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:

[Basil]

Interesting that David Boothroyd did not declare in the Register of Members Interests that he held the position of arbitrator on the english wikipedia. pdf of Boothroyd's register entry

Question 4 on the register asks:

4. Any person or body who employs or has appointed you.


I note that Boothroyd's conduct in this shambles might be in breach of some of the general principles of members (councillors) conduct:

Standards of Conduct for Members

The General Principles

Selflessness – Members should serve only the public interest and should never improperly confer an advantage or disadvantage on any person.

Honesty and integrity – Members should not place themselves in situations where their honesty and integrity may be questioned, should not behave improperly and should on all occasions avoid the appearance of such behaviour.

Objectivity – Members should make decisions on merit, including when making appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards or benefits.

Accountability – Members should be accountable to the public for their actions and the manner in which they carry out their responsibilities, and should co-operate fully and honestly with any scrutiny appropriate to their particular office.

Openness – Members should be as open as possible about their actions and those of their authority, and should be prepared to give reasons for those actions.

Personal Judgement – Members may take account of the views of others, including their political groups, but should reach their own conclusions on the issues before them and act in accordance with those conclusions.

Respect for others – Members should promote equality by not discriminating unlawfully against any person, and by treating people with respect, regardless of their race, age, religion, gender, sexual orientation or disability. They should respect the impartiality and integrity of the authority’s statutory officers and its other employees.

Duty to uphold the law – Members should uphold the law and, on all occasions, act in accordance with the trust that the public is entitled to place in them.

Stewardship – Members should do whatever they are able to do to ensure that their authorities use their resources prudently and in accordance with the law.

Leadership – Members should promote and support those principles by leadership, and by example, and should act in a way that secures or preserves public confidence.

Here is the link to the pdf complaint form for complaints about councillor conduct.

To be sent to:

The Standards Sub-Committee

c/o Mick Steward

15th Floor City Hall

64 Victoria Street

London SW1E 6QP

What was good enough for Poetlister... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Push the button]

I note that Boothroyd's conduct in this shambles might be in breach of some of the general principles of members (councillors) conduct:

You almost certainly note wrong. Look at paragraph 2 of the code ("Scope"), which makes it pretty clear that barring criminal offences, members are only obliged to comply with the provisions of the code where they are conducting the business of their authority or are acting, claiming to act, or giving the impression that they are acting as a representative of their authority - as far as I can see, at no stage has that been the case with Boothroyd.

[Shalom]

This scandal is wonderful. I'm so happy it happened. Thanks, tarantino, for making me laugh in celebration.

People who screw around with community trust do get their comeuppance. It's a victory for honest folks everywhere.

[RMHED]

This scandal is wonderful. I'm so happy it happened. Thanks, tarantino, for making me laugh in celebration.

People who screw around with community trust do get their comeuppance. It's a victory for honest folks everywhere.

Pure schadenfreude Shalom.

There is no such thing as a Wikipedia community, it's more of a gang culture. I've yet to meet any honest folk, just ones who haven't been caught out yet.

This post has been edited by RMHED:

[Shalom]

This scandal is wonderful. I'm so happy it happened. Thanks, tarantino, for making me laugh in celebration.

People who screw around with community trust do get their comeuppance. It's a victory for honest folks everywhere.

Pure schadenfreude Shalom.

There is no such thing as a Wikipedia community, it's more of a gang culture. I've yet to meet any honest folk, just ones who haven't been caught out yet.

I could have quit "Shalom" and become an admin several times over. I could have not told anybody about what I had done secretly in 2007. I came clean. I later regretted it. Seeing what happened to Sam Blacketer, I feel comfortable knowing that I'm a lot better off than he is. Hey, my name is not in the register. (My username is, but Cade didn't think of checking the page history, and it's RTV-deleted now.) So I acted dishonestly in 2007, but I've acted honestly since then, and I'm not sorry I did. Yes, that's schadenfreude. Yes, it's not nice. If you don't want to get caught lying, don't lie.

This post has been edited by Shalom:

[RMHED]

This scandal is wonderful. I'm so happy it happened. Thanks, tarantino, for making me laugh in celebration.

People who screw around with community trust do get their comeuppance. It's a victory for honest folks everywhere.

Pure schadenfreude Shalom.

