Sam Blacketer Options Rating

[tarantino]

Are there any of you Wikipedians out there who have met the most secretive of the current arbs, Sam?

It's probable that he's using a pseudonym. Though he used to sign his emails "Sam Blacketer London E15", all the phone books and people directories I checked show no instances of that name anywhere in the UK. Additionally he is the only one out the 13 who does not have either the CU or oversight tools and has not verified his identity with the WMF. I thought there was a requirement that you must be at least 18 to be an arb. How has he proven this?

This post has been edited by tarantino:

[Daniel Brandt]

Help me out here. Is Dbiv/Boothroyd, who has been on an earlier version of hivemind for years, definitely one and the same as Sam Blacketer, who resigned this month from the EAC (evil arbitration committee)? And he's also aka "Fys"? If so, then his mugshot belongs on the main hivemind page as a former arbitrator, and I'll be happy to add him there.

[tarantino]

Help me out here. Is Dbiv/Boothroyd, who has been on an earlier version of hivemind for years, definitely one and the same as Sam Blacketer, who resigned this month from the EAC (evil arbitration committee)? And he's also aka "Fys"? If so, then his mugshot belongs on the main hivemind page as a former arbitrator, and I'll be happy to add him there.

There is no doubt, he's admitted it and Avraham confirms User:Sam Blacketer = User:DavidBoothroyd.

Among the hand-wringing going on at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard is a notice that Sam will be making a statement tomorrow.

[Milton Roe]

Help me out here. Is Dbiv/Boothroyd, who has been on an earlier version of hivemind for years, definitely one and the same as Sam Blacketer, who resigned this month from the EAC (evil arbitration committee)? And he's also aka "Fys"? If so, then his mugshot belongs on the main hivemind page as a former arbitrator, and I'll be happy to add him there.

There is no doubt, he's admitted it and Avraham confirms User:Sam Blacketer = User:DavidBoothroyd.

Among the hand-wringing going on at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard is a notice that Sam will be making a statement tomorrow.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

I don't know what possible hand-wringing could be going on. It's all non-controversial. That's what Jehochman said in his deletion edit summary May 23 for the David Boothroyd BLP talk page, which would have been the place where all the deletion arguments for it would have been, the first time it was RfD'd:

20:47, 23 May 2009 Jehochman (talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:David Boothroyd" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup)

See: Housekeeping. Routine. Non-controversial cleanup. Nothing to see here, folks. Move on.

Actually, theres's an old version of the talk page in the Wayback machine.

{{Notable Wikipedian|Dbiv}} {{oldvfdfull|votepage=David Boothroyd|result='''keep'''|date=2005-08-08}}

== Rewrite == For the reasons given in the VFD discussion, this article requires a complete rewrite, ''citing reliable sources''. As it stands, this entire article only has ''the subject's own autobiography'' as its source. Uncle G 10:55:38, 2005-08-09 (UTC)

:If it would assist I can offer directions to suitable reliable external sources where you can confirm the information. Actually I suspect that quite a few biographies in very reputable reference books come originally from their subjects: I certainly know of one false claim in the Oxford_DNB which came from its subject, who was a friend. David | Talk 11:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

==Sources==

* Full name, date and place of birth: My birth certificate has this on it. Full name is also confirmed by my matriculation records at Cambridge (see below).

* Educational history: My Friends Reunited entry shows the schools I went to. See also ''King's 1991'', the yearbook of King's School Macclesfield, at page 26 for my class photo, and page 28 where you can see me in the (aborted) attempt at a full school photograph. For my position at Cambridge see the List of Members - any edition from that of 31 December 1991 includes me with the eventual line "BOOTHROYD David CTH ''BA 94 MA 98''".

* Labour Party membership: The item which proves this is my first annual membership card showing it expires in 1990, and it has the same membership number as my current membership. I can fish out minutes from the Congleton Branch from 1989 showing me on the attendance list if anyone needs them.

* Working for John Battle: There is a briefing on the government's science budget which I co-authored with John Battle somewhere.

* Private Sector political researcher: Lots to prove this. I worked for Parliamentary Monitoring Services. Check the title page of the PMS Parliamentary Companion, a quarterly, and my name appears on it somewhere from 1995 to 2001. I also edited the second edition of the PMS Guide to Pressure Groups. The company is also named in my biography on my political parties book.

* Work for Ian Lucas: See the register of interests of Members' secretaries and research assistants published by Parliament - it shows I had a pass from 2002.

* Book publication: Well, it has an ISBN. * Councillor: See 'London Borough Council Election Results' 1998 page 183 for an unsuccessful attempt and 2002 page 176 for success. See also Westminster Council's website.

