to clue them in on cross-wiki vandalism they might not be aware of is obviously useful. Given that admins aren't necessarily going to have first contact with the latest incarnations of these socks, I think if we are going to have WP:LTA, I'd rather it was public than just something circulating amongst admins.
I've had one experience with WP:ABUSE: I contacted a high school in the US about vandalism coming from their IP, primarily because that vandalism had to be oversighted as it contained contact information for a minor. The school's administration were very thankful for letting them know about this, although I didn't hear back as to whether anything came of it or if they had any further questions. Should we pursue abuse reporting? There's only one answer to that: if it works. I can't think of any reason why reporting abuse to ISPs and advising schools about vandalism emanating from their domains might make the problem worse, but the only reason we should not continue with WP:ABUSE is if there is evidence to suggest that it is either very close to ineffective or actively harmful.
7. Please tell us a convincing rationale to oppose you, and give a rebuttal.
A: If I had to oppose myself, I would do so on the basis that I do not have extensive dispute resolution experience. I only once had a go at the dispute resolution noticeboard, has only given a few third opinions and I tend to shy away from Wikiquette assistance and some of the more complex ANI debates.
To rebut, then, I have explicitly pointed out that I have not included handling more complex disputes in the list of things I would plan to do as an administrator. There are people who find resolving disputes a very satisfying use of their time, but not me. Those who can accept that kind of burden should accept it, but I don't think it is a requirement for doing good work with administrative tools. Through OTRS, I've helped a lot of people who have had articles deleted and are angry about it, or have had articles about them vandalised and are hurt by the experience. This kind of experience isn't quite so visible but is still there.
The reason I don't participate in dispute resolution isn't because I'm a heartless, uncivil meanie but simply because there seem to be others who do a better job at it because they are both good at it and interested in it. And given the importance of resolving disputes amicably, that's something I leave to the people who do it well.
Additional question from King of Hearts
8. How would you close the following AfDs? (No cheating!) Please give a rationale for each, as if you were actually closing the AfD.
User:King of Hearts/Admin coaching/AfD/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Brooks Grant
A: Delete: lack of reliable sourcing.
The initial headcount is 4-3. I discounted Quistisffvii's keep because it is a WP:ILIKEIT. The remaining comments show that notability hasn't been demonstrated: the WP:GNG has not been satisfied and neither has WP:ENTERTAINER.
User:King of Hearts/Admin coaching/AfD/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fledgling Jason Steed
A: Delete: lots of potential sources presented but they aren't actually reliable; notability not established.
Once you peer past the canvassed keep voters, there are a few vague suggestions of sources but they are either from sources which aren't reliable or have other problems (passing mentions, simply being online forums/message boards where establishing notability borders into original research territory etc.). That said, if, going behind John Rawls' veil of ignorance, the user actively trying to retrieve a back copies of the various obscure references actually found something substantive, I would have to kick myself, undelete the article and give him a barnstar for perseverance!
User:King of Hearts/Admin coaching/AfD/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths related to Scientology
A: If my RfA were to close successfully next week and I had to close this AfD the following week, I probably wouldn't do it to retain strict adherence to WP:UNINVOLVED. I participated in an RfC earlier in the year that involved many of the same editors who participated in this AfD, on issues that are very similar. That RfC eventually led to an ArbCom case, so given that if I were to close it as either keep or delete, participants on either side of the divide may have good reason to disagree with my judgement and take it to deletion review, I would pass it on to someone else.
That said, let's put on our hypothetical glasses.
If I were closing it, I would probably have closed it as delete: there are plenty of sources, but the naming of the list means that there will always be WP:COATRACK/inclusion criteria issues.

