Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Samuel Blanning

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: 20:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC).

---

• Samuel Blanning (talk · contribs · logs)

---

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

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

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)

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)

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)

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 Thing^TM. 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. Gracenotes^T § 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. Mangojuice^talk 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)

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)

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. Gracenotes^T § 21:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.