Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Samuel Blanning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 20:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 18:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

Samuel Blanning (talk · contribs) has abused the trust given to him based on his closure of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 21/Brian Peppers after 11 hours without weighing arguments or allowing for a full hearing.

[edit] Desired outcome

  • A full hearing on the merits and arguments of the article in question.
  • A decision that is based on the merits of the arguments, and not the opinion of the closure.
  • An expectation that Samuel Blanning will not disruptively close ongoing discussions in the future.

[edit] Description

My statement says it all. After 11 hours, Blanning shut down an ongoing deletion review without checking the arguments or weighing the evidence, instead inserting his own opinions into the matter. A proper close would have ended the discussion, and perhaps with an outcome that made sense and wasn't based on personal opinions rather than what's good for the project and what's reflected in our policies and guidelines. This did none of the above.

This will likely be unpopular. I expect people who agree with his close to support him. I don't care.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

  1. Disruptive closure during ongoing discussion.
  2. His "explanation" which fails to address the issues at hand, instead dismissing it as a "YTMND joke."
  3. Upon questioning, goes for a snarky, glib remark as opposed to dealing with the situation, showing no desire to de-escalate.

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Deletion policy.
  2. Wikipedia:Deletion review: "A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least five days."
  3. Wikipedia:Consensus: "At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate what appears to be support for a version of the article that is actually inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus."

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. [1]
  2. [2]
  3. [3]
  4. [4]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. badlydrawnjeff talk 20:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC) - Please see above for other users who have asked him to reverse his course.
  2. I am confident that Samuel Blanning has acted in good faith, but I believe that on this occasion he was mistaken. Dave 21:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. I certainly feel Blanning acted unreasonably, abusing his position (intentionally or not) in such a way as to advance his own POV on this matter. The consensus was far from achieved, new points were being made either way, the debate was only 11 hours old. 4kinnel 21:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

It should be noted that while I am not involved in this particular event I have noticed that Sam has consistently allowed his personal biases to control his decisions, especially when it comes to deletions, rather than anything said in the discussion. This is especially evident in the deletion page of the fallingsandgame entry (whose deletion page i can't seem to find at the moment). I have no doubt that he is an active and well intentioned admin but he just does not seem to have the maturity necessary to handle the power of adminship. This is evident in his actions and his dealings with other wikipedians. --Superslash 22:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Rushing to be the first to SNOW and then looking around saying that all the objecters are whining about SNOW and are therefore process wonks is circular. There's no reason to kill off a discussion a year's in the making when running it fully through would've resulted in a very solid "keep deleted" and ended the issue. Mostly, I don't see any sense in the hurry. Milto LOL pia 06:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

I'm not going to post a real 'response' that can be easily endorsed. My justification can be found in the deletion review entry in question, and there is also some response on my talk page, though this being a trivial and simple issue, there is little extra of substance there really.

I usually enjoy posting longwinded arguments and justifications about stuff, but given that half my aim in the disputed action was to prevent the wasting of time on pointless, repetitive havering, it would be somewhat ironic if I was to do so here.

Apparently, I can't prevent everyone wasting their time by dragging things out for as long as possible on as many different pages as possible, but I'm content with saving my own. --Sam Blanning(talk) 21:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. 〈REDVEЯS〉 21:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. --MONGO 21:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. --Coredesat 22:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Yup, sounds about right. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. And not adding my own outside view per Sam's reasoning. Just let this one die a quick death. ObiterDicta 23:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Thunderbunny 07:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Kusma (討論) 11:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Corvus cornix 18:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Nandesuka
  16. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  17. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Redvers

This was never going to be anything other than an obvious "keep deleted". The "discussion" that was being held was generating heat but no light. Samuel Blanning therefore correctly used his judgment to end a broken process. Wikipedia processes exist to facilitate the creation of an encyclopedia. They are not a means unto themselves.