* Current job: with Indigo Public Affairs Ltd.

Hope this helps. David | Talk 21:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

== Possible conflict of interest ==

It is unclear from the oage when he joined Indigo and whether he is still a councillor. I think this is a very important point considering his 'vociferous' campaign in an area in which he is now employed. :This is none of your business. Evidence that someone may have a POV outside Wikipedia is never evidence of POV editing on Wikipedia and everyone edits as an individual. Besides which, there's no conflict of interest involving Indigo which isn't mentioned once on Wikipedia. You're trying to slip a personal attack in under a very thin disguise. David | Talk 10:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I was simply trying to ascertain whether you were employed by Indigo at the same time as campainging on a planning matter, and whether you were a councillor when you campaigned on that issue. It is a perfectly sensible question. Also Indigo is mentioned on the wikipedia entry about you. I was simply trying to clear up an unclear point Dolive21 11:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

:For your information, as an employee I am bound by the APPC code which prohibits a political consultant who is a councillor from working on any account involving the council of which they are a member. As a councillor I am bound by the Code of Conduct which prohibits me from participating in any council decision in which I have a prejudicial interest. I am therefore conflicted out on both sides. Indigo has no current clients in Westminster anyway. This has absolutely nothing to do with my Wikipedia editing. If I have been involved in a conflict of interest then it's a matter either for the APPC or for the Standards Board, not for someone who wants to jump up and make a personal attack on Wikipedia. Please try better next time. David | Talk 11:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying those points. I asked for the sake of clarity. I am, for the record, at this time satisfied that you have not acted in an improper way. I state this for clarity, and so any one viewing this at a later date can be completely clear that I do not believe that you acted improperly. This was never intended as a personal attack. I have just one more point I would ike clarified. Were you campaigning as a councillor or as a professional in the feild when you campaigned on the issue of the rainbow flag. Dolive21 11:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

:That was as a local authority councillor. Other than buying things at their shop (a personal and non-prejudicial interest which I declared) I had no contact with Prowler until after the committee. After the committee voted to refuse their application I was acting as a councillor in campaigning for a change of policy by the council, in the interests of the people of Westminster. David | Talk 11:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to thank you once again for being so helpful. As to your standard of conduct you have acted much better than some mayors (St. albans for example).

Theres' an old version of Dbiv's userpage too, back when they allowed you to have userboxes like "This user is homosexual". Do they still do that? Goodness.

[Sarcasticidealist]

I don't know what possible hand-wringing could be going on. It's all non-controversial. That's what Jehochman said in his deletion edit summary May 23 for the David Boothroyd BLP talk page, which would have been the place where all the deletion arguments for it would have been, the first time it was RfD'd:

Er, no, the deletion arguments from the first time it was AFDed would be found here. The speedy deletion of the talk page as non-controversial, once the article was deleted, was entirely appropriate, though it probably should have been tagged as a G6 rather than a G8.

You can take issue with the A7 deletion of the article itself, which was probably pretty borderline. But there's no attempt whatsoever to hide deletion arguments, which are all still undeleted.

[Milton Roe]

I don't know what possible hand-wringing could be going on. It's all non-controversial. That's what Jehochman said in his deletion edit summary May 23 for the David Boothroyd BLP talk page, which would have been the place where all the deletion arguments for it would have been, the first time it was RfD'd:

Er, no, the deletion arguments from the first time it was AFDed would be found here. The speedy deletion of the talk page as non-controversial, once the article was deleted, was entirely appropriate, though it probably should have been tagged as a G6 rather than a G8.

You can take issue with the A7 deletion of the article itself, which was probably pretty borderline. But there's no attempt whatsoever to hide deletion arguments, which are all still undeleted.

Ah. Well, I wonder what there was to see. The old Dbiv talk pages have all kinds of abuse of admin powers by Dbiv in revert wars: Heres a good section with all the old themes we're all too familiar with on WR and it all happened at the end of 2005!

==3RR==

You have also broken the spirit of 3RR and blatantly abused your admin powers by reverting to your preferred POV version with your revert button. Please do not preach to me or pontificate with your sermons. --84.64.102.234 12:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

:The rollback function is no different to editing a previous version of the page. What I have done is perfectly acceptable. Do not revert George_Galloway again. David | Talk 12:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

::I will revert as I see fit. I am an editor, just as you are. We both have equal rights here. Have fun editing Councellor. --84.64.102.234 12:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

:Thanks for your nice message (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) :You are abusing your powers again. This is a content dispute that you are engaged in, not vandalism, not disruption, not any other violation of policy. You have violated 3RR yourself, yet you have the gall to threaten to block an IP address who is in disagreement with your content. This is about the content and quality of an article, do not block those you are in disagreement with, and do not violate 3RR. As an Admin, you should know that in your sleep. --84.68.83.110 12:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