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

  • Edit stats on talk -FASTILY (TALK) 23:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since Tom does a lot of deletion sorting, the AfD vote tool is difficult to use because you can only see a half dozen votes at a time. For anyone interested, I have compiled a full analysis of Tom Morris' votes at AfD which can be found here. —SW— soliloquize 16:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a GLAM? 24.14.36.165 (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • See WP:GLAM: outreach activity involving galleries, libraries, archives and museums. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Support The utility in OTRS work is more then a enough reason to grant the admin bit. I don't see any reason to believe we cannot trust the candidate to act in good faith with the tools. Monty845 21:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support While I don't know Tom exceedingly well, I know enough to be sure he would make a good admin. When it comes to IT he's practically a wizard, which is always useful. I've never known him to make rash decisions, to get het up or really behave in any ways I would consider unbecoming in an admin. He's sensible and very clueful, and he's also capable of doing good content work. I really can't think of any reasons to oppose, and I'm 100% certain he will make a good admin and not only that, a valuable admin. OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 21:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I have absolutely no doubts that Tom will make great use of the tools. I have a particular interest as Tom is part of the UK GLAM task force and GLAM is my "file" on the UK chapter board (note we are all unpaid volunteers). This has given me the opportunity to collaborate with Tom on a number of occasions, including how best to improve Wikipedia collaborations and encourage new editors. His thinking is sound, he is patient and a review of his contributions will show you his calm and patient approach with editors having problems understanding our policies is top notch. Fæ (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I thought he was an administrator. He is an excellent candidate and I believe he will do great as an administrator. -- Luke (Talk) 21:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support as nom. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support OTRS access, trustworthy noms, good content work, great work at AfD, looks civil and helpful. Net positive. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Strong Support. -- Good work Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Epbr123 (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. It couldn't be any simpler: Wikipedia needs admins, and Tom would make a great admin. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 23:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 23:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I like their AFD participation along with content work. --Kangaroopowah 01:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Looks good, lots of great experience, no problems supporting -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support WSQ's nom statement along with Tom's contributions that I've analysed are competently convincing. Wifione Message 04:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. James500 (talk) 07:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support a competent user, no reason to oppose. --Sp33dyphil © • © 07:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Trustworthy editor, with a strong history of deliberative contributions both on wikipedia and elsewhere, Tom would be an excellent admin. (Though those who say they have never seen Tom get "het up" have clearly never read his tweets from public transport :D)Ajbpearce (talk) 08:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I fully meant about Wikipedia things. I know public transport is the bane of his existence ;D OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 08:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support No need for any comments. Petrb (talk) 09:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support No concerns at all. Johnbod (talk) 12:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Im my opinion, a good sense of humour is a must for any sysop and you have it, at least according to the nominator and I trust that person as well. –BuickCenturyDriver 12:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Seems to have made a lot of positive contributions, understands how Wikipedia works and has the level head needed for adminship. Would make a good admin. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  22. I will say first that Tom and I are friends and have been for a good while now, so my comment may appear biased - but, in all honesty, it is difficult not to be biased when discussing this candidate. He has shown time and time again qualities expected of administrators even without being involved in particularly drama-fuelled areas of Wikipedia. His level head and common sense, evidenced in numerous edits on numerous discussion boards and XfD discussions, is a valuable skill to have and it is rare to see in a non-admin. His history offwiki - for instance his knowledge of several programming languages and regex - is something I not only envy greatly but something that will inevitably prove useful with the more complex, technical administrator tasks. While Tom is not a perfect candidate for the role - his judgement can be questioned in some of his contributions and comments - he seems, to me, pretty bloody close. All the best with this application. — Joseph Fox 14:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Baseball Watcher 16:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support No need to think twice before supporting him. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Secret account 18:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Tom has been nothing but supportive and helpful in my own contributions on Wikipedia and in other areas - when I've needed something he's always done a top job at my inquiries, concerns and questions. I think he'll really "up the ante" regarding quality admins - something we really need these days. Thanks Tom for considering adminship! (I already thought he was one, ha!) SarahStierch (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  27. --Closedmouth (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. His work at AfD and OTRS, which is directly related to the areas that he intends to work in as an admin, shows me that he'll keep up his outstanding service after getting the mop.--Slon02 (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Great user, answered questions very well. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, definitely. Tom has been great community member for the past few years that I've known him, and I look forward to him having the additional abilities to help us in more ways. James F. (talk) 00:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. bibliomaniac15 00:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support – Excellent work at AfD, and the answers to the posed questions are thorough and accurate. —mc10 (t/c) 00:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support I see no problems, so I support. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 01:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Well, this is a bit surprising. I kind of thought he was an administrator. Anyways, I'll support because I strongly believe that we need more administrators who are able to work effectively in the deletion process. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Generally clueful. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Bloody oath. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 02:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  37. I, er, apparently blocked Tom earlier this year, so I guess I will have to support to make up for it. NW (Talk) 03:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  38. As nominator. ϢereSpielChequers 06:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 06:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support --v/r - TP 14:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support No reason not to, as far as I can see. HurricaneFan25 15:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Long history with project and well-equipped to handle drama. I don't see any other issues and answers to questions indicate a solid thought process. Kuru (talk) 15:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support While I ideally would have liked to see more actual voting activity at AfD for an admin who primarily wants to work there, we desperately need more admins closing AfD's, and he seems to demonstrate a good understanding of how it works. —SW— chatter 16:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - OTRS access speaks for itself in terms of trust and communication, the two most important qualities required for adminship in my opinion. No reservations. Mato (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Fully qualified for the job. 28bytes (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  46. support Puffin Let's talk! 19:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Only 9 years experience and only 25,000 edits? My standard at Rfa is 10 years and 30,000 edits... Okay seriously Strong support. Excellent very trustworthy candidate with a highly respected nominator. VictorianMutant(Talk) 01:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Long-time Wikipedian, trusted by the community, great work at AfD, credible answers to questions, laudable content work. Should make a top-drawer sysop--Hokeman (talk) 02:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support An experienced and extremely clueful editor, Tom is also friendly and helpful. I am sure he will make an excellent administrator and gets my full unreserved support. Best of luck, Tom -- Marek.69 talk 02:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support As fetchcomms said, Tom has clue, and I don't foresee him flubbing this up. Logan Talk Contributions 05:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Trustworthy and clueful. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 4:45pm • 06:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  52. I swear, especially with his OTRS work, that I thought he already was an admin. sonia♫ 08:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - as clueful as the Daily Telegraph mega-bumper-hyper-edition crossword book. Also very open to reason, level-headed, rational-thinking and (as far as I can see!) non-grudge-bearing. Sense of humour (especially when it can be directed against self) very important for Admins. Tom will be great. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support I admit, I was going to default support here - I've met the guy and he seems like the sort that wouldn't go round blowing up the encyclopedia. But I did my review anyway and I was surprised at how much knowledge Tom has, and how willing he was get involved in difficult policy discussions. Certainly support. WormTT · (talk) 11:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  55. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 14:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support, mabdul 16:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support I've met Tom before at a Meetup and there's no doubt that he has lots of Wikipedia knowledge. Combine that to the fact that he has about 3 DYKs, it is obvious that he is very enthusiastic about his work. Giving him the mop is what he deserves to have. Minima© (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Yes. Swarm X 18:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Well qualified. Courcelles 19:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Sure, edits seem to be OK and good track record for civility and competence. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. Drmies (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Generally good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support I find no reason not to. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support ResMar 23:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  66. 'Support The Citizendium work is a plus, not a minus; and, to my view, leaving it is not something negative but was , in this case, a distaste for the closed environment. He'll do very well here, form all indications. DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  67. 'Support Disappointed that Fluffernutter finished her co-nomination before I got there. That aside, he'll be a sound admin (I have already mistaken him for one before). WilliamH (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - No concerns. I liked his answer to Q8 (third part) about the Scientology-related AfD. Shows that he gets some of the nuances of involvement, a thing which even experienced admins may go astray on. EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - A solid candidate. Tiptoety talk 07:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support No concerns. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 07:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support AM comfortable with this - MOP PLEASE! Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! (Whisper...) 10:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support --JN466 12:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support A great candidate; no concerns at all regarding their ability to wield the mop. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Does good work in OTRS. Did excellent work in commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:O'TooleEbertPatric by Roger Ebert.jpg which was uploaded by a famous person (Roger Ebert) and used on Wikipedia for more than 6 years. Yet he wasn't daunted by that when he saw the evidence that it was a copyrighted image of Getty Images. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 02:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support I know Tom well from Citizendium, here and offline, and I trust that he will continue to deal sensibly with the tools and responsibilities given to him. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support - fully meets my standards: especially rollbacking and an open mind. Bearian (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. Obviously has great experience and is positively brimming with clue. the wub "?!" 00:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Unlike my erstwhile esteemed colleague NuclearWarfare, I won't hit the wrong knobs on Huggle or whatever technological gadget he was playing with and thereby accidentally block you to categorise this support as an 'act of wanton contrition'. Your answers alone incline me to support. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. Not insane. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support gladly per WereSpielChequers's nomination, the co-nomination by Fluffernutter, and per support of all the above. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support, good answers. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support No concerns, he will go a fine job as an admin. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support 110% support!!! How can any one say he is not qualified!!!! Look at his contributions you can't deny the fact the is 'too cool' for Adminship. --Njavallil ...Talk 2 Me 21:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. Although I don't remember interacting with the candidate, I have a high opinion of the nominators. I looked through a lot of the candidate's talk comments, and he seems to me to be clueful, communicative, and considerate. All of the negatives that have been raised in the RfA so far strike me as un-worrying. A very well-qualified candidate. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support No reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. I've found Tom to be a thoughtful and skilled contributor to our projects. No reason to think he would abuse the tools; to the contrary, I think Wikipedia will be much better off if he has them. I also highly approve of the choice to use a real name for a username, and think it is good for the public's perception of our project to have administrators who do so. -Pete (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support, no worries. — Cirt (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support I've learned nothing that makes me doubt that this editor will use the tools wisely. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support. I've met Tom at some of the meetups and got to know that he's a sensible guy. I think he'd make good use of the tools, and they certainly come in handy for OTRS work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support- No reservations. Dru of Id (talk) 11:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support There'll always be a learning curve ... even current admins still have one :-) I'll forgive your work on Citizendium ... after all, I have friends who used to hold Rhinoceros Party memberships, but are still upstanding citizens in the long run (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support. While I acknowledge that Pedro's comments raises the issue of responsiveness, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. I think you are knowledgeable enough to deal with the tools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 13:30, 2 December 2011‎
  93. Support Regards, Rock drum Ba-dumCrash 14:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support, no concerns — Frankie (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support - trustworthy and experienced editor. PhilKnight (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Why the hell not - Above all, I know he is trustworthy and that counts more than anything. Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 22:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. The blog entry Pedro cites below doesn't square with the aw-shucks answer to Q3. Moreover, why would anyone want to be an administrator here without firsthand knowledge of how they'll deal with conflict in this environment? Townlake (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Administrators learn on the job. Always have done, and I don't see Tom approaching this role headfirst without due consideration and collaboration. — Joseph Fox 09:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have trouble supporting anyone getting deletion tools when they submit AFDs like this.--Michig (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      From what I can tell, that was a one time mistake (correct me if I'm wrong). Nobody's perfect, and admin candidates are no exception. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 22:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Having looked at the candidate's contributions again, moving to neutral.--Michig (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Whoa! That AfD can be viewed two ways: The straight way is to think that Tom had absolute confidence in Michig's ability to supply sources and therefore withdrew as he has the right to. (Article history shows that AfD in that situation was well due.) The other way is to think that Michig had a gun pointed at Tom, forcing him to close the AfD and therefore, the Tom's statement "I just couldn't find them. My mistake." is an ironic insult. Well, do I even need to mention which of the two views is mine? Fleet Command (talk) 15:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I can assure you that I don't have a gun, nor would have pointed it at anyone. My issue here was that sources were readily available and it shouldn't have gone to AFD. It happens too often, and admins with delete tools who judge subjects by their WP articles alone can do a lot of damage. I could see no evidence that this a habitual problem with the candidate, however, hence moving to neutral.--Michig (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Whilst one normally cannot take off-site comments as adding either a plus or a minus you have a very clear link on your user page to your blog regarding you leaving Citizendium. This entry, some of which I agree with, nevertheless has some odd statements, not least "Wikipedia and other projects have the principle of “assume good faith”. It is often hard to live by.". I personally don't find assuming good faith that hard to live by.

    I also note that after giving you a friendly heads up that you might need to sign the acceptance of this RFA [1] you simply could not be bothered to reply even though you have edited (at time of writing) some NINE other pages. Uncommunicative admins we don't need. People who either ignore common courtesy (i.e. replying) or don't think it is common courtesy to reply we also don't need. I'm sure this RFA will pass so FWIW I hope you take my comment in good faith and remember that a little more good faith, and a little more courtesy, are likely more important than a passionate interest in open source software to being a useful admin. Pedro :  Chat  21:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  2. Concerns over AFDs where the subjects' notability appears to have been judged based on the WP article rather than other coverage, but other contributions look good.--Michig (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I cannot decide: I do not really know Tom Morris and his answers to the questions that I asked made me uneasy. The A4 is not really the differences between a Wikipedia admin and a company CEO but rather it is the lead section of an article titled "The difference between a sysop and a CEO". It is actually a very good answer; but I needed an excellent or outstanding answer to become a supporter of him. The A5 however is a bad answer. It appears to me that although Tom knows that the hypothetical User:A does not deserve a block, he would actually investigate deeper solely in search of another reason to inflict a block. These answers do not convert me from a neutral to a supporter. Fleet Command (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously, some of those questions seemed a bit much. It's not like the guy is running for the Senate or something. He seems cool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.36.165 (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC) IP, while your comments are welcome, only accounts, not IPs, are allowed to place actual !votes in RFAs, so I've struck your vote. Please log in to !vote if you have an account. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Tom_Morris&oldid=1088280556"