User talk:Docmoates
| This is Docmoates's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives (index): 1Auto-archiving period: 1 hour  |
 Archives (Index) |
Hi Docmoates. I reverted your closure of this AFD.
One reason is that it was just recently relisted, and another was that it wasn't closed properly. I think it would be best to not have a relatively new account close this, since its within 3 separate CTOPs. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 16:40, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- The article is within WP:CT/BLP, WP:CT/AP, and WP:CT/GENSEX. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 16:41, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- @45dogs Apologies, just seeing this. Was trying to fix my mistake. It should be good now. I believe it is closed properly. I don't believe the close is likely to be controversial and there was a consensus. I am sorry for my template mistake. Docmoates (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Its fine. Please sign the closure with {{subst:NAC}}. I will just warn you that I wouldn't be surprised if it is challenged. But it could go without issue. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 16:50, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think this was a good choice for a first close. Per WP:NACD:
Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins
. – bradv 17:09, 11 December 2025 (UTC)- Also, you already proposed a move on the talk page. That makes you WP:INVOLVED with respect to any administrative actions. I'm reverting your close. – bradv 17:12, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Bradv - Let's only make statements that are accurate. I was not involved in the Afd. The move request was a separate action. I did not suggest or vote move or redirect in the Afd. With there being nearly 20 keep and 12 delete, I am not sure how it meets WP:NACD as it seems like a consensus not controversial but to each their own, I won't argue. I just ask that in the future you either be directly honest or expand your edit summary to include the full action. Docmoates (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- You're WP:INVOLVED with respect to the article. Please read the links I've posted here. – bradv 17:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Bradv I did read it and it says "should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved" and I was not involved in the Afd dispute per the policy. It does not say involved in any actions on the page only the particular dispute which was the Afd not the move. Docmoates (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- You're WP:INVOLVED with respect to the article. Please read the links I've posted here. – bradv 17:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Bradv - Let's only make statements that are accurate. I was not involved in the Afd. The move request was a separate action. I did not suggest or vote move or redirect in the Afd. With there being nearly 20 keep and 12 delete, I am not sure how it meets WP:NACD as it seems like a consensus not controversial but to each their own, I won't argue. I just ask that in the future you either be directly honest or expand your edit summary to include the full action. Docmoates (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Also, you already proposed a move on the talk page. That makes you WP:INVOLVED with respect to any administrative actions. I'm reverting your close. – bradv 17:12, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- @45dogs Apologies, just seeing this. Was trying to fix my mistake. It should be good now. I believe it is closed properly. I don't believe the close is likely to be controversial and there was a consensus. I am sorry for my template mistake. Docmoates (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
I would suggest everyone continue to WP:Assume good faith and let this discussion wind down. Docmoates wasn't aware of how broadly WP:INVOLVED can be perceived to apply to contentious topics. His closure is reasonable and was made in good faith, but the community prefers admin closures in these circumstances. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 17:47, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
December 2025
[edit]
Hi, Docmoates. Thanks for patrolling new pages. I've declined your deletion request for a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to read the new tutorial for patrollers, criteria for speedy deletion, and particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion or proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. Thanks! ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2025 (UTC)