There is no such thing as a Wikipedia community, it's more of a gang culture. I've yet to meet any honest folk, just ones who haven't been caught out yet.

I could have quit "Shalom" and become an admin several times over. I could have not told anybody about what I had done secretly in 2007. I came clean. I later regretted it. Seeing what happened to Sam Blacketer, I feel comfortable knowing that I'm a lot better off than he is. Hey, my name is not in the register. (My username is, but Cade didn't think of checking the page history, and it's RTV-deleted now.) So I acted dishonestly in 2007, but I've acted honestly since then, and I'm not sorry I did. Yes, that's schadenfreude. Yes, it's not nice. If you don't want to get caught lying, don't lie.

Your confession of guilt probably just reveals a deep seated need you had to be punished.
When your confession and subsequent contrition weren't met with loving kindness and understanding, bitterness took hold of you.
Now you take pleasure in the discomfort of other Wikipedians as this somehow validates your position and maybe temporarily lessens your emotional pain.

Shalom, vindication is not coming your way, you need to accept the actuality of your situation and move on. IT'S JUST A SODDING WEBSITE!

[Shalom]

This scandal is wonderful. I'm so happy it happened. Thanks, tarantino, for making me laugh in celebration.

People who screw around with community trust do get their comeuppance. It's a victory for honest folks everywhere.

Pure schadenfreude Shalom.

There is no such thing as a Wikipedia community, it's more of a gang culture. I've yet to meet any honest folk, just ones who haven't been caught out yet.

I could have quit "Shalom" and become an admin several times over. I could have not told anybody about what I had done secretly in 2007. I came clean. I later regretted it. Seeing what happened to Sam Blacketer, I feel comfortable knowing that I'm a lot better off than he is. Hey, my name is not in the register. (My username is, but Cade didn't think of checking the page history, and it's RTV-deleted now.) So I acted dishonestly in 2007, but I've acted honestly since then, and I'm not sorry I did. Yes, that's schadenfreude. Yes, it's not nice. If you don't want to get caught lying, don't lie.

Your confession of guilt probably just reveals a deep seated need you had to be punished.
When your confession and subsequent contrition weren't met with loving kindness and understanding, bitterness took hold of you.
Now you take pleasure in the discomfort of other Wikipedians as this somehow validates your position and maybe temporarily lessens your emotional pain.

Shalom, vindication is not coming your way, you need to accept the actuality of your situation and move on. IT'S JUST A SODDING WEBSITE!

Actually, I agree with everything you say. I felt terrible for what I had done, especially the secretive manner in which I had done it. I felt the most appropriate remedy, since the deed had already been done and rectified months earlier, was to apologize to every individual that I could find on Wikipedia -- and I did this. I sent about forty messages to every editor who dealt with my undisclosed vandalism. I felt that any vandal, upon realizing the severity of his offence, ought to respond similarly. I've returned to the dark side lately, but in late 2007 I was seeking forgiveness.

There's a curious link between punishment and forgiveness in my religious tradition. I can't explain it fully here, but briefly, when God causes you suffering, you may perceive it as a process of cleansing your guilt. My religious perceptions of sin and forgiveness influenced my actual response more than anyone may know. If I had no concept of respecting a High Authority who demands honesty, I would have not felt the need to seek forgiveness by apologizing specifically for vandalism months later. Put yourself in my shoes (and RMHED, this does actually apply to you). You vandalized many months ago. It's been fixed long ago. What do you do now? Do you apologize, or do you just let it go? I apologized. I felt it was the right thing to do. (As for my more recent vandalism, I was almost literally going insane, and I'm not going to reach out to people on a website where I am not otherwise active to apologize again.)

Bitterness took hold of me because I thought people would recognize my apology as being sincere. I know that in light of my returning to my old ways nobody will believe me now, but it was sincere, and it will always have been sincere at the time. If you read through my comments at my self-RFC (a wiki-suicide, in retrospect) you will see that I expected my honesty would be rewarded with honesty from the Wikipedia community. I got none. I attributed that betrayal, among other things, to the fact that folks on Wikipedia aren't really your friends. They're just helping the project for their own reasons, like you do for your own reasons, but they don't personally care about you.

[EricBarbour]

I've returned to the dark side lately, but in late 2007 I was seeking forgiveness.

Excuse me?........."dark side" as in, vandalism? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)