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. 〈REDVEЯS〉 20:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Friday (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Phil | Talk 21:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. ChazBeckett 21:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. pgk 21:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Nishkid64 21:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Sam appropriately used WP:IAR to do the Right ThingTM. A note, I also agree with NYB that this RfC may not be the best approach. ++Lar: t/c 21:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Too right. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Yup.--MONGO 21:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. WjBscribe 21:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. I personally agree with this. Policies and guidelines are good, but common sense is better. GracenotesT § 21:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Jay Maynard 21:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Bullseye. Sam Blacketer 21:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  16. Mangojuicetalk 22:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  17. Hits the nail on the head. It was a proper use of WP:IAR. --Coredesat 22:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  18. The community has spoken on this issue. FCYTravis 22:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  19. Cbrown1023 talk
  20. Baseless RfC. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  21. Absolutely. This RfC is just a cheap way of prolonging the pointless pickering when it's been put to rest elsewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  22. Confirmed. DS 23:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  23. Spot on. No sense in letting this turn into even more of a freak show than it already was. ObiterDicta 23:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  24. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  25. Outcome was a foregone conclusion. --Spartaz 00:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  26. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  27. I find Sam to be one of Wikipedia's wisest and capable admins, especially where deletion is concerned. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  28. Yep. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  29. MER-C 07:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  30. Thunderbunny 07:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  31. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  32. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  33. No point in discussing for the sake of discussing. Kusma (討論) 11:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  34. Strong endorse Eluchil404 13:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  35. Corvus cornix 18:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  36. Sam picked the obvious end point.Peripitus (Talk) 10:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  37. Endorse Bastiq▼e demandez 15:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  38. Bakaman 01:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  39. Gmaxwell 09:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  40. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  41. A no-brainer.Proabivouac 17:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Newyorkbrad

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

I do not believe this is an appropriate use of the Requests for Comment process. Administrator conduct RfC's should be utilized in situations where the admin in question has engaged in a pattern of allegedly problematic or controversial behavior that the filing party believes needs to be changed. This procedure is not suitable for reviewing a single disputed decision, such as a DRV closing, and much less when the closing has received general approval in other forums and is being discussed exhaustively there.

With regard to the merits of the closing itself, I have already posted my view in several locations, and indeed badlydrawnjeff has correctly observed that I have been repeating myself, so I refer anyone interested to the DRV talkpage or the current thread on AN. Newyorkbrad 21:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Newyorkbrad 21:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Yep. A dispute over a single deletion review closure is a separate issue from what user conduct RFCs are for. Take off the Spider-man costume already. Friday (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Sometimes one must repeat themself when confronted by the same argument ad nauseum.--MONGO 21:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. WjBscribe 21:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Without stating my opinion on this case, NYB's view is right, RfC is no place for this.--Wizardman 21:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Coredesat 22:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Cbrown1023 talk 22:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Agree, abuse of process. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. cesarb 23:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. This was a pointless exercise in forum shopping. ObiterDicta 23:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. An RFC? Over this? What a waste of time. Don't we have anything meaningful to do? --Spartaz 00:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. W.marsh 00:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC) After thinking about it, I have to agree that an RFC is not really useful to discuss one issue that has already been discussed ad nauseum, it's just so limited in scope that the RFC is simply a rehashing.
  15. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  16. No objection to Sam's conduct has been made; no policy Sam has violated has been cited. The objection is to the outcome of the DRV. Chick Bowen 01:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  17. Yep. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  18. MER-C 07:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  19. --Nlu (talk) 08:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  20. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  21. Kusma (討論) 11:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  22. Corvus cornix 18:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  23. This is a misuse of RFC. RFC is for an alleged pattern of misconduct, not a single debate. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 00:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  24. Gmaxwell 09:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  25. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Amarkov

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

I do not see any serious attempts to resolve the dispute. I see skipping from place to place, hoping to get people to agree. People who really care that the dispute be resolved do not declare that any result but the one they want is absurd, and they do not skip from AN to RfC after next to nobody agrees. You didn't really even discuss it, unless "I'm right, you're wrong, if you disagree you're stupid." counts.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. -Amarkov moo! 21:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Insightful. GracenotesT § 21:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by AnonEMouse

