Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Samuel Blanning

Oh geez[edit]

If this is about Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 21/Brian Peppers, please, please, please, don't bother with this. Move on. Friday (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a rest, Jeff. – Steel 20:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in the right thing. Nothing more, nothing less. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on these matters has been noted by everybody, Jeff. You might like to stop now. Up to you, of course. 〈RED VEЯS〉 21:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I'm glad that the only way people can justify this is through IAR. Absolutely pathetic. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<reset indent>Please don't make me wave WP:NPA and WP:AGF at you, Jeff. Beer time? 〈RED VEЯS〉 21:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has it occured to you that this is not the way to solve anything? I'm going to have to bail out soon, before this goes to Arbcom, but think about it. -Amarkov moo! 21:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious that there is no way to resolve anything here anymore. People rush to the defense of disruption here, defend disruption at AN/I, I get reverted when I attempt to reverse the disruption. What the hell else is someone supposed to do when faced with a disruptive administrator if this isn't the way, hm? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only disruption here is being caused by you. – Steel 21:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False, thanks for playing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ri)A good point from Amarkov: I'm also not much of a fan of being included in the ArbCom that this is going to cause, so I'll back out now too. Jeff, really, there are better fights to pick than this one. You have the right to pick it, of course, but also the right to unpick it. You could always have a beer, put on some good music and let this one go. Please. 〈RED VEЯS〉 21:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks for your input. I'm glad nothing's changed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to your question, Jeff, you might consider the possibility that you're wrong. Most problems are caused by people not considering that. -Amarkov moo! 21:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I were wrong, I'd leave it be. I leave many things be that I disagree with based on that. I am definitely not wrong on this one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I soo wish I had a diff of a POV warrior saying that same thing right now. -Amarkov moo! 21:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, I would suggest you pick your battles - and this is one you shouldn't pick, as you're going to lose. I don't see any way that the article was going to be restored, and by picking this battle for making the point about abusive admins, you're discrediting the larger war. I'm considering some sort of action against User:Doc glasgow for laying waste to List of Internet phenomena, but after this one, I'm not sure I'd get much of anywhere. -- Jay Maynard 21:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I lose, at least I've stood up for what's right. That's what's mportant. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How pointlessly courageous. Thunderbunny 04:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from main page[edit]

Originally posted as a response to my outside view. Newyorkbrad 21:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Am I allowed to respond to this here? If not, move it to where it should go, but I figured RfC would be a better place than the echo chamber that AN became on this, and ArbCom is obviously (well, at this point, at least) too far. Disruptive admins must be held accountable, and administrators who support such disruptive measures should arguably be held accountable, as well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Moved by 〈RED VEЯS〉 21:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please substantiate the emotive word "disruptive" as used in this context. Thanks. 〈RED VEЯS〉 21:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AN was a suitable place for any further discussion that was needed; the talkpage of the deletion review would also have done nicely. An RfC is inappropriate, and RfAr would be absurd. Newyorkbrad 21:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What part are you struggling with? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our benevolent dictator has been invoked[edit]

That is a good sign that this will end badly. I reccommend everyone who wishes sanity starts aggressively ignoring this dispute. -Amarkov moo! 21:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question for badlydrawnjeff[edit]

Here's a question for you. Maybe 100 articles will be deleted today. You will disagree with the deletion of 50 of them; I will disagree with the deletion of 25 of them. Why is this one so disproportionately more important than all the rest? Newyorkbrad 21:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because this, at this point, has more to do with the disruption of Sam Blanning, the inability of the community to actually present cognizant rationales, the inability of the administrative community to govern itself, and, in a way, our reputation. At the end of the day, we've removed an article because we simply don't like it - entirely different than because it's not "notable" or because it's not verifiable. And the worst part is the people saying he did the right thing - it's bullshit of the highest order, and it's a great example of the lack of accountability here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are saying this article has become something of a symbol, then I agree with you; but in that case, I would argue that our collective decision today has double merit. Newyorkbrad 21:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there's any merit to this, I fail to see it. Not that we came to any collective decision, anyway - the collective wasn't allowed the ability to have full input. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you honestly believe that further discussion would have changed the outcome? If so, on what basis? -- Jay Maynard 21:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. Further discussion would have expanded the ideas as to why it should have been undeleted, and further figured out how to weight the IDONTLIKEIT-style commentary. In the end, we would have had a close that reflected consensus and policy. Instead, we have this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me get this straight. The deletion review demonstrated overwhelming majority for deletion, that was because everyone who'd turned up at that point was being dumb (using faulty WP:IDONTLIKEIT rationales, to be specific), and the real consensus hadn't turned up yet. WP:AN has endorsed my decision, but that's because they're an echo chamber, and the real consensus doesn't post on it. And WP:RFC has endorsed my decision as well, because it's... well, I dunno, but judging by your comments it's clearly not the real consensus either. Another echo chamber? At what point, exactly, would a decision against you become valid, and not faulty logic or Cabal™ism?