::WP:IAR. David | Talk 13:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

:::The Admins fallback response to abuse of power. (Ref Lord_Acton) - I rest my case. --84.68.83.110 13:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

::::What it means is that the rules are only there to facilitate the writing of an encyclopaedia. To the extent that they start acting against that goal, they must be forgotten. Your attempt to remove sourced and highly relevant information from George_Galloway is not acting in the interests of writing a better encyclopaedia. You need to learn how to co-operate with other editors. David | Talk 13:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with you. I am attempting to write an encyclopaedia as well, as you are. We have a disagreement about content, and your content was not "sourced and highly relevant", it was your POV. I disagreed with that and it was within the boundaries of the WP policy that I could edit that material.I can co-operate with anyone, as long as the terms of that co-operation are equal - in other words you do not resort to your blocking powers just because you have them and disagree with a contributor. That is exactly what you have just done. --84.68.83.110 13:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

:Your assertion that my version is POV is ludicrous. The analysis of Respect's general election performance is from the Nuffield study in their introduction. The placing in the 1986 NEC ballot is a fact based on the election results. The vote of no confidence from the CLP is a fact. The rest of the edit is likewise entirely factual. Your blanket reverting was disruptive and resulted in you being blocked. You have never argued for your edits, just reverted. David | Talk 17:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

::The Nuffield Study might be factual, but is irrelevant to this article. You are pushing your POV. It only appeared after my revert of your earlier intervention - something I have equal authority to do as you. Your blanket counter reverting was disruptive and disappointing behaviour from an "admin". You then cunningly added small edits plus your reverts to avoid 3RR - much more disappointing. You are "gaming the system", contrary to policy. Your block of whatever IP it was is also contrary to policy. Please explain and justify the reasons for the block. This is a content dispute, you are an involved "admin", you should not be blocking. You have violated 3RR several times. You have attempted to avoid this by "gaming the system". You have abused your "powers". You have attempted to invoke WP:IAR when challenged - what a joke. This is about the content of the article - I will be reviewing shortly. --84.66.251.169 18:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

:::I await the occasion when you enter into discussion about the edits, as it is now nearly 8 hours since they were made. But please do not try to pretend that all the anon IPs in the 84.6*.*.* range are not the same person. Disingenuousness only works if it is plausible. David | Talk 18:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

::::I have discussed the edits, it is you that has not. I have never claimed to be anyone else, my edits will support that. As I said before, I have no control over my IP, it seems to change randomly. The only disingenuity here is on your part. --84.66.251.169 18:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

:::::You have never discussed the substance of the edits. Meanwhile why not try getting an account instead of being an anon? David | Talk 18:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

::::::You have also studiously avoided answering my questions, like a true politician. --84.66.251.169 18:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

:::::::I refer you to WP:NPA, which you have actually broken several times, often in edit summaries. You haven't actually asked me any questions, which is why I have not answered them. I have no desire to continue this conversation anyway since it doesn't seem to be getting you anywhere. David | Talk 18:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC) Please stop quoting policy to me that I have not broken - (please provide diffs to prove otherwise). I have not violated WP:NPA or any other policy. You, however, have violated several policies, 3RR and blocking amongst them in pursuit of your POV. For an "admin" that is pretty poor form. You ask me ''Why not get an account?'' I have observed this snakepit from the outside for long enough thanks. Some key words spring to mind: *Power *Corruption *Control *Vanity *Cliques *Cabal *Dictatorship *Madness I have no desire to fall into the pit and be poisoned. Best wishes. --84.66.251.169 18:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

:My first question was ''Please explain and justify the reasons for the block'' (see earlier) --84.66.251.169 18:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

You continue to abuse your "admin" powers by blocking someone you are in a content dispute with. Please stop. Please provide evidence of my violation of WP:NPA - you cannot. Please provide evidence of any other alleged transgressions against policy - you cannot. Please provide justification for your block of whatever Ip I had last time - you cannot. Please behave like a normal person and stop this ridiculous agenda. Best wishes again. --84.68.167.228 19:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


==Truce==

This is ridiculous, let's call a halt. Let the record stand and we can thrash things out on the proper channels. --84.68.167.228 19:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

== Featured article for December 25th ==

I noticed you have listed yourself in Category:Atheist_Wikipedians. That said, you will probably be interested in my suggested featured article for December 25th: Omnipotence_paradox. The other suggestion being supported by others for that date is Christmas, although Raul654 has historically been against featuring articles on the same day as their anniversary/holiday. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-28 08:12

== Conflict of interest == Could you please clarify whether you are currently a councillor, and at what point you were aproached by or approached indigo public affairs.