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

There was no good answer here. The DRV brought out the strongest emotions in some of our most respected editors. I believe it was closed early and incorrectly, because there were real arguments on the "keep" side, and from more than just Badlydrawnjeff. However, the close was clearly in the best of faith, and I can't see censuring Samuel Blanning for it.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Trebor 22:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Maybe no censure, but hopefully enough of a reaction to keep it from occuring again. Arkon 01:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. --Wizardman 04:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Catchpole 07:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Although a protest following the early closure of the DRV should not have come as a surprise, see also my view below. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Correct, but we should also learn for the next occurance. See also my view below. GRBerry 14:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Agreed Brian | (Talk) 08:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Reminds me of what happened with the GNAA article. I hate DRV, and I hate AFD. They bring more divisiveness to Wikipedia than is needed. But hey, if you don't first succeed... try and try again and then you'll get your article deleted. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Friday

Per his nomination statement at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Snowball clause, Jeff should probably not bother objecting to WP:SNOW anymore.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Friday (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Indeed. Gmaxwell 09:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by SakotGrimshine

Well, the whole Brian Peppers thing is just like politics, Sam means well but there are others with different views on what should be done. I just want to throw out something that may or have been considered. Think of Daniel Brandt -- he doesn't want his article up. Now for Brian Peppers, his article is basically about how people made fun of him. So there might even be some kind of WP:BLP thing for the article being hostile to the subject. WP:OFFICE sometimes would stubify and protect articles like that.

  1. SakotGrimshine SakotGrimshine 04:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Those were both among the arguments put forth in the DRV, both for keeping and deleting the article. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Reinoutr

Should this article be kept deleted? Probably, but thats not the issue here. Most people who were around here a year ago and have followed the situation surrounding the Brian Peppers article knew that Jimbo made his statement about waiting a year and re-assessing the situation then. We all knew this day was coming, everybody could foresee that this would lead to renewed (and probably vigorous) discussions, especially giving the attention both Brian Peppers himself and his article on Wikipedia received on other websites. Should Wikipedia be mature enough to allow this discussion? Personally, I think so. Should the (completely anticipated) discussion have been closed this quickly? Absolutely not. Could the closing admin have expected people to protest when closing the DRV discussion this early? I sure hope so, especially from an experienced editor like Sam. After a closed DRV, are there suitable ways to complaing about an admin decision? No, except for AN and RFC, which is exactly where we are now. The situation was handled with little care (although with good intentions) and an escalation could be seen coming for miles in this way.

  1. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kla'quot 18:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Arkon 19:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. SchmuckyTheCat 18:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Psychonaut 18:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Munta 14:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by GRBerry

As Wikipedia is designed (if that word isn't too strong), Deletion Review is the final forum (except Jimbo) for appealing deletions and XfD closures. This article is likely to appear on Deletion Review again someday. Thus it is worth talking about how to handle it when that comes. I have a personal opinion, previously expressed, on when it should come, but I might be wrong about what I've already said.

It will be far better if the next discussion does not come on a date that everyone knows about far in advance. It is pretty obvious that deferring discussion to a specific date didn't help.

WP:SNOW says in part that "If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably wasn't a good candidate for the snowball clause." This has already generated almost as much discussion as letting the deletion review run for its course, which means that the attempt to use WP:SNOW to save editorial time (our most limited, and therefore most valuable resource) actually backfired. The next time this comes for review, let the darn thing run. Semiprotect the discussion, tag and bag any SPAs and trolls in the discussion but don't close the discussion early, that idea has already been proven to have been a mistake.

A mistake made in good faith is a learning opportunity, not a basis for sanction. So that is as far as this should go - an opportunity for the Wikipedia community and the participants to learn.

  1. GRBerry 14:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Well said. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Agree. Many of us who were looking forward to voting delete missed the chance. If the discussion was indeed heading towards an overwhelming "delete", the process isn't broken just because the discussion is long. Kla'quot 18:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Trebor 18:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Arkon 19:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Dookama 20:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Ultimate result would have been the same, but sentiment was not lopsided enough to invoke WP:SNOW. --Groggy Dice T | C 23:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. I would also note that leaving things open for 24 hours (to reduce time zone bias) is almost always a good idea even when a speedy close is contemplated. Eluchil404 09:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. and echo above statement by Eluchil404. SchmuckyTheCat 18:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. —Doug Bell talk 23:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Mathmo

It is my view that in controversial topics such as this one obviously was, that it is much more important than normal that process is followed. Otherwise it only increases the controversy surrounding the topic, and this increase in complexity is much worse when there is already a lot of associated controversy about the topic.

  1. Mathmo Talk 12:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Psychonaut 18:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.