Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Samuel Blanning

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] Samuel Blanning

final (71/3/0) ending 14:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Samuel Blanning (talk · contribs) – Samuel Blanning (né Last Malthusian) is an editor who from his first edit in September of last year has worked to improve Wikipedia. He has experience in many areas of Wikipedia, ranging from XfD discussions (beginning on his first day editing!) to transwiki work to trying to help explain article deletion to outside users. He's interacted a lot in article talk space and administrator spaces, and shown ability to deal with problem editors with civility. After about my fifth time running into him at AIV and thinking "Why is an admin reporting here?" I decided to try and make my perception a reality. It is my pleasure to nominate Samuel Blanning for consideration for adminship. Syrthiss 13:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully accept. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. First support free with nomination --Syrthiss 14:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. Meets my standards. android79 14:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support no brainre, great editor!Gator (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support whoa, are you the same Sam Blanning that I know of?  Grue  15:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support, good editor. --Terence Ong 15:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 15:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support Marvelous editor, marvelous nominator. Xoloz 16:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support cliche.. thought he was one, etc.. Mop and bucket time! - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 17:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support No probs, --Alf melmac 18:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support Great editor! Dick Clark 18:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support per above. Hiding talk 20:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support per all of the above! --JoanneB 20:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support. Cool head during the Gastrich mess, should make a good admin. -Colin Kimbrell 21:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support, looks OK to me. JIP | Talk 21:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  16. Easy Support --Jaranda wat's sup 21:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support Impressive conduct during gastrich affair.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 23:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support per the nomination. No logical reason to oppose. --Jay(Reply) 23:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support per the nomination. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support, now get to work! Oh wait, you already are. Keep up the great work. You deserve the mop. --ZsinjTalk 00:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support. sure. pschemp | talk 01:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 02:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support Good work, calm head. --Mmounties (Talk) 02:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support --Khoikhoi 02:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support--Jusjih 07:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support. Kusma (討論) 10:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support --GizzaChat © 10:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support Ugur Basak 11:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support Dismal science and all. Midgley 15:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support good fellow.--Alhutch 19:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support looks like he could use the admin tools. Prodego talk 19:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support will make good use of adminship. haz (user talk)e 20:14, 16 March 2006
  34. Speedy "he's not an admin yet?" support. Misza13 T C 21:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  35. That's hot. Mike H. That's hot 23:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support good editor --rogerd 00:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support, of course. Sango123 (e) 03:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support seems decent.--MONGO 03:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support great editor. -- mmeinhart 03:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 07:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support -per nom. Jedi6-(need help?) 07:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support Excellent candidate --Kash 11:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  43. Latish support, courtesy of me not realising this was Last Malthusian at first glance. Proto||type 14:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support Very good editor, very knowledgable and even-handed. Cleduc 15:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support, fine editor & wikipedian Deizio 15:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support --Latinus 00:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 06:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support. A good editor. Shyam (T/C) 15:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support Good editor. Staxringold 17:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support Moe ε 02:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support everything looks good. Johntex\talk 02:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  52. Deck of cards Support.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 07:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support. Looks good to me. JoshuaZ 16:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support. Has the measure of the trolls around here. David | Talk 00:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  55. Strong support. Very good common sense in articles having problems. Robert McClenon 01:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  56. support: Looks good. Ombudsman 03:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC) - Addendum: This edit, endorsing the premature and entirely suspect AfD of the Peter Fletcher article, has caused second thoughts. However, assumption of good faith carries greater weight, so there is no reason to withdraw support just to make a point. Ombudsman 03:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support. Oh, crikey, yes. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support Looks good to me. Nephron 07:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support Looks good to me too, good spread of contribs. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  60. User:Go for it!/Vote Support I just got done reading his user page. I really like his attitude. He's got my vote. --Go for it! 17:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support. Jonathunder 20:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support Joe I 00:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  63. Moral support. I know this RfA is doomed, but I thought I'd deign to give my support anyway... oh, never mind. Good editor, though; I see him around, making good edits, etc., and we need more vandal fighters. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support, as the first person to ever edit user:Samuel Blanning and user talk:Samuel Blanning (in a page move), I of course have to support him :) NoSeptember talk 14:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  66. Support. See no cause for concern. Jayjg (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  67. Support. Looks solid and mop-worthy. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 22:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  68. Support of course. I can't believe I forgot to sign when I first noticed this. I loko forward to ofering Sam the rouge admin's badge of courage :-) Just zis Guy you know? 22:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  69. Support - WarriorScribe 05:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  70. I Support giving him a mop - Aksi great 12:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  71. Support even though at the moment it's obviously gonna happen anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose This editor does not always abide by Wikipedia policies. He sometimes makes up his own rules as he goes. [1] This editor also engages in edit warring [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] I'm sure he's a nice person, but has he has helped to make Wikipedia a more neutral encyclopedia? No. I'm sorry, but no he hasn't. Lou franklin 13:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    Note while Lou Franklin has been blocked many times for 3rr, Samuel Blanning has not. --Syrthiss 14:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    Note read the links and make your own decision. Lou franklin 02:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    Note Please also read Lou's edit history and the arbitration case in which he is involved before deciding whether you wish to take his vote at face value. Hbackman 03:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    Yes. Please do. Lou franklin 04:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    As a bureaucrat, I will take Lou's vote at face value. As a common-sense user, however... Lou, those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 14:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Needs to be more neutral. --Masssiveego 04:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Ben 03:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Note to the closing 'crat This user was recently blocked for a month for personal attacks, is currently undergoing a request for arbitration and made attacks in Cyde's Request for Adminship. See Benapgar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). JoshuaZ 04:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral I have seen some work by this editor, and would like to see more from him. Still too new for my standards; unsure of decision making process, if someone could provide specific links for me to view, I would be more than happy to overturn my decision. Moe ε 21:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    I have a 'deletion philsophy' on my userpage (which is fairly uncontroversial). I believe in deleting articles that don't meet Wikipedia policies but have already cleaned up a few articles that I saw on AfD and knew could be kept: Rogelio dela Rosa, Foot-in-the-door technique and Kuldip Manak. Admittedly those aren't great examples - the first is good, but the second is still a bit OR-y and as for the third, I found lots of British desi artists saying how awesome he was but no references on the guy himself. (Poke me in a few years if/when I learn Hindi and maybe I'll be able to find something then). I can't really think of any other relevant specific links without having a clearer idea of which decision making process you had in mind. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for providing links to some of your work. Like I said, I changed my vote to support. Good luck. :-D Moe ε 02:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 99% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 14:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • See Samuel Blanning's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
  • Nominator, Samuel Blanning is male, so you should say né, not née. JIP | Talk 21:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • My english teacher would hit me with a ruler if she saw this. :*( --Syrthiss 17:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