:None of your business. David | Talk 10:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC) [ (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) added by Milton ]

== One simple question == Are you aware of the Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule? AlistairMcMillan 01:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

:Nevermind, looking at your talk page I see you are. AlistairMcMillan 01:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC) You've been blocked for 24 hours for breaking the three revert rule on {{Article|George Galloway}}. * 1st revert: 21:34, 1 December 2005 * 2nd revert: 22:32, 1 December 2005 * 3rd revert: 00:36, 2 December 2005 * 4th revert: 00:52, 2 December 2005 AlistairMcMillan 01:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC) :* 1st revert: 10:21, 27 November 2005 :* 2nd revert: 22:16, 27 November 2005 :* 3rd revert: 22:27, 27 November 2005 :* 4th revert: 22:46, 27 November 2005 :* 5th revert: 22:55, 27 November 2005 : Do you have any respect for the rules here? AlistairMcMillan 05:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

::Per WP:IAR I have more respect for the facts and for fair articles than for the rules. You appear to have broken one by blocking someone you were involved in a dispute with, which is a misuse of admin privileges. You've also made a personal attack. In any case if you wanted to know what community consensus is on George_Galloway, why not file an RFC in the politics section? David | Talk 09:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

:::Clearly no repect for the rules, I just wasted time posting this on WP:AN/3RR (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

:::I see you beat me to it Alistair. David, you blocked me a few days ago while you were in dispute with me. Your pontification is a tad rich. --84.68.228.215 09:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

::::I blocked you for disruptive editing and after warning you. Neither applies in this case, and as I have just verified, I did not actually break the 3RR because the third and fourth 'reverts' were not reverting to the same version. David | Talk 09:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

:::::Wikilawyering, hiding behind WP:IAR when necessary and lobbing in a spurious mini edit whilst reverting to avoid 3RR are disappointing behaviour for an Admin. The "disruptive editing" you refer to is just a widely used Admin ploy to win disputes, I see it all the time. And please, do not try to classify this as a "personal attack", another typical Admin tactic, because there is nothing personal in these observations. It is endemic amongst Admins on this endeavour. WP:TINC --84.67.198.173 09:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

:::Consensus on George Galloway is quite clear. Please point to any other editor on the Talk page who supports your insistence that Saddam needs to be mentioned in the first paragraph of George Galloway. As far as I can see, you are in favour and DanielM, JamesMLane, GrahamN, Fergie and myself all oppose it. 1 to 5 seems pretty damn clear to me. AlistairMcMillan 09:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

::::Don't forget me (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) which makes it 1 to 6. No idea why my IP keeps switching and, no, I will not get an account - see my comments on the snakepit above. --84.67.198.173 09:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I dunno who 84.67.198.173 was, but I hope they started over, too. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[Sarcasticidealist]

Ah. Well, I wonder what there was to see.

Nothing earth-shattering. Most of the discussion comes from some I.P.s saying that it's a non-notable vanity piece, with the subject responding that he didn't write it (which appears to be true) and that he in fact nominated it for deletion (which is indisputably true). There is also some discussion around sourcing. In April 2007, some trolling seems to have been deleted, and there's also some discussion on the talk page about that. The deletion of the talk page was clearly not designed to hide anything; it was the natural and policy-required result of the article itself being deleted.

(Incidentally, to judge by his comments on this page, Jehochman doesn't appear to be a friend of Sam's. You can accuse him of adopting a different A7 standard for Wikipedians with BLPs than for other articles - I'm not especially familiar with Jehochman's record with A7s, so I have no idea of that charge would be fair - but any such discrepency does not seem to be motivated by any kind of alliance with Sam.)

[EricBarbour]

(Incidentally, to judge by his comments on this page, Jehochman doesn't appear to be a friend of Sam's. You can accuse him of adopting a different A7 standard for Wikipedians with BLPs than for other articles - I'm not especially familiar with Jehochman's record with A7s, so I have no idea of that charge would be fair - but any such discrepency does not seem to be motivated by any kind of alliance with Sam.)

Fine, but I'd still like to know why this was done (oddly enough) on May 23,
right in the middle of the controversy over Boothroyd's past activities.

Probably more likely worded to offer a wiff of an apology and that he's been a "good" boy and deserves a second chance, but will accept the arbcoms decision anyway. We probably won't be seeing much of him anytime soon given he holds public office and the damage this may or may not cause if word gets out.

Well, there's nothing stopping anyone from telling the British tabloids about this........ (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

(Tempted to use his official photo as an avatar. God, do I ever suck.)