Because if there's no point at which you would acknowledge that, correctly or no, people on the whole think you're wrong, then you're a fanatic. And my natural distaste for fanatics is outweighed by distaste for the cause you've chosen to become fanatical about. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And with your petty flaming your just further proving that you're not mature enough to handle the power given to you. --Superslash 03:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, he's bringing up a damn good point. The original deletion was endorsed at DRV, and the DRV was endorsed at the AN and in this RFC. By no means were any of these unanimous discussions, but they were overwhelming endorsements. How much discussion must go on before we decide that an issue is dead? How many hundreds of people have to show up before the result can be considered valid? Ral315 » 07:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(indent reset) Jeff, please, please don't let the tigers loose. For all that you and I butt heads on a lot of things, I'm glad to have you around. You make sure we don't take any decisions to delete lightly, and that's something we shouldn't take lightly. But that's been done here. If it would've been my choice, yes, I would've let the DRV run longer, in anticipation of this exact situation. But it didn't, I absolutely understand the reasoning why not, and and it's good reasoning. Quite realistically, the close was proven to be very right. The matter has been discussed for several days now, and the consensus is clear-we do not want this article. I think the reasons given for that were very good (notability and WP:BLP concerns). You disagree. We all lose some, even when we feel very strongly, and at some point one must accept "Alright, I still think they're all wrong, but the consensus truly has gone against me here."

It's good to have principles. But please consider this principle. It's a pretty good one too. This is not worth losing anyone over. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 07:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few words[edit]

I think, given the circumstances, it would have been slightly better to let the DRV run for at least 24 hours, if only to make it absolutely abundantly clear that this is once and for all properly deleted, properly kept deleted, etc. My own role in this drama has been oft misunderstood. I understood my action as being enforcement of something the community had already decided (repeatedly) against endless trolling.

On the content matter, I do have my own opinion, but my opinion on the actual content matter should not be given undue weight. In such matters, I am an ordinary editor of course. Still, it is quite relevant to point out that this is an entirely non-notable Internet meme about which virtually nothing is known in reality, and for which I have seen no actual verifiable sources produced. The AfD process dispenses nicely with such things regularly. The difference here is that *in addition* to being a completely worthless article on those grounds, it is *also* an affront to the human dignity of the poor fellow who is the subject of the article, and this brings out a peculiar sort of passion in the part of some people to keep it at whatever the cost, just to prove how heartlessly NPOV we can be. So what would in most cases (obscure band, random myspace-famous teenager, etc.) be deleted without so much as a sign becomes a cause celebre. Such is life on the Internet.

An RfC against Sam Blanning for doing a snowball close is absurd, since it was clearly a snowball situation. As I say, I think it would have been slightly better to let it run for at least 24 hours (mostly to prevent the kind of trolling we have seen about it), but "would have been better to do X" is hardly a good reason for hysteria. I don't see anyone arguing that the outcome could have possibly been any different, except perhaps for our badly drawn friend.

A healthy self-examination of what is working and not working in wikipedia is always a healthy thing, if undertaken in a friendly spirit and with the assumption of good faith. So I am glad to see that a vigorous discussion has developed around this case. This is one of the cases I can point to with some pride and say "Wikipedia is still working". --Jimbo Wales 15:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Jimbo, this is why Wikipedia is no longer working. I had my suspicions, and between this and the newest Brandt kerfluffle, it's pretty damn obvious. Enjoy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems much more likely that Wikipedia simply isn't working in a manner that you agree with. Perhaps at one point it did operate in a way you approved of and now you consider it to be "broken". Both this and the Brandt deletion have been and are being discussed at great length. I'm not sure what else you're hoping for, since no decision could please everyone. ChazBeckett 17:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So basically Wikipedia should either work the way you want it to, or the way Jimbo Wales, the Wikimedia Foundation, and the vast, vast, vast majority of users and admins want it to. Hmm, decisions, decisions... Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, I believe you misread Jimbo's statement. He's glad that a vigorous discussion has developed around this case. I imagine you are glad of that too, since your RFC is a large part of that vigorous discussion. So I think you're in agreement on that last bit. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, just in case I'm reading this wrong, lemme get some clarification: It's okay to WP:SNOW things when the argument is leaning to one side after a few hours. It's okay to gloss over things from sub- and counter-cultures. It's okay to ignore phenomena if you don't think that what spawned or was the focus of the phenomenon fits into your ethical standards.

And to think that this non-inclusion comes from a man once quoted as saying, "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That’s what we’re doing." I guess no one in the world knows about Brian Peppers.