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'd keep an eye on WP:AIV and WP:AN/3RR - the sooner alerts there are dealt with, the better. Deletion of articles and closing of debates is something else I feel experienced enough to do with confidence. And, of course, anything that turned up in the backlog.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. A full list of my significant contributions is on my userpage. Of my translations from German, Tepui is my current favourite, as it was interesting to start with (none of my doing, of course) and is relatively free of the Teutonic syntax that always plagues my first efforts at translation. Of my original writing, I'm pretty pleased with The Road to Guantanamo, which was DYKed after I expanded it from a stub following its broadcast. Swami (musical band) (initially a cleanup job, but I have significantly expanded it) is probably my actual favourite, as the band are still active and so there will be further updates.
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've been drawn into a few conflicts while here - although rarely over my own actual content, so it might be more accurate to say I've stuck my nose into them. Syrthiss already pointed out Jason Gastrich; I was fairly peripherally involved with Gastrich himself, but I like to think that when Usenetpostsdotcom (talk · contribs) (aka Uncle Davey) was drawn in, after initially mistaking him for a sockpuppet I did my best to persuade him to become a productive editor, which seems to have worked. I've also been involved in an ongoing dispute with an editor at Societal attitudes towards homosexuality, which has now reached arbitration: I filed the RFAR and have been maintaining the Evidence page. I believe I've always acted civilly and assumed good faith in disputes, and even in the most frustrating situations I don't think I've ever felt actual stress while on Wikipedia. I would never consider using admin powers in a content dispute in which I was involved.
4. Please comment on this edit [11]
Very stupid mistake. At the time I was assuming good faith with several new accounts, whom I now believe may be sockpuppets or meatpuppets, who were vociferously claiming that Iain Lee had come out as gay on his radio programme. I did a Google search on the claims that he was gay, and somehow I came up with the idea that he had, indeed, come out on his radio programme. This was crap. After Arniep reverted me I had another look and couldn't for the life of me see where I got this idea. Since then I've tried to make up for it by keeping an eye on the page, despite it being the most tiresome page I've ever come across (it knocks Gastrich and Societal attitudes towards homosexuality into a crooked hat). Recently I cleaned up after a couple of vandals who impersonated genuine contributors to that page, removing the actual impersonations and annotating the rest of their posts that I found.
The vandalism/dispute/whateveritis is still ongoing, with new accounts now adding an equally unsourced (but less provocative) claim that Lee is engaged, and I'm trying to keep it out until (hah) it's sourced. Probably more people are watching that page than I'm aware of, but I've posted messages to three of the contributors I believe to be genuine anyway, to try and resolve it in the normal fashion. Frankly I wish I'd never heard of LBC. My first encounter with this radio station was at Weetabix Minis - check the history and that of the talk page before it was made into a redirect (specifically this). Apparently at least one of the station's DJs encourages his listeners to vandalise Wikipedia. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I thought as much. I myself have reverted that article twice and reported someone for 3RR, and I heard about it 2 hours ago, so I can see where it could be messy. Thanks much! KillerChihuahua?!? 00:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
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.