Wait, who am I talking about, again? --Dookama 21:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are taking the "sum of all human knowledge" line way too pathologically literally. Well, gotta go, have to work on my "what I ate for dinner last night" entry. Thunderbunny 01:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that reductio ad absurdum argument. If Brian Peppers is big enough for there to be a Brian Peppers Day, I'd say he's important enough to people to warrant an article in Wikipedia. --Dookama 02:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you think "Brian Peppers Day" is a noteworthy event tells me that you spend entirely too much time on whatever Internet community you frequent. Thunderbunny 02:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't comment on any personal allegations there and leave that at that. I'll just respond: like #Wikipedia? I'd forgotten about Brian Peppers Day until it was mentioned in there when it became the 21st in Australia... --Dookama 02:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invitation to chat, but I must decline. I've been following this discussion since the beginning, and I pretty firmly believe that everything that could ever conceivably be said about Brian Peppers has already been said. Thunderbunny 03:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being unclear. I was trying to get across that it was big-ish in the Wikipedia community since I'd forgotten about Brian Peppers until someone on #Wikipedia mentioned it. But this is just a big old sidebar, so unless more is said on a pertinent matter, I'll stop here. --Dookama 03:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I make no apologies for not letting the DRV run for 24 hours, even though it appears to be getting towards something of an easy well-it-would-have-been-better-if hypothetical solution. I find the suggestion that only Wikipedians from a certain timezone would have changed the outcome patronising at best. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 04:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and we're all very impressed at your resolve to argue unapologetically about it, but what you an so many other SNOWers don't get is that when you perform SNOW closures that you know are going to generate controversy, you're completely defeating the purpose of it, which is to speed things along. This very prolific defense of "don't you get it? I Double-you Peeh colon SNOWed it, I ignore'd all rules, that's the point, what are you a process-wonk?" only illustrates people's failure to see that WP:IAR/WP:SNOW don't exist for their own sake any more than any other rules/policies/guidelines, and to say an action was good only because it ignored all rules is sort of detrimental to the laser-like community focus on the encyclopedia. Surely anyone could have seen that choking off long-awaited discussion would generate heat, when simply letting the process run its course at DRV would have squashed the issue for good and made this whole thing moot. I don't have the experience or the commitment here to dictate what "should" happen timescale wise 'round these parts, but there should be almost no hurry to delete non-trash articles, and even less hurry to confirm the deleted status of an already deleted article; you and other early closers would see that if you weren't just trying to be the first to close. Besides, I think a lot of you are missing out on part of what's being asserted, which is that "I don't really like to hear about this subject" is a poor reason for supporting an article's deletion, but on that matter, I have no real strong opinion of my own, so I'll leave it at that. Milto LOL pia 06:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that if it had been left to run its whole course, everyone would have said 'oh ok then' and shut up is speculative, and we'll never know for sure, but it's probably wrong. Badlydrawnjeff claims here and on numerous other pages that the case for endorsing deletion was completely baseless, so someone if not him would have kicked this to another forum or two whenever the deletion review was closed. The only difference five days would have made would have been a bigger mess, more confusion, more fallout, and any SPAs created when the DRV started would have reached maturity, meaning semi-protection would be ineffective against anyone bussed in from the SA/ED/YTMND subculture. A hard core of people were determined to manufacture controversy over this whatever, there's nothing anyone could have done about that except possibly protecting every single page in projectspace. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For an argument that started out talking about baseless claims, you just made a lot of them... --Dookama 16:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reply to Sam) Ha! I have to admit that reply made more sense than I was expecting, but I still disagree - not because I think you're using faulty reasoning, but only because I don't see a problem with having to rollback (well, someone else rolling back obviously) anon edits and block SPAs - vandalism is old meme and easily dealt with IMO, and should never, ever be taken into account for mainspace decisions (like deletion - decisions directly affecting mainspace I mean, even if discussion doesn't take place there obviously), or the vandals have influence. I wrote this big manifesto once on WP:AN about how when you make a big deal out of trolls and let them influence policy decisions, you're not dealing with it right, and vandalism is similar in that respect... but I'm getting too broad. It's lazy to alter one's decisions to avoid vandalism, which is why I was so disgussted witht he GNAA/Daniel Brandt deletions, even if I had neer read the article's myself. However, this disagreement is just a difference of opinion and not anything that needs "solving", plus it's wider than the scope of this agreement, so I'm done :-) Adieu, I'm off before some of the other parties in this RFC show up and try to trick me into getting myself banned again.

The only thing more I'll say is that it's pointless to drag ED into this, as they likely have bigger fish to fry than this - it's more of a YTMND thing. So, let's not go there. Milto LOL pia 16:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting[edit]

Looks like we've lost jeff. [1]. GRBerry 01:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much sadness. :( Mathmo ^Talk 12:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that was a link to an outdated version. Since then, Jeff has come back, left again, come back partially with a list of demands ... basically watch Special:Contributions/Badlydrawnjeff for the latest in the ongoing series, and don't regret too early, it may yet turn out all right. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I haven't really "come and gone," and I don't really have a "list of demands" as much as just some general gripes that I phrased poorly on my talk page. At this point, I'm sitting and watching, but my actual contributions short term will be next to nil, if not completely nonexistant, once the Brandt and Essjay situations filter out. You can blame Blanning for being the proverbial straw, and blame a variety of other people for the rest, but my desire to contribute here has, for the forseeable future, disappeared. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, that may be a cause for sadness after all. Hope you change your mind. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]